It's Your Card - Cost, Attack and Defense

    • It's Your Card - Cost, Attack and Defense

      Which cost / stat combo should Brown Fox Strategist be? 99
        2 Cost - 1/1 (28) 28%
        3 Cost - 2/3 (52) 53%
        4 Cost - 3/4 (14) 14%
        5 Cost - 4/6 (5) 5%

      Hey gang,

      We're back with one of the last few polls for It's Your Card. We've come a long way since we've started this, but we finally have a name for your card...

      The Brown Fox Tactician!

      Big thanks to everyone who voted and a special thank you to Thrawn for coming up with the name for the card!

      So here's where we're at:

      I've gone ahead and added our troop traits, since the scene we have painted for this card is basically the leader of the Brown Fox Scouts. Since this original Brown Fox Scouts were Coyotle Rangers it only makes sense that their leader is of the same type, and I'm not sure how rewarding it would be for you guys to take a few weeks for that to win. Feel free to correct me in the comments below if you think that this is out of flavor, but I think this is something we can all agree on.

      So now we get to the part that's a little more development focused than design, but I feel that since it's the card of the people you guys should have a say in the final stats of this card. So, now we have to decide on what the final cost and stats we put on this. Of course, development can be one of the trickier things to hit, but we've come to a variety of numbers to choose from. Clearly this is a power that is better the earlier in the game you can play it, so we had to balance that with the cost, which is why the lowest cost of the options took the largest hit to stats, and why the five cost version is probably burlier than we'd normally make the average Coyotle.

      This poll will end on June 13th, then we'll have nearly the final version of our new Brown Fox.

      See you guys next time!

    • Something to consider is that this would be a terrible 2 drop because you don't get any body and you also can't play extra resources and if you have two resources? You MORE THAN LIKELY have three to play and being able to top deck a resource is less valuable then if you had an empty hand and need to a hit your next drop. 3 cost is a good middle ground in my opinion because you get a decent body that won't get flipped off the board by literally anything and it doesn't come too early to do the thing you want it to do.
    • The sooner you play it, the sooner you can start getting your card advantage out of it, period. The only question is if being a 1/1 is any worse than a 2/3. I would argue that most removal that kills a 1/1 will also kill a 2/3.

      Though to be honest, this feels like decisions the development team should be making. Unless they're gonna claim that all of the choices are equally powerful, there's a definitively right and wrong answer.
      Old username: Aradon | Collector backer | Starting a guild for Newbies -- "The Cerulean Acadamy" -- Taking applications once guilds are implemented
    • Five is too late to care about the effect. Four means it has to compete with Neo for a deck spot - its never winning that fight. Seems like there are only two remotely viable options.

      At a 1/1 body there are a few playable removal that kill it but dont deal with a 2/3 - Cremate, Whip Crack, Return to Cinder, Scars of War. I'm going with the 3 cost, but I agree with Mattman that I would have strongly preferred it as a 1/4 to dodge Feed the Flames, Flamelick, Fireball, Stifling Sting, Burning Ire, and Iremaw.
    • A 2/3 is a LOT more relevant if you have to get it into combat than a 1/1. I think doubling the card's power and getting it out of range of any removal that deals 1 or 2 damage is worth the cost increase from 2 to 3.

      I would have loved to see this card pushed and be a 2-cost 2/3 like Satyr's Roost Bard. It is prismatic, so it's a card that can afford to have some stats. If it has to be 3-cost, I'd have preferred an even larger body like 3/3 or 2/4, but of the options available, I think the 3-cost is the sweet spot.
    • Mattmanhex wrote:

      3 cost is right for this I think. But 2/3 seems odd for something you want to stick around. 3 cost 2/4 or 3 cost 1/4 would be infinitely more playable in my opinion. With the available options, 2/3 for 3 seems like the best by far :)
      It HAS to be prone to limited removals in case it is that cheap, otherwise it is a straight out game ender as the opponent drowns in card disadvantage, unless ofc it was made legendary in which case it is seen rarely enough to not be too disrupting. Even then I think 3 cost is too low for a card that can with 30% replace itself the turn it is played making any removal thrown at it after that point still being a value loss.

      I know you normally should not 100% balance rares around limited, but they still have to be slightly in check, because no one likes seeing cards like Glory Bringers played against them that out of nowhere steals games too often.

      2 cost for this is straight up insanity in limited.
    • This poll will end on June 13th, then we'll have nearly the final version of our new Brown Fox.

      Guess we'll be getting the full card reveal in a couple of weeks, as the first Set 10 teaser?

      Poor @Thrawn, having to wait so long to see his mindchild come into full existence.

      Don't worry, Thrawn! Your concept will turn out just as you hoped!
      After all, I'm sure the Tactician won't be bright blue and wearing a harlequin outfit!
      And I'm sure none of other coyotles will be drunk and passed out in awkward positions across the room!
      You have nothing to worry about!

      ..I, on the other hand, now have to worry about what I described not being an actual thing. Alas for self-sabotage.