It's important to note that the images are not in the same order as the list on the poll. At least not for mobile. So for the poll Loaded Crossbow is first, but Fel Axe is the first image.
just gonna post what I posted on the old thread here ;)
...to be clear, Loaded Crossbow on an empty board would just be a 2/4 weapon... you would need to have 4 friendly minions on board to have the 8 damage go face (and at that point if you're a hunter player that's had 4 minions stick with nothing on the other side, you're pretty much in a winning position anyway, and "win more" cards aren't typically considered good cards). The purpose of the Loaded Crossbow is to work as a tool to help mid-range hunter with board control, against aggro or other mid-range decks... in which case the fact that the damage can go face is a detriment. For example, if a hunter plays this with Unleash against say a Dragon Priest, you would have to be smart about how you trade those hounds, hoping for the crossbow bolts to hit minions. I feel like the randomness of the bolts balances it.
Would love to hear what others think on this. Like I said, I know that it's possible for the 8 damage to go face pretty easily, but if that's happening you're already in a winning position.
Card review time! As a broad note, a lot of entries used the "Lose 1 Durability" mechanic to balance their triggers, which is a good mechanic. I just wish you had used the Sword of Justice wording as opposed to the Atiesh wording- the difference being the conjunction AND, as opposed to putting "Lose 1 Durability" in it's own sentence. Atiesh is the outlier here, and it's wording is actually problematic. What triggers the durability loss? The spellcasting or the minion summoning? As it turns out, it's the minion summoning, since casting a spell when your board is full will not trigger the staff.
Livienna - Loaded Crossbow: This is a hard effect to balance. Getting 8 damage out on turn 4 is huge, even if at random targets, but it's highly situational. I'd have gone for a cheaper 2 cost or 3 cost version with less durability. Something more akin to a Knife Juggler.
Murozond_18 - Dark Runeblade: EDIT: I just realized this affects the minion, not the weapon. Some pronoun confusion on my part. Would have helped if the card wording was consistent with Sword of Justice. 4 mana for +6/+6 worth of buffs is probably a little too good. Compare this with Blessing of Kings.
Diesel208 - Boot Dagger: This effect is too good to be permanent, I'd have gone with a durability reduction mechanic to make it a finite buff. Also, the wording is silly. If this card wasn't trying to meet the challenge, it'd just read "Give your minions +1 attack on your turn". Watching the weapon trigger an activation animation everytime you attack is pointless and slow. RedneckBudha - Vanishing Blade: This isn't as bad as the Master of Disguise problem, but it's close. Because the stealth is permanent, you've got a decent chance making something like an Emperor Thaurisan or Ysera permanently stealthed. I'd make the stealth only last 1 turn, to avoid the design space limitations that the pre-nerf Master of Disguise created.
thepowrofcheese - Firesoul Axe: Not a bad design, and it limits itself nicely given the 9 spaces open on a board and how your totems will fill that space with 0 attack minions. Glad this isn't a warrior or paladin card.
The_Odinson - Hellreaver: I can see how this fits into taunt warrior, but my fear is that it also slots into Pirate Warrior pretty nicely. In constructed it could be counter with weapon removal and in Arena it's just way too slow in that it kills your own minions. So I think you hit that balance nicely.
Phoenixfeather - Jade Blade: Too much Jade Acceleration here, even assuming this weapon kills the golems before they deal damage. If that is the case, it's a counter-intuitive mechanic. What's the narative reason for killing your own minions just to summon bigger ones? If it lets the damage happen, then kills and sumons a Jade, that's just broken.
Shanksyo - Fel Axe: I really like this for Patron/Acolyte/Enrage type decks. I bet warrior gets a weapon like this eventually. Not sure it needs the damage scaling part, but it's balanced.
ShadowWolfThe9th - Netherbane: Not excited about this. It's just a huge finisher card that is likely too cheap. If it was a single trigger, not for every minion, you could probably balance it.
ZardozSpeaks - Omegablade: My card! It's slow, and requires a large board, but I like the strategic decisions of deciding how to attack with it and how to attack or not attack with minions once it's equipped. Vulnerable to weapon removal, but all large weapons have that problem.
TheWamts - Dagger of C'Thun: Kind of like the Netherbane entry above, I don't really like this double dipping in one's own minions. And for a C'thun deck, the power of c'thun should be offset by the need to have c'thun minions in your deck. This would just turn C'thun rogue into a charger deck. Spooga - Elemental Striker: I like this, it seems balanced and useful. I'd grab it in Arena in a heartbeat. For constructed, there are probably easier ways to ensure your elemental chain. Outside the conditions of this contest, I'd consider remaking it as "When your hero attacks, add a 1/2 elemental to your hand". Uytghj - High Priest's Staff: Priest weapons are weird, especially if they can't even attack. It's also just not very good. I'd rather see this effect as a minion. ThisOtherGuyTox - Corrupted Ashbringer: I'm not sure this needs the "and dies" portion of it's text. That feels too slow and gives your opponent too much control over building this weapon up. Ideally, a weapon is used to hit minions, so the minions can go face or make trades that don't result in death. MrUncreative - Argent Defender: This is a powerful card! I bet it'd still be balanced at 4 mana, but I really like the design. TheProgenitor - Spectral Blade: I just don't see the point of this, unless you've replaced your Rogue Hero power with something else. Either way, I wouldn't waste a deck slot on it. If I want a weapon all the time, Rogue already has that option. Brooknt - Sword of the Alliance: I like the effect, but I'd give it 2 or 3 durability. At 5 mana, you'd want a weapon that does about 5 damage. A 5 mana 5/4 seems too good. Redqueen - Thorny Dagger: I'm cool with this as an Agro-Hunter card. It's probably balanced. StogieBlazer - Evolution Axe: I initially designed a card a lot like this. I made it 3 mana 1/4. Similar to Sword of Justice in it's stat line, with an extra attack as +1/+1 is a bit more reliable than a mid-attack evolve (which could go terribly wrong). Beyond that, lots of grammar problems here. I used the wording "Whenever a friendly minion attacks, transform it into a random minion that costs (1) more and lose 1 durability." Haileystraza - Hunting Rifle: Loaded Crossbow does this kind of effect much better.
My favorites: Thorny Dagger, Argent Defender, Elemental Striker, Fel Axe and of course my own Omegablade.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
First of all, let me state for the record that he admitted to cheating, so there is no ambiguity there. Now, the point here is that he created a poor quality card, further reinforcing the fact that he doesn't deserve to be here. Good card creators take the time to check the formatting of their cards against existing cards to make sure the wording is right. He clearly did not even make the effort to do that.
Your response here is an example of giving people the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the fairness of the competition. You don't want to draw connections with circumstantial evidence even when dealing with an admitted cheater.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
I already told him not to do it again but if he gets 50 votes while everyone else has close to 10 then he is out of the tourney.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
First of all, let me state for the record that he admitted to cheating, so there is no ambiguity there. Now, the point here is that he created a poor quality card, further reinforcing the fact that he doesn't deserve to be here. Good card creators take the time to check the formatting of their cards against existing cards to make sure the wording is right. He clearly did not even make the effort to do that.
Your response here is an example of giving people the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the fairness of the competition. You don't want to draw connections with circumstantial evidence even when dealing with an admitted cheater.
My response is the example of a guy, who wants to have a good and fair time in this competition without having to work his way through the mud of a discussion we've already had - thank you very much. Maybe read that again.
I am not giving him the benefit of any doubt and i am not denying any evidence that he cheated or that he basically admitted it himself. I read that. But as i said: that is a topic which we've already discussed. How he ended up in this round doesn't matter anymore - it was Murozond's call to make and we all basically agreed on that. So i fail to see why we have to bring up this plodding discussion again.
I also wasn't denying that he made a bad card either. But as much as you or me or anybody else dislikes the guy - you pointing out the bad things about is card and then basically closing off with "Well, figures the card's bad - he's a cheater after all." - that strikes me as a tad unfair.
I don't want to fight with you as i believe we are mostly agreeing on the core subject. But when people read my posts wrong and then attack me for things i didn't say - i find that quite irritating.
To be honest, I just don't like this prompt. It's wayy to narrow for twenty different designs.
I don't care anymore if I get eliminated. I just think this tournament wasn't executed very well... It's too confusing, and there are too many contestants for such a small topic. It might help to list out all of the rules beforehand.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
First of all, let me state for the record that he admitted to cheating, so there is no ambiguity there. Now, the point here is that he created a poor quality card, further reinforcing the fact that he doesn't deserve to be here. Good card creators take the time to check the formatting of their cards against existing cards to make sure the wording is right. He clearly did not even make the effort to do that.
Your response here is an example of giving people the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the fairness of the competition. You don't want to draw connections with circumstantial evidence even when dealing with an admitted cheater.
My response is the example of a guy, who wants to have a good and fair time in this competition without having to work his way through the mud of a discussion we've already had - thank you very much. Maybe read that again.
I am not giving him the benefit of any doubt and i am not denying any evidence that he cheated or that he basically admitted it himself. I read that. But as i said: that is a topic which we've already discussed. How he ended up in this round doesn't matter anymore - it was Murozond's call to make and we all basically agreed on that. So i fail to see why we have to bring up this plodding discussion again.
I also wasn't denying that he made a bad card either. But as much as you or me or anybody else dislikes the guy - you pointing out the bad things about is card and then basically closing off with "Well, figures the card's bad - he's a cheater after all." - that strikes me as a tad unfair.
I don't want to fight with you as i believe we are mostly agreeing on the core subject. But when people read my posts wrong and then attack me for things i didn't say - i find that quite irritating.
I agree with Mr.Uncreative. It is, first of all, pointless to discuss a topic that has already reached its conclusion. Second, due to the fair nature of this manner of voting, the best man will win. I, personally, would have preferred not to comment on this topic but this was the only chance I had to tell Mr. Uncreative that he has the best profile picture on this website. Now then, let's stop wearing down our finger and vote.
That's short for please don't write big chunks of opinion that I have to read in order to respond. Thank you.
Also not trying to argue with anyone. Just pointing that out. I seriously only wanted to respond because of Mr. Uncreative's profile pic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
First of all, let me state for the record that he admitted to cheating, so there is no ambiguity there. Now, the point here is that he created a poor quality card, further reinforcing the fact that he doesn't deserve to be here. Good card creators take the time to check the formatting of their cards against existing cards to make sure the wording is right. He clearly did not even make the effort to do that.
Your response here is an example of giving people the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the fairness of the competition. You don't want to draw connections with circumstantial evidence even when dealing with an admitted cheater.
My response is the example of a guy, who wants to have a good and fair time in this competition without having to work his way through the mud of a discussion we've already had - thank you very much. Maybe read that again.
I am not giving him the benefit of any doubt and i am not denying any evidence that he cheated or that he basically admitted it himself. I read that. But as i said: that is a topic which we've already discussed. How he ended up in this round doesn't matter anymore - it was Murozond's call to make and we all basically agreed on that. So i fail to see why we have to bring up this plodding discussion again.
I also wasn't denying that he made a bad card either. But as much as you or me or anybody else dislikes the guy - you pointing out the bad things about is card and then basically closing off with "Well, figures the card's bad - he's a cheater after all." - that strikes me as a tad unfair.
I don't want to fight with you as i believe we are mostly agreeing on the core subject. But when people read my posts wrong and then attack me for things i didn't say - i find that quite irritating.
I agree with Mr.Uncreative. It is, first of all, pointless to discuss a topic that has already reached its conclusion. Second, due to the fair nature of this manner of voting, the best man will win. I, personally, would have preferred not to comment on this topic but this was the only chance I had to tell Mr. Uncreative that he has the best profile picture on this website. Now then, let's stop wearing down our finger and vote.
That's short for please don't write big chunks of opinion that I have to read in order to respond. Thank you.
Also not trying to argue with anyone. Just pointing that out. I seriously only wanted to respond because of Mr. Uncreative's profile pic. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, that is... i don't even... i seriously don't know how to react to this properly.
just gonna post what I posted on the old thread here ;)
...to be clear, Loaded Crossbow on an empty board would just be a 2/4 weapon... you would need to have 4 friendly minions on board to have the 8 damage go face (and at that point if you're a hunter player that's had 4 minions stick with nothing on the other side, you're pretty much in a winning position anyway, and "win more" cards aren't typically considered good cards). The purpose of the Loaded Crossbow is to work as a tool to help mid-range hunter with board control, against aggro or other mid-range decks... in which case the fact that the damage can go face is a detriment. For example, if a hunter plays this with Unleash against say a Dragon Priest, you would have to be smart about how you trade those hounds, hoping for the crossbow bolts to hit minions. I feel like the randomness of the bolts balances it.
Would love to hear what others think on this. Like I said, I know that it's possible for the 8 damage to go face pretty easily, but if that's happening you're already in a winning position.
Yeah I completely disagree with this and it seems like you've missed a lot about your own weapon:
A: You only need 3 minions on board to get 8 face/random damage, as you can make the last attack with your hero.
B: Hunter has no issue having 3 minions on their board at turn 4 as they have loads of sticky minions, minions which summon 1/1s, and big minions, all of which are difficult to control on the board.
C: This weapon is really bad for midrange hunter. The randomness of the effect means that it will almost never hit the target that you need to remove from the board to stabilize.
D: This weapon is REALLY good for face hunter. Face decks and aggro decks in general live and breathe win more cards, as they need to play all in and use win more cards to seal the game while they have the advantage. This weapon allows a face deck to sling 8 extra damage out on turn 4 as long as they have 3 minions, not a difficult feat, and this damage will often be enough to win a game before their opponent is able to stablize. It's essentially kill command on steroids, offering 3 more damage for 1 more mana =v
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
First of all, let me state for the record that he admitted to cheating, so there is no ambiguity there. Now, the point here is that he created a poor quality card, further reinforcing the fact that he doesn't deserve to be here. Good card creators take the time to check the formatting of their cards against existing cards to make sure the wording is right. He clearly did not even make the effort to do that.
Your response here is an example of giving people the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the fairness of the competition. You don't want to draw connections with circumstantial evidence even when dealing with an admitted cheater.
My response is the example of a guy, who wants to have a good and fair time in this competition without having to work his way through the mud of a discussion we've already had - thank you very much. Maybe read that again.
I am not giving him the benefit of any doubt and i am not denying any evidence that he cheated or that he basically admitted it himself. I read that. But as i said: that is a topic which we've already discussed. How he ended up in this round doesn't matter anymore - it was Murozond's call to make and we all basically agreed on that. So i fail to see why we have to bring up this plodding discussion again.
I also wasn't denying that he made a bad card either. But as much as you or me or anybody else dislikes the guy - you pointing out the bad things about is card and then basically closing off with "Well, figures the card's bad - he's a cheater after all." - that strikes me as a tad unfair.
I don't want to fight with you as i believe we are mostly agreeing on the core subject. But when people read my posts wrong and then attack me for things i didn't say - i find that quite irritating.
I wasn't trying to attack you. I'm sorry if it came off like that, or if I misunderstood you. I was, in effect, saying you were being too nice, and advocating a meaner approach, because he is a cheater, which shouldn't have been taken as an insult or anything like that. I'm bringing this up again because I feel very strongly about cheating and couldn't leave it unsaid. It's important to me.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I believe it's a fairly ambitious assumption that there's a causal relationship between his grammar and the fact that he cheated.
I get that you and a bunch of other people are mad about that incident from last round and - don't get me wrong - i'm not particularly happy about it either. But unless there's anything new and significant happening - we can stop banging on about that topic for now. The majority of people who are reading this were likely also around for round #1. So everybody already knows what happened and i believe we've got that sorted out for now.
First of all, let me state for the record that he admitted to cheating, so there is no ambiguity there. Now, the point here is that he created a poor quality card, further reinforcing the fact that he doesn't deserve to be here. Good card creators take the time to check the formatting of their cards against existing cards to make sure the wording is right. He clearly did not even make the effort to do that.
Your response here is an example of giving people the benefit of the doubt at the expense of the fairness of the competition. You don't want to draw connections with circumstantial evidence even when dealing with an admitted cheater.
My response is the example of a guy, who wants to have a good and fair time in this competition without having to work his way through the mud of a discussion we've already had - thank you very much. Maybe read that again.
I am not giving him the benefit of any doubt and i am not denying any evidence that he cheated or that he basically admitted it himself. I read that. But as i said: that is a topic which we've already discussed. How he ended up in this round doesn't matter anymore - it was Murozond's call to make and we all basically agreed on that. So i fail to see why we have to bring up this plodding discussion again.
I also wasn't denying that he made a bad card either. But as much as you or me or anybody else dislikes the guy - you pointing out the bad things about is card and then basically closing off with "Well, figures the card's bad - he's a cheater after all." - that strikes me as a tad unfair.
I don't want to fight with you as i believe we are mostly agreeing on the core subject. But when people read my posts wrong and then attack me for things i didn't say - i find that quite irritating.
I wasn't trying to attack you. I'm sorry if it came off like that, or if I misunderstood you. I was, in effect, saying you were being too nice, and advocating a meaner approach, because he is a cheater, which shouldn't have been taken as an insult or anything like that. I'm bringing this up again because I feel very strongly about cheating and couldn't leave it unsaid. It's important to me.
Alright, i do understand that. In that case i apologize for getting that angry.
But i think we can trust in the common sense of people and let this topic rest for now. Fortunately Hearthpwn's poll system is a lot more "cheat-proof" after all :)
The thing about C'thun Rogue is that C'thun already is an automatic win, because Shadowstep ping a 30 attack C'thun is what happens every game that actually gets long enough to play Cthun, all my card does is make it less reliant on Blade of C'thun scoring a kill on Tyrantus.
20 people left in this tournament!
Round Two Theme: Its Power Grows!
Tokens:
Spooga's Elemental Striker
Flame Elemental
Voting is Open!
People that advanced to Round Two and their card:
Get to creating and have fun!
Voting is open until May 23!
It's important to note that the images are not in the same order as the list on the poll. At least not for mobile. So for the poll Loaded Crossbow is first, but Fel Axe is the first image.
Currently working on the Tinker! K&C and WW / JUG and KotFT / Classic / Basic / Introduction
My Previous Classes: Apothecary (unfinished) / Chronomancer / Death Knight (old)
My Previous Expansions: Hallow's End
The same issue has occurred on my PC, can confirm.
Its been fixed!
just gonna post what I posted on the old thread here ;)
"The Slayer" custom class
"The Great Thaw" expansion competition finalist
Card review time! As a broad note, a lot of entries used the "Lose 1 Durability" mechanic to balance their triggers, which is a good mechanic. I just wish you had used the Sword of Justice wording as opposed to the Atiesh wording- the difference being the conjunction AND, as opposed to putting "Lose 1 Durability" in it's own sentence. Atiesh is the outlier here, and it's wording is actually problematic. What triggers the durability loss? The spellcasting or the minion summoning? As it turns out, it's the minion summoning, since casting a spell when your board is full will not trigger the staff.
RedneckBudha - Vanishing Blade: This isn't as bad as the Master of Disguise problem, but it's close. Because the stealth is permanent, you've got a decent chance making something like an Emperor Thaurisan or Ysera permanently stealthed. I'd make the stealth only last 1 turn, to avoid the design space limitations that the pre-nerf Master of Disguise created.
Spooga - Elemental Striker: I like this, it seems balanced and useful. I'd grab it in Arena in a heartbeat. For constructed, there are probably easier ways to ensure your elemental chain. Outside the conditions of this contest, I'd consider remaking it as "When your hero attacks, add a 1/2 elemental to your hand".
Uytghj - High Priest's Staff: Priest weapons are weird, especially if they can't even attack. It's also just not very good. I'd rather see this effect as a minion.
ThisOtherGuyTox - Corrupted Ashbringer: I'm not sure this needs the "and dies" portion of it's text. That feels too slow and gives your opponent too much control over building this weapon up. Ideally, a weapon is used to hit minions, so the minions can go face or make trades that don't result in death.
MrUncreative - Argent Defender: This is a powerful card! I bet it'd still be balanced at 4 mana, but I really like the design.
TheProgenitor - Spectral Blade: I just don't see the point of this, unless you've replaced your Rogue Hero power with something else. Either way, I wouldn't waste a deck slot on it. If I want a weapon all the time, Rogue already has that option.
Brooknt - Sword of the Alliance: I like the effect, but I'd give it 2 or 3 durability. At 5 mana, you'd want a weapon that does about 5 damage. A 5 mana 5/4 seems too good.
Redqueen - Thorny Dagger: I'm cool with this as an Agro-Hunter card. It's probably balanced.
StogieBlazer - Evolution Axe: I initially designed a card a lot like this. I made it 3 mana 1/4. Similar to Sword of Justice in it's stat line, with an extra attack as +1/+1 is a bit more reliable than a mid-attack evolve (which could go terribly wrong). Beyond that, lots of grammar problems here. I used the wording "Whenever a friendly minion attacks, transform it into a random minion that costs (1) more and lose 1 durability."
Haileystraza - Hunting Rifle: Loaded Crossbow does this kind of effect much better.
My favorites: Thorny Dagger, Argent Defender, Elemental Striker, Fel Axe and of course my own Omegablade.
Notice that StogieBlazer is the only one who broke one of the most basic rules of card design by having more than 4 lines of text. Plus the card is riddled with grammatical and formatting errors. That makes sense, because he's also the only one that got here by cheating. I can't believe people were giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
Come Play Make the Keyword!!!
Check out my Worgen Class in the Class Competition
SoonTM
Come Play Make the Keyword!!!
Check out my Worgen Class in the Class Competition
SoonTM
To be honest, I just don't like this prompt. It's wayy to narrow for twenty different designs.
I don't care anymore if I get eliminated. I just think this tournament wasn't executed very well... It's too confusing, and there are too many contestants for such a small topic. It might help to list out all of the rules beforehand.
Wished to be pink.
Then did.
Then fired myself.
Then did again.
don't question it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJs5_s0Fsbs
SoonTM
The poll goes until next Tuesday. Does anyone else feel like that's too long?
Currently working on the Tinker! K&C and WW / JUG and KotFT / Classic / Basic / Introduction
My Previous Classes: Apothecary (unfinished) / Chronomancer / Death Knight (old)
My Previous Expansions: Hallow's End
Come Play Make the Keyword!!!
Check out my Worgen Class in the Class Competition
SoonTM
The thing about C'thun Rogue is that C'thun already is an automatic win, because Shadowstep ping a 30 attack C'thun is what happens every game that actually gets long enough to play Cthun, all my card does is make it less reliant on Blade of C'thun scoring a kill on Tyrantus.
Make the Card: The biggest thread on the site!
My mandibles which are capable of pressing down and tearing, my talons which are known to intercept and hold.