11 minutes ago, Taki said:

Also a fair point, but i don't see how this is any worse than charging a fire bird and get and getting a potential two turns of five or six cost characters. This seems to be the game they're designing

Except again the restricted list was geared around curtailing that (why Charge and Stands the strongest Phoenix card with the new box are now mutually exclusive)

31 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

Except again the restricted list was geared around curtailing that (why Charge and Stands the strongest Phoenix card with the new box are now mutually exclusive)

Again only charge is restricted, none of the other Myriad of cards that result in you getting lots of extra fate for small investment have been at all. And my feeling is that charge is only this restricted because it's neutral and because it had no other restrictions or parameters (unlike ambush, cav reserves or the card I'm proposing)

2 minutes ago, Taki said:

Again only charge is restricted, none of the other Myriad of cards that result in you getting lots of extra fate for small investment have been at all. And my feeling is that charge is only this restricted because it's neutral and because it had no other restrictions or parameters (unlike ambush, cav reserves or the card I'm proposing)

Charge made the list because it frankly is a ridiculous cost to benefit ratio in most circumstances.

That is not true of Cavalry Reserve and Ambush which require a significant investment, (cards in discard or hand/provinces) and have a higher cost 3 fate for at best a 2-1 payoff and to mitigate further require a further investment via splash for Crab or Lion allowing FGG or Reprieve for a single character which require further fate.

Further they are limited to single clans since only Scorpion and Unicorn have sufficient cavalry or Unicorn characters to make them remotely useful which is what served to keep them off the restricted list.

Your card on the other hand is straight up busted in a tower build as it is a just a win more for doing what your build condition is already doing and even without charge is still 1 fate for a 10-15 fate return by keeping your stacked tower in play for further turns.

its not comparable to a bring cards into play and needs to be compared to a Reprieve or Iron Mine effect. In all cases those abilities have restrictions by being either restricted to specific clans (Iron Mine) a natural weakness (Reprieve which is an attachment and susceptible to attachment hate as well as having a natural cost, which will incidentally become stronger now that Let Go is about to become a lot less common), or have significant hoops that need to be jumped through (see Good Omen and For Greater Glory).

12 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

Charge made the list because it frankly is a ridiculous cost to benefit ratio in most circumstances.

That is not true of Cavalry Reserve and Ambush which require a significant investment, (cards in discard or hand/provinces) and have a higher cost 3 fate for at best a 2-1 payoff and to mitigate further require a further investment via splash for Crab or Lion allowing FGG or Reprieve for a single character which require further fate.

Further they are limited to single clans since only Scorpion and Unicorn have sufficient cavalry or Unicorn characters to make them remotely useful which is what served to keep them off the restricted list.

Your card on the other hand is straight up busted in a tower build as it is a just a win more for doing what your build condition is already doing and even without charge is still 1 fate for a 10-15 fate return by keeping your stacked tower in play for further turns.

its not comparable to a bring cards into play and needs to be compared to a Reprieve or Iron Mine effect. In all cases those abilities have restrictions by being either restricted to specific clans (Iron Mine) a natural weakness (Reprieve which is an attachment and susceptible to attachment hate as well as having a natural cost, which will incidentally become stronger now that Let Go is about to become a lot less common), or have significant hoops that need to be jumped through (see Good Omen and For Greater Glory).

So first let me apologize and correct something, the card I proposed I meant as a Dragon card, but neglected putting that in, i didn't mean to imply it as a neutral card. So with that I'm sorry for any confusion i may have caused with that.

9 minutes ago, Taki said:

So first let me apologize and correct something, the card I proposed I meant as a Dragon card, but neglected putting that in, i didn't mean to imply it as a neutral card. So with that I'm sorry for any confusion i may have caused with that.

The problem is its a superior Fate Splash in any deck that plays with even a moderate number of attachments and even at 3 influence would still likely be the same issue as Mirumoto's Fury of being to much of an include in most decks. Frankly as written it needs additional restrictions, the best being only playable on a Monk, but even than the cost to benefit ration is too good.

7 minutes ago, Schmoozies said:

The problem is its a superior Fate Splash in any deck that plays with even a moderate number of attachments and even at 3 influence would still likely be the same issue as Mirumoto's Fury of being to much of an include in most decks. Frankly as written it needs additional restrictions, the best being only playable on a Monk, but even than the cost to benefit ration is too good.

The card is still broken and it massivly restricts design space in the future.

Just now, Ignithas said:

The card is still broken and it massivly restricts design space in the future.

I agree which has been my point from the start as even the obvious trait limitation won't rein it in.

1 minute ago, Schmoozies said:

The problem is its a superior Fate Splash in any deck that plays with even a moderate number of attachments and even at 3 influence would still likely be the same issue as Mirumoto's Fury of being to much of an include in most decks. Frankly as written it needs additional restrictions, the best being only playable on a Monk, but even than the cost to benefit ration is too good.

I don't agree, as many decks forego attachments or have few of them, coupled, and plentitude of attachment hate available, but that's ok, neither of us are designing the game after all. I'm in agreement with you that charge is too good, but by your logic presented, so is way of the crab, or fushicho, or and of the other ways currently available to get high fate value from a single card and that's just not the game we're playing.

Btw as a side note, they just half spoiled "Pragmatism " which seems to be a type crab analog to heroic resolve

3 minutes ago, Taki said:

I don't agree, as many decks forego attachments or have few of them, coupled, and plentitude of attachment hate available, but that's ok, neither of us are designing the game after all. I'm in agreement with you that charge is too good, but by your logic presented, so is way of the crab, or fushicho, or and of the other ways currently available to get high fate value from a single card and that's just not the game we're playing.

Btw as a side note, they just half spoiled "Pragmatism " which seems to be a type crab analog to heroic resolve

All we know for sure about Pragmatism is it is a +1/+1 attachment for 1 fate what attaches to a card and has a While condition of some sort.

As to comparisons to Way of the Crab, Fuchicho those have greater cost to get into play (6 fate for the bird since they are making playing Charge prevent you from accessing the strongest card for Phoenix with the new stronghold I foresee a lot of Full Cost birds coming out if they see play at all) and is dependent on what is in your discard to maximize value.

As to Way of the Crab which requires you to invest at minimum 2 fate (character to sacrifice plus cost of card) and is only really bad if your opponent isn't aware of what they are doing and plays into it (hint you should never be investing a lot on high cost characters against Crab without ways keep chaff bodies in front of them for protection or having action cancellation in hand).

Crab has a 0 cost fodder dude that exists purely to be sac'd.

On 5/23/2018 at 12:52 AM, Schmoozies said:

All we know for sure about Pragmatism is it is a +1/+1 attachment for 1 fate what attaches to a card and has a While condition of some sort.

As to comparisons to Way of the Crab, Fuchicho those have greater cost to get into play (6 fate for the bird since they are making playing Charge prevent you from accessing the strongest card for Phoenix with the new stronghold I foresee a lot of Full Cost birds coming out if they see play at all) and is dependent on what is in your discard to maximize value.

As to Way of the Crab which requires you to invest at minimum 2 fate (character to sacrifice plus cost of card) and is only really bad if your opponent isn't aware of what they are doing and plays into it (hint you should never be investing a lot on high cost characters against Crab without ways keep chaff bodies in front of them for protection or having action cancellation in hand).

Kaiu Envoy and Eager Scout don't need 2 fate.

4 minutes ago, Ignithas said:

Kaiu Envoy and Eager Scout don't need 2 fate.

Envoy actually does cause you still need to pay for him initially, he just repays for himself when he dies. As for Scouts many Crab decks I've seen have been cutting him because all he does is wait to die and if you don't get him turn 1 he becomes a wasted Dynasty flop (extra action costing you the fate for passing).