Conditional Combat Cards

Joscha wrote:

IMHO all the cards are way too strong, especially the superior versions. No way.

Thanks for the constructive criticism. (Sarcasm!)

Of COURSE the cards are going to be to powerful. Most ideas start as something too powerful, they need to be adjusted. Hence the point of posting the ideas. I made no claim that my ideas are thoroughly designed and ready for play. I don't think they are even ready for playtesting.

Mael wrote:

direwolf wrote:

Wraithly Revenge
1

Only usable in a combat in which this vampire was attempting to recruit an ally or retainer. Use before range is determined.
Remove the ally or retainer from the game to deal X damage during strike resolution, where X is it's blood or pool cost.
As above, with an optional press.

Should be a strike, and possibly should be only usable first round.
Removing the ally from the game is harsh as it means the card does not work well with existing Necromancy ally deck archetypes.
My suggestion would be:

Wraithly Revenge
1

Only usable in a combat in which this vampire was blocked while attempting to recruit an ally or retainer. Only one Wraithly Revenge may be played each combat.
Strike: ranged; X damage where X is the printed blood or pool cost of that ally or retainer.
As above, with an optional press, only usable to end combat.

Is it bad that it doesn't work well with existing necromancy ally deck archetypes? One of the things that makes it interesting to me is that the player has to make a choice: is it worth it more to have an ally in the ash heap, or to play this combat card?

Also, shouldn't new cards pave the way for new deck types? There are some risks: One is that no one will play the card because they are used to their same old deck types. The other is that we would have to create a dozen more new cards to make a new deck concept work.

At least the above mentioned change won't change the games landscape as much as the Imbued did. (Or at least I hope!)

direwolf wrote:

Is it bad that it doesn't work well with existing necromancy ally deck archetypes? One of the things that makes it interesting to me is that the player has to make a choice: is it worth it more to have an ally in the ash heap, or to play this combat card?

Also, shouldn't new cards pave the way for new deck types? There are some risks: One is that no one will play the card because they are used to their same old deck types. The other is that we would have to create a dozen more new cards to make a new deck concept work.

I think it's the kind of card that you would splash, not that you'd base a deck around. As such, I think it's important that it would work well with existing cards (or at least, not hinder existing cards) if it's to be used. This is also why I think it should specify that the damage is equal to the printed cost of the card that was blocked.

direwolf wrote:

I have more ideas down this line, maybe I will post them later, but how does it work as a concept? Think it's too good for clans without much stealth? Think it gives too much advantage to combat decks? Will it make decks with large vampires more viable without relying on multi-action strategies?

While planning a deck, I wouldn't ever want to play one of these cards as written instead of having the action succeed. They seem to be support cards while what I would expect to gain for the opportunity cost is a payload that I can build a deck around. Still, it's not a terrible concept.

I like the idea, but share the concern that anything so conditional would be mostly unplayable. Perhaps having "outferior" unconditional playability and/or draft text would help integrate such a concept.

Like

Rubble

Play before range is determined. If the opposing minion is not ready after combat, burn a location controlled by that minion's controller.
As above, and this vampire may burn one blood for +1 strength this round.
As above, but you may burn a location if the opposing minion takes any damage this round.

DRAFT: Enter combat with a minion controlled by another methuselah.