Thriss Bombarder - Warrior Artifact

[BlanketEffect]

Thriss Bombarder
Warrior Class
Item - Artifact
Cost: (4)
Durability: 2
1D: If an item or ability has been targeted and destroyed by your hero this turn, target ally with cost equal to or less than that card's cost is killed.
"Locked and loaded, dead and bloated, what's the difference?"

This seems like something that could/would be greatly useful to Ter Adun, while not offering much to the other Warrior heroes. However, as I do believe summoned abilities from your hand count as being played "by your hero," it won't be completely useless to other Warriors, or rely solely on Ter Adun's shadow ability to qualify its effect.

Thoughts?

[Buqs]

While this can trigger off opposing items/abilities, you would probably still need to play with other Items or Abilities to be able to target off of this, as well as other possible Item D cards (Vermin, Shriek, Meltdown, SoR, LLN, Smashing Blow, etc). While the though is nice I would guess that the majority of stuff being destroyed would be cost of 2-3, occasionally 4 so you would be killing off opposing allies you could probably deal with anyways. If you are destroying the more expensive stuff like weapons/armor they are probably not playing high enough cost allies (or any) for you to really benefit.

What might be nicer instead of killing allies it deals damage to opposing allies and heroes instead.

Thriss Bombarder
Warrior Class
Item - Artifact
Cost: (4)???
Durability: 2
1D: If an item or ability has been targeted and destroyed by your hero this turn, target opposing heroes and allies take X damage. X equal cost of the card destroyed.

[Demnchi]

Interesting effect. Would certainly be more viable for Ter Adun than the rest of the gang. Stuff like LLN, Sever Ties, and even Smashing Blow would trigger this. It would give him more control over allies for sure. Buqs does make a good point though, although I think its fine as it opens up room to save your CB's and other control cards for fattys or otherwise hard to remove cards. Removing 2 cards from your opponent by using your hero ability and half of a card seems useful to me.

Although, the wording needs to be changed to the last item destroyed. The current wording doesn't specify enough considering the possibility of two cards being destroyed in the same turn.

[BlanketEffect]

While this can trigger off opposing items/abilities, you would probably still need to play with other Items or Abilities to be able to target off of this, as well as other possible Item D cards (Vermin, Shriek, Meltdown, SoR, LLN, Smashing Blow, etc). While the though is nice I would guess that the majority of stuff being destroyed would be cost of 2-3, occasionally 4 so you would be killing off opposing allies you could probably deal with anyways. If you are destroying the more expensive stuff like weapons/armor they are probably not playing high enough cost allies (or any) for you to really benefit.

What might be nicer instead of killing allies it deals damage to opposing allies and heroes instead.

Thriss Bombarder
Warrior Class
Item - Artifact
Cost: (4)???
Durability: 2
1D: If an item or ability has been targeted and destroyed by your hero this turn, target opposing heroes and allies take X damage. X equal cost of the card destroyed.

I don't dislike this idea, although it seems like it could be very powerful in this form. Destroying an Assault Plinth in this way would deal 3 damage across the board, and an additional 2 damage to allies. Essentially a one-sided Warrior Supernova. That seems easily abusable.

To your comment as to the types of items you're likely to be targeting to qualify this ability: Even in its originally suggested form, I presumed this is an artifact to be used in a Ter Adun Ravager deck, using things like Thriss Crucible, Ravager Zealot/Spitfire, possibly Cleric's Mantle. It could have other, less apparent synergies, but this came to mind as the easily effective combination/theme.

Although, the wording needs to be changed to the last item destroyed. The current wording doesn't specify enough considering the possibility of two cards being destroyed in the same turn.

Why must it be the last one destroyed? The qualifier is that, this turn, your hero targeted and destroyed an item/ability. So long as you've satisfied this requirement, the rest is irrelevant. Once qualified, it doesn't matter what else gets targeted and/or destroyed; you still fulfilled the activation criteria by targeting and destroying an opposing item/ability.

What am I missing that you're intending?

[Demnchi]

Basically what I was getting at is if you were to play Dawn Raid and destroyed a Loom of Fate and a Bazzar which cost should your card use? Since you have to activate Thriss Bombarder after Dawn Raid and the ally you kill is based on the cost of the destroyed item, it doesn't specify if it should be a 1 cost ally or a 2 cost ally in this example.

However, rather than being the "last item destroyed", maybe it should just read the "item or ability with the greatest cost destroyed by your hero" or something. I was just making a case that the current wording is too vague to determine what cost should be used when killing the ally. So it doesn't necessarily have the be the last one destroyed, I just couldn't think of anything else at the time of that post. x.x

[Buqs]

Ravager Zealot/Spitfire Hound - their targeted destruction refers back to them and not the hero, the following I believe are the only trigger cards (CotC-SF) that will refer back to the Hero

Ter Adun
Shadow Warrior Hero **
30 HP
4SE: Target item or support ability is destroyed.

Smashing Blow
Warrior Ability **
3cc
Target enemy weapon or armor is destroyed.

Shriek of Vengeance
Shadow Ability **
1cc
Target enemy item or support ability with a cost of 4 or less is destroyed, and one of your resources is removed from play.

Sever Ties
Neutral Ability **
4cc
Target attached card is destroyed.

Melt Down
Neutral Ability **
2cc
Target item you control is destroyed. Draw two cards.

Ley Line Nexus
Neutral Ability **
5cc
Target enemy item with cost of 5 or greater is destroyed. Draw a card.

Change of Fortune
Neutral Ability **
3cc
Target support ability is destroyed.

Desperate Tactics
Warrior Ability **
2cc
Target weapon you control with X attack is destroyed: target opposing hero or ally takes 1 + X damage.

Shriek of Revulsion
Shadow Ability **
4cc
Target attachment or support ability is destroyed.

Dawn Raid
Neutral Ability **
5cc
Up to 2 target items of cost 4 or less are destroyed.

Widespread Decay
Neutral Ability **
5cc
All items with durability lose 1 durability. All items without durability are destroyed.

Spectral Sabre
Warrior, Wulven Item - Weapon **
4cc
2 / 2
When Spectral Sabre is summoned, you may destroy target attachment and place Spectral Sabre in the graveyard.

----

Obelisk of Echoes
Shadow Item - Artifact **
1cc
2d
Sustain: 1cc. 1D: If an opposing ally was killed by a friendly Ravager ally this turn, target item or ability is destroyed.

Not Sure on obelisk. The first would definitely source Obelisk, but with the second destruction I don't know if this would be sourced to hero or Obelisk.

[BlanketEffect]

Hmm. I said Zealot/Spitfire because neither of them use the wording, "When Zealot/Spitfire is summoned, you may have it destroy target item/ability..." it says, "you may destroy target item/ability. If YOU do, etc..." The wording indicates, specifically by verbiage, that *you* are doing the destroying. However, if this is not the case, so be it, and the wording should be clarified on the card text. This is the kind of syntax inconsistency that can cause issues later (like now).

Obelisk should not work, because it does not use the verbiage, "you destroy target item/ability..." It simply says "destroy target.." therefore indicating that IT is doing the destroying.

Vermin, on the other hand, while it targets, does not state, "YOU may destroy target item/ability..." thereby indicating that Vermin is doing the destroying.

Widespread Decay won't work as a qualifier, because it does not "target" anything; it's a mass effect.

There could be more to say on this, but I'm short for time. Thoughts?