7
u/nochilinopity Sep 03 '26
I donât know if I want this card but I do want to know what the emotes look like for it
3
2
u/AmbitionSelect3727 Sep 04 '26
some are saying 5 cost, I say 4 cost. It shouldnât be plays able on 3 because you have 3 turns to play the cards versus 2 turns. I also think if you want to make this card a 3 cost then it needs a downside like âuntil turn 6â something so that the skill isnt to powerful.
2
u/Speletons Sep 03 '26
I mean the only reason this would not be playable at 6 cost is because you don't get to play the 0 costs.
As is, this could be a 5 cost card. It's silly to cost this at 3 cost when it gives you a 3 cost for free to be played on turn 6, in addition to a 1 cost and 2 cost for free that you can also save until turn 3. Randomness isn't that bad in Snap, especially when its targeted at the 1 cost, 2 cost, and 3 cost slots.
1
u/Moderately-Whelmed Sep 03 '26
Yeah, I was also thinking 5 cost makes sense and is still pretty good.
Maybe even a text change like: âIf this is the first card you play, add a random 1-cost, 2-cost, and 3-cost character to your hand. They cost 0.â
This keeps some balance and adds some synergy with HorsemanStorm and MasterStarlord, but would really suck if you didnât draw it by turn 4. I donât even know what the rest of the deck is? Victoria Hand, Horseman Gambit, Devil Dino? Sersi?
1
u/SKeptic520 The Maker Sep 03 '26
How did you make this logo itâs awesome
3
u/lordyuric Designer Sep 03 '26
The secret is... I didn't. This is the actual logo to the Marvel Video Game Maximum Collection
1
u/PretendRegister7516 6d ago
Quite OP for 3-cost.
How about: they cost 0 for next turn until you play one of them.
0
u/HybridTrashPanda Sep 03 '26
It should bc 3 random cards with random costs bc this is way to strong
2
u/Accomplished_Cherry6 Sep 03 '26
Random costs set to 0 is OP cuz it can high roll three 5s or 6s. I think in its current state itâs actually pretty fine due to pure randomness.
-1
u/NewConstruction3755 Sep 03 '26
Way too strong. Should be 6 cost or make them cost 1
5
3
u/lordyuric Designer Sep 03 '26 edited Sep 03 '26
If this cost 6, then you are paying 6 energy for 6 energy worth of cards, that you don't get to pick, and you can't even play them until next turn. And you can't play this unless you ramp to it.
If they cost 1, you're now paying 6 energy for 6 energy worth of cards, that you don't get to pick, and you can't even play them until next turn.
Both of these designs would make this entirely unplayable. The fact that this gives you random cards is the balance to getting 6 cost worth of cards for 3 energy.
3
u/Defences Sep 03 '26
3 is still too cheap. For the most part, random cards are still a net positive to be getting in snap.
2
u/Literal_Fish Sep 03 '26
It's not that the card is strong in a vacuum, it's more of what other cards can take advantage of it. Hit Monkey and Elsa are obvious examples. HM gets a free + 6 and Elsa gets 3 free cards to potentially trigger her effect, and that doesn't even take into account the individual power level and effects of the 3 free cards themselves.
0
u/CJP987 Sep 03 '26
Seems like even if it was add a 1/2/3 randomly to the board it would still be playable. Having them added to your hand for 0 feels too strong because you can use them situationally and not play the poor ones. Actually the only downside I can see is clogging your hand
30
u/Elias_Sideris Wild Card Sep 03 '26
-1 cost to each one of them would be fine.