MArcomage

Interesting :) What about to add some effect on stock to both players? (either destroy all resources or set something like Stock:= 30 Enemy stock:= 30, for example)

I don't think it should touch resources (or Facilities, or wall and tower). Doing so would enter territory of having a card that undoes everything in the battle up to the point it is played.

DPsycho wrote:
I don't think it should touch resources (or Facilities, or wall and tower). Doing so would enter territory of having a card that undoes everything in the battle up to the point it is played.

agree, although there is a major flaw in this card. You could build a deck consisting of crappy rares and rely on your uncommons (or summoning cards) instead and when you get this card and play it then you have basically screwed the opponent with 1R/1G/1B. It's quite interesting though

If you did take 14 terrible Rares and this one, you're rather unlikely to draw it anyway. Of course, if most of the Rares you choose ARE useful in your deck strategy but not-so-much in your opponent's hand, well, that's pretty normal anyway.

Yes but ofcourse that doesn't apply in the case of soldier, Barbarian, undead, dragon, burning, legend, mage, beast, in all 80% of the decks around.

There are cases among those where the Rare requires similar keywords to be effective. For the others, well, if you opponent has the resources to play a high-cost attack card, you were either a fool for playing this card in the first place or you had to take your chances and discard the similar card that was in his hand at that moment.

The idea of avoiding Rares that are, essentially, game finishers by themselves is certainly valid, I'll give you that.

If you are gonna get Rares from opponent's deck, then you at least half your hand will have the keywords your opponent is using, therefore you also can play keyword-dependent cards, unless their condition states "if keyword is set" but I don't think there are many such rares

I wouldn't count on "at least half" in any but one situation.

To use your examples, there are exactly two Soldiers, five Barbarians, seven Undead, four Burning, five Legends, seven Mages, and nine Beasts among the Rares. Aside from Beast, it is simply unlikely that you will be drawing near to half a hand of the same keyword when there are 15 to choose from.

Frankly, since a Beast deck would probably have the additional Rare Frenzy cards, using this concept in a Beast deck is going to be suicide. Using it AGAINST a Beast deck would be the one case where you can expect to be granted excellent keyword synergy, though still not guaranteed.

There are 14 Dragons, but Dragon isn't a keyword that particularly benefits from taking the Rare choices into your deck, so this isn't a scenario that's worth exploring.

Burning also has Phoenix.

Barbarians, Soldiers, Undead and Mages can crush the enemy in at least 2 turns if playing Long Mode, provided you have enough resources

Again, not because of their keywords (and the presence of more of the same), but because specific cards grant high attack values with enough stock. This is going in circles now, and I think we've made our points.

Unless I'm mistaken, the consensus here is this: Don't take any Rare card that, by itself, could be used effectively against you if you are planning to use this one as well.