I love everything about this card. The picture, the effect, the flavor text, everything.
(I think it should cost three, though.)
I agree on the 3 as a Sacrifice Cost.
I think this card is fine as it is (2 casting cost), and I'd like to understand why you think it should be more expensive.
It helps both players right about the same, unless one of you just hasn't been playing anything or making any resources. Seems just fine as is.
But when I play a card, I hope that it gives me at least a +1 card advantage. However, when I play Bad Santa, (1) I lose the card (giving me a -1 card advantage), and (2) I benefit both players equally... So this card is nearly counterproductive for whoever plays it (giving the player playing Bad Santa a -1 card advantage).
The only way I could see this card helping would be if your opponent had 7 cards and you only had 5 cards. Thus when you played Bad Santa, your hand went down to 4 and then the effect raised your hand up to 7, but what are the chances that your opponent will have 7 cards still in his hand...? In this case, you would have gained a mere +2 card advantage (which is great, but would only happen in a very rare situation).
Reducing the resource cost to 2 would make this rare more usable because as it is I don't see it helping very much. With a cost of 3, that means you'd be playing it on your 3rd turn by which your opponent might probably have 4-6 cards in his hand and would give him between a +3 to +1 card advantage (and remember that the most the player playing Bad Santa can receive is a +2 card advantage).
Also, late in the game, this card will most likely benefit the opponent more. The only time it would benefit the player playing Bad Santa is if they play it really early on in the game, getting it in their starting hand.
For a rare, I'd honestly start by reducing the resource cost to 2 (and maybe even raise the card drawing to 4, only if the card remains weak).
Last edited by Narziss; 08-05-2010 at 04:59 PM.
It is already a two cost
I totally spaced it is a rare, maybe add a negative for your opponent like they draw three discard 1 or 2 and you keep all 3. That might make it better, though they still get some help
Honestly, the more I think about it, the more strongly I reverse my original opinion about changing its cost. I think it should stay as it is. My original hesitation about this thing costing 2 was that it's a comparably big bang for the buck. I don't mean advantageous--I mean big. This is one card yielding a six-card draw total. Regardless of whether it's a good thing or a bad thing and for whom, 6 cards out of a total of 60 in a given game (assuming two 30-card decks) is a lot. That's 10% of both players decks that just jumped into their hands. But anyway, the question of actual card advantage is a good one, so I'm just going to say it should stay as it is.
I think as a group, we're struggling with the difference between powerful cards and cards that need to be changed. This card, even at a total cost of 2 sacs, is merely powerful.
Woops...I guess I got distracted by reading the two suggestions to raise the cost to 3. Perhaps it should even be lowered to 1.
I think the fact that you can't draw more cards if your hand size reaches 7 further limits the use of such cards. Would be interesting if there was a 1 cost item introduced that says, your maximum hand size is increased by 2. Then you could perhaps combo it with Bad Santa to sorta reap the benefits.
Bookmarks