Hearthpwn

Quote from DialM4Murloc jump

Why? I checked the two pages and I thought those with the most votes deserved it (with maybe one exception). 

#1 on page 1 is just overpowered, if not broken. Malygos is only balanced by the fact that it costs 9 mana and has a fix amount of spelldamage. In a class where Power Overwhelming and Voidcaller exist it's just ridiculous. Here, eat my 17 damage Soulfire... Or how about 2x PO on ANY demon + this guy and Soulfire? Yeah, right.

#2 on page 1 is just boring and uninspired. Yet AGAIN a card that is just Recombobulator's effect on a different card. We already had a spell that won an entire competition... Why do people like this is just beyond me. I will just make MADDEST BOMBER next time "Battlecry: Deal 10 damage to random enemies" and will win, because people seem to fall for slightly altered existing cards. :X

And that is, why I have no faith in the voting-community. They are just half-assed about it, as has been indicated by the "joke" entries. I'm not mad at the people who design them, but at the people who vote for that stuff.

Shaman's hero power summons totem as the rightmost minion, so this is mainly a 3/4/4 with a little side effect.

Fair enough. What if I made it a 7/4 with deal 5 damage to the minion?

Quote from KaoticKreature jump

Fair enough. What if I made it a 7/4 with deal 5 damage to the minion?

 I think the attack scaling is more interesting. (:

@KaoticKreature

 

Quote from KaoticKreature jump

Also, here's my submission, Hakkari Sharpshooter. It's an option for Midrange to Control Hunter, encouraging them to at least leave their opponent alive until turn 7. Would appreciate any feedback on it.

 

Anyway, that's it for now, please get back to me with any questions at all! If you want to upvote my card, click here :D 

 What happens when there are 2 minions in front of this guy (ie you only have this minion and you oppenent has 2 minions) ?

Here is my submission:

Pretty much a fun card that might work in a Gang Up deck ? let me know what you think  :)

Changed up the card a little, toggled the stats so it's in Big Game Hunter range. Also made it a Legendary. Hope you like it!

Also, @Shanksyo, if there are 2 minions in front, it doesn't hit anything.

@Shanksyo Really nice card design, I also wanted to make a card where it synergises with itself, and this is amazing!

Quote from Shanksyo jump

@KaoticKreature

 

Quote from KaoticKreature jump

Also, here's my submission, Hakkari Sharpshooter. It's an option for Midrange to Control Hunter, encouraging them to at least leave their opponent alive until turn 7. Would appreciate any feedback on it.

Anyway, that's it for now, please get back to me with any questions at all! If you want to upvote my card, click here :D 

 What happens when there are 2 minions in front of this guy (ie you only have this minion and you oppenent has 2 minions) ?

Here is my submission:

Pretty much a fun card that might work in a Gang Up deck ? let me know what you think  :)

 Is this card significantly different than a card worded as "Has +3/+3 for each other Forest Pygmy you control"?  As of now, the card punishes you for not playing it in a specific way.  Just some thoughts.

Quote from YahOkay jump

Quote from Shanksyo jump

@KaoticKreature

 

Quote from KaoticKreature jump

Also, here's my submission, Hakkari Sharpshooter. It's an option for Midrange to Control Hunter, encouraging them to at least leave their opponent alive until turn 7. Would appreciate any feedback on it.

Anyway, that's it for now, please get back to me with any questions at all! If you want to upvote my card, click here :D 

 What happens when there are 2 minions in front of this guy (ie you only have this minion and you oppenent has 2 minions) ?

Here is my submission:

Pretty much a fun card that might work in a Gang Up deck ? let me know what you think  :)

 Is this card significantly different than a card worded as "Has +3/+3 for each other Forest Pygmy you control"?  As of now, the card punishes you for not playing it in a specific way.  Just some thoughts.

 Yes, they have to be next to each other in order for the effect to activate. so you get 2 6/6 if you play these guys next to each other and if you somehow manage to have 3 of this guy, the one in the middle will be 9/9.

Quote from nekromanton jump

Is it worded correctly when I want to say that, it gains an Attack from a minion that is on the right side of this minion?

 This should be worded as, "Battlecry: Gain Attack equal to the Attack of the minion on this minion's right side."  Very wordy...  Also, how does this compare to Void Terror from an innovation perspective?

Quote from Shanksyo jump

Quote from YahOkay jump

Quote from Shanksyo jump

@KaoticKreature

 

Quote from KaoticKreature jump

Also, here's my submission, Hakkari Sharpshooter. It's an option for Midrange to Control Hunter, encouraging them to at least leave their opponent alive until turn 7. Would appreciate any feedback on it.

Anyway, that's it for now, please get back to me with any questions at all! If you want to upvote my card, click here :D 

 What happens when there are 2 minions in front of this guy (ie you only have this minion and you oppenent has 2 minions) ?

Here is my submission:

Pretty much a fun card that might work in a Gang Up deck ? let me know what you think  :)

 Is this card significantly different than a card worded as "Has +3/+3 for each other Forest Pygmy you control"?  As of now, the card punishes you for not playing it in a specific way.  Just some thoughts.

 Yes, they have to be next to each other in order for the effect to activate. so you get 2 6/6 if you play these guys next to each other and if you somehow manage to have 3 of this guys, the one in the middle will be 9/9.

 Does the probability of potentially having three in play (which I assume is very low outside of a Gang Up deck) justify the complexity of a positional effect here?  The way I see it, this card severely punishes bad play (i.e. not playing them next to one another).  That goes against the grain of Hearthstone design philosophy.

My submission explores the concept of espionage.  Feel free to tear it up:

I am trying to balance out the Attack and Mana Cost.  The most common play would be to play this and attack it with a dagger to remove an opponent's minion.  It is very unlikely that more than 1 would be destroyed outside of bad play on your opponent's part.

Quote from YahOkay jump

 Does the probability of potentially having three in play (which I assume is very low outside of a Gang Up deck) justify the complexity of a positional effect here?  The way I see it, this card severely punishes bad play (i.e. not playing them next to one another).  That goes against the grain of Hearthstone design philosophy.

 Same thing can be said for Flametongue Totem or any other card that resolves about minions's positions so I don't see what philosophy you're talking about.

Please remove troll entries (i.e. Face Hunter from the previous competition).  They deny legitimate entries an opportunity to participate in the finals.

Quote from Shanksyo jump

Quote from YahOkay jump

 Does the probability of potentially having three in play (which I assume is very low outside of a Gang Up deck) justify the complexity of a positional effect here?  The way I see it, this card severely punishes bad play (i.e. not playing them next to one another).  That goes against the grain of Hearthstone design philosophy.

 Same thing can be said for Flametongue Totem or any other card that resolves about minions's positions so I don't see what philosophy you're talking about.

 

 Indeed.  However, could your card exist with simpler wording and still function as intended 95% of the time?

Quote from YahOkay jump

Quote from Shanksyo jump

Quote from YahOkay jump

 Does the probability of potentially having three in play (which I assume is very low outside of a Gang Up deck) justify the complexity of a positional effect here?  The way I see it, this card severely punishes bad play (i.e. not playing them next to one another).  That goes against the grain of Hearthstone design philosophy.

 Same thing can be said for Flametongue Totem or any other card that resolves about minions's positions so I don't see what philosophy you're talking about.

 

 Indeed.  However, could your card exist with simpler wording and still function as intended 95% of the time?

 I don't see how the wording could be simpler ? 

Also when you say function as intended, I assume you mean that the effect has to activate? Well not all card's effect are easy to activate, some requires you to buil a deck around them like Angry Chicken and Mimiron's Head.

Quote from Shanksyo jump

Quote from YahOkay jump

Quote from Shanksyo jump

Quote from YahOkay jump

 Does the probability of potentially having three in play (which I assume is very low outside of a Gang Up deck) justify the complexity of a positional effect here?  The way I see it, this card severely punishes bad play (i.e. not playing them next to one another).  That goes against the grain of Hearthstone design philosophy.

 Same thing can be said for Flametongue Totem or any other card that resolves about minions's positions so I don't see what philosophy you're talking about.

 

 Indeed.  However, could your card exist with simpler wording and still function as intended 95% of the time?

 I don't see how the wording could be simpler ? 

Also when you say function as intended, I assume you mean that the effect has to activate? Well not all card's effect are easy to activate, some requires you to buil a deck around them like Angry Chicken and Mimiron's Head.

 I guess what I am trying to say is that 95% of the time the card will function as if it were worded "Has +3/+3 for each other Forest Pygmy you control."  In my opinion, this is simpler from a game-play perspective than the current wording.