MArcomage

Why not making it durable instead of adding the line "summons rat"

anyway, i think the beast keyword could need a cheap durable attacker, but 1 recruit is just too few recources for 5 damage. Maybe raise it to 3 or 4?

I also agree... think of the beast-keyword-bonus!
Making it durable would at least give the chance to banish this "beast" ;-)

Compared to Giant Bear, Dire Wolfs, Elena, Minotaur, Rogue, Werewolf it is too strong! Regarding, that some of the cards even have neg. effects... or cost "much" more...

I agree. Durable cards generally cost more than their ephemeral counterparts, and this one is incredibly cheap while dodging the banishment weakness by not having the keyword.

As a Durable Common, the damage:cost ratio should be less than 1. Having a token keyword as well reinforces this.

DPsycho wrote:
I agree. Durable cards generally cost more than their ephemeral counterparts, and this one is incredibly cheap while dodging the banishment weakness by not having the keyword.

As a Durable Common, the damage:cost ratio should be less than 1. Having a token keyword as well reinforces this.

I disagree. For a common, Durable is a weakness, not a strength. When a common card disappears after being played, the new card you get can't be any worse - you have a chance at an uncommon or a rare. The worst thing about durables, especially common durables, is the stagnancy in your hand that you get from playing them. Even Troll, with its fantastic damage:cost ratio, is seldom put in decks. If there's anything that the reign of quick commons (particularly militia) taught us, it's that having a high turnover of cards in your hand is a very powerful thing.

And even cards that avoid this pitfall (the Chaos commons, and Invaders) have better (in some cases, much better) than 1:1 damage:cost ratios.

No, this one can have less than 1:1 damage/cost ratio, but with strong side effect. Like that:
3r, Beast, Durable
Attack: 1
Discard selected non-rare card from hand
Gain resource cost of that card (max. 5)

I really like that idea (and kind of get the thematic justification - the card could even be renamed 'carrion rats' or something), but I don't think it has a lot in common with the current concept. If Arbnos doesn't want to use the idea, maybe you should make a separate concept.

dindon wrote:

I disagree. For a common, Durable is a weakness, not a strength...

It depends... when it is a "good" common, you are not right.

dindon wrote:
The worst thing about durables, especially common durables, is the stagnancy in your hand that you get from playing them...

Right... but if the durable is cheap, you can use it, to "wait" for ressources (instead of discarding a card). The "clue" is, that most of durables are quite expensive or don't "do" enough... such as hungry dead... or even Troll.

dindon wrote:
Even Troll, with its fantastic damage:cost ratio, is seldom put in decks.

The problem here is IMO the cost, I think. Maybe you can compare it with a "small version" of the new Hydra.
Turn 1: att:5 for 6r ... worse than many commons...
Turn 2: att:19 for 12r its getting close to a bad uncommon
Turn 3: att:32 for 18r now between light and heavy cav... but after three turns no "hand-change"... loosing the most vital ressource!

Not to say, that enduring "fixes" you to that card... so if opponent plays sorrow after first attack, you probably can start from new many turns later :-/

Lets do the same with "our" rat here:
Turn 1: att:5 for 1r
Turn 2: att:10 for 2r
Turn 3: att:15 for 3r

looks better, although less "efficient" then Troll... not to say, that you can play this rat, "whenever" you want...

dindon wrote:
If there's anything that the reign of quick commons (particularly militia) taught us, it's that having a high turnover of cards in your hand is a very powerful thing.

Right... but why not keep a good common in hand... and play the other cards, when you can pay for them?

dindon wrote:
And even cards that avoid this pitfall (the Chaos commons, and Invaders) have better (in some cases, much better) than 1:1 damage:cost ratios.

I play with chaos mage in my mage deck... but the "randomness effect" can also hinder you, playing it... because it might "kick" the card you cannot yet afford but that MUST be played next turn.
Invaders have just been powered up... the last version was not much more then "discarding" a card... militia was defenitly better ;-)

Attack: 3

How about changing it to replace a card in hand with Rat?

Yes, no powerfully?

I also think Durable is a weakness for a common card.
If it said "Summons common card" that would certainly be a bad thing.
If it said "Summons common card which summons common card." that would be even worse, which is exactly what we have here.

The possible exception to this is also having Far Sight, due to the fact it will allow you to feed off the bonus indefinitely.

From a non-gameplay point of view, having Durable makes it feel like there is just one meanass rat that won't go away. Having it worded into the card makes it feel more like an endless supply of the pests (which I think sounds more accurate).

I also like how a Rat is more dangerous than burglars, thieves, mermaids... ^_^

From a realism standpoint, it should have a chance of occasionally summoning Plague. ;)

I was just thinking the same idea. About plague I mean.

http://arcomage.netvor.sk/?location=Concepts_details&current_concept=1587
Plague rat