PDA

View Full Version : Soothing Breeze and other less good cards



Mindless
08-08-2013, 04:15 AM
First of I just want to say that it seems like everyone who have been playing TCGs that I've been talking to simply don't like soothing breeze. This creates 2 questions for me:
1. Should there exist cards that simply aren't good?
2. Why can't this card be improved to be more attractive?

Same goes with the goblin cook pot. I understand that not all cards will have equal value but then again there is no reason to make any card lesser, you just need another angle. I mean most arguments that soothing breeze is bad is that it does nothing on the board and create card disadantage. So I have some examples as of how to improve this card:
A. Make it also add charges to your hero. (but how many would be needed to be added to make the card good?)
B. As a QA it could also buff a troop with a very weak buff like 0/1 making it an early combat trick
C. As a QA it could be used to heal damaged troops (like all on the board) making it a countertrick towards spells like burn if it is used to finish of stronger troops.
D. An item is to search and put into play a very low cost (coyotle) troop. Why not make it do it without the item (mabye create instead of searching your deck as well) and increase the cost to maybe 3? Then with the item it will be even more powerful in putting 2 troops into play.

I know there are other cards that need improvement so why not share your ideas here?

Xenavire
08-08-2013, 04:24 AM
Soothing breeze is a potent lifegain in certain decks, but it pales compared to 5 life doubling each time. But 7 life is too good to add much to (add a card draw, suddenly its amazing.)

I think it is cheap enough that it will find a slot somewhere, but it will not be the most competitive card. Nothing wrong with that though.

Shadowelf
08-08-2013, 04:37 AM
That's the nature of card games in general;some cards are designed to be weaker or less useful than others

Ways to improve soothing breeze;

1)Make it a cantrip aka draw a card additional effect; i still wouldn't play it maindeck at competitive play, but it could be a nice sideboard option against orc agrro
2)All excess dmg healed (beyond you hero's starting health) is dealt as dmg to your opponent; simple, powerfull and may enable some lifegain strategies/decks

Dralon
08-08-2013, 04:51 AM
These cards do have their place. Not every card is or should be the optimal card for tournament play. Something like Soothing Breeze is straightforward, and easy to understand. Personally I do most of my gaming casually with my now 9 yr old son due to all the reasons Cory created Hex (lack of ability to get to a card shop regularly with my schedule, etc.). When I was first teaching him games like this, Magic, WoWTCG, Pokemon, a couple of years ago, I used similar cards to help him understand basic concepts. As he has gotten older, his reading and strategic thinking skills have progressed and other cards open up to him, but it is still fun to do simple things like gain 7 life, or lava axe to the opponent's face, even if those aren't always the "optimal" card to have in a tournament deck these days.

Xenavire
08-08-2013, 04:57 AM
Cantrip 7 lifegain? Every diamond deck will run it, because it is basically a free 7 life. A few mana and no disadvantage late game for drawing it. Too strong.

Arbiter
08-08-2013, 05:01 AM
First of I just want to say that it seems like everyone who have been playing TCGs that I've been talking to simply don't like soothing breeze. This creates 2 questions for me:
1. Should there exist cards that simply aren't good?

There's a host of very good MtG posts on this topic. The short answer is yes. It helps in adding to the "test of skill" aspect in competitive play, both constructed and especially draft. Also, you can't consider cards in a vacuum, the power level of life gain goes up if you have several cards that are increased in power by it. If a card has synergies with other cards in your deck it has more power.


2. Why can't this card be improved to be more attractive?
Really this goes hand in hand with (1). You actually want differing power levels, you want cards that are good on their own, cards that shine in certain decks, cards that have very specific situations where they may be useful, etc. Some cards may never see play in some environments. The other thing is, that for most cards, you only want the card to do one thing, you really want to keep the number of complicated cards or cards with multiple abilities to a low percentage of the total pool, as they slow the game down. If you need to bolster a card most of the time it is better to just make the card do what it does better than bolt on a second ability.

Shadowelf
08-08-2013, 05:04 AM
Cantrip 7 lifegain? Every diamond deck will run it, because it is basically a free 7 life. A few mana and no disadvantage late game for drawing it. Too strong.

Well he was asking for improvements so i provided :p Not as powerful as the second option though, which if you use it in a deck built around lifegain, is better than lightning bolt :)

Icepick
08-08-2013, 05:45 AM
If you have 5 health left and can win next turn, but the opponent is about to do 6 damage, and you have a Soothing Breeze in your hand, Soothing Breeze suddenly becomes the best card ever. Everything has its use.

Mindless
08-08-2013, 06:29 AM
It's nice to see some good feedback already ;)

Also don't misunderstand, I don't say that soothing breeze have to be improved, only want to start discussion as of why people dislike it, what type of improvement they would want if any, and all other "disrespected" cards. Me myself haven't that much experience in this type of card game and am reading and studying as much as I can now.


There's a host of very good MtG posts on this topic. The short answer is yes. It helps in adding to the "test of skill" aspect in competitive play, both constructed and especially draft. Also, you can't consider cards in a vacuum, the power level of life gain goes up if you have several cards that are increased in power by it. If a card has synergies with other cards in your deck it has more power.


Really this goes hand in hand with (1). You actually want differing power levels, you want cards that are good on their own, cards that shine in certain decks, cards that have very specific situations where they may be useful, etc. Some cards may never see play in some environments. The other thing is, that for most cards, you only want the card to do one thing, you really want to keep the number of complicated cards or cards with multiple abilities to a low percentage of the total pool, as they slow the game down. If you need to bolster a card most of the time it is better to just make the card do what it does better than bolt on a second ability.

I was going to write a long post but I wanted to know what posts you were refering to if you're able to share them ;). I however don't see the point in having to pick less good cards in drafts when I'm forced to simply because some cards must be less good. There should be "well at least I get something in my main color" or "at least I can use it and don't throw in extra mana" and not as I've heard people saying "crap, aw well I guess I run with extra mana" or "I would rather pick another nonusable color card to force other to pick X card". This only being the example of the card in draft ;)

Keep up the good work people ;)

Edit: To the other posts: instead of citating all of you I'm just gonna say that I see your points. But if you for an example have a card not good, not created for a certain type of play, why is it included there? Only to prove skill in picking cards? As I said, I'm not saying that all cards have to be good but the chance that you will survive because of example soothing breeze are so low that it seems that the experienced players never take the card anyway.

Grissnap
08-08-2013, 06:33 AM
These are the MTG articles describing why there will always be bad cards, as well as explaining why having a less flat power level in cards is a good thing.

When Cards Go Bad
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5

When Cards go Bad 2
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/164

When Cards go Bad Revisited
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218

AbandonAllHope
08-08-2013, 07:02 AM
Each type of card can find its own functionality in some way. 7 life for 2 threshold is in no way a bad investment. You can see it the same way as spending 2 to be able to block a 3/3 and a 4/4 with 2 1/1 tokens (for example). Also this will increase the power of Ozawa by +7/+7, and also increase the power of your Righteous paladin. It can also just give you that extra life to survive an extra turn (like stated before). Problem with Eternal Youth (5 life / Escalation) is that it costs 3 threshold, and you have to obtain it a second time before it actually surpasses Soothing Breeze. But even than it doesn't actually surpass Soothing Breeze, because it gives 10 life for 3 threshold, where as Soothing Breeze gives 7 life for 2 threshold, not making it "cheaper/better". Now when the third Eternal Youth comes rolling in, than yes, it will start to show. But considering that not all games continue past turn 12, the probability for this isn't very high. So in my eyes, Soothing breeze isn't actually a bad card, its pretty decent. There are worse cards that I would never play.

As for the reason why there are "bad cards", surprisingly enough in TCG, some of these bad cards can become insane combos with other cards (that might appear in later series). And you can't make only good cards, defeats the concept of deck building, and its variety.

Icepick
08-08-2013, 07:40 AM
Each type of card can find its own functionality in some way. 7 life for 2 threshold is in no way a bad investment. You can see it the same way as spending 2 to be able to block a 3/3 and a 4/4 with 2 1/1 tokens (for example). Also this will increase the power of Ozawa by +7/+7, and also increase the power of your Righteous paladin. It can also just give you that extra life to survive an extra turn (like stated before). Problem with Eternal Youth (5 life / Escalation) is that it costs 3 threshold, and you have to obtain it a second time before it actually surpasses Soothing Breeze. But even than it doesn't actually surpass Soothing Breeze, because it gives 10 life for 3 threshold, where as Soothing Breeze gives 7 life for 2 threshold, not making it "cheaper/better". Now when the third Eternal Youth comes rolling in, than yes, it will start to show. But considering that not all games continue past turn 12, the probability for this isn't very high. So in my eyes, Soothing breeze isn't actually a bad card, its pretty decent. There are worse cards that I would never play.

As for the reason why there are "bad cards", surprisingly enough in TCG, some of these bad cards can become insane combos with other cards (that might appear in later series). And you can't make only good cards, defeats the concept of deck building, and its variety.

You are confusing threshold and resource cost. Soothing Breeze has a resource cost of 2, and requires 1 Diamond threshold.

AbandonAllHope
08-08-2013, 08:00 AM
Yeah sorry, I'm an old mtg player and I just couldn't immediately come up with the name for resource and just named it threshold, but my meaning still holds the same (I couldn't exactly say mana and confuse people even more). But like you said, I meant 2 resource and 3 resource rather than Threshold.

Maphalux
08-08-2013, 08:01 AM
Hi, OP. You bring up a really good question. In M:TG, many people will dictate that such-and-such card is good and is mandatory while other such-and-such cards are bad and you shouldn't play them ever. Often times, they don't really explain why and that can confuse newer players and doesn't help them to get better at playing. So I'm going to try to offer an explanation on Soothing Breeze for you.

But first, I'd just like to say that no card is truly a bad card. Some cards end up being better than others because they are more efficient in cost or power but the reality is that almost any card can find a good use at one time or another. And sometimes there will be situation where an apparently bad card was the only answer such as Icepick's example above regarding Soothing Breeze.

As new sets come out, cards that the community at large considered bad may suddenly become a part of a game winning combo. You never know.

Anyway... back to Soothing Breeze. Probably the biggest reason Soothing Breeze is considered a "bad" card is because it does not impact the board in any meaningful way. What do I mean by that? It doesn't impact your troops, your opponent's troops, or your opponent. It doesn't impact his/her deck or the cards in their hand. It literally just gives you seven life. Usually, that kind of effect isn't worth a card.

If you are in a position where you need to gain life, your opponent is likely to have the upper hand in the match. This means they probably have a bunch of troops on the field beating your face. Gaining seven life instead of putting a blocker down or playing a removal spell only stalls the inevitable: your untimely death at the hands of your opponent.

The reduced worth of Soothing Breeze is further exacerbated by the fact that Eternal Youth exists. Even though Soothing Breeze costs one less, has one less threshold requirement and gives you two more life, Eternal Youth is a better card. The reason? Because you aren't losing Eternal Youth when you play it. It gets shuffled back into your deck to be used again later and it will give ten life the next time you play it instead of five. You don't lose your card which is an important distinction because the more resources (cards) you have to work with, the more likely you are to pull ahead of your opponent and win.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-08-2013, 08:01 AM
Don't feel like I'm picking on you Abandon All Hope, but I have to critique your post so that people know why Soothing Breeze and Eternal Youth (and most lifegain-only cards) are bad. Of course, this is from a competitive point of view, but I feel all cards should be analysed from as competitive a point of view as possible - if people want to lower their sights and accept a less-good card for casual play, that's their prerogative. ^^


Each type of card can find its own functionality in some way. 7 life for 2 threshold is in no way a bad investment. You can see it the same way as spending 2 to be able to block a 3/3 and a 4/4 with 2 1/1 tokens (for example).
The issue here is that the cost isn't 2 mana, and a card. That card cost is why it's bad - you pay a card, and get no card out of it (when you play a troop, for example, you spend a card to get a troop on the battlefield). In this case, you're spending a card to survive an extra turn of combat. This is akin to a 'Fog' style effect (which prevents all damage for a combat phase), though they are superior for that purpose, and outside of certain dedicated decks that take advantage of just holding on until X happens, they're not nearly good enough. Basically, card disadvantage is bad - you need a lot of upside to make it worthwhile, and 7 life isn't a lot of upside.


Also this will increase the power of Ozawa by +7/+7, and also increase the power of your Righteous paladin.
Giving +1/+1 to Righteous Paladin doesn't make it good enough. You'd need a lot more cards to 'enable' it to make it viable, so a single troop isn't enough considering the rest of the time it's a dead card. Furthermore, that troop doesn't always make it viable anyway - the only time with RP that it becomes viable is if your opponent offers to trade with it, then you use it as a combat trick. You're not even getting card advantage in that situation - you're getting card neutrality, though with some extra life attached. Any player is going to much rather straight up removal like Inner Conflict, which isn't conditional on ideal circumstances. As for Ozawa? Definitely good enough on its own. In that case Soothing Breeze is a case of 'win more', and as such, a waste of a slot. You'd rather cards that will actually allow you to survive until the point that you're casting Ozawa instead.


It can also just give you that extra life to survive an extra turn (like stated before).
See first point.


Problem with Eternal Youth (5 life / Escalation) is that it costs 3 threshold, and you have to obtain it a second time before it actually surpasses Soothing Breeze. But even than it doesn't actually surpass Soothing Breeze, because it gives 10 life for 3 threshold, where as Soothing Breeze gives 7 life for 2 threshold, not making it "cheaper/better".
Eternal Youth is better, but that's only because it forms a potential combo with Ascetic Aspirant/The Enlightened (and possibly other cards in the future), and you only need one copy for that combo. While 5/10 life at the cost of a card isn't good enough, when you're talking 20 life for 3 mana, things start getting a bit different. Of course, you sacrifice 3 draws to reach that point, but enough turns and you'll reach an unassailable life total. However, in a vacuum, both cards are bad - even when talking about RP or Ozawa.

Also, there are better Ascetic combos, even now. ^^


Now when the third Eternal Youth comes rolling in, than yes, it will start to show. But considering that not all games continue past turn 12, the probability for this isn't very high. So in my eyes, Soothing breeze isn't actually a bad card, its pretty decent. There are worse cards that I would never play.
While it is just an opinion so it can't be wrong, it is my opinion that in a vacuum, it's pretty bad. As for Eternal Youth, you'll be lucky to get a second cast of it in most games, and very lucky to cast it 3+ times.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-08-2013, 08:04 AM
As for the name of the resource - Ben Stoll actually calls it mana in the how to play video. Just thought I'd point it out here as I've had this discussion with other people who tried to give it other names - at least at that point, they were using the term mana.

To sum up the main reason why Soothing Breeze is bad, again, card disadvantage. A card which was something like gain 2-4 life and draw a card for 2-3 mana while, still likely not being good enough to see play, would be far better. Actually, Magic has a card like this - Survival Cache - which netted you 4 life over 2 turns, and potentially drew you 2 cards, for 3 mana. That card was actually decent, though still only saw play casually (I'm pretty sure it never made it into Soul Sisters).

RobHaven
08-08-2013, 08:05 AM
I like Soothing Breeze as it is. I don't think it needs help at all. As someone else has stated, there are multiple costs that come with Eternal Youth. Soothing Breeze is cheap, it's a great boost for the cost, and it's easy to understand. And for what it's worth, I also like Goblin Cooking Pot. I haven't looked at the cards in a while, but isn't it the only card that can remove a charge from a champion? Maybe I'm putting too much stock on the impact of champion abilities, but I think that could prove to be a significant ability when games start.

AbandonAllHope
08-08-2013, 08:22 AM
Eternal Youth is better, but that's only because it forms a potential combo with Ascetic Aspirant/The Enlightened (and possibly other cards in the future), and you only need one copy for that combo. While 5/10 life at the cost of a card isn't good enough, when you're talking 20 life for 3 mana, things start getting a bit different. Of course, you sacrifice 3 draws to reach that point, but enough turns and you'll reach an unassailable life total. However, in a vacuum, both cards are bad - even when talking about RP or Ozawa.

Same thing could be said when you combo Soothing Breeze with Void Marauder. There are always cases where a card in your graveyard holds more functionality than a card being shuffled back into your deck. This holds true in many cases, just as it holds true that in many cases a card shuffled back into your deck is also good for its own reasons (Eg Enlightened).
In no way to I want to say that Soothing Breeze is better than Eternal Youth, because together with different cards Eternal Youth, like you said, can be a big life gain machine.
And yes, in general sole life gain cards aren't the ideal because anybody would prefer a creature that at the same time gives you life, giving you double functionality. But I don't find it just stating that all life gain cards are horrible on itself. This will become true as the pool of cards grow, but when its limited, I personally value this card enough to use it myself. I would prefer something like 2 1/1 tokens for 2 resource, but I would suffice with 7 life for 2 resource.

Now on the idea of it being a waste of card space, lets view it in the ruby perspective. The damage cards that ruby has in general is of lower value. Its really good, because it can deal damage to creatures to kill them, or be seen as the same thing as buffing your creature when blocking/dealing damage, which is a similar way of control to survive longer to get your cards out. Similar idea with life gain cards, except that they give less field control, but thats why their values are higher. If you have a slow deck that needs to build up, having 2 resource 2/2 creatures won't always be as effective as you would hope when comparing it to a 2 resource 7 life gain. This will give you 2 turns of surviving a 3/3 rather than a 2/2 dying on the first turn and leaving open space for a 3/3 the second turn. That 2/2 was also a "surrendered" card. Yes it doesn't give you field control like creatures/damage/other actions give, but it does give you that breathing space to build up to what you need.


Of course this is my personal opinion, and I'm sure many others disagree with me, but thats what a tcg is like, we all like our own play style. Just trying to say that they aren't as bad as you would think. And if you want to see it in a competitive perspective, lots of tournament play in many tcgs you have lots of cases where they use cards to get small creature tokens in play for utility/survivability, and more often to they use creatures that give you life gain, because of its double utility, but it holds its same functionality in all cases, added utility.

AbandonAllHope
08-08-2013, 08:26 AM
The reason Survival Cache probably didn't see play was because it was a sorcery, only being playable in your own turn, and costing 3 mana. On the other hand, Soothing Breeze is actually a Quick Action. The nice thing about it being a quick action, is that the opponent might actually (as an example) sacrifice many of his creatures to do that exact amount of damage to be able to kill you, crippling himself because he thinks he can finish you, where you might suddenly decide to use a quickaction cast Soothing Breeze, giving you 7 extra life, and leaving you alive to finish him off the next turn, or being able to survive longer because he crippled himself completely.

Maphalux
08-08-2013, 08:28 AM
If it matters, I've seen and tested with an amazing life gain control deck that one of my guildies created. It is really hard to beat. Life gain isn't looking to be as bad in HEX as it is in M:TG.

AbandonAllHope
08-08-2013, 08:29 AM
I like Soothing Breeze as it is. I don't think it needs help at all. As someone else has stated, there are multiple costs that come with Eternal Youth. Soothing Breeze is cheap, it's a great boost for the cost, and it's easy to understand. And for what it's worth, I also like Goblin Cooking Pot. I haven't looked at the cards in a while, but isn't it the only card that can remove a charge from a champion? Maybe I'm putting too much stock on the impact of champion abilities, but I think that could prove to be a significant ability when games start.

I'm sure there will be many interesting combos that Goblin Cooking Pot will provide in the future. Especially with possible search cards that put a card on top of their deck. All you need is a goblin cooking pot, and that card is gone.

Maphalux
08-08-2013, 08:31 AM
I'm sure there will be many interesting combos that Goblin Cooking Pot will provide in the future. Especially with possible search cards that put a card on top of their deck. All you need is a goblin cooking pot, and that card is gone.


Sounds like the poor man's omen of oblivion. HAHA :P

AbandonAllHope
08-08-2013, 08:47 AM
Hahaha that is very true!!! Very true !!

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-08-2013, 08:49 AM
Based on what we've seen now, if lifegain-with-card-disadvantage is competitive in Hex, I'll eat my hat. Lifedrain and lifegain w/ card neutrality/advantage tends to be fine though. I'll take a look through your mammoth post AAH and see what I think.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-08-2013, 08:52 AM
The reason Survival Cache probably didn't see play was because it was a sorcery, only being playable in your own turn, and costing 3 mana. On the other hand, Soothing Breeze is actually a Quick Action. The nice thing about it being a quick action, is that the opponent might actually (as an example) sacrifice many of his creatures to do that exact amount of damage to be able to kill you, crippling himself because he thinks he can finish you, where you might suddenly decide to use a quickaction cast Soothing Breeze, giving you 7 extra life, and leaving you alive to finish him off the next turn, or being able to survive longer because he crippled himself completely.
Firstly, you're talking about corner cases, not the norm. Secondly, I'll just point out that Fog Effects (ie. Blinding Light) are far superior for this, as they aren't limited to stopping X damage (by gaining X life) - they'll stop it all for that turn. Thirdly, card disadvantage actually doesn't matter until you run out of gas (that is, cards) - but of course, you're much more likely to have that happen if you're throwing cards away to have no impact on the board.

Actually, the whole running out of gas things is why the main place it could be used in, is against mono-ruby short-range aggro. That type of deck tends to try and be blazingly fast, often at the cost of card disadvantage, and needs to win quickly to stop itself from running out of gas. Of course, trading creatures and using lifedrainers is a superior option, but whatever you have to do to stay alive. But of course, Emberspire Witch is going to be mainboarded in that deck anyway. :-P

RobHaven
08-08-2013, 08:55 AM
Blinding Light could be better since the prevention is one way. Fog offers damage reduction, but (as far as I'm aware) no synergy potential.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-08-2013, 09:05 AM
Same thing could be said when you combo Soothing Breeze with Void Marauder. There are always cases where a card in your graveyard holds more functionality than a card being shuffled back into your deck. This holds true in many cases, just as it holds true that in many cases a card shuffled back into your deck is also good for its own reasons (Eg Enlightened). In no way to I want to say that Soothing Breeze is better than Eternal Youth, because together with different cards Eternal Youth, like you said, can be a big life gain machine.
From the cards we've seen, I feel my opinion holds true. Firstly, Void Marauder is PVE only - if we're talking about a card being competitive we're usually talking about PvP competitive (the bar is much higher in PvE due to crazy shenanigans), and right now there aren't any graveyard shenanigans to my knowledge - but there is the library tutor in The Enlightened.


And yes, in general sole life gain cards aren't the ideal because anybody would prefer a creature that at the same time gives you life, giving you double functionality. But I don't find it just stating that all life gain cards are horrible on itself. This will become true as the pool of cards grow, but when its limited, I personally value this card enough to use it myself. I would prefer something like 2 1/1 tokens for 2 resource, but I would suffice with 7 life for 2 resource.
Well we can't say that they're all bad. We just have to use generalisations - and generally, in a vacuum, lifegain-only cards are bad, due to card disadvantage. You look at a card based on its merits, and these 2, coming from a Magic background and looking at other cards we've seen, don't seem to cut the mustard. Now, if it were giving up a card to gain 15 life for 3 mana? We might be onto something.

And it doesn't have to be troops to make another card better than this. Inner Conflict is better. Living Totem is better. Blinding Light is better, and actually fulfills the role that you're ascribing this card to far better as it can 'prevent' more than 7 damage, and can also be used as pseudo-removal.


Now on the idea of it being a waste of card space, lets view it in the ruby perspective. The damage cards that ruby has in general is of lower value. Its really good, because it can deal damage to creatures to kill them, or be seen as the same thing as buffing your creature when blocking/dealing damage, which is a similar way of control to survive longer to get your cards out. Similar idea with life gain cards, except that they give less field control, but thats why their values are higher. If you have a slow deck that needs to build up, having 2 resource 2/2 creatures won't always be as effective as you would hope when comparing it to a 2 resource 7 life gain. This will give you 2 turns of surviving a 3/3 rather than a 2/2 dying on the first turn and leaving open space for a 3/3 the second turn. That 2/2 was also a "surrendered" card. Yes it doesn't give you field control like creatures/damage/other actions give, but it does give you that breathing space to build up to what you need.
You're looking at a single turn though. You negate the damage for a single turn. A 1/x troop can trade with a Veteran Gladiator, and stop that 3 damage for every subsequent turn. Most players will agree - a card that helps control the battlefield and provides card neutrality is better than a card disadvantage card that does nothing to affect the battlefield.


Of course this is my personal opinion, and I'm sure many others disagree with me, but thats what a tcg is like, we all like our own play style. Just trying to say that they aren't as bad as you would think. And if you want to see it in a competitive perspective, lots of tournament play in many tcgs you have lots of cases where they use cards to get small creature tokens in play for utility/survivability, and more often to they use creatures that give you life gain, because of its double utility, but it holds its same functionality in all cases, added utility.
I'm not talking at all about cards that have lifegain + something else. In particular, Corrupted Harvester is a fantastic card because it has evasion + lifedrain, so it gets your opponent closer to death and keeps your life total healthier. Lifegain only though, from a competitive point of view and in a vacuum, needs to offer more than these 2 cards currently do.

Maphalux
08-08-2013, 09:10 AM
Good point about the Emberspire Witch, Jax. That card alone would shut down any deck that uses life gain as a strategy. And diamond will have a very hard time dealing with her. Inner conflict doesn't prevent abilities on cards from activating and they could choose not to attack with the witch to avoid repel. I suppose they could ascension her but giving your opponent a 4/4 flier isn't the best solution in the world.

EDIT: oops meant 5/5

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-08-2013, 09:12 AM
Yeah, I'm not a fan of the card - it's way too combat capable while also hosing one of the best ways of dealing with mono-ruby aggro. >.<

Maphalux
08-08-2013, 09:14 AM
Actually, not to deviate the topic but are angels 4/4 or 5/5? I've seen it as both and I have no idea which one is correct at this point.

AbandonAllHope
08-08-2013, 09:19 AM
Yes, corrupted harvest is better in the respect that it is a 3/3, but it will still have to attack at least once to have fulfilled its usefulness (which will usually be the case), but it still costs you 4 resource. I don't think a turn 2 cast of soothing breeze is a bad deal for 7 life.

As for Void Marauder, you are completely right on that point, forgot he was PvE. But it was just a minor example of abilities that control the graveyard.

And I'm not saying Soothing Breeze is always going to be decent, but currently in the first series of cards, where the cards are limited, i can see its value. Yes, when the pool of possible cards becomes bigger I would replace it, but currently I find it has its uses. It's hard to compare such items to mtg because, well, mtg has existed longer and its pool is way too big with good cards. Something similar will happen in Hex, and soothing breeze will become obsolete, but personally in series 1 I really wouldn't hate using Soothing Breeze in mono diamond deck.

I won't argue against you jaxsons, because opinions differ, and I'm not someone who will convince others of how it should be played. I guess we will see how well it works when Hex comes out.

Shadowelf
08-08-2013, 09:19 AM
If it matters, I've seen and tested with an amazing life gain control deck that one of my guildies created. It is really hard to beat. Life gain isn't looking to be as bad in HEX as it is in M:TG.

Only because we are in set 1 and the card pool is still limited; i bet that healing salve was played during mtg's Alpha;)


Actually, not to deviate the topic but are angels 4/4 or 5/5? I've seen it as both and I have no idea which one is correct at this point.

They started as 5/5 but they most probably nerfed it to 4/4 later on

Maphalux
08-08-2013, 09:22 AM
Personally, on turn 2 I want to be developing my board not gaining 7 life when I'm probably either at 20 or close to it. But that's just me.

Thanks Shadowelf! I thought so but I started to doubt myself.

zadies
08-08-2013, 11:55 AM
Soothing breeze is good in decks that have Ozawa, Cosmic Elder or any other card that gets buffed as you gain health. It would also be intersting to see a blood diamond combo running wretched blood becuase it basically puts a stop to the timer that puts on you. There are other combos where lifegain is useful, but by itself not so much.

Mindless
08-08-2013, 01:00 PM
So much replies ;)


These are the MTG articles describing why there will always be bad cards, as well as explaining why having a less flat power level in cards is a good thing.

When Cards Go Bad
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5

When Cards go Bad 2
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/164

When Cards go Bad Revisited
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218

I don't see any reason after skimming these articles to not increase power in soothing breeze. First of all the making it hard to discover is simply reduced when so many people feed the internet with their discoveries. Secondly I personally don't think they should make bad cards because their combo effects can change in future sets. Each set should be balanced on its own and previous sets not depend on future content. If so the card could be post poned and belong in that content instead. Its very easy to state things about things in the past and claim it is relevance. Also the combo potential is a thing of probability. Lets say that soothing breeze will save you in one instance either alone of with a combo. Then congrats you just made the lottery. The thing is that some cards potential area is simply to narrow, lets say it will save you 0.1 % of all your games. The bet of having it in the deck is then a poor choice (some people might call this skills, to not include the card). Is there really anything wrong with making this cards % rise a little? if the life gain is to strong then give it another ability. Let there be more complex cards if a feature that is bad alone is on the card.

The thing with "always some cards are bad cards" is true but the closer to balance you come the easier it is to argue about its power. Now it seems that many don't like X card, if it was stronger more would argue for it and not against it. Simply saying that some cards needs to be bad just to have bad cards seems like lazy balancing to me.

Then again. I like soothing breeze for its art and name but to me it seems like it needs a buff (at least in PVP) to be played by pros. Keep the discussion alive and we might see a purpule or blue post ;). Personally I would love to hear cryptozoics own explination as to why there are "bad cards" and their thoughts about it.

Edit: @zadies, read the posts by jaxsonbatemanhex in this thread ^^

Kates
08-08-2013, 01:27 PM
Personally I would love to hear cryptozoics own explination as to why there are "bad cards" and their thoughts about it.

As an inexperienced player browsing the cards I often wonder, "What is the value of that card?" or when more experienced players tout the power of a "good" card the usefulness of it isn't always apparent to me. I hope I'm not too off-topic, but is there really a such thing as a "bad" card? I think some are clearly better than others and more generally useful. I would cite my inexperience as the source for failing to see the power of a card and my inability to guess in which situations it would be useful. I'd be very curious to hear what you knowledgable folks think. Furthermore, do you think CZE has specific scenarios in mind in which these cards would be useful while they are developing them?

Unhurtable
08-08-2013, 03:18 PM
If you have 5 health left and can win next turn, but the opponent is about to do 6 damage, and you have a Soothing Breeze in your hand, Soothing Breeze suddenly becomes the best card ever. Everything has its use.

And what if you had Blinding Light or something else that increased your health by 2 instead of 7 but did something else? The cases where you need "7 extra health right now" are not that many considering you are removing 4 potential card slots by doing so. Why save Soothing Breeze for a bad day when you could have another card that works well in both bad days and good days?


These are the MTG articles describing why there will always be bad cards, as well as explaining why having a less flat power level in cards is a good thing.

When Cards Go Bad
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5

When Cards go Bad 2
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/164

When Cards go Bad Revisited
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218

Article 1 provides a faulty assumption of "by definition, some cards have to be bad" which is certainly not the case. It is the case realistically, but not by definition. The other points made in the article are related to learning curves etc, which to be fair is easier to do with a set of intentionally bad cards, but its not required. I don't necessarily blame them for doing it, but they don't have to.

Article 3 can be summed up with this quote:

Game design though isn't about removing obstacles but adding them. Let's suppose that a game designer set out to design a game lamp. Well, how to turn on the lamp wouldn't be obvious. The switch wouldn't be where you expect it or even necessarily look like a switch. How the lamp moved or plugged in would not be simple and the reason being that the point of a game lamp would be for users to figure it out.
Almost every single thing about this quote is just bad design. If the goal is to "build a lamp" and what you really mean is "build a lamp that looks like a door" without telling them, you are almost forcing them to use walkthroughs since most people would not figure "hey, if I attach this random switch to this door that has seemingly nothing to do with anything, it lights up".

Making the games more accessible is good, not just economically but its also a sign of good design. "Can you make a game that is easier to navigate but still allows the person to do the same things?". Compare Starcraft 1 to Starcraft 2. Now I have my fair amount of criticism towards Blizz and how they handled it, but what I can't complain about is that the controls and general feel of the interface and environment is hugely improved in SC2. No more clunky 12-unit groups and 1-ctrl-group-templars for most efficient Psi-Storming.

Making games more challenging for those who want it is also good, but that doesn't have to come at a cost of "making the lamp look like a door".


Soothing breeze is good in decks that have Ozawa, Cosmic Elder or any other card that gets buffed as you gain health. It would also be intersting to see a blood diamond combo running wretched blood becuase it basically puts a stop to the timer that puts on you. There are other combos where lifegain is useful, but by itself not so much.

Pretty much this. Consider cards like Righteous Paladin and Trial of Faith. Having additional health can help immensely.
Also, lets compare Soothing Breeze (7 health for 2 mana) to Lava Axe in MTG (5 player damage for 5 mana).

I can see Soothing Breeze not as a 2nd turn card but maybe as a 4th or 5th turn card if you have some leftover mana. I know that "maybe you would be in a better place with another 2-cost card instead", but if you can synergize with Lifegain, Soothing Breeze might be REALLY good. It also allows you to let some opponents attacks slip through on purpose, opening up for other strategies.

Would I play this card myself with the currently revealed cards? Maybe in a Blood / Diamond deck. Otherwise the options don't seem that many, compared to other cards synergizations.

Rycajo
08-08-2013, 11:02 PM
These are the MTG articles describing why there will always be bad cards, as well as explaining why having a less flat power level in cards is a good thing.

When Cards Go Bad
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5

When Cards go Bad 2
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/164

When Cards go Bad Revisited
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218

Thank you for the article links. Very interesting. I'm shocked that the OP didn't read them fully as these articles are likely the best explanation one could ask for from a great source.

The short answer to your question Mindless is that the card is not for you. You can see that some players are willing to defend the card. This card is for them - for whatever reason: to prove a point, the flavor, or whatever. It is worthwhile in some situations. It is sub-par in other situations. Some cards are more reliably useful. That doesn't mean the card needs to be changed.

LargoLaGrande
08-08-2013, 11:02 PM
Article 1 provides a faulty assumption of "by definition, some cards have to be bad" which is certainly not the case. It is the case realistically, but not by definition. The other points made in the article are related to learning curves etc, which to be fair is easier to do with a set of intentionally bad cards, but its not required. I don't necessarily blame them for doing it, but they don't have to.

That's a fairly pedantic point. In any realistic constructed or limited format there will be bad cards. The good and bad divide might be huge (like between Extinction and Tectonic Break) or so slight that the difference between the good cards and the bad cards is a fraction of a percentage in your win rate. That doesn't change the fact once the format is solved there will be unplayable cards, because the alternatives are just better, no matter how slight. By definition, no there doesn't need to be bad cards, but no one is going to play constructed where the only legal card is Soothing Breeze either.



Article 3 can be summed up with this quote:

Game design though isn't about removing obstacles but adding them. Let's suppose that a game designer set out to design a game lamp. Well, how to turn on the lamp wouldn't be obvious. The switch wouldn't be where you expect it or even necessarily look like a switch. How the lamp moved or plugged in would not be simple and the reason being that the point of a game lamp would be for users to figure it out.
Almost every single thing about this quote is just bad design. If the goal is to "build a lamp" and what you really mean is "build a lamp that looks like a door" without telling them, you are almost forcing them to use walkthroughs since most people would not figure "hey, if I attach this random switch to this door that has seemingly nothing to do with anything, it lights up".

Making the games more accessible is good, not just economically but its also a sign of good design. "Can you make a game that is easier to navigate but still allows the person to do the same things?". Compare Starcraft 1 to Starcraft 2. Now I have my fair amount of criticism towards Blizz and how they handled it, but what I can't complain about is that the controls and general feel of the interface and environment is hugely improved in SC2. No more clunky 12-unit groups and 1-ctrl-group-templars for most efficient Psi-Storming.

Making games more challenging for those who want it is also good, but that doesn't have to come at a cost of "making the lamp look like a door".

It's bad design for many things, but not games (not necessarily anyway, you need a balance of obfuscation and clarity, I agree with your Starcraft point). I think you're getting caught up in the lamp analogy when the important bit is in the first sentence and how it relates to TCGs. Making your lamp like a door isn't about making it impossible for your players to play or understand the game, it's about making your players work to understand and master the game in order to win because that's what's fun. Part of Starcraft is learning to macro, developing build orders against the three races and learning how to adapt to your opponent's strategy. All of those make the game less accessible, Blizz could have easily simplified resource collection, building things and expanding to make the game more accessible, but that wouldn't make the game better because that's part of the gives the game depth (as opposed to fighting with the UI and pathing like you had to in SC1).

That relates to TCGs in that building your deck is a significant part of the game, and making cards more homogeneous in power trivializes that; when every card is viable the choices you make in deckbuilding matter less. It also actually hurts players trying to get better at the game, because there will still be inoptimal cards but it will be far harder to understand why, and which ones shouldn't get played (of course, skill matters less anyway because everything is viable). An extreme example from SC would be if you could literally build any combination of units/upgrades in TvT and just win through better micro (assuming equal macro).

Mindless
08-09-2013, 04:03 AM
These are the MTG articles describing why there will always be bad cards, as well as explaining why having a less flat power level in cards is a good thing.

When Cards Go Bad
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr5

When Cards go Bad 2
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/ld/164

When Cards go Bad Revisited
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/218

I forgot to thank you ;) so thank you very much for the articles ^^


Thank you for the article links. Very interesting. I'm shocked that the OP didn't read them fully as these articles are likely the best explanation one could ask for from a great source.

The short answer to your question Mindless is that the card is not for you. You can see that some players are willing to defend the card. This card is for them - for whatever reason: to prove a point, the flavor, or whatever. It is worthwhile in some situations. It is sub-par in other situations. Some cards are more reliably useful. That doesn't mean the card needs to be changed.

I did read the articles but that don't mean that I agreed with them ;) just like many others. If you didn't read my other post you should check that before posting this kind of post ;)



That relates to TCGs in that building your deck is a significant part of the game, and making cards more homogeneous in power trivializes that; when every card is viable the choices you make in deckbuilding matter less. It also actually hurts players trying to get better at the game, because there will still be inoptimal cards but it will be far harder to understand why, and which ones shouldn't get played (of course, skill matters less anyway because everything is viable). An extreme example from SC would be if you could literally build any combination of units/upgrades in TvT and just win through better micro (assuming equal macro).

Have you played Diablo 3? Do you think that it is useful for diablo 3 to have all the skills that are in the game even when most of them simply aren't viable. It's not fun seeing everyne having the same items and same build (imagine there being only 3 viable colors and only 1, maybe 2, decks played over and over again in hex). To me it might not make a difference as draft is still an option but it is also more expensive and soothing breeze and bad cards will still interfere (as you can read my thoughts about it in my previous post).

It might be true that if all cards are more equal in power the choices matter less in deck construction but it really don't have to be. The difference in cards makes the choices, not the power level. There is a difference in having to pay to much for something and paying for something else. And if this weren't true why would there be any balancing? why balance cards if there is a need for some card to be better and some to be worse? Then there is only a need for 1 best deck. There is a reason for the "lack" of units in starcraft as they want units that don't compete with each other to stand out. Other strategy games often offers simply better versions that will either replace worse units or simply only be built by players aware of this. Having less units makes it easier to even out the power cost and tech level ratio and blizzard generally do a great job balancing this type of game. That said you cannot just build any units in any game as good balance often include some kind of rock -papper and scissors mechanic making it impossible to just build random units and win by macro/micro if your opponent can scout the flaws and find the given weakness in your randomness.

As I've said before: if pure life gain card is generally bad then there is no need for it in the game to begin with. To me people seem to claim that lifegain is good as long as you just gain something else (troops, buffs, debuffs etc) and I don't see any reason to increase soothing breeze just a little to match this (when numbers speak they do not lie). Then again we haven't seen nearly 50 % of the cards and there might be a crazy combo enabling soothing breeze and other bad cards but we have so far yet to see them.

It's hard to discuss the game when not all is know and when it isn't even out yet ;) but that is also part of the fun in discussion and who knows? It might help cryptozoic, new and experienced players to develop and learn.

EDIT: And there needs to be people with both opinions to make the discussion more lively. I wish I was more objective in this matter but as you all might guess I'm leaning towards soothing breeze being a bad card. Also it would be fun if there are other cards that people would want to discuss here as of why they think the card is bad and how to improve it

Xenavire
08-09-2013, 06:12 AM
7 life can be a big deal, depending on the deck. That doesn't make it good or bad - extinction is not an auto-include in a troop based blood deck, yet it is a great card. Soothing breeze just looks worse because all we have seen is aggro and limited control, with little to synergise with. The things it can do varies, but it isn't something that needs a buff - 7 life is already big in a draft, and can be just as dangerous in constructed under the right circumstances.

malloc31
08-09-2013, 09:36 AM
Soothing breeze is not a great card but not a terrible card either, as stated it does combo with some cards and since it is a quick action you can save it and play it at the end of your opponent's turn so that you can still keep the ability to counter spells or what ever's needed.

For those of you who think it is terrible, do you just think any life gain card is unplayable? Would you play it if it was 20 life for 2 cost? 15 life? 10 life? 8? I can understand that the amount of life should be increased a little but not that life gain in itself is useless to have as an option.

In the first magic set you had healing salve give 3 life (or prevent 3 damage) for one cost, and stream of life for 1 plus X give X life, and those saw play back in the day (yes I know with more sets they don't any more, but hex only will have one set to use, so referencing hex 3 years from now is pointless). And soothing breeze is definitely a better life gainer then either of these.

Rycajo
08-09-2013, 10:42 AM
I did read the articles but that don't mean that I agreed with them ;) just like many others. If you didn't read my other post you should check that before posting this kind of post ;)




I don't see any reason after skimming these articles to not increase power in soothing breeze.

My apologies. I assumed you didn't read them as you stated you merely skimmed them. I have found the best way to make sure you can support your own argument is to know the opposition. If you read all of these articles and you still feel there is no place for "bad cards" like Soothing Breeze, that is your privilege.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-09-2013, 10:55 AM
Generally lifegain is bad because the amount of lifegain you'd need to make a lifegain-with-nothing-extra card competitive is too much. Of course, we're talking from a Magic point of view, but at this point Hex is looking very similar in dynamic. 7 life for 2 mana + a card is too much - just check out how much play cards like Rest For The Weary and Heroes' Reunion have seen competitively (though in RftW's defense, it did see play in some iterations of one tier ~2-3 deck, Soul Sisters, but it's not because it was a really good card; it's because the best 1-drop in the deck needed you to have 30 life in order to take over the game). In the sake of Soothing Breeze, it'd likely have to be ~10 to crack into competitive. But even then, a card that actually impacts the boardstate can prevent that much damage and more over the course of a game (ie. Inner Conflict on a Veteran Gladiator, lets you have an extra blocker up and stops that 3 damage a turn).

Those 2 cards were around back when competition in card games didn't reach the heights that it does now, and when there were a lot fewer cards to choose from. Just because they did see back in the play, when people were playing with cards like Benalish Hero and Holy Strength, doesn't mean they'd see play now (read: they wouldn't). And if there were actually high level competitions, did they actually see play? I mean, back when Magic first came out, you had the power 9, and as far as I know, no 4-of restriction. Channel Fireball, anyone? :-P

Edit: and just to highlight why it's bad, why would you ever pay 2 mana and a card for 7 life, when you can pay 3 mana for 3 life and a 3/3 body (Glimmerglen Witch), which will either eat a removal spell from a more important troop, or potentially stifle your opponent's 1 and 2-drops (thus saving you more than 4 life in the long run).

malloc31
08-09-2013, 01:52 PM
"Those 2 cards were around back when competition in card games didn't reach the heights that it does now, and when there were a lot fewer cards to choose from."

Yes this statement (above) also exactly describes hex right now. It only has one set not 80 something like magic has now, so you can not compare it one to one with current magic. You are going to have much fewer cards to choose from for years so lower power cards will be used. Just imagine magic decks made using only one set instead of a whole blocks worth of sets, you end up using cards you wouldn't normally use.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-09-2013, 02:50 PM
Except there are a plethora of cards that already greatly overshadow both lifegain-only cards. In competitive PvP, with currently spoiled cards, the only use for either will potentially be a singleton Eternal Youth in an Ascetic Aspirant deck. Even as a countermeasure to mono-ruby aggro - the current fastest deck - there are better options, especially when you consider that one of their best 2 drops shuts off lifegain entirely. I'd much, much rather play Living Totem, pump it once and make it eclipse their 1 and 2 drops, or play Inner Conflict and negate an attacker permanently, than play Soothing Breeze while leaving the path open for them to beat me in the face.

I also don't think the 'early days of Magic' argument is apt. Magic was exploring a lot of uncharted territory at that point, so card power levels were all over the place (and I'm pretty sure the lifegain-only cards still wouldn't have seen much/any play in a seriously competitive environment). It's more akin to "what kind of cards would you use if you could only use one of the recent sets of Magic". Interestingly, earlier this year a Pro Tour was block constructed - admittedly, 3 sets, but only 2 full sized sets, and certainly not the range of standard or larger formats. And you know what? No lifegain only cards were played. Lifegain + other stuff were played, like Centaur Healer (akin to Glimmerglen Witch which is actually a great card) and Sphinx's Revlation (gain x life and draw x cards for 3+x), but no gain life only cards, despite Heroes' Reunion being in the format (2 mana, gain 7 life), and fast red/x decks existing.

I know I'm pushing this topic a lot, but trust me, with the current pool of spoiled cards these lifegain-only cards aren't good enough for competitive PvP. If anything Hex looks like it'll have a faster average pace than Magic games thanks to champions almost giving you a free card every few turns, so 7 life for card disadvantage isn't going to buy you nearly enough time.

Icepick
08-09-2013, 06:15 PM
How about Lifegain-only cards when combined with Archmage Wrenlocke? I imagine Soothing Breeze is a lot more attractive with a cost of 1 and a Draw Card effect.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-10-2013, 01:07 AM
Yeah, but in that case it's Wrenlocke which is a good card, not Soothing Breeze. I'd much rather play Murder + draw a card, or Inner Conflict + draw a card. :-P

Rycajo
08-10-2013, 10:49 AM
Yeah, but in that case it's Wrenlocke which is a good card, not Soothing Breeze. I'd much rather play Murder + draw a card, or Inner Conflict + draw a card. :-P

This is true. For lifegain only cards to be truly competitive, they will need some lifegain-only synergy that is bigger and better than Righteous Paladin.

Even then, Lifegain + cards like Glimmerglen will still likely outshine lifegain only for competitive purposes. Perhaps in a limited format the lifegain only will be worthwhile with the right synergy.

Mindless
08-12-2013, 12:28 PM
So seeing the discussion somewhat taken a stop I would like to see someone post other cards and why they are bad. The goblin cocking pot seems to be on the topic when speaking of bad cards and sure it is quite a poor card but it does deal damage and it is an artefact for all the purposes that will depen of artefacts. But there must be other cards that seems really bad in competetive play, and can we get a list going perhaps?

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 06:27 AM
People are going to be tempted to play with aura cards because the effect is permanent on the troop. But, in my opinion, they will still be bad plays because removal on that enhanced troop is still going to significantly hurt from a card advantage and tempo stand point. Permanent or not, it isn't doing you any good if that troop in your GY, and having to use raise effects to make the auras more relevant doesn't seem like a good plan either. In general, if you have to use one card to make another one playable, it is probably better to leave both out of your deck.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 06:56 AM
It's perhaps intentional that the actions which are like auras from Magic are also called auras in Hex - but the quick action auras at least have some potential, in that they can be combat tricks. However, we've only see two of those thus far (Ruby Aura and Sapphire Aura), and Sapphire Aura isn't really much of a combat trick (the buff isn't huge, so you could only hope to catch a flier with it who thought they'd be safe, but there are generally more reliable removal spells). Ruby Aura though offers swiftstrike which can be quite potent in combat situations.

Of course, combat tricks for removal still run the risk of 2-for-1s, so they're arguably the least reliable form of removal.

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 09:22 AM
That is a good point about the quick action auras, Jax. They can be thought of as a battle trick that doesn't fade at EOT. In that application they are certainly playable in draft. I feel they probably still won't make the cut in constructed play.

Eierdotter
08-13-2013, 09:30 AM
actually we have wild aura (+3/+3) and blood aura(+1/+1 and fear) also spoiled, but those are basic actions.
the white will hopefully give lifedrain and not steadfast.

Estar1
08-15-2013, 11:36 AM
Id imagine wild and blood aura are gonna be quick actoins as well seeing its a cycle of cards. They were revealed much earlier and they may have been changed to quick actions to overcome the 2 for 1 weakness.