MArcomage

Compare it with Arthoria the Saber: she has comparable cost, same Swift and Durable keywords but also has Legend (+1 to lowest facility almost always), Enduring (the more times you play it, the better its damage/cost ratio) and Far sight (high wall/tower/token increasing or even self-paying). Lord of time doesn't have any of that but he has a Mage keyword. That could be useful if Lord of time would be a gems-only card but since you should spend recruits to play it... yeah. +1 magic or +10 gems and 100 damage for 80/80 gems/recruits is not so good compared with +3 lowest facilities, 95 damage and 27 stock (270 to token counters, 54 tower, 81 wall) for 72/72.
I guess Lord of time should have Enduring (15) or cost like 17/17. Thoughts?

Yeah, I agree that it should be buffed somehow.
making it gems only could be a good idea.
another suggestion: give it "mage tokens: x2"

making it gems only would make it too strong, usually I end up with 200 gems in long games and only 80-90 recruits, so recruits are limiting.

Being Swift, we can't make it too inexpensive, though I agree that it's often hard to play this once let alone multiple times in a turn.

Gems only cost would be too good for Swift-Durable-Mage card. It should cost like 35 gems then.
I have three ideas: Enduring, Far sight or Banish and Skirmisher.

I think that although it seems strong though, it's not. It's 40 resources for 25 attack. If one doesn't have 20 facilities, then they can't really play it for free. You need massive resource build-up to be effective with this card and it's usually used as a combo with other cards. The only suggestion I'd have if you feel this card is overpowered, is to make it Quick and give it a stock reduction effect (Stock -5 each time it's played sounds right I think)

Making it Enduring/Far Sight/Banish/Skirmisher would just create a second Arthoria without the Legend keyword. Not very interesting

Wasn't I clear enough in my first post? I think that Lord of time is underpowered in comparison with another rare Mages.
Wind witch is potentially free targeted discard with some attack.
Luna is Far sight, good attack and +magic.
Thor is just a good attack card with direct tower damage.
Elven warlock is a ton of damage and gems if you have 6-7 magic or higher.
Archmage has mediocre attack but returns a card in hand and lowers enemy stock.
Master of the past is a counter to Efreet, Damnation, Outnumbered and outmatched and another cards like that.
And Lord of time. 25 attack for 40 resources (all other rare Mages except fully defensive Master of the past have much better damage/cost ratio), no benefits for playing more than once, and you can't just play and get rid of him. Arthoria is much better in... almost in everything. In fact, I think that Lord of time would be even better without Durable.

oh sorry :P misinterpreting text, I thought you wanted him to have 15 enduring, reduced from the basic attack.

Anw, I don't think it's that underpowered. I dunno about removing Durable, it would lose a lot of its power and would require a major cost reduction or some other buff to it

Hm... How about that change:
Cost: 0/18/18 (from 0/20/20)
Attack: 22 + N
N = Mage tokens / 8

not a bad idea

That would be interesting since it would have different values when played successively in most situations.

I searched for this card (unaware of the current dialogue) so I could say that it was grossly underpowered. I see I am not alone in that opinion. Hopefully gets buffed soon, could just lower the casting cost, no need to get too fancy.

You could add some secondary effect to it, like discarding a Common/selected card? Or another mode to build instead? If you add versatility you make up for weakness without misbalancing the card.

so much resources for 20 damage? this card is garbage imo needs a buff asap

EDIT:I just did 160 Damage whit it and still think the saber is so much better

I think u're right, comparing to Arthuria (+1 facility, 30-40 attack, being persistent and not durable) this card is much worse, even with a lower cost.

Arthoria is much better