These card-drawing cards seem grossly over-valued.

Points all well made; you've convinced me. Lateral Thinking and Forward Thinking are both clearly overvalued -- as is Inspiration. Let's start a petition or something.

 

Foward Thinking isn't in the same category; it serves a useful function (filtering) that none of the other examples in this thread serve. I haven't tried to calculate its value (I'm not high enough level for it to be relevant yet), but it's definitely better than Slow-Witted.

 

I think Inspiration is at least slightly better than you give it credit for, both for the reasons you stated in your original post and because it synergizes so well with Altruism. A Cleric with 2x or 3x Altruism and a bunch of Inspiration can give her allies a heck of a lot of card draws (with a little luck of course).

You're definitely undervaluing your own fictional Breath card. If it actually existed and (was reasonably common), you'd likely find multiple copies of it in any competitive deck. Generally speaking, a smaller deck is a better deck. I'd even argue that some 'negative' attachments like Wimpy and Vulnerable are actually good cards because they effectively make your deck smaller (and can bump off worse attachments) for a small penalty.

I do agree that Lateral Thinking is kind of crap though. My gut feeling is that it'd actually be pretty balanced as a Cantrip.

 

Are Card Drawing Cards considered grossly overpowered according to their "Card Quality" color at the top of the card?

The answer is unequivocally no.

In any style card game like this; card drawing is always and will always be one of the best valued abilities.

As others have mentioned in this thread a smaller deck is a more reliable and consistent deck; cards that cycle themselves into new cards are always inherently useful because they effectively make your deck smaller; making it more predictable, allowing you to craft an actual strategy turning bad decks into amazingly powerful good decks.

Here's an actual real life example why having less cards in your deck is more reliable for you to win. It's called card counting; it isn't illegal but casino's really don't want you to do it at the black jack table that's why instead of using a single deck they use 6+ decks. Statistically the out come of the cards has not changed over the long periods a casino plays but it is more difficult for the player to predict the next cards for the few hands he/she sits down for. Regarding any cardhunter character's deck double in size of a normal one; no matter what cards they contain the normal one has a very distinct strategy advantage and for every card drawing card in the smaller deck it grows in card advantage over the double deck.

The OP's basic thesis boils down to why have a card drawing card when you could just have a "good" card instead. Where this thesis falls apart is in the reality of game design and relative context to any specific real scenario in game. In real game play what makes a good card is entirely subjective to your characters current situation; if you can draw a card or even discard a useless card for your current situation in favor of drawing a potentially useful one not only does it dig through your deck faster but it might swing the game in your favor. Further more not all cards are created equal and not all equipment slots are the same. To compare the equipment's cards quality of a Human skill slot to an Arcane Item slot is like comparing apples to oranges. They quite literally are not even remotely similar to what cards they bring to your deck. To be able to fill my Human's equipment slot with a couple of discard and draw cards instead of some team shuffles and a walk is extremely beneficial when my human is a Wizard who I want to get all the big blasting heavy damage long range spells in hand. Finally as far as having good cards on anyone equipment unless you are completely equipped with epics (and even then) chances are some of your cards are not as good as some of your other cards and can easily be discarded and sometimes beneficial to do so; depending on how risky the deck is designed.

Inspiration and Lateral Thinking are both extremely good quality cards deserving of their silver plaque. They are not great cards or the best cards but certainly beneficial as well as can enhance the ability of a well constructed deck.

Even Demonic Pain(especially on a dwarf priest with armor procs) is a relatively useful card for effectively reducing the size of your deck to increase your chances to draw the card you want or need, and it hastens when you would expect to draw it.

 

Correct, you are incorrect. So, I'm assuming you mean that I hold it into the next round and that makes it bad because I could have drawn something else. You yourself said that holding cards as a bluff is a good thing. Additionally I still have the option to filter cards I don't want (or just draw another card if my hand is empty) at any point. If I'm short a card it's because it's a card I didn't want/cant use anyway, or is less valuable than the card I need to save myself or kill another character. Should I give up my parry for a chance at an attack to win the game? ...perhaps.

If I'm deciding to discard another card for it, it's because I don't want that card. It's not useful to me and is already a lost card. I lose nothing by discarding it. Your thought experiment is much more painful because I am forced to discard something if I draw exactly the hand I want. I'm not sure how you can say that a forced discard is better than a choice to discard.

And why can't I tell you that? The way I play I often run out of cards on most of my characters after the first round or two. In fact it's not just a matter of getting rid of 2 cards per turn, but I also play a lot of card draw so it's often 4-8 cards per round for my warrior.

Yes, but I'm often trying to maximize my play so I have more cards at the end of the round than my opponent anyway. Using all of my cards and having a filter card left can give me the extra attack or even something to hold onto for next round depending on the type. The tactics come in for the next round, which is why I originally said it's about the positioning for the following round rather than about ending the round.

Except not. I have two LTs in hand. Use one, draw another. Now only one LT in hand. Use it, draw another, use it draw another, use it draw another, use it draw a powerful attack. So I certainly can play more than one while with nothing else in my hand.

 

Blindsight, I'm going to try to explain this once more, because it's vitally, critically important.

I have my double-size deck. I draw 2 cards at the start of my turn. As an example, let's say it's a Stab and a Mail.

You have a deck that's 50% Lateral Thinking. You draw 2 cards at the start of your turn. On average, one of them is Lateral Thinking (50% of 2 = 1).

So, before either of us does anything, I have a Stab AND a Mail, and you have a Stab OR a Mail, NOT both, because your second card is Lateral Thinking.

Now, you can play that Lateral Thinking immediately if you want...in which case you must discard a card, even if it's exactly what you want. OR, you can not play Lateral Thinking immediately...in which case you don't draw the second combat card.

Either way, you have one fewer non-Lateral Thinking cards in your hand than I do. Whether you play it or not, I'm a card ahead.

 

Let's make the scenario a little more realistic and comparable, ignoring make believe mechanics like double the deck size or 50% lateral thinking decks.

If you draw a stab and a mail, I draw a stab and a mail.
If I draw a lateral thinking, you would be drawing a team shuffle, or a Walk. Pick another non card-drawing human skill and you draw that instead.

Now with lateral thinking we have the option of discarding our default movement, or hell even the stab in order to get a different card. That is a possibility of getting something better than a stab, or possibly another crucial card that could save the day, whereas you are stuck with whatever other human skill you chose. You have no chance of possibly getting a second attack or a big heal or whatever.

Lets say I move and stab first, then use lateral thinking. I now could possibly have a second attack with no drawback other than the loss of whatever other human skill I could have chosen. Even if it is doesn't draw a useful card card, that is one less not-useful card in my deck that makes me slightly more likely to draw those better cards next turn, whereas your deck is still one card heavier and you have the other human skill that may or may not be useful.

Again, I personally don't use lateral thinking, however it does give options you wouldn't have otherwise.

 

No you aren't because you aren't considering the normal way someone would actually play the card. There is nothing stating that I have to play it immediately or not at all.

Let's go with your example. You draw a Stab and a Mail. I'll draw a Stab and a Lateral. So, I play my move, you play your move. If I'm in rage for the stab, great, I'll stab. If not, I won't be in range for it, I don't need it so I consider my options. What else is in my deck? How many? Would I be better off with the chances of drawing something useful over what I have? If so, I use Lateral whether or not I've played stab. Lateral lets me attempt to adapt to the situation in ways you can't.

Here are some examples:

#1: A character with your draws, uses their default move. I'm not in rage of any other characters. A wizard casts Hot Spot on my square. Well crap, I hope my mail triggers and I have enough life to live through the lava damage. My stab is useless. Played 1 cards, have 2 left in hand.

With my draws, I move and I'm not in melee rage of another character. Wizard casts Hot Spot. Well crap, this stab is useless, and I know I have a lot of step attacks and other moves in the deck. Use Lateral in hopes of drawing one and avoiding the damage which may even kill me. Played 2 cards, have 1 left in hand which may allow me to avoid damage.

#2: A character with your draws, starts in range of an enemy. I stab them. I get hit, hope my mail triggers. I have an option to stand here and hope I get more attacks next round or move away. Played 1-2 cards, have 1-2 left in hand.

With my draws, still starting in range of an enemy. I stab them. I get hit and have no mail to save me so I may take some extra damage. I have an option to move away or consider my chances of drawing another attack card to do additional damage. If I move away, I then have the option to cycle and get another card from my deck. Do I have a lot of range 2 cards? Maybe I want to only move one square and try to draw one of the range 2 attacks. Do I want to start the next round with one of many parry cards, or armor, or even additional moves? Draw the next card and make tactical decisions based on that card.

If I choose to move 1 and draw another attack to use: Played 4 cards, have 0 left in hand, having done more damage.
If I choose to move away and cycle: Played 3 cards, have 1 left in hand.

#3: A character with your draws, starts in range of an enemy but with low health. A decent attack or one that gets through armor will kill me. I'd rather save my character and move away so I play my move. The enemy moves up to me. I stab him for lack of anything better to do. I get hit, mail triggers but I take damage and die. Played 2 cards, have 1 left in hand.

With my draws, start in range of an enemy but with low health. A decent attack or one that gets through armor will kill me. I'd like to keep my character alive. What are my chances of getting away when I know they have a move -- not that great if they drew an attack. What else do I have in the deck? Parry, Lifesaving block, anything that could help? If not, just move, stab and die as above. If so, take my chances, ditch the move and try to get something to keep me alive. Played 1 cards, have 2 left in hand, one of which may save me.


Due to you having mail which might trigger, not all of these examples are completely beneficial to having Lateral in hand, but in each example it gives me other options that you can't otherwise get without card filtering. Hopefully this illustrates that these situations are not that far off and Lateral simply gives you more options.

 

I don't understand why Antistone wants to focus on using the worst possible cycling card to make his point. Unless he's attacking that specific card and really doesn't have a problem with Inspiration?

 

I find Inspiration to be great.

In pretty much any combat there's one character who could really use a new card right now, even more than his allies. Either it's due to being in danger, being next to a weakened foe, being the only hero with LOS to an enemy, being stuck out of combat...
Inspiration allows that very character to get that card. And if it happens to be the priest who needs the new card, she can always use it on herself.
(And if I didn't always have such a horrible luck with Altruism rolls, Inspiration would be an even better card...)

 

I did that here with my little misses build.
http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/mp-builds.1773/page-2#post-23727

Most of Card Hunter is situational. I find this to be especially true in MP. So, what you classify as, "worse" I view simply as different. Here is an example of why I feel this way, using the following party. With this party I want to play as few cards as possible without passing in order to have my opponents winnow away their cards in hand. The battle starts and generally move cards are played first. I do this in the hope that they will exhaust their movement cards. I want to wait for the right moment to play my Volcano and/or Whirlwind/Whirlwind Enemies. In which case a card which cycles like, Inspirational Thinking or Elvish Insight is favored over a cantrip. Because, either the player has to risk passing or play a card.
http://www.cardhunter.com/forum/threads/mp-builds.1773/page-2#post-27635

Yeah, I'm not sure, but Antistone this does appear to be the case.

And if you want to see the merits of cycling simply look at Leadership. Yes, playing it decreases your hand size; but it also allows you to discard what you don't want/need in an attempt to find something better. Never underestimate the value of good Leadership!

All this to say, that while I understand that as a generalization certain cards are, "better" than another. This game is almost entirely situational. So, while you may view it as "over valued" it may save me from defeat.

 

Antistone as others have said, the more consistent your deck the better. However what other poster have gotten wrong is the emphasis on deck size. It's the reliability that is important not the size. If I have 3 elfish warriors with a deck of only 10000 Obliterating Chop I don't have much hope for my opponent.

That being said. Inspiration sucks. Let me repeat. INSPIRATION IS A BAD CARD!!!!!! ok maybe not bad, maybe's it just not good.

I agree stalling can be a good play. I also agree that card cycling can be good. I'm a magic player. I am familiar with card advantage. The thing is stalling isn't that good. It can be good, but it's not so good that I want a card that ONLY does that, which is what inspiration is. Stalling doesn't improve your board position. It allows your opponent to possibly make a weak play, but relying on you opponent to win the game for you seems like a bad idea.

Furthermore, that are a ton of better ways to stall. Moving and healing all can be used to stall and they also can win you the game. Inspiration is a bad card!!!

Yes you could build a priest to have a huge amount of inspirations and some other hopefully powerful cards. I have to wonder though what is your opponent doing while you sit and pass the turn over an over again? Probably killing you.

Also Lateral Thinking is a even WORST card. Lateral thinking is card disadvantage. You lose two cards to get 1 card and you stall. Inspiration is far better then that crappy card.

That being said Antistone, your hypothetical card breath, isn't just good, it's broken. That card should never ever be made. There is zero down-side to the card. It only serves to make your deck more reliable.

 

Yes, strictly speaking these cards make your decks more "reliable" and do not reduce the actual size of the deck. However, for all intents and purposes that is in effect the same thing. Let me explain a bit further. I've spoken on the card Electroporter Novice a number of times. This item which costs no talents adds three good trait cards to your deck, effectively reducing the size of your deck by three cards.

Inspiration like many cards I feel is unfairly judged. When used coupled with Altruism has a 50% chance to draw you an additional card. So, while we can talk about the merits of an individual card. I don't feel you can discount how a card may be used in combination with others.

Now, Lateral Thinking is an entirely different kind of card than Inspiration. I cannot think of a scenario where I wouldn't prefer Inspiration, other than when an opponent has Counterspell. But this leads me back to the fact that Card Hunter is almost entirely situational.

 

I don't agree with this. This game isn't Magic, it has substantially different draw and discard rules, which completely impact how you need to look at concepts like card advantage.

First, deck size meaningfully impacts your odds to draw the cards you want (I believe you're referring to it as reliability). This is why it's common to see magic decks run simple, cheap to cast cantrips to "shrink" the size of their deck below 60 cards. They may have no meaningful impact on the game but they improve your odds at drawing your important cards more often. It works similarly in Cardhunter. Due to how items work in Cardhunter, it's much less likely to build as tuned a deck as you would in Magic, where you have direct control over each card you include.

Second, let's talk about Lateral thinking. As Lance has tried to explain cards can be playable depending on the situation. Lateral Thinking is completely playable in situations when it's the last card in your hand, or when you have another card you don't want. Nothing fancy, it simply shrinks your deck by a card in these situations. I've actually played with it in a campaign build for weeks (on a priest using Perfect Tactics ) so my experience isn't hypothetical, those two situations were very common for me to run into. I agree the card looks horrible on it's face, but due to how Cardhunter actually plays, I often had a free move card my priest wasn't going to use or some other unneeded card that could easily be pitched to Lateral Thinking.

Since you have to discard down to 2 cards at the end of each turn, there's no value in trying to keep more than 2 cards in hand. Digging further into my deck for additional heals/attacks had more immediate value than holding onto things like extra move cards. Also, since cards must be obtained in groups determined by items, this allowed me access to a much better card in my deck (Inspired Thinking). I wouldn't refer to Lateral thinking as a good card, but I found it to be surprisingly usable most times I drew it. I would play with it again (not more than one though). It's funny what actually playing with a card can teach you.

Last, Inspiration isn't only about stalling and shrinking your deck (both of which it does quite well). It also allows your priest to pass a card draw to another character. In case people haven't noticed, priests tend to be offensively weak, with a limited selection of lower damage attacks. There are many times when you may want a warrior/wizard to draw more cards from their respective decks instead. And it triggers Altruism, gaining you more cards. Again, the card is useful in a surprising number of situations and is never a dead draw.

Summing up, in order to play with other great cards, you will likely have to use items that will force you to use cards that may look less than perfect. You can either completely write off significant numbers of items or you can try new things. There's a lot to be learned, and Beta is a great time to spend figuring it out.

 

(REALLY STUPID GRIPE TIME): Lance: It's "Intents and Purposes". Not "intensive purposes". Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine.

Oberon: There's one really solid argument in that post -- if Lateral Thinking is the 'third card' on an otherwise good item, it's not that bad of a third card to have. But that's not really the case when you have items that really are 2x Lateral Thinking and 1x Weak parry.

 

I wouldn't argue that at all, and to be completely honest, before I played with it I thought Lateral Thinking was complete trash. I still only think it's a so-so card at best, something I'm willing to have one of in a deck. But I had to play with it to get an idea of how just how often it was a "dead" draw.

 

I felt it was necessary to stress that probability is what we are adjusting not deck size. That way we can get a relevant measure on how much better one option is compared to another. For example: if you have 3 inspirations in your deck, then you go from having a 3.3% chance of drawing some card to 3.7 %. I look at that and think that in order for inspiration to have a noticeable effect, I am probably going to need a lot in my deck, which means stalling better be really good quite often, which I don't think it is.

I agree inspiration-altruism is a nifty combo, in fact altruism kept me from scrappy my priest entirely, but altruism is unreliable. In the best case it gives you 2 cards for 1 cards. That's pretty good. It still cost you at turn and again I don't think stalling is an especially strong play. In the worst case it's just inspiration.

True it's not Magic, so we can't apply the same rules, but we can use it as a point to investigate concepts. For example: You never want to stall in magic, in fact you want your opponent to stall in magic. Where as in Card Hunter there are times in which you don't want to do anything, but you don't want the turn to end. Knowing about both let's you compare the concepts in context.

Stalling is bad in magic because it means your opponent is able to apply pressure and increases their board position while the person who is stalled out doesn't. With that in mind I ask myself, how is card hunter different? Well if my opponent plays his cards out first then I don't have to worry about him moving in a way that negates my attack, I can also play effects to title or I can even move my opponent. The problem of course, is assuming my opponent plays out all his cards, which if he is good, he won't. So one of the primary benefits of stalling is negated by my opponent deciding he wants to play well. Furthermore, stalling has the side effect of putting my opponent ahead in a damage race. I personally think being ahead in damage is a HUGE advantage.

In response to the lateral thinking and tossing movement cards, your argument is reasonable, however, I think that are more times where Lateral thinking does nothing for me than when an extra movement card is dead weight, In fact extra movement cards are generally a very good thing. Especially against opponents who play a bunch of stall cards in hopes you'll waste your movement cards.

Finally, I agree card hunter is situational, but I think inspiration and lateral thinking reduce versatility because they add nothing to your deck.

Edit math was wrong. Inspiration is even more bad then I originally thought

 

This could not be more misleading. Regarding magic there are control decks that are entirely dedicated to doing absolutely nothing on their turn, effectively stalling according to you, so they can play in reaction to the opponents moves. Even more so most the actions these decks take on their turn is in fact to draw cards, much like inspiration or lateral thinking, so that the control deck will have the proper responses in hand to an opponents deck. Clearly being more passive isn't your play style, but don't assume it is always a disadvantage.

Inspiration is a good card, clearly undervalued by those who don't understand how powerful it is to draw cards especially being able to command allies to draw cards.

As far as your reliable and over sized decks of 3 elf warriors with "only 10000 Obliterating Chop" I guarantee an actual party built with actual equipment to be three altruism, bashing, spear stabbing, fenzy, halting, and inspiring elf priests would destroy your party 99% of the time. Impossible hypothetical theory crafting aside, deck size is fixed and options of cards is limited to what you find on equipment available, which means decks that make maximum use of card drawing and cycling cards to get to and utilize the best cards in their deck(as opposed to only stacking the deck with the "best" cards in the game) are more reliable and have a strategic advantage over the ones that don't.

 

Doing nothing is not the same as stalling. Let's talk about control decks and card advantage: The primary strategy of a control deck isn't just to stall. If that were the case then life gain would be awesome. What makes a control deck strong is stalling, WHILE generating card advantage. Let me explain, if every card your opponent plays is a threat, a good control deck wants to nullify those threats with fewer cards then his opponent used to play them. For example, if you play three creatures and I use wrath of god, I just traded my 1 card for your 3 cards: card advantage of 2. That mean out of you first say 10 cards, you now have 7 and I have 9. If this continues, you'll have 0 and I'll have 4 or 5. I then only need to play 1 threat to kill you. If you look at all the "drawing" cards that are in control decks, you'll see a pattern, they either allow you to pick the best card out of a 3 or more, or they can be used to draw 2 or more cards.

TLDR: Card advantage is what makes a control deck good. Not sitting around watching your opponent play.

This is also the reason why inspiration is bad. Consider that we both have a hand of 4 cards, that means I have 4 threats, if in your hand you have a inspiration, you still only have 4 threats. When you play inspiration you replace it with either another inspiration, or some threat. Playing inspiration has not increased your board position nor have you generated any card advantage.

The difference however, as I have said, is that in card hunter stalling CAN be a good thing. That means that inspiration's entire value can only come from either stalling, increasing the reliability of your deck, or interacting in a positive way with some other card (Altruism for example).

My argument is that it is not good enough at any of those 3 things, to justify using it instead of say heal. This is especially true so long as talented healer is a card.

 

But Inspiration does all 3 of those at once. If you'd rather a heal, then use heal. That doesn't make Inspiration unworthy for decks that want to churn their warrior decks for instance.