Arms Dealers and Patrons can kind of force you to pick attack/culture cards just to make themselves more efficient. Some cards without either of those may be needed depending on the situation. Great Council is definitely a powerful card but also expensive and easily punished by heavy attack. In most cases it can beat an enemy with full culture since not only does it provide a lot of culture but it can also allow you to go heavy on attack cards. It's still a late card so it only appears in rounds 3 and 4. I think it's starting culture could be a lot more but provide less culture per distinct card since it's fairly easy to make Great Council a really effective card, in most cases it can reach 15+ Culture which is definitely a problem. It's still needed since a lot of aggressive play gets outscaled by culture i think it's a good card to catchup to early culture advantages since culture points are a pretty big thing. I Definitely like how the card is made to be high risk/high reward but it leans a little too much onto the reward side more than the risk, 5 defense makes it a lot less vulnerable than it seems.

Knock out makes it unavoidable -6, knocking other unique cards cancels buff, compared to holy/artistic culture generators its inferior.

Still think master thief is way too good, decides many games just on its own. For example if it steals a merchant fleet, that is a 22 POINT SWING from the 1 card. That is so out of line with everything else in the game (well except for the other 2 super good underworld cards, Lord of Decay and Graverobber Baron). And those types of Master Thief steals are not rare in round 3, even if often doesn't do that well (average swing might be about half that, so 10-11 points worth).

> *Originally posted by **[Levgre](/forums/715754/topics/695512?page=3#11009755)**:* > Still think master thief is way too good, decides many games just on its own. For example if it steals a merchant fleet, that is a 22 POINT SWING from the 1 card. That is so out of line with everything else in the game (well except for the other 2 super good underworld cards, Lord of Decay and Graverobber Baron). And those types of Master Thief steals are not rare in round 3, even if often doesn't do that well (average swing might be about half that, so 10-11 points worth). There are many 10-point cards in round 3, and Master Thief requires a combo to not backfire... so I think it's fine. If you have its combo, it's a no-brainer, though.

Graverobber Baron. Gold advantage is good. Locking down your opponent's choices is good. Doing both is absurd. This is what makes Valkyries and Blind Bolt Throwers very good. Doing both while also having a respectable 3 attack and 4 defense (which means one shot with Valkyries or Blind Bolt Throwers won't take it down). There is no card that has that sort of continuous effect in the build phase. Fire Catapults is fragile and needs to stick around and simply destroys gold rather than stealing it. Danse Macabre requires an underworld card and is expensive, while also being fragile. Plunderers only hits before war. Guild of Artists is only self-benefiting and limited to only artistic cards. The closest thing is Lord of Decay, which requires a non-optimal card to combo with and only hits cards with culture, while also being more expensive; Lord of Decay has also been mentioned here in the past as a very good card. Change options: Make it fragile? Maybe. 3 defense instead of 4 would make it vulnerable to Valkyries and Blind Bolt Throwers. Make it steal 1 instead of 2? That would leave it as a very good card but not an absolute game-winner.

Graverobber Baron is just right as it is. It's a unique card that adds a very interesting element to late game, and there are many ways to counter it. Don't let your opponent get training, block or knock out your opponent's skull cards, focus on pacifist cards so there aren't many ruins in the game... To make such an interesting card vulnerable to a very basic no brainer tactic of using Valkyries / BBT would be the worst thing developers could do to a game...

"Many" ways. There are literally two cards that knock out an underworld card (you don't get to pick which one it knocks out, and there's a strong chance they never show up). Your opponent is going to be gunning for training if they've guaranteed GB (which they will) and you can't keep them from pulling it. Blocking is more viable, but there aren't a lot of effective block cards. Watchtower and Scouts are widely accessible, with Fortune Tellers stuck behind high rarity. (and sneaky tunneller eliminates two of them, while also being a potentially more advantageous target for the single ability block Watchtower can provide). Pacifism is rarely a strong strategy and is at cross purposes with your "eliminate their training or knock out their skulls" tactic. You've also not even discussed making it steal 1 instead of 2, or having it destroy 1 and steal 1.

Having played a couple hundreds games both against AI and human players I would share my observations. 1, The game is good and addictive. 2, AI, even normal AI, can play better than most human players. Hard AI definitely. And writing this I do not mean that AI is good... No. 3, Campaigns suck. I do not specify. They are simply not good. Their rewards are also doubtful. 4, For a while I have been feeling the lack of consistency in the game engine. I mean similar effects do not behave the same. Or the description is ambiguous. Details later. 5, Everybody cries about OP and UP cards, but those are just trees in the forest. Check the card types and you can see that the concept of the categories is the womb of all these deviations. See below. So, consistency or how the things run. I write examples, just think about them. - Player deploys silencers with some infantry. Silencers remove some ability of an enemy perm all right. In war player has silencers and other cards knocked out. Some other card ruined, so silencers is restored - and remove some ability of an enemy perm again. Whaaat??? - Enemy deploys ruiner of all things. Player deploys watchtower that blocks the ability of the ruiner all right. In war ruiner is knocked out and later ruined - and it starts to decrease the culture of the player's cards. So was it blocked or what??? - Both players deploys a civic card than player deploys spymaster that turns the enemy civic card to spy. Later player deploys watchtower/imperial guard - and that blocks/knocks out the little friendly freshly recruited spy. Why??? - Player has unholy practioner, shock troops and some underworld card. Shock troop is ruined at the end of the round and the unholy practioner restores it all right. Yet it is not ruined at the end of the round as per its description. How come??? - War drums removes all basic attack of some unit that has basic attack anyway. Unit is knocked out but not ruined so restored - with zero attack value! The text of war drums contains the word perm, so it is all right. See something else. Weaponsmith gives some infantry/cavalry 3 attack perm as per description. Infantry/cavalry knocked out but not ruined so restored - without the gained 3 attack value! What is the difference between perm and perm??? - My favorite. We are in the last round. Player deploys dark automata then trainers - and it replaces the dark automata with some random underworld card! The type of dark automata is waste!!! How's that happened??? Category concept. Just focus the types as containers. Every type/container contains OP and UP cards, different prices, armors, attack values and abilities with. Single cards do not count now. INFANTRY: they should be the main body of your combat force, but they do not meet this target. Cards are rather expensive and not so strong, the abilities are difficult to activate. Not impressive at all. Rather UP type. CAVALRY: supposed to be the second line of your army, and surprisingly they do this job! Expensive but strong cards with good abilities. RANGED: cheap cards with moderate attack values and powerful easy-to-activate abilities??? Something went south here hard... Most OP type. UNDERWORLD: well-priced cards with balanced abilities, though the combat values are rather high. Second most OP type, just because of the negative culture values. ARTISTIC: I think the prices, the armors and the abilities are all right. There are some outstanding cards and that's it. They support only culture. But that's what they supposed to do... HOLY: good prices and attributes, but the abilities are weak or difficult to activate or both. CIVIC: fairly overpriced cards with lotta question marks regarding the attributes and the abilities. They are generally weak, do not support enough or not so destructive, nor the culture is convincing. Definitely UP type. FORTIFIED: you receive what you pay for: massive tank cards, but some with extreme good abilities. Seems to be OP type, them abilities are decisive. ECONOMIC: nothing special, cheap and basic cards. I would adjust the infantry and add them extra attack and armor, and doublecheck the abilities, plus add some negative cultures too. Cavalry would deserve some negative cultures, and so does ranged cards - afterall, these three types cultivate destruction not art. Ranged and underworld cards should lose attack and armor, they are too powerful. Holy cards have just ability issues, so do fortified ones. Civic, that's hard. They need a thorough rework. Artistic and economic cards look all right. Sure you can think individual modificitions, but still you need a concept that as I wrote above seems to be misplaced a bit. Two examples: graverobber baron is OP, but not because its ability, but because of its ability AND attributes: it is powerful and strong and cheap too; warmonger is just not balanced in my world, its ability is powerful, while its attributes are just not right. Or you can just accept them funny deviations and use them for your favor and play for fun... :D

This has been on my mind for long time and I thought the last update would change that. Just this one underpowered card, Scout. Scout hast 1 armor, no attack, no culture, predicted effect, and yet it cost 2 gold. Compared to other cheaper card which cost 1 gold (Archers, Angry Mob, etc) Scout is much less useful. The only thought in my mind is to change its gold cost to 1. Thank You.

The worst joke is a card for a price of 3 goldpieces, that is a game changer: Jumbling Jester. Totally not in the spirit of the game, and absolutely underpriced. A minimum of five, better 6, GP is in order.Or, better: Totally overhaul this card. Second next is Deranged Artificer. The same joke here; - for 4 GP ( with discounts, two GP) you have a full endgame army. Those two cards destroy an otherwise pretty fine balance; although maybe Warmonger is still too strong though, especially as it comes in early game. -Against a deck with all these 3 cards, you do not stand the slightest chance.

> *Originally posted by **[Badbentham](/forums/715754/topics/695512?page=3#11218385)**:* > The worst joke is a card for a price of 3 goldpieces, that is a game changer: Jumbling Jester. Totally not in the spirit of the game, and absolutely underpriced. A minimum of five, better 6, GP is in order.Or, better: Totally overhaul this card. Second next is Deranged Artificer. The same joke here; - for 4 GP ( with discounts, two GP) you have a full endgame army. Those two cards destroy an otherwise pretty fine balance; although maybe Warmonger is still too strong though, especially as it comes in early game. > **-Against a deck with all these 3 cards, you do not stand the slightest chance.** I know this is referring specifically to me. If those three card are WAY too overpowered, then why most people here don't think so? not even single talk about it here until you? Or much simple question, why don't you try yourself, is it really that great? did you become invincible when you play those? Frankly said, those combination are way too risky. Deranged Artificer require much sacrifice since it has negative culture and you need to be poor or beaten up badly for this card to be effective. It also has 1 armor and no attack, so for a price of 4 gold I think it's fair. Warmonger is already nerfed to 1 attack. Can't say much. Jumbling Jester is about timing and require you to play minimalist / less valuable card until opponent play any high culture/attack/armor card. It has no attack, and not very effective against great council. But yes, I must say the price should be like 4 gold for this one. These all need great sacrifice at early round, and you are pretty much effed up if your opponent play risky and cheap as well.

Well, first off, I must admit it was written in an outrage after just another loss against the Jester; and I am sorry that I adressed you specifically, as I really do not see the slightest chance against your deck. You may not have realized it, but you are currently the only active player who has access to the synergy of these 3 cards. Personally, I found The Horde and Sun`s Sisters while I just bought Mangonels for a general improvement of the deck.As it is, I do not see a reason to pick Jester, as I absolutely hate this card, and after all, to be fair, my strategy does not make good use of its ability. While most players cry about weakly Graverobber, they fail to see how gamechanging, this game ofc is always situational, Jester can as potential be. One side goes, picking an ideal but still realistic, scenario, with e.g. a Poisoner, and Valkyries, the other side with Elephant and Wonder ? GG in a tough match, for just 3 GP. Also, exactly the cards that had penalties to compensate for their powerful abilities likely gain the most of it. Valkyries ( more general artillery) and Poisoner (in general underground) are not exactly "minimalist" btw, but there are strong reasons why they have disadvantages in their stats, and only very little reason to give them these god-like buffs. The problem about Jester is that it poses a massive threat, that does not always have to materialize. However, compare it with a pretty good card like Master Thief: It comes third round, where you have quite some options, it exchanges for a random card, and it costs 7 GP for a likely smaller effect than Jester, while it needs a further UG unit as mandatory prerequisite; so you have quite some time to react even beforehand. That is what I consider as power creep. Your mentioned counter strategy of going "cheap and risky" is what most players apply; - thanks for the 70% win rate, including 0/20 or so against your deck, btw ! So much about "being invincible". As it is, I am pretty much frustrated against you, so I am sorry that, for now, I do not want to play against you. I want to play on even ground, and that skill, and not deck strength, determines the outcome. If you are the better player: Fine! As I mentioned, while Jester is the elephant in the room, the terror comes from the possible combination of the three cards: Warmonger forces a reaction. Going full war, both sides poor: Artificer turns the bodies in the war of attrition into powerful undead minions, easily winning the decisive last round. Building a tower: Hello, hit points for Jester to give to your own army. Game over. Going for buildings: Your rogues and saboteurs will certainly like it. Going for strong units: Either Artificer or Jester are trigger-happy.Going desperado, aka "cheap and risky", likely still the best bet, you quickly switch to an endgame/ economy approach, and smile. But, you are right, Artificer and Warmonger are, on their own, certainly not overpowered. The synergy of all three cards however is too much for me. But, even if the whole community should have access to all cards, Jester stands out and needs a severe nerf. 5GP, but one more ressource, seems like the very bottom line to me. Even then, it is likely potentially stronger than, for example, "The Horde" , a decent grunt unit, that only really shines in an infantry deck, for the same price. Alas, one word about Council: Most people seem to love this one, no matter what, while it is really good only in rare (peaceful) circumstances. A potential -6(!), with an average gain of +6 (normally, you are focused) if it happens to get through, is, for its price, rather underwhelming. And, sorry again that my previous post was very emotional.

I'll put Jester on the list of cards to consider for the next balancing. Seems like both sides agree that at minimum it should cost more. Thanks for the feedback.

I think the concept of Jumbling Jester is really interesting (shake the board and mix everything up), though I see the issues with it. Would it be a better card if it swapped **each player's** top and bottom values? (It could maybe be cheaper, or even free, with this rule) So no stealing your opponent's big values that they have paid for, but there is still a significant tactical advantage for the player: you can choose whether to play it or not depending on the board state and you can match cards with it in deckbuilding. If you can swap your own Graverobber Baron and Inconceivable Wonder culture values, this is still very good for the last round, you don't have to swap with the opponent's wonder to get an advantage. If you are facing a Battering Ram, you can swap your big armour value castle to something else before it dies. You don't need to swap with the opponent for it still to be an interesting and potentially powerful card. I think the comparison with Master Thief is valid: there you also get to swap with what your opponent has paid for but it is more expensive, more setup, and random!

"Would it be a better card if it swapped each player's top and bottom values?" it would be a very lame joke even from a noob jester. almost pointless. no, definitely pointless... unless... it produces instant gold?... but the basic idea is interesting. think it over! why just the top and bottom values? every value of the players' card! and every ability! yo, every type! :D how very funny this jester would be... not! :))) i do not know... the jester can turn the table upside down, true. but it has to be deployed in the good time, that's not easy. to counter it it's even more difficult. cheap? it is. raise its price with +2/+3/+4 gold with one more extra resource, i agree, but it will not really matter, still kicks the table up. so the real question is: will there be a jester or not? i vote: yes, there will, cos it's funny! and i think fun is the engine of every game...

When compared to master thief... that's a good point. The big difference is, you don't need to think much when using Master Thief. It's an absolute bad luck for the opponent. It appears on 3rd round, where the expensive card is there. You get their card and they lost their for the final round. So I've come up with a thought : * to agree that the Jester base price raised to 5 gold. * ... or slightly change its effect to **Randomly swap ANY attack, armor, and culture of ANY card**. Because if it's swap only the highest and lowest, it can be controlled. Plus this way, the Jester will live up to its name. But the price should be lowered to 2 gold. Finally, see here, I put a thought and play some game without relying (moreover, avoid) those three now, and I don't think that affect my win rate. Also please lower the gold cost of Scout.

I think jester beyond perhaps a cost increase is fine the way it is. It requires skill and timing to use correctly. Also could you please make it so master thief will not switch with waste or ruined card? or atleast waste..

master thief is strong enough like that, he doesn"t need a buff^^

Thanks for this! It helps in rebalancing my cards.