ImaginaryNumb3r

Of course there are more important factors, especially for a game like Battleforge that is mainly about microing unit, spells and abilities effectively. I was very well aware that the scenario with the Lancers fighting each other was a forced example. I wanted to point out the fact that, despite equal resources being invested one unit can come out more beneficially than another. Also, as for comparing effiency in a fight that does not really make sense to begin with, as the player which makes better use of counters and spells normally gets an edge to begin with. So I grant you that. However, imagine that you are a shadow splash and just want a beefy XL with good stats you could choose between Lost Grigori and Soulhunter. Both have their unique abilities but let's assume you just want to play pve and want a unit with good stats. In this example you can't just compare them stats by stats because Soulhunter is 30% more expensive. To get a meaningful comparison you need to compare them on a per power basis and this is where the efficency comes into play. Soulhunter: 69.23, Lost Grigori: 52,50. Done. This is not so much a problem for pure element players who normally only have one unit that fulfills a role to begin with, but the more choices you have the more interesting possibilities you could try to make work. Sure, often some units will have different key abilities like swift and you can't directly compare Vileblood and Burrower. However, imagine Vileblood and Burrower did have similar efficency. It would show more clearly than anything else that Vileblood just is no valid choice in pvp and you won't even need to play to say that for sure. It's the ame story for many T4 units which are simply inferior to the most popular choices. There is a reason why nobody sees Void Maw... Actually, the only reason I did this spreadsheet was to have an overview of the efficency in general. It helps a lot when you see the game from a conceptual approach and is a big help for balancing. I like participating in the daily card dicsussion and having a quick reference sheet helps a lot. It provides a quick overview why certain key units are seen as very strong while others are too so weak they are never used. Sure, some units are known to be bad (did I mention Bandit Sorceress?) but knowing it and having evidence that a unit has terrible stats is a difference. But in the end, I guess it is just a personal matter of taste. I like knowing the guts of a game and doing number crunching.

The formula for power efficency is HP * ATK / power and this is a univeral formula which works for basically all games. You need to think about it this way, a unit will deal damage as long as its alive. HP basically equats to time, as a unit with more health will generally stay alive for a longer time. In the excel sheet efficency is just calculated ATK ratio * HP ratio, but that is justified since the ratios are: ATK / root (power). When multiplying the ratios you square the root, subsequently restoring the original power cost. As for efficency I also divide this by a constant factor so I get a lower number that is easier to compare. For example if a unit with 200 ATK and 800 HP fights a unit with 800 HP and 200 ATK, both will (or should) die. In that sense ATK is interchangeable with HP. However, the more health a unit has the longer a fight will last and the more macro oriented a fight becomes. Of course that does not work with units that makes heavy use of passive or active abilities. Ashbone Pyro, Shadow Mage, Nox Trooper etc. are hardly comparable. But this is no complete science and you simply don't need to have exact values. It also doesnt matter if you are a few percent off since in reality there are many other factors which pay a huge rule (like 50% counter damage, CC, abilities, knockback, spells etc.). This is just supposed be a simple unit by unit comparison. For example, if you would want to compare Silverwind Lances (80e )with Bandit Lancers (60e) . The problem here is that they have require different amounts of power, so you can't compare them directly. So, if 3 Silverwind Lances (240e) would attack 4 Bandit Lancers (240)e the Silverwinds should actually win (for now we disregard the fact that Bandit Lancers have life-steal). I can say that simply because Silverwinds have a much higher efficiency value with 29,4 whereas Bandit Lancers only have 21,23. As I said, other factors also come into play but from a mere mathematical standpoint without context this is as far as it gets and it works. As I've said many times already, I am modding a different RTS game and I have an excel sheet with all my units which helps me balancing the game. This is perfect to sort out whether a unit is (too) good or bad. Simply by the efficency we can conclude that units like Bandit Sorceress or Lost Priest are abysmal in combat. Yes, I also did divide by 1000 but this is a simple constant which is not related to the formula per se and done for every unit. If you really do calculate ATK * HP / power you get quite a big number. On the last sheet you can just replace the factors by 1 and get the original results if you wish.

I was pretty sure I made the labels but apparently I forgot :P. I guess I've worked with it so many times that I became blind to the details ^^ It was a rushed release where my main intent was just to provide the raw stats so SilenceKiller (and everybody else) has a reference sheet and doesnt need to make everything on their own. Regarding fixing that top row I know that you can do that but I forgot the way you do that... could you tell me how?

Awww, I knew I forgot something. The red one basically is the attack value per power, while the green one is HP per power. The blue one is general combat effectiveness per power (or how much bang you get for your buck). I found this extremely helpful to find out which units are better in a stat by stat comparison. For example Bandit Sorceress has 4.56, while DA have 6.91. That makes it easy to see how difficult it is for her to effectively counter DA. But this also allows you to compare stats of units which have cost different amounts of power.

Maybe not 100% but 99%. Just look at Commandos, as Ladadoos told us they actually shoot about every 2 seconds (the ingame description suggest every second). Ladadoos also did me a favour some time ago and tested some other cards (like Gunner) and from that it really looks like you can trust that information in general.

My spreadshot has both, U0 and U3 And @SilenceKiller99 the attack value of the card increases too. You can see that by promo cards which have a different attack value than their normal counterparts (promo cards are U3 to begin with).

@SilenceKiller99 Gunner actually fires all 4 seconds and it actually does more damage too. You can see this in Ultrakools ingame screenshot: As for LSS, I think this is actually the correct damage value and you are not mistaken. I remember doing that calculation when the old servers were still up and got something about 10k as well. It just further shows how stupidly strong this unit is. And Commandos actually really state that they shoot bolts which deal 11 damage every second, so that must be a mistake in the description because its real damage output nowhere gets close to being that high.

Interesting. Thank you for clearing that up. I got the picture from the Bf Wiki which seems to be even more outdated than allCards. Curiously, allCards seemingly has the correct value but its description still features the old (wrong) values. Apparently, Gunner must have received a buff during Renegade edition, something I was not aware of. However, that explains why he is not as bad as I thought and explains why doing rpve with him worked so well xD I'll correct my original post now Edit: @Ultrakool could you please also give me the correct values for the upgrades? Thank you Edit 2: Thanks again Ultrakool, at least the card upgrades seem to be correct (which I have from MrXLink's upgrade sheet). That gives him an effective atk value of 1400 on U3.

Yeah, I did but mine is a bit different. While it does state the correct damage done it also features another variety of infos like much much health or attack you get for each unit of power the unit costs. Also, all units have U3 values as well. However, it lacks the convienient "is correct or not" column Anyway, for those who are interested, I'll provide it as an attachment. It's not complete, a few units might be missing and I also only did I couple of structures. Battleforge Card Stats.xlsx Edit: @Lagops the sad thing is that I get the same attack value for LSS as him... Edit 2: Also, allCards is not a reliable source. For example Skycatcher does not have 13000 atk. It shoots all 3 seconds, which actually gives it a real attack of 4333. And some cards also have a different atk value. For example, Gunner in allcards have 1280 atk, but ingame it actually states 960 (and in reality its 900). I worked together with Labadoos to get the correct values for the units which looked most suspicious, but there is no full guarentee that everything is correct (which was one of the reasons why I was still holding my version back). And, @SilenceKiller99 I advise you to lay open the calculation for each individual unit. Errors happen and other people should be able to double check your work.

So, since there has been no card for a few days I think I'm gonna do a card that has been requested a couple of times now. Edit: Apparently I posted an outdated version of Gunner, the current version deals more damage. I adjusted the values. Not that Gunner actually has 1280 on the card (and actually deals 1200 damage ingame). Fire Affinity: Outlaw Burst: Every 2 seconds, this unit uses its cannon to fire off a ball that deals 192 to enemies within a cone-shaped area, up to 288 in total. 25% of all damage dealt by this unit cannot be warded off. Siege: Deals 100% more damage against structures (all bfcards and the bf wikia is wrong, the ingame description says this unit deals 100% siege additional damage to structures) Shadow Affinity: Tainted Burst: Every 2 seconds, this unit uses its cannon to fire off a ball that deals 192 to enemies within a cone-shaped area, up to 288 in total. 100% of all damage dealt by this unit cannot be warded off. The shadow affinity has no siege Against structures, I think this is the to-go unit when you are fire-shadow that beats Ashbone Pyro. From what I know @Lagops has some good in-depth knowledge about T3 siege units for fire-shadow and if I remember correctly it was his T3 siege unit of choice. Unlike Ashbone Pyro it does not lose health and still has life-stealer it is much more user friendly which also allows play in pve. Speaking of which, I liked using Gunners as my main T3 unit in my (r)pve bandit decks. The damage might not be as high as other cards, but they melt away structures in an instant. Also, their knockback means that everything not L-sized will be pushed back constantly similar to Frost Mage. Eventually, I did change it for Soulhunter just because Soulhunter is a pure beast and you get much more power for you money. Because honestly, with the power you need to create a sizeable Gunner army, you could afford 2 or even 3 Soulhunters and normally buffing just one will do the job just fine. More power invested is just unnecessary overkill. However, this card really excels when you can take advantage of the 100% siege bonus, which is huge in pvp but... not that much in pve. Btw. this unit actually "only" deals 1200 damage, but I think that is nonetheless a solid attack value. What is left to say is that I think it's a fun choice and at least for pve this is one of the cards which you need to take for style and its fun-aspects (the quotes are legendary, I advise every player to play with a Gunner at least once ). If I could make a change, I'd just make it like on allcards. 1280 damage, 50% siege damage. This will make the unit basically as strong as before against buildings but can also be used better as a soft-counter for creatures. So, you would basically end up with a Bandit version of the Magma Hurler. Uh, nevermind. However, 50% siege for the purple affinity would be nice. Edit: Corrected some things regarding the increased attack value.

You've summoned me mortal, now I shall grant you your wish. The cards with the wrong values are actually easy to remember. Almost all ranged units which have a min/max value are wrong. So, you should probably remember the few important ones which happen to have correct values. As for the calculation, Vulcan was an easy example because it always deals 120 damage to every unit, no matter what. If this unit had a maximum damage (like most units have) you need to add the minimum damage to the maximum damage and divide by two so you get the average damage. Divide this again by the rate of fire, this can then be multiplied by 20. That gives you: (min + max) / 2 / rate of fire * 20. Pretty straight forward. However, doing so often gives very different result than actually stated on the card. One might get the impression that this is the wrong approach but when just taking minium or maximum damage and multiply it by 20 you won't get the stated value either. Naturally, you first need to calculate the DPS (which is damage divided by rate of fire) before you multiply by 20. Moreover, there actually are cards which have the stats you'd expect if you calculate it the way I do. One example is the beautiful Tortugun ( (672 + 1008) / 2 / 2 * 20 = 8400 ) or cards like Lost Dancer (which actually has 666 damage but I think that is close enough). Most frequently, it are cards which deal damage to only one target have the correct value (Rifle Cultists, T1 archers) but even then there are cards like Windweavers, Amii Phantom or Gladiatrix that still don't show the correct number. I really cannot give a different explanation than the one that Phenomic just screwed it up. And I can't even think of something that could cause that. Because if we look at cards like Bandit Sorceress (but many cards are like her), the card states the following: 550 ATK / 470 HP. However, (44 + 66) / 2 / 3 * 20 = 366 (which equates to terrible). Curiously, if we add another 50% (which is equal to the bonus damage you get from attacking the correct size), this gives the correct attack value (550). Even just multiplying max damage doesn't give the correct result: 66 / 3 * 20 = 440. Really, they just screwed it up. There is no other word to describe it. That is also a reasons why I made my own Excel sheet that states the correct values. I'll probably release it to public somewhen but it needs more tidying up.

Yeah, they are kinda like Darkelf Assassins. Only that they lack their damage, or great ability... or low power cost. Another problem is that they actually only deal 440 damage (11 * 6 / 3 * 20). But by far their biggest problem is that Stormsinger is a far better M-counter. Not only does it deal more damage, is cheaper and is m-sized, it also has a superb ability. And as for your question, the benefit this card has over defenders is that they are m-counters It is just another high HP, low damage card that is similar to Defenders and Master Archers (which is a neat idea and fits the frost type of macro oriented gameplay but just isn't enough in T2) and hardly brings anything useful to the game. They deal 15 damage per shot on U3, so that is not impressive either (which is 600 ATK per squad). I literally can't find anything positive about this card other than it being a ranged unit. And if I recally correctly their ability costs about 15ish power as well. Meh? A nice to have card which I can see some people having fun with at a low Elo meta. Nothing more. I just don't see frost needing another m-counter which happens to deal low damage and doesn't have anything convincing about it. With must haves like Stormsinger and War Eagle I simply cannot see what this card possibly has to offer. I don't even see it being a real threat when using the ability over cliffs. Another case of bad design.

In theory this card would be a great complement to a pure fire army. Moloch + unity prevents any units from getting beaten up too much and with high DPS units like Fire Dragon and Batariel you can rock the stage. As pure fire does not have enough staying power, this could be a T4 ravage to give your units an edge in combat. At least that's the theory. So, obviously the problem is that there are almost no pure fire armies to begin with. The star of pure fire is Batariel and honestly, this card is best used with enlightenment, and a crap load of support spells. So that leaves your pure fire army with what... Moloch? A unit that is "nice to have" at best and virtually unuseable in rpve due to its slow movement speed (really fire and slow movement? -.-). By going fire, fire, fire, nature you already get the best things of Fire (being Cluster Explosion, Fire Dragon, Fire Sphere and Earth Shaker) but rather than using a T4 ravage, you get the real deal: a T4 lightsurge. And Grimvine is a much better (and much much faster) T4 siege/tank unit considering its price. It doesn't help Bloodthirst that it is 120e, which cannot be compared to the 50e from Ravage that you can simply throw in here and there. Also, Bloodthirst heals at a much slower pace and sometimes it just might not be enough for an army that has little HP in general. So, the reason why it is not used is not necessarily because the card is bad but because Regrwoth is vastly superior and there is hardly a reason to go pure fire to begin with. Perhaps, the card should just be improved by a lot and be made pure fire, I think that would help a considerable deal. Edit: @anonyme0273 Yeah I thought about that too already. But I suppose the game is running by then so the circumstances will be different.

I can't give a lot of input for this, other than that this is a really good card for pvp. Not only once have I seen wells go down by players casting Evicator's Woe while attacking with Ashbone Pyro. Among other cards like Cultist Master this is also one of the cards that makes double shadow orb in T3 a very strong choice.

Heal excels even more with damage reduction. But there is an easier way to show why damage reduction is more efficient. Normal Twilight Creeper stats: 1500ATK / 1550HP / 100e Twilight Creeper total stats: 1700 * 1550 = 2325000 That divided by the power cost gives us 2325000 / 100 = 23250. Now we do the same with the Creeper being affected by the debuffs. More Damage Creeper stats: 1500 * 1.3 ATK / 1550 / 100e. Total Stats = 1500 * 1.3 * 1550 = 3022500. Divided by power = 30225. Less Damage Creeper stats: 1500 ATK / (1550 / 0.7) / 100e. Total Stats = 1500 * 1550 / 0,7 = 3321428 Divided by power = 33414.28 The end result gives us values which we can compare all units together. A unit that is twice as good will have a end value that is twice as high. Another trick to show why 30% less is better than 30% more is to see it as percentages. 1 + 30% = 130% 1 + (-30%) = 1 + (1/0.7) = 1.42887. You can visualise it this way: A unit that has its damage improved by 50% deals 150% damage. However, a unit receiving 50% less damage can take twice as much damage (which is 200%). On the other side, while a unit with 100% more damage deals twice the damage, a unit receiving 100% less damage is indestructable. Of course, I'd automatically take the damage buff affinity if it would be 40% and not 30%.

Originally I wanted to make a daily card discussion for this when you were away but the problem is that this unit has a completely wrong description. Ingame it is an enitrely different unit. I even asked Ladadoos to send me the correct ingame description, you can see it here: Please correct your original message or people will post their opinion on a card that does not exist in the game... Okay, now for my opinion. This is actually one of my favourite units. The few times I played Twilight, it was always part of my T3. Best comparison is Magma Hurler, as both are L/L cost 100e and have 1500 attack (yes Magma Hurler has 1500 damage, not 1700). However, I think Twilight Creeper is just more fun to use. I admit, I wouldn't take this unit for rpve 10... but neither would I take Magma Hurler (most likely). The drawback of this card is that it is actually a melee unit while the "Creeper Spit" is only a supporting long range attack which fires automatically. But in return, it also has more health and mass debuff is really good too. If you build 3 of them, they can apply debuffs to a whole camp. Nice! From a mathematical point of view the red affinity is better, since lowering incoming damage to 70% is better than improving damage by 30% and it is also my affinity of choice. Making basically all enemies deal 30% less damage is huge. Add that to the already good stats and you see why this unit is viable. However, if you have enough power and bring SoW (which you should) I can totally see the red affinity work if you use it together with Inferno. As the red affinity could improve the damage from max 7200 to 9360. It might be a lot of power, but I am sure you won't have any problems claiming your orbs in pve and rpve 9. As for rpve10 I'd probably just use Enlightenment and summon an Abomination... or two. I think this card is in a fine spot and honestly, I would not change anything. It already brings a lot of value for just 100e. Edit: @Kaliber84 you probably want to reconsider what you posted, as there was wrong information about this card. Also, now know the upgrades

I agree that I am glad that this unit is useless. If it would be a valid card, pure fire receives a massive buff in one way or another. And really, I can only see this unit making already very strong units like Enforcer or Firedancer even stronger. The card does too little at a too high price. There is no reason why I should not summon an Enforcer at -5e cost instead. I think raising its stats would hurt nobody and this way the unit could at least contribute to a small degree. Also, I don't think this unit should be exclusive to pure Fire in any way. But I came to think about the card and what if we would increase the duration of the buff considerably? I am thinking about 25 seconds, perhaps even 30 seconds but in return, it can only buff units all 15 seconds. That could apply buffs to key units in some interesting ways and you would need to choose carefully what you want to be stronger. We could also exchange the current buffs with more utility focused abilities as suggested before. However, to make that work I suggest giving this unit a counter so it can also fight to a certain degree. You probably want to have it in the background, buffing units from safety but in case it fights along some other units it certainly shouldn't be dead weight. I think S-counter would be appropriate. It is not overpowered, due to the low damage it couldn't replace true dedicated S-counters and fire has no splashable S-counter anyway. Oh, and a fun fact about the card: It actually deals even less damage than stated. Slowly I get the impression that was made purposely by Phenomic as a running gag.

Sorry for nit picking, but Bandit Stalker is an overpriced Bandit T2 unit which has no counter and does add nothing to a deck that has slot problems in general. Even if it would be played, it's the green ability because 100% more damage against beasts at least gives it a somewhat decent DPS (but it still gets countered by NC and once it is finished killing beasts, it becomes useless). On the other hand, the purple ability basically does no damage worth mentioning to begin with and even then only pierces with 50% of its damage. It is a terribly designed unit and I felt obligated to throw that in.

Well, here comes the obligatory Stonekin XL creature. I think it is "okay", being XL does have its advantages and while the stats are sub-par they aren't terrible either. The 15% less damage makes a noticeable impact and elevetes its health to almost 2800. Also, the 2 critters deal 500 dmg each, so that leaves you with 4000 ATK and 2800 HP and that actually makes it better than other Stonekin cards like Stone Warrior from a raw stat perspective (even if you consider the price). However, its main ability to sacrifice the critters to restore health doesn't really bring much to the battlefield and honestly, it doesn't suit Stonekin that much. That sounds more like a Shadow ability to me since it is a one way ticket. Moreover, Stonekin doesn't need a big tanky unit, what they lack is damage and in that regard Deepfang certainly doesn't deliver and most certainly, it doesn't beat Tremor or Fathom Lord in that area too. Also, it just doesn't have the utility of let's say a Stone Warrior or even a Rageflame. So, while not bad it is still underwhelming. If it could attack air and had higher ATK... maybe? I am not a Stonekin expert. As for the union ability, I have never used it, so idk. Imo, just let it be a big and boring stat monster for people who want to do their pve and can't be bothered to use abilities (you know, the majority of people). I'd vote for higher attack and one way to respawn the critters somehow.

I once bought Void Maw because I thought they could potentially replace Rifle Cultists in T4. I love the artwork and imagined fielding them so I can let them shoot their frigging lasers from their eyes and laugh maniacally while they eradicate those puny XL creatures from afar . Sorry, I was drifting away. Sadly, they didn't deliver. Their damage is insignificant and their range is rather short. Also, they don't look as nearly as cool when they shoot... they chew some kind of dark bubble gum and spit it at the enemy? Very disappointing. The ability is good, but Void Maw needs to get into range first and can get killed very fast. Also, if I recall correctly the ability costs another 150+ power which makes it less appealing to begin with (yes I know, Void returns fast with SoW, but you might be missing those 150+ power in crucial moments). All in all, it's rather "meh" and either way I think you area really better off with Rifle Cultists for the most part. If you want a good XL counter, get Death Ray which is a really amazing card. Heck, even Necrofury would be better. It might be cumbersome to use, but it's an underestimated card for the most and helped me in my early days a great deal (Bone Shard + Unholy Hero is REALLY scary). I think this card would be fun if it had its range increased and rate of fire brought down to 3 seconds, making it 2500. It would be a squishy, but strong a XL artillery unit which does not sacrifice mobility, making it quite unique. And with the basestats being raised, you could even make use of ability once in a while. Note that 2500 attack would give it a similar attack/power ratio to Death Ray. A strong tank in the front (like Overlord, or Grimvein) and Void Maws behind, I can totally see that work. Even more, you could still use it to to sacrifice them, 100 power is not so much of a big deal. Edit: I think making it one shadow orb wouldn't hurt this unit either. It can be hard to get good anti-XL for some colours and I think it would be good to provide Void Maw as a valid choice just in case.

I am confident they wanted to release Amii, as people have been waiting for almost 2 years and many Amii cards have already been given out pre-release. However, they couldn't just make a release of cards that were already in the game and decided to give 2 more cards: Frenetic Assault and Oracle. Considering that there was pretty much nobody else left on Phenomic and those who did work on BF worked on it in their free time, it is easy to fathom why there were so meany questionable cards released so late. I think that explains some of it, at least. Edit: What I want to add is that I think near the end of the game there were only programmers left who maintained what's been left of the game. While we all love TBO for what he did, he simply had no vision or true understanding of the game (and I don't think anybody else had either). He supported the game because he grew attached to it and liked working on its technical issues. I think too that, besides Curse Well, I certainly wouldn't miss this card if it isn't included in BFR.

A card that should have never been released... It's the ultimate cheese card that allows to break the design of the game and brings more advantages than actual disadvantages compared to a normal T4 orb (that is of course, unless somebody managed to build one before you could but that is another design flaw on its own). Some might argue that this card, while bad, is "necessary" for occasions like "difficult rpve 10 maps". However, that only shows that particular scenarios are simply broken and I would much more like to see those issues being fixed. Of coursed, sometimes maps are just obliged to be difficult and there should not be a way to cheat your way around this. Because honestly, it's nothing more than that. So yeah, while it could potentially be used legitimately, most the time it is just used to skip T3 for whatever reason. Laaame, why would you not have such a card when you are doing speed runs? In a perfect world, nobody would want or need this card and I just don't like it. Another questionable design decisions... sometimes (or actually, regularly) I wonder what Phenomic was thinking when they were designing cards.

Well... it does pretty much what it says on the tin. Instant structure build up with a drawback or "simply" a fast build up. I haven't used it myself but the use for this card is pretty much self evident: Spamming towers. Now, Frost only has one towers in T4, but I guess Worldbreaker Guns certainly is not a bad one. I could potentially see this being very funny with allies who build Vulcanos or Hatecasters (very underestimated card). All in all, it's a nice gimmick card and has 3 frost orbs for a reason.

I knew it would probably make problems for Nature/Shadow, but I thought that could be fixed by tweaking the Amii Phantom. But now that you mention it, I really see that AA would be a problem for shadow splashes in general. I think this is one of the fundamental issues where one card does too things at once, resulting in making the range of similar units useless (which we come to notice in this topic quite often), thus reducing diversity in general. I've dealt with such situations in my RTS mod (shameless self promotion) by keeping the greater picture in mind and making other units perform some of their former tasks. I could imagine creating the ability "Skyfire" which works similar to "Siege" and increases damage against air targets by 50%. I think appropriate cards with this rule could be Shadow Mage, Lost Priest and Amii Phantom. This would further promote the completely useless card Lost Priest (which of course would need its damage get fixed) and Amii Phantom (okay, it's not useless but it's not great either). I could only see this making some problems with Shadow Mage, but since that card has no counter and has severe drawback, it should be alright? I think the reconstruction on larger scale requires more time to get it right, but when you are there have a much richer gameplay. However, I have to admit that I don't have such great insight into BF as others and that might not work out as planned and minor changes could at least have "good" result. But since I guess this is out of reach, I guess increasing the length of the trance where they do nothing to 15s (from 10s) could already fix this more or less. I'd have liked to simply see their damage set to 20 per shot but that could make them too bad against air targets (which also speaks against a shorter duration of their ability). Making them lose the s-counter sounds interesting, but doesn't feel very intuitive. Would like to know what you think about both ideas. Edit: While I think DA and shadow splashes in general is a topic worth discussing, I'd still like to know about a post-change Bandit Sorceress (with corrected damage ) vs DA (with a minor nerf in their ability). Would DA still be a superior choice, or would it become more a matter of personal taste?

You just took take the words out of my mouth and the bugged damage is just poor (for those who are interested, Bandit Sorceress actual damage is 366). However, assuming Bandit Sorceress wouldn't be bugged but actually has her 550 ATK, her effective damage would be 720 ATK / 570 HP on a unit for 50 power on U3 (assuming the ATK is fixed and she gets the full splash damage). Lifesteal shouldn't be disregarded either and M size makes her less susceptible to knockback. Wouldn't that actually make her an actually decent card? Personally, I see the problem more in Darkelf Assassins whose Unholy Trance gives them twice the DPS while keeping the same ATK over 20 seconds. I think a reasonable "adjustment" has long been overdue and would promote use of alternative anti-S creatures such as Bandit Sorceress or Lost Dancer (right now there is barely any "risk" involved with this shadow ability and reminds more of an aggressive Fire ability). I also don't like the fact that Lost Soul can make a viable and small DA/Lost Reaver/NC T2 due to the strength of all of these cards and I see that step mitigating that to some degree. And regarding her ability, couldn't it find use on Mortar Tower, perhaps?