TOPIC: Final Ultra Rare Token Images

Endgame wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Miathan wrote: Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

To me, this is aimed at players that are currently doing the skill check. I think it's a mistake to try to make it so powerful to entice those that are skipping the skill checks to start doing them again. Who knows how overpowered it would have to be in order to balance to some people the time it takes to do a skill check? There's no drawback on time at all for those that are currently doing skill checks.

That’s not accurate. The draw back is not fitting an always active damage ring.

That's not a drawback if this Ring is going to be adding more bonus damage than the always active damage ring (which it should do easily).

To put into perspective my concern about the power level of the Ring, it potentially adds as much to 10 of the 14 Wizard damage spells as the Legendary Ring of Supreme Focus, as well as 10 of 14 Druid Damage/Healing Spells and 9 of 12 Elf Wizard damage spells. I think that is significantly overpowered for a UR token. I respect that others disagree.

Mike Steele wrote: To put into perspective my concern about the power level of the Ring, it potentially adds as much to 10 of the 14 Wizard damage spells as the Legendary Ring of Supreme Focus, as well as 10 of 14 Druid Damage/Healing Spells and 9 of 12 Elf Wizard damage spells. I think that is significantly overpowered for a UR token. I respect that others disagree.

Let’s wait for Jeff to confirm how the Ring interacts with the MEC et. al. before coming to any conclusions on its power.

Mike Steele wrote: To put into perspective my concern about the power level of the Ring, it potentially adds as much to 10 of the 14 Wizard damage spells as the Legendary Ring of Supreme Focus, as well as 10 of 14 Druid Damage/Healing Spells and 9 of 12 Elf Wizard damage spells. I think that is significantly overpowered for a UR token. I respect that others disagree.

Relsa’s is not a very powerful legendary. It doesn’t improve polymorph damage, and it is +5 when Muk’s is +6. Not that I am going to get rid of it in my build, but I wouldn’t use it as a baseline.

For damage comparisons use Muk’s.

Chris Wiemer wrote: Should the Sun Scimitar be a FoB not FOB weapon?

Fixed! Thanks!

Rachel Stemm wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: To avoid bitter, bitter Wizard tears, can we get clarity on some interactions with Ring of the Savant before it's finalized and/or people acquire them.

1. Ring of the Savant and Mad Evoker's Charm effects.
The skill test bonus has historically been doubled by Mad Evoker's Charm.

I assume then that on a passed skill test, with Ring of the Savant and usage of Mad Evoker's Charm, a level-0 spell's damage before other +spell damage modifiers is:

(3 base damage + 3 skill test + 5 ring of the savant) * (2 for MeC) = 22, before adding in other +spell damage modifiers.

I was assuming that the extra damage from the successful skill test would not be doubled with MEC, since the additional damage comes from a token and not the card itself.

The token says "+5 to pts to skill test result."

MeC says:

"The wearer has the option to double the base damage (including the extra damage from passing the planar skill check, but no other bonuses) "

So, I think the most straightforward way to read these together is that the +5 is doubled, as it is adding to the skill check, not any other bonus.

But! If the desire is to have it not be doubled, then this token should probably say:

"+5 to a damage or healing spell with passed skill test"

To make it clear that what is being modified is the spell, not the skill test.

Mike Steele wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Miathan wrote: Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

To me, this is aimed at players that are currently doing the skill check. I think it's a mistake to try to make it so powerful to entice those that are skipping the skill checks to start doing them again. Who knows how overpowered it would have to be in order to balance to some people the time it takes to do a skill check? There's no drawback on time at all for those that are currently doing skill checks.

That’s not accurate. The draw back is not fitting an always active damage ring.

That's not a drawback if this Ring is going to be adding more bonus damage than the always active damage ring (which it should do easily).

The point is it adds 5 - X, where X is the benefit the ring it is removing replaces to spells with a skill test, and costs you -X on spells without a skill test.

For example, you'd never replace Resla's Supreme Ring of Focus with this token.

If you replace Greater Ring of Focus with this then you're +2 on spells with a passed skill test, and -3 on all other spells.

The -3 on all other spells is the drawback part in that scenario.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Endgame wrote:

Mike Steele wrote:

Miathan wrote: Most have glanced over the huge draw back of time on the ring of the savant. we know that 3 isn’t enough because high end players don’t currently use the slot less +3, so if this is also taking a slot then why is 5 too much?

To me, this is aimed at players that are currently doing the skill check. I think it's a mistake to try to make it so powerful to entice those that are skipping the skill checks to start doing them again. Who knows how overpowered it would have to be in order to balance to some people the time it takes to do a skill check? There's no drawback on time at all for those that are currently doing skill checks.

That’s not accurate. The draw back is not fitting an always active damage ring.

That's not a drawback if this Ring is going to be adding more bonus damage than the always active damage ring (which it should do easily).

The point is it adds 5 - X, where X is the benefit the ring it is removing replaces to spells with a skill test, and costs you -X on spells without a skill test.

For example, you'd never replace Resla's Supreme Ring of Focus with this token.

If you replace Greater Ring of Focus with this then you're +2 on spells with a passed skill test, and -3 on all other spells.

The -3 on all other spells is the drawback part in that scenario.

True. I was comparing it to other UR Rings, which it is significantly better than. You're probably right that it might not be overpowered compared to Relic or Legendary Rings, but that shouldn't be the power comparison for UR Rings. Although, it might be better than Relsa's in combination with MEC, depending on how Jeff rules on it.

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Rachel Stemm wrote:

Matthew Hayward wrote: To avoid bitter, bitter Wizard tears, can we get clarity on some interactions with Ring of the Savant before it's finalized and/or people acquire them.

1. Ring of the Savant and Mad Evoker's Charm effects.
The skill test bonus has historically been doubled by Mad Evoker's Charm.

I assume then that on a passed skill test, with Ring of the Savant and usage of Mad Evoker's Charm, a level-0 spell's damage before other +spell damage modifiers is:

(3 base damage + 3 skill test + 5 ring of the savant) * (2 for MeC) = 22, before adding in other +spell damage modifiers.

I was assuming that the extra damage from the successful skill test would not be doubled with MEC, since the additional damage comes from a token and not the card itself.

The token says "+5 to pts to skill test result."

MeC says:

"The wearer has the option to double the base damage (including the extra damage from passing the planar skill check, but no other bonuses) "

So, I think the most straightforward way to read these together is that the +5 is doubled, as it is adding to the skill check, not any other bonus.

But! If the desire is to have it not be doubled, then this token should probably say:

"+5 to a damage or healing spell with passed skill test"

To make it clear that what is being modified is the spell, not the skill test.

Matthew very good post. I agree that as written, MEC probably would double the bonus damage. I like how you reworded it, that probably wouldn't be doubled by MEC.

Thanks for all your feedback today. I apologize for not getting back on here sooner. I was busy with life and the Participation tokens (which you need to go check out!). I am very grateful for everyone's work on the new UR tokens. Some of you did a lot of work on this, and it is much appreciated.

Now onward...


I have removed Wizards from the Robes. I am sorry Wizards but I will keep this as I originally intended as a cool thing to give healers who are willing to give up Armor.



I changed the wording after your great comments. I think it is better to keep it simple as stated on the token. Otherwise, we would have to take Wizards off of it to keep it from getting out of hand.

I will keep the new Gauntlets of Divine Guidance as is. I agree with the players who designed it!

I will post a final UR contact sheet tomorrow after your final feedback. Tomorrow I start all the secret stuff like Monster Ingredients -- and the new Treasure Box Only goodies. There are still around 20 tokens to design -- even after the Participation tokens are now done. And don't worry -- Druegar and John will give them a careful look.

Thanks again all!

PS. I recently made an earlier dumb post and had to delete it. Thanks for letting me know!

Hey Jeff! Thanks for your work on this. My wizard friend will be sad about the robe, but I think it makes sense ultimately in the spirit of giving up armor for extra spell power. I do hope that an Ultra Rare Wizard robe can be in the cards some day for him though, as the last one was in 2017! I think he'll be very happy with the ring though, it will definitely give him a reason to nail those skill checks to give his Magic Missiles some extra punch!

Wow. Lots of spell damage and healing now. Maybe a bit too much. As for the Boots I think you could go 3AC/4AC/6AC.