Lots of balancing issues now is about finding the suitable flux cost for cards.
One of the limitation is that flux cost is discrete meaning there is no:

1) ascent for 3.5 flux
or
2) bamboo tower for 2.5 flux

A potential solution just flash through my mind today - why not make the flux cost variable.
For example:

1) ascent cost 1 + the half of total flux cost of the entities affected by it(the creature + enchantments on it). This way you pay 2 flux to ascent typical small creatures like the old ascent and more for larger creatures.

2) bamboo cost 3 flux if played in the first 10 rounds otherwise 2 flux. (I think bamboo gets weaker as the game goes on. Making bamboo's construction site on the 2nd turn is one of my favourite strategies.)

Actually I think the suggestion with ascent makes more sense but I bring the bamboo up to point that the idea of varying flux cost can be use in lots of ways.

I think its a pretty good idea.

If ascent takes enchantments into consideration should the enchantments go back in hand too?

edit: Also, I think 10 turns is a little much in the case of bamboo. It should be somewhere close to around 5. In mf/ele you can have a craigscout with training and a fort claiming middle wll by turn 5 (and with 2 flux left over). Im pretty sure that craig scout and fort will have a good chance of owning whatever sylvan weenies you have to throw at it in those 5 turns.

Good idea for ascent at least, if you make it half rounded up. Then ascenting 1 and 2 flux guys would be as it used to be. But I don't think the cost should depend on enchantments on the creature, just the cost of the creature. Another option for ascent could be simply cost of X, where X is the flux cost of the creature.

In general, variable cost for any number of reasons is a good idea. Similar thoughts have been posted in the past... and hopefully we'll see some of this in the future.

Applying the idea to Ascent might be good... I disagree that enchantments should be factored in or returned... and as far as the watch tower is concerned, for being a common I think it's fine the way it is.

Uhh... So bamboo being common is the most important factor? Hmmm... mmk.


And charm is a great creature control card.

I do agree that some cards could use variable costs. Good stuff they are.

But how about we DOUBLE all current flux cost, alowing us to have more inbetween costs then?

while I agree doubling flux costs would allow for more appropriate flux costs, it doesn't completely solve the problem and makes the math slightly harder to do in your head. I think it is worth investigating, but I feel like there's got to be a better solution.

Dude, single digit mathematics... how hard can it be?
I bet counting 7 flux instead of 3.5 is mildy easier, and nicer to look on the white circle that denotes flux numbers.

We just double all known income increment methods, like you gain 4 flux every turn, and 2 flux per flux well, and so on, and if every thing's cost goes up double, we can balance it better with a finer precision. Of course timing everything by 10 would give quite the amount of control, but would be excessive imo. Double, or at most triple, should be what is looked at.

And i vote that acent should be 3 flux!

Lets also not forget about the aesthetics of design. A card game should strive towards form and function at the same time, and to balance and marry the two.

Neither the 7 or 3.5 costs are elegant solutions for the Bamboo Watch Tower. 7 is likely more elegant, but we're going to have card costs of 14 and 16. And then there'll still be the problem of very few cards costing an odd number of flux, unless you rebalance a lot of the other cards already existing.

As for variable costs, Ascendance would really elegant as an X spell, but having fluctuating costs for an otherwise simple building like the Bamboo Watchtower would be really inelegant. (Moreover, that some cards are stronger in the beginning and weaker at the end of the game is hardly a balance or design flaw.) Variable costs will work for some cards but not others.