Hearthpwn

Alright, to try and make the text on the card readable I had to break this apart a bit. I feel like this is a solid card idea but I need to figure out the best way for it to be implemented into the game:

Basically, like the card title, I want to randomize where the buffs are in a semi-determinable way for both players. The "usual" goal for this would be that if the player or opponent kills/trades the wrong minion, the other player gains an advantage. I think I like the two buffs as-is, there's an obvious way to use it but depending on the minions you have out some more interesting plays could occur.

Animation-wise, I'm not sure what's on the text would play out correctly. Still trying to figure out how to describe an actual shell game simply. As I'm writing this, it occurs to me that the "Choose a minion" part is probably redundant - you'll want to swap the pearls the minions have during the animation as well otherwise the swap is mostly meaningless. All feedback is welcome.

Quote from Cogito_Ergo_Sum >>

Okay, let's try this again...

Original Cards:

When lemonade is used to cover up the taste of something else.

 Big thanks to nurgling13 for the wording help!

Quote from Wailor >>

I have adapted several cards from La Fallera Calavera, an LCG based on Valencian folklore  (Valencia is a region in Spain). So, the original cards are not in English, but I translated their names the best I could. I'll post three of them now and I'll probably post the rest later.

This contest has been pretty cool, so far. There have been many cards which have been interesting thematically (like Slot Machine, Slowpoke or Eevee) and mechanically (Card of Demise, Masquerade, Arachas Behemoth, Timetwister or Archangel of Tithes). Heck, some of them excell at both fields, like Vicovaro Medic (I also thought it should be a HS card when I saw it in Gwent) or Focus Sash.

I would also like to give my two cents on Masquerade:

 Good call on the text redundancy, thanks. I also realized it was probably undercosted after I posted before, 2 mana does seem better (compared to Coldlight, it doesn't put a body on the board so 3 mana would probably be overkill).

I can't figure out a good way to write the card text to explain that interaction, though. I drafted a couple extra versions of the card after trying to adjust it:

The left one is the simplest text, but still doesn't clarify the interaction at all. I'm not sure where in the simple text/rules clarity balance that ends up falling because of it. If I make it more symmetric, the middle card is perfectly clear but significantly weaker for the caster to play. So then I tried a third option (right card)  which somewhat alters the spirit of the card to circumvent the issue. 

Three solutions, none ideal. A conundrum to be sure.

 As designers tend to avoid messing with your opponent's deck (with the notable exception of Gnomeferatu), I think the card should be something "Draw 3 cards and give one to your opponent at your choice". I think it's balanced at 1 mana, as the total card advantage over your opponent that you get by using the card would be zero (as if you cycled a card).

I really like the idea, however.

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Quote from Azevara >>

Quote from nurgling13 >>

Quote from Azevara >>

One of my favorite cards in a card game ever, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Since there's no interaction during the other player's turn, the opponent's card you get would be chosen at random. Since it's actually taking a card and not copying, combined with the mask theme, it seemed more like a rogue card than a priest. 

Appreciate any feedback.

I appreciate that you worked out how this would work so that your opponent doesn't make a choice during your turn, but that isn't really reflected in the card text. I think it needs a more clear explanation in the text. You can cut down the card text length since you don't need to say that you keep one of the cards, since that is already implied. Just "Give one to your opponent" is sufficient. Then you have room for more explanation. It's also too cheap at 1 mana. It's symmetric, but you're still getting two cards out of it. I think 2 mana would be more appropriate.

 Good call on the text redundancy, thanks. I also realized it was probably undercosted after I posted before, 2 mana does seem better (compared to Coldlight, it doesn't put a body on the board so 3 mana would probably be overkill).

I can't figure out a good way to write the card text to explain that interaction, though. I drafted a couple extra versions of the card after trying to adjust it:

The left one is the simplest text, but still doesn't clarify the interaction at all. I'm not sure where in the simple text/rules clarity balance that ends up falling because of it. If I make it more symmetric, the middle card is perfectly clear but significantly weaker for the caster to play. So then I tried a third option (right card)  which somewhat alters the spirit of the card to circumvent the issue. 

Three solutions, none ideal. A conundrum to be sure.

 This fits in 4 lines of text: 

Both players draw two cards and give one to their opponent. Your opponent's is chosen randomly.

Quote from nurgling13 >>

One of my favorite cards in a card game ever, so I thought I'd give it a shot. Since there's no interaction during the other player's turn, the opponent's card you get would be chosen at random. Since it's actually taking a card and not copying, combined with the mask theme, it seemed more like a rogue card than a priest. 

Appreciate any feedback.

Are "self-contained" deckbuilding games like Dominion excluded from this competition theme?

Quote from Cogito_Ergo_Sum >>

Quote from Sinti >>

Quote from Cogito_Ergo_Sum >>

So...I'm taking that as a no for the hint?

Shutch up! And give us the hint!

A possible tech card to Scarab Swarm or Jaina DK, perhaps?

 (Forgive my incompetence, I can't figure out the insert image button. URL: http://imgur.com/a/Es0iD)