as of right now quest will play an intricate part in card drawing but i would go with a quest ratio of 10-15 possibly

We do now have a quest that readies an ally or hero, this may bump up their need a bit... if they show 1 or 2 more like this, then there will definitly be a need for more of them in decks.

Yes, I was very happy to see that. Only previewing card drawing quests had me worried.

My view of cards:

Allies/Weapons/Armor - Cards directly involved in combat
Abilities - Cards that affect the opponent's characters
Quests - Utility cards that affect your hand and deck

Allies, etc (which sounds like a good deck name) are key in a rush style deck. Abilities are key in a hero based control deck. Quests are key in a combo deck.

Of course, this requires more quests than the type we have seen, which are mostly card draw. But with the new revelation, I think we'll see more of that type.

yes, there will probably be some recursion and tutor type ones.

and on top of that, we will hopefully see better conditions to fufill them.

if that is true, then the number can be bumped up significantly.

Yeah, there's any number of flavorful things they could do to complete a quest:

Exhaust an ally
Exhaust your hero
Sacrifice a weapon/armor
Sacrifice an ally
Discard X cards
Kill an opponent's ally
Destroy an opponent's weapon/armor
Have X facedown resources

It would definitely be nice to see some variety.

It really depends on the deck...

but...

Allies - Majority
Abilities - Depends on class...
Items - Fewest as because of restrictions.
Quests - Probably second or third most, this > dead resources aka cards you could use otherwise.

Also, remember that the UDE folks have said that a deck without any allies will be viable.

i.e. The Solo Deck

If we've seen a representative sampling of Quest effects thus far, I'm guessing we'll see a near-bell-curve that peaks at around 12 quests, with a few more on the sparse side than on the heavy side. Twelve quests is one out of every five cards, so you should have at least a one and probably two or three by the time you run out of cards on turn seven or eight.

Obviously its going to vary from deck to deck. Lots of payment/strike/flip costs, short games, and expensive cards will mean less card draw is needed. Lots of cheap cards, and longer games, will mean more card draw is needed. And then there is the question of what other sorts of card-draw is available...

I'd be inclined to think you would want an amount of quests closer to the land count in Magic, if for no other reason than the fact that if this game is supposed to go on for 9 turns (which is currently an assumption based on others' posts), you are going to run out of cards in hand. At that point you are going to want options in the row to either draw into new cards or still have effects to play.

Some of the people posting are claiming they come from a Vs. background, and this game looks to be far more like Magic than Vs.

That would be true if you were using quest every turn.

To progress in your curve in Magic, you HAD to draw enough lands to keep you going for every turn.

In Wow, you have 7-1. which means you'd run out of cards in hand on around turn 7 (depending on if you went first or not as well) if at any time within those turns you draw atleast 2-3 quest, then you will have all you need to keep your hand size up for the last turns of the game. drawing 4-5 would guarentee you have choices in mid turns with extra resources.

But you by no means need each resource to be a quest, it would be overkill, and more then half of them would be dead cards because you wouldn't have the resources to spend on them (if you were doing anything worthwhile that is)

Did you miss the part where we discussed "You might be?"

Fact remains, we don't know enough to discuss this yet. I still think 20 quests sounds like an appropriate number, but we don't know anything about this game. Certainly not enough to talk about this.

Assuming you are only playing one card a turn. If you're playing allies, abilities, equipment, etc., that number is going to start dropping faster, probably around turn 4 or 5.

Decks are likely going to want to be consistent as well, so you're going to want to hit specific cards for your deck instead of just throw in whatever lets you spend resources in a turn.

24 quests in a deck may turn out to be too many, but I'd imagine the average amount should be closer to that number than something like 12 so you have options that either maintain your strategy in the late game or let you draw into the cards you actually need for your deck.

that makes sense.

Playing two cards, an ally and an ability. in a turn, or more then that, will definitly put a bigger strain on your hand.

But the fact that drawing cards will also cost you resource points makes me wonder where all the points to use these abilities and allies is going to come from.

That sounds needlessly rude.

It will also depend on your class as well.

Remember that cards like Mana Agate will exist. Mana is all about drawing cards in the TCG, so Expect Armor/Items that can exhaust to draw a card coming out by Turn 5-6 of a mage deck.

I believe, that you'll be wanting about 16 in your deck give or take. Thats a steady 4x4, so you can take four good ones for your class, again.

Battle For Darrowshire is great in a dech full of Orgrimmar Grunts (Strategy for an archetype? maybe...) But not so great if you are running a rezzing druid, or a keepalive priest.

Basically, you're going to want to play 2 quests into your row every 3 turns. If you are working for a quest EVERY turn, you probably aren't spending the resources neccesary to actually compete with the other player. Sure card-advantage is the biggest? factor in a win, but with 9 turns, if you complete 5 quests at 2 resources each and four at three, you are using 22 of 45 available resources simply on card draw, which puts you way behind. (Thats Two Pyroblasts and a Fireball, enough to kill a hero given a few burn turns).

Thats it. 14-18 Quests for me I think... Baring a deck heavy with draw items.