Why legendaries are so weak?

I agree in most cases, but there are situations where that card has issues. In particular if you're running a team with wide ranges in starting HP, the most extreme example is something like a dwarven fighter and an elven mage, it will target a fully healed character who still happens to have the fewest HP. With the right team though, it's awesome.

 

Oh totally fair. I didn't mean to suggest it was great to use in all cases. But the party I usually run (dwarf mage, dwarf priest, human fighter), is really rather close in HP, and it works great. It's generally a great "bang for the buck" card. Though I try to snag a couple of Greater Heals on any priest just for this reason, my dwarves being low in health.

 

3 warrior party with 2x or 3x arrogant armor cards each would be insanely powerful. They suffer almost none of the drawback and gains the most from immunity to burn/frost/path of blades etc. It will be tough to get the gear, but once they do the party will be unstoppable. Use human skills/helmets with team move cards and you will pretty much eliminate the ability for enemies to play keep away with you while retaining your high dps output.

 

Had it in Beta, almost have it again, after testing I don't think it's that strong. Arrogant armor is very useful against mages (until they get smart and start packing armor removal), but it strongly limits your own strategies with your warriors because it triggers an any attachment not just enemy controlled ones. Traits, blind rage, or priest buffs won't stick to your warriors either. So warriors not using arrogant armor tend to do significantly better damage.

In a fight of warriors against warriors (Mom is a perfect example of this), the arrogant armor using warriors are at a disadvantage. The armor is a bit weaker than other options, and they do less damage.

 

To counter this argument, a team of 3 warrior won't have any priest to buff either. Most big dmg attack (bludgeon) cannot be buffed by warrior trait. Adding trait is simply to reduce the deck size. If I can hit for 11, 14 or 17 dmg, my biggest concern is to be able to get close to the wizard. Negative trait is also a good combination with Arrogant armor, reducing the deck size further if you can fit some of them in.

 

Reread my post I said it works fine against mages (assuming they don't have the tools to make you discard the armor), but lacks against other warrior builds.

When you're fighting other warriors getting to the wizard is no longer a concern. They have those same exact attacks, plus they can use blind rage (which dwarves can get cheap and plentiful) and maybe even some mass frenzy if it's a 2 warrior and 1 priest build. Instead of using arrogant armor, they have other options that offer a bit better protection. You end up losing the damage battle.

 

That's true, I suppose if its a warrior vs warrior fight, we'll be at a disadvantage. As long as their party has any wizard, I'll be happy to trade my warrior for his wizard, as long as I can take the wizard down. This come down to the lack of debuff warrior can cause on opponents (Fiery Stab is the only major one)

 

You outmanoeuvre them, it doesn't matter if they have more health, you are the one with the better move cards, you should be positioning yourself so that multiple members of your team can hit him, which he can only hit one of you.

Not to mention the sort of warrior heavy parties you're talking about tend to be rare in upper levels. they have too much trouble with control wizards. The sort of opponents that does well against you does badly against too many other kind of parties to meet frequently in battle.

rule of thumb i use is to assume a warrior attack card does 8-9 dmg on average. So every other alternative gets compared to that. Priests are actually only useful for purge/cleanse/frenzy and invulnerability. Other buffs, on a per card basis, are not really worth giving up a 8 dmg for (which you would have gotten if u are using a 3rd warrior instead). Unless you have a truly insane amount of frenzy and invulnerable shield on your priest (which could very well be true), warriors with arrogant armour seems like a better option.

 

One thing I find with legendaries is that they are often easier to exploit and they seem to be designed with this in mind. My theory on twin heals is that it was originally intended to synergise with cards like Healing Spirit but nobody really runs dedicated healers so it falls short.

 

I've got two copies of Elphala's Healing Ring; and it makes me sad each time I see it.

Twin Heals is just such a weak card. It doesn't have much raw healing power at the best of times, and the fact that it cannot self-target makes it highly situational. More often than not, it isn't even possible to get the full 4 points of healing (because of range, or lack of line of sight, or because one of the characters is full health). I really thing Twin Heals should be allowed to self-target. But even if it could, Elphala's Healing Ring would still be rubbish compared to the awesome healing power of the Silver Healing Ring.

 

I completely agree. The fact that Twin Heals is super situational and heals so little makes it a bad card. The fact that it does not allow self-targeting makes it a terrible card.

Silver Healing Ring is my favorite healing item in the whole game so far, so your contrast could not be better.

 

Seems like a bad model for a game that wants you to pay $10 a month for bonus rare cards, and pay for bonus missions which reward epics...

 

If it makes you feel any better, I've got a legendary Ring Of Bifurcated Healing

 

Oh, snap

 

Holy mother of all things healing.. This card must be one of the worst cards ever designed! And as such it is truely unique! Even legendary!

 

The bonus missions are also bonus missions, regardless of the reward.

 

That picture is blatantly not a ring... or maybe I'm just too tired. Anyway, lets bring this thread back on track;
Fine Brass Toupee is overpowered, it is just as strong as Gold Thread Toupee even though it is 4 levels lower than it.