[Suggest] NPC / Landing [Finished]

No second thread.

---

NPC (not the 60/1)

A while back, there was a discussion on IRC where we talked about NPC/Landing, and about Remembrance This thread will be about the first two.

The NPC/Landing combo is a and two card combo, that draws you three cards. It's the cheapest way of getting card advantage. Any deck will be better with this combo. Other card drawers don't really compare (except maybe for Remembrance with a card that's meant to be discarded, but that's a lot more conditional).
The biggest issue with the combo is that it's so spammable.
Earlier attempts to find a solution to this 'problem' have resulted in the conclusions that it's impossible to nerf this combo without overnerfing it. Here are some nuanced solutions that you might like:

1. Give all NPCs the ability (Boss)
2. Make Landing target only undizzy monsters.

Pros and cons of each solution:
1. This makes the NPC/Landing combo impossible (can be conceived as a pro or a con). An alternative would be to run Landing with one costers (Skeleton?), or zero costers (yay, more use for chookie). It would add a nice extra effect to NPC, as it would suddenly be a TDQ counter.

2. This is not a very big change, and probably the best of the two because of that (imho). It would not change the way any of these cards work, but it would remove spammability. You would have to wait a turn to combo it with NPC, but you could still use it with Gloops.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the second solution because of the lack of side effects.

The way I see it, this is an either/or balance and this is why the cards are in the same thread. Either nerf NPC, or nerf Landing (or neither). However, if people feel they should nerf both NPC and Landing, I'm not going to stop them from posting this. I'll just discourage it as it is almost certainly an overnerf then.

Since this is the first thread with the new rules in effect, I'd like to point out that they are. Sticky is in the balance forum. This thread is for determining whether or not we change so you don't have to specify in your vote. Your choice of preferrence should probably be part of your explanation though.