|
|
Post by mumblingmynah on Aug 8, 2012 18:39:28 GMT -5
I played a game earlier in which I played a Holy Day, and saw my opponent had two Assassin Strongholds in hand. So I played a Losing Faith, but couldn't find any Assassin Strongholds in his sequence. The two in his hand were all he had, so there was no way to erase them.
This isn't a bug, but I think it should work a little differently.
I feel like the cards in hand should be mixed into their sequence somehow when you're using Losing Faith.
I'm sure this is working as intended, but I just wanted to share my frustration and a word of warning for using this card.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brontobeuf on Aug 8, 2012 21:48:35 GMT -5
Not sure I like your proposition. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Aug 9, 2012 2:22:22 GMT -5
I think that discarding cards from the opponents hand is a big plus of Losing Faith. I.e. consider yourself lucky if you manage to discard something from your opponents hand as well. I wouldn't even mind if it only worked on your opponents deck instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by lurifaxb on Aug 9, 2012 3:56:27 GMT -5
I love this card. It does what it is suppose to. Punish players who rely on certain cards to win. It is also good vs. decks that pack many of the same cards. If opponent had 2 strongholds in hand and none in deck, it is fair that he doesn't lose them. If he had 5 it would punish him more. You just got unlucky and the card did not work in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob (Roebidoebi) on Aug 9, 2012 4:24:48 GMT -5
I do not particularly like this card as it is a huge threat for decks that are combo based. I.e. stuff like Feme Fatale. I really love playing "alternative" decks with these kind of special win-conditions, but they are difficult enough to pull-off without cards like Losing Faith.
So unfortunately Loosing Faith is (imho) limiting the amount of competitive decks you can play, and I would rather see it go completely...
|
|
|
|
Post by demkon on Aug 9, 2012 5:10:14 GMT -5
Imho decks that rely on just one combo don't deserve a win, if they are not able to protect their combo properly.
Include more winning conditions and you don't have to be scared by losing faith.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tuism on Aug 9, 2012 5:51:11 GMT -5
I think as it is it provides a nice possible out to the otherwise deadly situation. I like that cards aren't fool-proof. Yes it can be countered but thats just a poor out. I like it as it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by UnCL0NED on Aug 9, 2012 9:45:09 GMT -5
Imho decks that rely on just one combo don't deserve a win, if they are not able to protect their combo properly. Include more winning conditions and you don't have to be scared by losing faith. You mean: Pack more Counters!? :-P |
|
|
|
Post by mumblingmynah on Aug 9, 2012 17:33:52 GMT -5
I love this card. It does what it is suppose to. Punish players who rely on certain cards to win. It is also good vs. decks that pack many of the same cards. If opponent had 2 strongholds in hand and none in deck, it is fair that he doesn't lose them. If he had 5 it would punish him more. You just got unlucky and the card did not work in this case. Yeah, I just got unlucky. Good to hear everyone's thoughts. |
|
Joek
Full Member
Also known as Ephemerial
Posts: 239
|
Post by Joek on Aug 9, 2012 18:20:34 GMT -5
Imho decks that rely on just one combo don't deserve a win, if they are not able to protect their combo properly. Include more winning conditions and you don't have to be scared by losing faith. You mean: Pack more Counters!? :-P Counters aren't win conditions. (oh who am I kidding, I ragequit 4 games today) |
|
|
|
Post by demkon on Aug 10, 2012 5:40:18 GMT -5
Imho decks that rely on just one combo don't deserve a win, if they are not able to protect their combo properly. Include more winning conditions and you don't have to be scared by losing faith. You mean: Pack more Counters!? :-P Well... yes, either more counters or more winning conditions.  |
|
|
|
Post by UnCL0NED on Aug 11, 2012 4:06:18 GMT -5
|
|
