MArcomage

And now it's supposed to be balanced eh? :P
A simple recruits prod x3 wouldn't do?

Now it's supposed to be a late game card. And it works.
But I guess it should cost more... say, 18-20r.

Ohhh what's a late game card?

It's a card that needs massive amount of resources to be played with full effect. Now Reunion of tribes is definitely one of that cards.
Yes, if you have many recruits (more than 70) you can play this with more damage than before. But now 1) you can't kill your enemy with this card played at round 3, 2) you can't use any recruits cost card before this card. Not to mention that this card is still vulnerable for Purifying fire and any other mass discarders.
It's fine now. The only change this card needs is raised cost.

Why you say more than 70?? At around 50 recruits you go to 100 (the previous version fixed value). Going to 50 recruits isn't all that difficult in long mode, playing a couple of restorations. Sure you can't achieve assassin anymore, but it's still very powerful.

Anyway, it was my bloody mistake for creating this thread in the first place. Damn me!

dimitris wrote:
Why you say more than 70?? At around 50 recruits you go to 100 (the previous version fixed value).

NG_Beholder wrote:
Yes, if you have many recruits (more than 70) you can play this with more damage than before.

You need to get these 50 recruits. Yes, it's not that hard... but you need average 9-12 turns to do it. Your enemy can raise his wall and tower and make your combo (Gladiator-Urk-Devastator-Warchief-Urk) much less effective with this additional wall. And when you'll play this combo with 100 recruits and dungeon 3, you'll have 3 recruits, Urk and 5 Barbarians in hand. Not the best position if you didn't kill your enemy with Warchief or second Urk... When you play Reunion of tribes now with 70 recruits, you can play Warlord and third Urk. In the same time, 70r is the cost of Dragon squadron, and Dragon squadron doesn't need all that shamanic actions such as raising and lowering enemy wall, right playing order and tokens. Play and kill. Simple and effective.

dimitris wrote:
Sure you can't achieve assassin anymore, but it's still very powerful.

Yes. As powerful as Atlantis or oneshots like Leviathan and Dragon squadron.
What was the main problem of fixed recruits value? You could play Orc regiment on 60r to remove enemy wall and damage tower, then use Reunion of Tribes to get a killer hand and 100 recruits to play it. Now if you will play Reunion of tribes after Orc regiment... well, do what you want with 4 recruits and 122r cost hand.

Did it got improved? if it did its just not enough the 45 recruits you get from playing the card is obsolete because you need to spend even more on Devastator which is the best way to reduce down the wall you increase with the card recruits to effectiveness vise and the cards you get have very limited potential to reduce Tower where and it only gives 1 rare where Sacred forest gives freaking 3 or Dark Legion nets you a +40 Recruits without increasing the wall and can and often will give better cards

You jump into conclusions. The card costs 1 Recruit to play. You're not SUPPOSED to be supplied with all the resources you need to play the cards you replace your hand with. Given the cards you recieve, full supply would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of a Dragon squadron and a quarter.

As for how to play them, you should put RotT in an attack deck where you don't use Recruits much, or do but have over a hundred of them anyway reserved for a Rare draw. Not many decks fit into the category, hence the low play rate. But the effect is good in it's own little niche spot.

Well, it received an indirect nerf in last update, because Warchief got a limit for its conditional attack (by the way, can anyone tell me why exactly that nerf was done, considering that Barbarian-based decks aren't OP by any means?). Therefore, Devastator/Warchief combo, which was the signature of this card, lost 31 attack.
Now I think it needs to be reworked. I'll post some ideas later.

EDIT: how about this?
Rare, 5R
Recruits: +40
Enemy wall: +50
Replace your hand with 3 common, 3 uncommon and 2 rare Barbarian

Make it +70 to plus 90 wall and we're game.

It does indeed need a buff but your suggestion is pushing it too far the card at its current state gives only 1 rare (and not a very good one) and it gives 70 more wall to the enemy player which a HUGE diffrence between the current state and your suggestion

So i agree with Zaton that it should give more Wall to the opponent but not as much as 90 id say 70 or 80 tops

Btw since it gives recruits the 5 Recruit cost to play is quite obsolete so maybe Recruits +35 and Cost 1?

Well, that sounds fair. But I'd make it other way:
Rare, 1R
Recruits: +40
Enemy wall: +50
Enemy Tower: +25
Replace your hand with 3 common, 3 uncommon and 2 rare Barbarian

That makes it more risky and Crugg will be weaker, but in the same time there is more chance to hit enemy tower instead of burning all those bonus recruits just to negate wall gain.

It sounds good on PAPER, but - Chances are you play a deck with some element of offensive inside. Not just to keep the enemy down while you build your tower or resources - then you couldn't afford your hand replaced with cards irrelevant to your victory type. You aim for the enemy tower, hands down.

When you need rares to win by tower destruction, the opponent plays a Tower Building deck(or Adamantine citadel deck, but Ac is more of a theme than a type).

While the card effect would be balanced, without question, would you want to give your opponent +25 tower for free? Some attack cards give the opponent wall since you can have a reasonable enough attack output in your deck to gamble on their raised castle, to make the benefit to the opponent minimal to none.

The same doesn't work with Tower. Tower not only is worth much more than wall, your entire objective with a hand full of attack cards is to destroy the opponent's tower.
Only suicidal yolo'ers would play your last proposal. A comparison could be a Brigand card who gives the opponent resources. The card itself works against their own main purpose.

The card would be niche to the point of total obscurity.

hit enemy tower instead of burning all those bonus recruits just to negate wall gain.

Again, correct at the face of it, but consider. You have the opponent the Tower. You didn't just give them delay in the form of Wall. You might as well have won them the game. It makes no sense for you to do that. We'd go from a few people playing it to essentially no one playing it.

As i said before it should not give you more then 80 Wall your new proposal is worth 100 Wall but its even more effective with Tower because barbarian decks have a limitation on how much Tower can be destroyed so i suggest to stick to Wall if you really want the Tower it should be like 10 no more without changing anything else

Zaton wrote:
When you need rares to win by tower destruction, the opponent plays a Tower Building deck(or Adamantine citadel deck, but Ac is more of a theme than a type).

There are many other options. After all, if one could counterpick against enemy deck, we'd never see any Unliving decks because everybody would use something with Elementalist in it.

Zaton wrote:
While the card effect would be balanced, without question, would you want to give your opponent +25 tower for free?

It's a bit risky, yes, but when you play Return to the beginning, it's risky as well because your opponent can have something like Golden dragon and resources for it.
And I have another big reason for it: Crugg the Destroyer. Without this card I'd never suggest such kind of drawback for RotT.
Crugg played from full Barbarian hand is -72 wall and -48 tower, and you could get it as well as recruits to play it at round 3. Would we want this to happen? It would be much worse than the old version because you won't need 5 turns to kill your opponent.

There are many other options. After all, if one could counterpick against enemy deck, we'd never see any Unliving decks because everybody would use something with Elementalist in it.

I didn't refer to counterpicks. I referred to a NEED to play Reunion of the Tribes, as opposed to a possible OPTION or a LIABILITY.

It's a bit risky, yes, but when you play Return to the beginning, it's risky as well because your opponent can have something like Golden dragon and resources for it.

That's a non sequitur. You put Return to the beginning(I mean, did, since there is no 'Return to the Beginning' card anymore) in a deck where the gamble is worth the risk, say, a far sight deck where you know what the opponent has, or a discard deck where the opponent has low chance of rares. (And goodness bless your ignorance when you play it against a dragon deck rather than discard it in short order). The same thought process would also apply to where you'd put Reunion of the Tribes, but thus far I don't know of any deck where the gamble would be worth your while.

And I have another big reason for it: Crugg the Destroyer. Without this card I'd never suggest such kind of drawback for RotT.

Aaaaah. Yes. You'd have a 2 out of 6 chance to draw a Crugg...

Your last reason has me convinced me some tower added is viable:3 +25 though?o.o

I would note I consider the conversation valuable. We talk of a sensible topic. But I don't see where you're going at all. Obviously, you see the merit of your own idea, otherwise you wouldn't recommend a change. I on the other hand don't see.

Give an example of a single attack deck where +25 freebie tower to the opponent is not an exercise in frivolity. I can't think of any.

OK, let's make it 54 wall/18 tower.

50 Wall and 15 Tower or 60 Wall and 10 Tower

I'm fine with Beholder's proposal myself.