I feel like most of the new abilities aren't really doing their job.
The point of giving characters abilities is to create variety, so that there are many possible characters a player might want to use.
An att40/def40 is always better than att30/def40, but if we add an ability like "Failed attacks against this character lose a heart" then there's a meaningful distinction.
In one situation (Your opponent is about to attack and would lose against def 40) you want the second character but in another situation (You are about to attack and 40 would win but 30 is not enough) you would want the first character.
The ability has succeeded at it's goal. There is now more variety in the game because both of these characters might get used. They're good in different situations.
Now lets look at an ability like "+10 attack if <condition>" (It doesn't matter what the condition is)
There is no way to add this ability to a character that doesn't lead to one being equal or better than the other in all situations.
If we go with the 30/40 (ability) vs 40/40 (no ability) we were looking at a moment ago then either the 40/40 is better (when the condition is not true) or they're the same (when it is). Since it's not always true then it's better just to take the 40/40.
Since the ability isn't good enough we could knock the character that's always better down a step. Now we're comparing 30/40 (ability) to 30/40 (no ability) in which case the first card is better. When the condition is true it's better and when it's not then it's the same.
In order for the abilities to create meaningful gameplay the bare minimum requirement is that two cards that are not both viable without the ability both become viable when the ability is added to one of them. If an ability doesn't pass that test, it's not actually adding anything to the game.
The point of giving characters abilities is to create variety, so that there are many possible characters a player might want to use.
An att40/def40 is always better than att30/def40, but if we add an ability like "Failed attacks against this character lose a heart" then there's a meaningful distinction.
In one situation (Your opponent is about to attack and would lose against def 40) you want the second character but in another situation (You are about to attack and 40 would win but 30 is not enough) you would want the first character.
The ability has succeeded at it's goal. There is now more variety in the game because both of these characters might get used. They're good in different situations.
Now lets look at an ability like "+10 attack if <condition>" (It doesn't matter what the condition is)
There is no way to add this ability to a character that doesn't lead to one being equal or better than the other in all situations.
If we go with the 30/40 (ability) vs 40/40 (no ability) we were looking at a moment ago then either the 40/40 is better (when the condition is not true) or they're the same (when it is). Since it's not always true then it's better just to take the 40/40.
Since the ability isn't good enough we could knock the character that's always better down a step. Now we're comparing 30/40 (ability) to 30/40 (no ability) in which case the first card is better. When the condition is true it's better and when it's not then it's the same.
In order for the abilities to create meaningful gameplay the bare minimum requirement is that two cards that are not both viable without the ability both become viable when the ability is added to one of them. If an ability doesn't pass that test, it's not actually adding anything to the game.
