Spacetime04191 year ago You’re fine mzop! Don’t mean to sound dickish! Just trying to help. Maybe word this as “If this is the first spell played this turn, reduce the cost of your spells next turn by (1). You can’t play spells this turn.” This makes it so you must play this first for the effect, but also makes the negative apply. Just flip it.
Mzop (3.7) (creator)1 year ago yeah, you guys are totally right, im gonna remake this, just not today for the fifth time :tinyfin: . but i do agree i did word this very poorly so that it looks like you get the reward regardless, so im very sorry
Spacetime04191 year ago I think it’s worded poorly. It doesn’t say anywhere on there that it needs to be the first spell played to get the benefit. It just says “if this is the first spell played this turn.....” and then there’s a period. Then the benefit. This would need to allude to “if this is the first spell played this turn, do this AND then the benefit.
DustenStein 1 year ago Ah, Spacetime, Wishful, you're right! Something felt off about this wording the moment I saw but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. The condition currently only applies to the downside
Mzop (3.7) (creator)1 year ago did you have to put in the link so that people can see the discussion? whatever, just go find it in the queue :smorc:
Mzop (3.7) (creator)1 year ago Yeah good point, here is the new card
Wishful1 year ago Then if that is the case @Mzop , I'd probably word it backwards for clarity.
"If this is the first card you played this turn, next turn your spells cost (1) less. You can't cast spells this turn."
(Also you should bring the current card to here so that people know to switch the discussion to there) :boombot:
Mzop (3.7) (creator)1 year ago @Spacetime0419
First, you have to play this first to get the effect, otherwise it just does nothing when played.
Second, i uploaded an updated version.
Nekkro 1 year ago I interpret that the condition that it is your first spell, applies to the entire card.
Not just the part about you not being able to cast spells.
Nekkro 1 year ago But it says that it has to be the first.
It for flavor I guess.
To representate the action of Aim
Spacetime04191 year ago I don’t understand this. The “can’t cast spells this turn” drawback makes no sense, because you can just play this as the last spell of the turn, and there’s no advantage of playing this as your first spell as it effects your next turn anyways. As long as you just play this last, it’s just “3 mana, the first spell you play next turn costs 0”
Nekkro 1 year ago Yeah. (2) mana looks good. specially cause you can still play minions in that turn
Mzop (3.7) (creator)1 year ago i do like that idea actually alot, but then i think i can make this 2 mana because you cant really cheat anything too big out with hunter right?
Nekkro 1 year ago Well. Rogue has a (4) 2/2 that make your next spell cost (0) immediately.
And the cost of spells in both classes is quite similar.
So I don't see it as a problematic card, beyond Nagrand Slam. Maybe it can be changed to
"Your next spell that deals damage" to have more flavor with aiming, and because technically Nagrand Slam doesn't deal damage, but instead summons attackers.
Mzop (3.7) (creator)1 year ago yeah thats why this card was super difficult to balance, but i cant really find a solid way around it without changing the card text a lot. And that generally means a card is too bad if it cant even really be salvaged without lots of change.
Wishful1 year ago So I guess, what's stopping you from playing this on curve and then playing Nagrand Slam on turn 4? :thinking:
Mzop (3.7) (creator)1 year ago Could help for some insane setup, but balancing this was a nightmare and its still kind of wonky with big spells.
You’re fine mzop! Don’t mean to sound dickish! Just trying to help. Maybe word this as “If this is the first spell played this turn, reduce the cost of your spells next turn by (1). You can’t play spells this turn.” This makes it so you must play this first for the effect, but also makes the negative apply. Just flip it.
yeah, you guys are totally right, im gonna remake this, just not today for the fifth time :tinyfin: . but i do agree i did word this very poorly so that it looks like you get the reward regardless, so im very sorry
I think it’s worded poorly. It doesn’t say anywhere on there that it needs to be the first spell played to get the benefit. It just says “if this is the first spell played this turn.....” and then there’s a period. Then the benefit. This would need to allude to “if this is the first spell played this turn, do this AND then the benefit.
Ah, Spacetime, Wishful, you're right! Something felt off about this wording the moment I saw but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. The condition currently only applies to the downside
did you have to put in the link so that people can see the discussion? whatever, just go find it in the queue :smorc:
Yeah good point, here is the new card
Then if that is the case @Mzop , I'd probably word it backwards for clarity.
"If this is the first card you played this turn, next turn your spells cost (1) less. You can't cast spells this turn."
(Also you should bring the current card to here so that people know to switch the discussion to there) :boombot:
@Spacetime0419
First, you have to play this first to get the effect, otherwise it just does nothing when played.
Second, i uploaded an updated version.
I interpret that the condition that it is your first spell, applies to the entire card.
Not just the part about you not being able to cast spells.
But it says that it has to be the first.
It for flavor I guess.
To representate the action of Aim
I don’t understand this. The “can’t cast spells this turn” drawback makes no sense, because you can just play this as the last spell of the turn, and there’s no advantage of playing this as your first spell as it effects your next turn anyways. As long as you just play this last, it’s just “3 mana, the first spell you play next turn costs 0”
Yeah. (2) mana looks good. specially cause you can still play minions in that turn
i do like that idea actually alot, but then i think i can make this 2 mana because you cant really cheat anything too big out with hunter right?
Well. Rogue has a (4) 2/2 that make your next spell cost (0) immediately.
And the cost of spells in both classes is quite similar.
So I don't see it as a problematic card, beyond Nagrand Slam. Maybe it can be changed to
"Your next spell that deals damage" to have more flavor with aiming, and because technically Nagrand Slam doesn't deal damage, but instead summons attackers.
yeah thats why this card was super difficult to balance, but i cant really find a solid way around it without changing the card text a lot. And that generally means a card is too bad if it cant even really be salvaged without lots of change.
So I guess, what's stopping you from playing this on curve and then playing Nagrand Slam on turn 4? :thinking:
Could help for some insane setup, but balancing this was a nightmare and its still kind of wonky with big spells.