The Moirae | The Graeae

[EvaRia]

So, like, infection.

[Drobbit]

thats another taboo, no cards that kill creatures without taking their hitpoints into account, unless it is a combination of cards (freeze/shockwave)

hahaha better to stop geting ideas for today or I'll post another taboo (two are enough for one day)

[ElementsDecks]

Cool! i like it!

[AnonymousRevival]

It's not I don't like it, it is just that the community hates discarding effects.

[Rooftrellen]

I think its a bit expensive to get out, for how fragile it is, and the ability seems a bit...bad.

Maybe if the cost (to get it out) were lowered, and the upped were to discard the top card of the deck, it would be better?

Discarding from the hand is a weak ability.  People can play all their cards, after all.  With time as a required element, you can send something to the top of the deck to be discarded, and there would be nothing that can be done, other than having nothing that can be sent back.

I like the idea, but, again, the innitial cost seems quite high and the ability to discard from the hand seems quite weak.  Allowing the discard of the top card of the deck on the upped version would likely be a better, stronger effect.

I don't see why people would be against discarding effects, at least any more than they would be against any other mechanic that might hurt them.  It's a silly argument anyway.  The talk should be of if it would be a good or bad mechanic for the game, not if people like it or not.  For example, most people would be in favor of having no taxes, but it would be very bad for their country.  People that know what is going on would not argue that taxes should be done away with because people are against them, because of the effect on the governments that collect those taxes.

So I ask this, how would a discard mechanic be bad for the game?  Not bad for YOU, not bad for YOUR DECK, but a negative for the game?  Because, to me, it would seem to be a chance for the game to grow.

[karis]

i'm don't sure  but maybe same reason as old dunescorpion.   

[AnonymousRevival]

Yeah, surprisingly everyone hates the discarding effect. I don't know why.

[Drobbit]

What if instead of "discard" I say "put on the bottom of the deck"?

[khluk]

I like this card so much because there is a lack of card about card discarding.

But, can the creature cost down to 6 and 8 respectively? It seems a bit too high for the original one...

[pepokish]

ART:   Unknown

...
Oh dear.  Try Henry Fuseli.  Obviously, I can completely understand not recognizing your standard modern-day artist, since there are about thirty bazillion of them around -- but seeing artist:unknown under this historical image...?  Especially since the title of the painting and name of the artist is right there in the URL you liked to!  It's not that big of a deal obviously, but try to put a little effort into these things, at least?  :s

Also, just an FYI, please reference the actual website you got the image from, and not the direct link to the image itself.  In this particular case, however, the credit should read: "Three Witches" Henry Fuseli, 1783.

[Drobbit]

What if instead of "discard" I say "put on the bottom of the deck"?

In this case, do you think it's OP? It's useful for avoid decking out and to eliminate annoying creatures of the opponent.
For the difference between upgraded and unupgraded it would be:
Upgraded: put target creature on the bottom of the deck
Unupgraded: put target creature on the top of the deck

And both creatures will cost exactly the same: 8

Do you like it?

[AnonymousRevival]

I'm still not sure. The community argues that the deck can only be their "safe place".