Obviously, you have Garfield and Skaff as your design consultants so I feel a little odd mentioning this, but you're building off of the Magic concepts in a marvelous new way while harnessing much of what they have figured out, so don't create game design that goes against those concepts and understandings. Work with the built in understandings, not against them. So, why would you create unclear card categories that make it hard to know how cards will interact? I'm specifically referring to cards that affect all "bash" cards (there are a few other examples), but as a player I'm not sure if that refers only to cards with "bash" in the name or if it refers to "crushing" cards. I'm at level 10 and I still don't know, actually. In Magic the name of the card is never used to determine categories, they use the text just below the image (sorry, I know, you know this way better than I do and probably know the name for that piece of text). Card Hunter seems to go back and forth on this and leads to a lot of confusion for players. I think a general clean up and standardization needs to be done on the card text. Decide where the categories go, where they don't and what things you're going to categorize. Of course, that's much harder than it sounds. Sorry, I don't mean to come across as overly critical, I just adore the game and this has been sticking in my craw. And I'm confused. Did Garfield not like the way that was handled in Magic? It seems like one of the usability things they figured out that should be stolen by everyone else. Lord knows you're created so many original ideas with this game you don't need to re-invent this.
I've seen a lot of card games use name as a second way to make mechanics and effect trigger - for instance the Call of Cthulhu LCG. I don't have any issues understanding this - and don't think everything should be based on MtG, just because it's the logical base all card games are grown from. I like diversity and not everything being the same - figuring out how stuff works is key to any ccg for me Garfield and Skaff were consultants, not designers. They've contributed general design suggestions (like making block cards passive triggers et c) I believe - not been part of micro decisions.
