Bad Wolf

[NPD]

at a cost of 3 this card is fine. At 4 I would never put it in my deck. Please stop making all the allies weaker.

[Paradox]

You make a good point from yourself, thanks

You just made my day.

Bizzaro#1 be not proud, Superman!

[Paradox]

at a cost of 3 this card is fine. At 4 I would never put it in my deck. Please stop making all the allies weaker.

If I could refine this remark.. I'd put it in my deck still, but I'd be desperately wanting a card I could play.

We need some cards that cost 2 and 3 resources.. The game seems top heavy with 4 resource cards.

As for Bad Wolf? Not sure. Instinct is saying it is fine the way it is, but I'll reserve the right to reconsider.

[ChiaLike]

I agree with NPD. At 4 cost this becomes unplayable. This game seems to be going towards what MTG was for years, which is a situation where most of the creatures just weren't good enough and the top decks rely mostly on non creature spells. I'm okay with a combat lite deck or two being viable and competitive, but things like making Bad Wolf cost 4 will eventually make the allies pale in comparison to the spells.

[Narziss]

I agree with NPD. At 4 cost this becomes unplayable. This game seems to be going towards what MTG was for years, which is a situation where most of the creatures just weren't good enough and the top decks rely mostly on non creature spells. I'm okay with a combat lite deck or two being viable and competitive, but things like making Bad Wolf cost 4 will eventually make the allies pale in comparison to the spells.

I agree; there are a bunch of superpowercards and direct damage that wipe the field clean or burn an ally to death; all the while, allies have been timid and weak.

It would be cool if the game was a little more of a battle between allies.

[Martin JF]

Agreed. Most spells can vipe out most allies or give a large amount of damage to the enemy hero. Its not that much use to play heroes with 4hp or less, as they can instantly be viped out by fireball. However, in the current game, the opponent is too stupid to attack Bad Wolf when he have only 1hp left. Then Bad wolf is free to heal and attack the opponent hero. Against smarter opponents, the ability would not do that much, as most spells/allies can give 2 damage.
Lower its cost to 3!!!

[Narziss]

Current description change suggestion is: "Bad Wolf regenerates 1 damage at the start of your turn"

Healing or even regenerating "damage" doesn't make sense. It should just be "Bad Wolf heals/regenerates 1 life/health at the start of your turn". Any combination of those terms would work; I'd personally prefer "heals 1 life".

[TiltMyTouch]

In addition to the aforementioned issues about the card effect, it also needs to be clarified that it'll heal up to max health, otherwise with the current effect it implies the card can heal 1 each turn with limitless health. And the "from himself" part needs to be totally removed, it's unnecessary and creates more confusion than clarification.

[Narziss]

In addition to the aforementioned issues about the card effect, it also needs to be clarified that it'll heal up to max health, otherwise with the current effect it implies the card can heal 1 each turn with limitless health. And the "from himself" part needs to be totally removed, it's unnecessary and creates more confusion than clarification.

I don't think this needs to be stated on the card necessarily, but yes, this should be clarified on the game rules. Healing abilities only work up to the maximum card health. But this also makes another issue. How do you remember what was the maximum card health of every card on the field (unless you are really familiar with the game)? Might be useful to change the health icon to display x current health over y maximum health: x/y. Instead of just displaying x health.

I entirely agree about removing the "from himself" text. This is redundant...

[kirkwb]

I entirely agree about removing the "from himself" text. This is redundant...

So you don't see the need to clarify that Bad Wolf can't heal 1 damage from just anyone?

Why do the rules gurus who wrote this card from a different game feel the need to clarify that?

http://wowtcgdb.com/carddetail.aspx?id=312