Broken interactions

+
I have two scenarios which i don't think work as intended:

Scenario 1: Opponent nilfgard places my used Oneiromancy on top of my deck with Gorthur Gvaed and "steals" it with Cantarella. Next round, he gets to play Oneiromancy again thanks to Echo.
But Echo states the card returns to the top of the OWNER's deck. And the owner of that card is me.

Scenario 2: Board filled with Koshchey and endrega larva. My last card is Yghern, which means it will be destroyed, not being able to gain any armor. I play it on the ranged row anyway, thinking it will at least trigger a board wide Thrive. Instead , it only triggers 1 koshchey and 3 endrega larva on the melee row. What's up with that weird inconsistency?
 
And the owner of that card is me.
No, the owner is the player in whose graveyard the card is (= the player who played the card). So, the NG player.

What's up with that weird inconsistency?
Placement matters; abilities trigger melee to ranged, left to right.
You must have placed the Yghern too far left on the ranged row, and it died before the rest of your Thrive units could trigger.
 
If the owner is determined by the graveyard, there is no point for the card to even mention an owner. The very concept of owner is used in any decent card game ever made, specifically to avoid confusions caused by card steals and such. If it works as intended, i am very disappointed.

As for the other thing, from a coding point of view, it might make sense, but for a card game point of view, it doesn't. It's a unit that has been summoned, so it should act like one consistently, for all other effects on the board. That or clearly state those hidden effect rules and make them an official part of the gameplay.
 
You may not like the answers you got but they are correct.

Stealing a card to play it makes one the card's owner. That's how it's always been.
 
*That's how it's always been in gwent. But not in any other card game. And it honestly shouldn't be like this.
 
And it honestly shouldn't be like this.
Your opinion, which I've never seen anyone share.

A much better option would be to change the wording of Echo to prevent misunderstandings (not that I've ever seen this one before) so that it doesn't talk about owners. I don't think any other card uses that word, and Echo could simply say "... to the top of your deck..."

(This game has huge aspects that differ from all other CCGs, so "every other card game does it like this" is not a valid argument. Plus, "but everyone else does it" is not a generally good argument, anyway.)
 
As for the other thing, from a coding point of view, it might make sense, but for a card game point of view, it doesn't. It's a unit that has been summoned, so it should act like one consistently, for all other effects on the board. That or clearly state those hidden effect rules and make them an official part of the gameplay.

The game does explicitly mention the order of triggered effects being left to right, melee first...something any ST movement player can attest to :)
 
Where exactly does it state this order of triggering?

Sure, rewording cards to clear misunderstandings is totally fine and i would appreciate it. But what i would appreciate even more, is completely removing any semblance of card stealing mechanic.

It totally is a valid argument. As what we are talking about isn't something that makes this game unique or better than other games. That's the issue. It's an aspect that is making the game worse. It would've been better following the example of other games, in this specific instance of having card stealing mechanics. Think about hearthstone back at launch. People asked devs why there were no discards. Their answer was that it was a very frustrating mechanic, so they opted to leave it out of the game.

There is a mentality that of course regular players couldn't care less about, which goes something like this: "game mechanics need to be fun for both the user and the opponent".

"Everyone else does it" - yes, that is not a very good argument. Let me reword it then. Many other professional companies, which care about making money and having a popular game, have tried, tested and figured out that stealing mechanics is not a good thing to add to their games. Im not talking about stuppidly jumping off a window because everyone else does it. I'm talking about learning from the market and making an informed decision that will make the game more enjoyable.
 
Top Bottom