Hearthpwn

Quote from YahOkay jump

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.

 Well, 95% is a bit exaggerated, the differences that I can think of are those;

1) If you have 3 or more of these guys, only the ones in the middle will be 9/9

2) They can't reach higher stat than 9/9 by themselves

3) They don't work well with cards like Defender of Argus, Dire Wolf Alphaetc.

4) If they are summoned from the effect of cards like Resurrect or Deathlord, they might not get the 3/3 bonus.

But anyway, I just desing cards based on the art I use, so they have to be next to each other to climb on each other ! :)

Quote from Shanksyo jump

Quote from YahOkay jump

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.

 Well, 95% is a bit exaggerated, the differences that I can think of are those;

1) If you have 3 or more of these guys, only the ones in the middle will be 9/9

2) They can't reach higher stat than 9/9 by themselves

3) They don't work well with cards like Defender of Argus, Dire Wolf Alphaetc.

4) If they are summoned from the effect of cards like Resurrect or Deathlord, they might not get the 3/3 bonus.

But anyway, I just desing cards based on the art I use, so they have to be next to each other to climb on each other ! :)

 Haha okay I'm sold on the pygmys having to climb on each other. :)

I added a never before seen mechanic with this card by allowing you to summon a minion for your opponent. You're essentially handing your opponent a yeti for 3 mana in exchange for hopefully 2 relatively useful minions. Depending on the minions you steal, this could be extremely potent or a severe detriment. The cheap mana cost does allow you some potential answers later in the game if you don't want your opponent to capitalize on the free minion but he plays into the priest's natural weakness of 4 attack minions. He seems like he could be extremely difficult to play well but game changing when played correctly.

I just thought the mechanic of such a minion would not only be unique but extremely fun to play, even if he ended up being extremely niche.

edit: Do you think I should reword this card? IE: Battlecry: Give his minion to your opponent then take control of adjacent minions of 2 attack or less? Or is the wording fine as is? Thoughts?

Quote from Shanksyo jump

Quote from YahOkay jump

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.

 Well, 95% is a bit exaggerated, the differences that I can think of are those;

1) If you have 3 or more of these guys, only the ones in the middle will be 9/9

2) They can't reach higher stat than 9/9 by themselves

3) They don't work well with cards like Defender of Argus, Dire Wolf Alphaetc.

4) If they are summoned from the effect of cards like Resurrect or Deathlord, they might not get the 3/3 bonus.

But anyway, I just desing cards based on the art I use, so they have to be next to each other to climb on each other ! :)

 I personally like the card as is. I'd just probably reword it to a more hearthstone style of wording. Lets see...

"Has +3/+3 for each adjacent Forest Pygmy." We just don't have many (any?) cards that have the wording, 'next to it.' Just my 2 cents.

I would like to point out to everyone that we shouldn't be overly critical of people coping the effect of already existing cards onto new bodies. Honestly, this is just going to happen some, and I think as long as people have a good flavor, a good design concept, and can make you feel like this card could or should exist then let them try. Obviously they are likely to get automatically pointed out as copying card X, but that doesn't mean they can't make a really great case and make the card have a life of its own. I personally plan to try my best to help everyone make their design there own for that reason. Its going to need that flavor and flare but if you can do that I'll upvote it just a easily as something completely new and different. I mean its very likely that a large number of entries will begin to be slight deviations on one another, without anyone actually having stolen someones idea. Keep you mind open to other peoples choices and try to help them and let them help you make the best versions of those cards. Don't just shoot people down.

Also, I totally got sucked in by wanted to bring a positive tone to the forum that I forgot to post my card. 

So here we have it. The real deal Holyfield of Paladin board clears. Sulfurus, Hand of Ragnaros being slammed down by none other than the Firelord himself, bringing devastation and destruction to your opponents side of the board. I know its wordy and probably confusing, but its fun in the least!

Quote from L84dinnr jump

Quote from DialM4Murloc jump

Quote from L84dinnr jump

3rd - I have a question about the topic this week, specifically regarding what would qualify. I know stuff relating to adjacency, and left most and right most would all work. But what about other things? My specific idea involves a minion that takes up more than one card space on the board (that would be the minion board interaction). Would stuff like that work?

Another mod thought it was okay so go ahead ^^ 

 Sweet! Thanks a bunch for following up!

 Just to be more specific, I think its okay IF it interacts in "weird" ways with other position-based effects, like it's one minion that actually physically takes up two spaces on the board so, for example, if you targeted it with Cone of Cold only it and one other minion would he frozen because the minion on the "other side" is itself. And Betrayal makes it hurt itself.  XD

Quote from Varolie jump

So a lot of people are going to go for adjacent stuff, in some form or another(even enemy minion in front is geometrically adjacent if you really want to push the classification), but what about non-adjacent minions it too is a part of board position, right.

What about a minion that has "non-adjacent friendly minions have +2/+2[for example]"? is that uniquer enoguh or should I go with something else?

I think that sounds cool! 

@ Varolie

@ Firebolts