Crime King Togwaggle - Custom Hearthstone Card

Crime King Togwaggle

16th March, 2019 (RR)

Made by keyvnn9

keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@MosnarNoedig That’s exactly what I mean.
MosnarNoedig 2 years ago
I think @keyvnn9 means that most cards made with used art are generally not very well designed, the more effort you put into your cards, the better they are, and part of that effort entails finding the right art, which is generally art that fits the card properly. Thus, cards which just copy the art are generally products of lesser design effort and therefore lower quality.
Kosmyc (3.5)2 years ago
"Also, I would rather not add “Also, this card is bad” whenever I mention used art."

This just proves what I was saying earlier. You automatically dismiss whatever card you see using bad art, by thinking it's bad by using used art.
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@Kosmyc Opinions are subjective. Also, I would rather not add “Also, this card is bad” whenever I mention used art.
@hearthstone noob Blizzard often has to commission art for cards, which costs a lot of money for as many cards as there are in solo content. While they can take art from the TCG, it can’t solve all of their problems, and they don’t have as much freedom as we do here with just searching art online.
DestroyerR (4)2 years ago
@Gothe yeah, but this was in HS’s very early days, and the fact they never did it again indicates to me that their design philosophy is to avoid this kind of thing
DestroyerR (4)2 years ago
@hearthstone noob the general consensus around the site (among those that disagree with used art) seems to be that art used only in adventures is fair game, since Blizzard is clearly more sloppy in PvE content (even going so far as not bothering to use proper punctuation sometimes, like the Sinister Squashlings for example). Both Rajh and that minion from the Temple of Orsis fight are PvE content, and where was Ammunae ever used? I can’t recall
Gothe (4.2)2 years ago
Rajh's art was used fr Avatar of the Coin in the beta (i think?) until it was removed. Technically it never made it into the official game. If you wanna talk bout reused art in game look no further than the two Shadowform hero powers. Mind Spike shares art with Corruption and Mind Shatter shares art with Reliquary Seeker.
hearthstone noob 2 years ago
The whole "Used Art" thing is dumb to me, since in Tombs of Terror, both Rajh and Ammunae are reused art, proving that Blizzard might very well reuse art.
Kosmyc (3.5)2 years ago
Maybe if you also gave your opinion of the card? Instead of just being like: "Used Art: [card]" because currently, it sounds not like your saying someone is a bad card designer, but like you don't actually pay any attention to the card the moment you see it uses card art.
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@Shoemanband I don’t think saying anything will stop this situation from happening again, lol. I do think that “Used art: [Card]” is concise and simple, though, so I think I’ll stick to it.
Note to everyone: No offense.
Shoemanband (4)2 years ago
@keyvnn9 When you comment about used art, even if you're just stating a fact, it implies that you have some opinion about the card. But because you don't explicitly state what that opinion is, people are left to assume what you're trying to say, and usually that is "You're a bad person because you're reusing art." I'm not saying it's your fault, but if you keep stating facts without explanation, this scenario is likely to happen again.
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
I see this space as a place to show concepts, yes, but also to give feedback so people can improve their ideas. What is a concept without balance or any flavor, after all? There are many things that go into making a card just right, and one of these, to me, is the art.
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@Kosmyc “Used art: [Card]” is an objective fact. I’m not saying “You’re a bad person because you’re reusing art,” I’m saying that the art is used. Used art is, in my opinion, comparable to errors in spelling or syntax, and it distracts from the card itself. It is just unprofessional.
The cases where I usually see used art are not cases where it is difficult to find art. While it is sometimes difficult, most often a simple search of “wow mage fanart” or something similar is eough.
Finally, I do not believe that “Used art: [Card]” is going “whole ham” and shutting down others’ opinions of me. It is an objecitive fact. To me, what is “Going whole ham” is searching out other people’s cards and targeting them for having opinions different from yours.
Kosmyc (3.5)2 years ago
I mean, first off, Keyvnn has definitely been obnoxious on these fourms before. Not only is he the only person that goes whole ham on anybody using used artwork (which by the way, I support since finding art can be difficult in it's own right.), he is often unneccessarily toxic towards people. Perhaps I was trying to show him what it feels like to have any opinion of him shut down by "Used Art: [Insert Card]" because all it seems to show is that he's here not to make cards, but to correct people for some reason.

Which, I should mention, is why I don't find issue with used art. People here are making concepts for hearthstone cards which will likely never exist. Why should someone have to find unique good art for all of these when the purpose is to show off a concept, not give blizzard a finished card they'll never use?
MosnarNoedig 2 years ago
Wow, Hearthcards does not like long comments.
MosnarNoedig 2 years ago
If I understand your reply correctly, your meaning was "Yes, I was trying to be toxic." I question whether that is a desirable outcome. Toxicity is used in this case to refer to being "abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally" which attributes by their very definition are bad. "Bad" in this case refers to a negative effect acknowledged by innate human morality and/or morality as it is defined by the current culture. In both cases, the attributes are bad. Now, it is possible - in this case, almost certain - that the motive behind the post was to cause the aforementioned negative effects related to toxicity. This implies the belief that causing those negative effects is morally desirable or correct, which stems from the common misconception that someone performing actions that you personally dislike grants you a moral incentive or right to cause them grief by means of toxicity. This is both false and ineffective at causing positive change.
MosnarNoedig 2 years ago
If the actions that incited the toxicity were not severe enough to warrant the grief conveyed through the toxic communication, the communication was unjust. If they were severe enough, then the desired outcome would be either acknowledgment and repentance of that fact, or if the actions are severe enough to warrant it, actual prevention of said actions by a power with authority over the situation. Simply attacking the person with the intent to cause them grief will only serve to incite further undesirable action or anger. (cont'd)
MosnarNoedig 2 years ago
(continued from the post I'm about to make, I reached Hearthcards' comment length limit and am posting this first to make the comment readable sequentially.) However, the various negative personality traits and beliefs referenced previously are not necessarily evident in a person from the negative actions. However, the negative actions do imply those beliefs and possession of those traits to others, causing others to perceive a person as if they did. The important thing is not that those actions make you bad, it's that they affect how you are perceived. A brief moment of anger or misconception of what your actions mean can cost you everything in this world. Everyone is subject to such failures in their lives, me no less. Rationally analyzing it helps me deal with and try to prevent failing in the future, and I hope this analysis will help you understand how serious those actions imply. Also, this is a cool card, sorry if I'm overshadowing it with my attempts at amateur ethics.
Kosmyc (3.5)2 years ago
Let's give this man an Academic Scholarship, his investigative logic is astounding!
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@Kosmyc The purpose of that comment was to be toxic.
Kosmyc (3.5)2 years ago
Used art: Keyvnn9's D***
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@ShadowLurker As a matter of fact, that’s not true when you take into account that this was before the art was in the game. Always look at the date of the card before you say it’s used, because in cases like this, it isn’t.
ShadowLurker 2 years ago
Used art
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@Bob As I just said, you don’t get it back if that happens.
BOB52 2 years ago
can the HP steal a kidnappers ransom and then do u get another copy of the card u stole???
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
@Shoemanband I didn’t really think that would fit the flavor of kidnapping. As it is, you would be making them spend 3 mana per turn, which would be very good against combo, and the Battlecry gives you the immediate value. I’d say it’s sort of like Zul’jin, where the hero power isn’t as big a part of the card, but can certainly be game-winning in some matchups (more so than Zul’jin actually). My point is that while some cards, like Dr. Boom 2, are dependent on the hero power, others like Garrosh or Zul’jin don’t need a really powerful Hero Power to be good.
And btw, if the Ransom transforms another Ransom, you can’t get the original card back.
Shoemanband (4)2 years ago
Concept is great, but I think it would be better if the HP could give you tangible value instead of potential combo disruption. Like, at 1 or 2 Mana the Ransom adds the card to both players hands?
Cosmic14 (4)2 years ago
Nice, but maybe the ransom should be 2 mana. All things considered though, 5/5
massucram 2 years ago
I really like this idea! Cool concept for rogue
keyvnn9 (3.9) (creator)2 years ago
Thanks!
DestroyerR (4)2 years ago
Amazing!