Stevethebarbarian 2 years ago Yes, but you're misunderstanding why it was strong. Things that cost 0 mana aren't just strong inherently, the problem is in cards that reduced the cost of a number of cards at once, so instead of playing a max of, let's say, 4 cards on turn 4, you could actually play like 10 because they didn't actually cost mana. This does not have any such potential. You always play it on a 4+ cost guy anyway, so all the "not less than (1)" clause does is bloat the text and reduce the use-cases.
TheArcanist (4.4) (creator)2 years ago There have been very few instances where reducing stuff to (0) wasn't super strong. I just wanted the safety.
Stevethebarbarian 2 years ago I really don't see any reason at all for the not less than 1 clause. You wouldn't want to use this on a 3-drop or smaller anyway, so it just seems like it's there for no reason at all.
TheArcanist (4.4) (creator)2 years ago Potential synergy with Rush/Charge and Deathrattle cards. Thoughts?
Yes, but you're misunderstanding why it was strong. Things that cost 0 mana aren't just strong inherently, the problem is in cards that reduced the cost of a number of cards at once, so instead of playing a max of, let's say, 4 cards on turn 4, you could actually play like 10 because they didn't actually cost mana. This does not have any such potential. You always play it on a 4+ cost guy anyway, so all the "not less than (1)" clause does is bloat the text and reduce the use-cases.
There have been very few instances where reducing stuff to (0) wasn't super strong. I just wanted the safety.
I really don't see any reason at all for the not less than 1 clause. You wouldn't want to use this on a 3-drop or smaller anyway, so it just seems like it's there for no reason at all.
Potential synergy with Rush/Charge and Deathrattle cards. Thoughts?