MArcomage

Another card with two support keywords - Holy and Unliving. Okay, unlike Holy and Soldier, these keywords don't have any synergy, but even with N=9 (full Unliving or full Holy hand) this card gives 27(!) wall and deals 9 damage.
Just for comparison:
New Guardian angel can give 32 wall and deal 16 damage, but costs much more (16G/12R compared to 10B/5G), and it's uncommon.
Fortification, which I consider one of the best wall+ cards in game, gives 25 wall for the same 10B. And it's uncommon as well.
Road to Valhalla makes you pay 10 tower for 20 wall.
Dwarven wall can give more than 27 wall, but you need more than 27 total facilities for it. Which actually isn't trivial, considering how many resources you need for Gateway or other facilities+ cards.
And yes, this card is useful both in Holy and Unliving decks.

I think that this card should be limited in wall+ part. Either multiplier should be lowered to 2 or max N should be limited (5 would be enough).

why now of a sudden?

I forgot to mention it when started last topic about Holy/Soldier nerf. Don't know why, TBH - this card is REALLY strong.

This is one of my main wall building cards for my Unliving deck. The thing is, for the cost, the amount of wall gain is comparable with other wall cards. Obviously on the higher end if you have an optimal hand, but potentially a bad investment as well.

The thing that I find odd about it balance-wise is the comparably small damage that it does. I'd rather do away with the Attack element than change the wall gain.

If capping the wall gain were deemed necessary, I wouldn't go lower than N=8. (I should point out, by the way, that the current maximum is actually N=16, a full hand of this card. Far from likely, but I have had two of this in hand on more than one occasion -- just not usually with six other Unliving cards.)

I could replace standard attack with stock/resource gain and thus, making it more usable for both Holy and Unliving decks. Card cost, stock/resource and wall gains would need to be rebalanced, though.

Maybe I'm just miffed at one of my favourite Wall+ cards now being a whole lot weaker, but I much preferred the older version of this card.
The attack was nothing outstanding, but that's the way it tends to be with Unliving cards; attack is either weak or expensive (or Rare) and thus I quite enjoyed the attack element of this card.
For example, I use this in my Unliving deck which is mainly a builder deck but has the potential to cause some damage as well. The 8 or 9 damage from this card often ends up being what follows a larger Wall-.
I never really felt this card was overpowered as I often end up holding onto it for a very long time before getting any use out of it, and it certainly isn't overused.

Altough i like the new version very much (because it is more fitting to unliving decks now), i feel that we lack with this an attack card for unliving decks. we have only 2 good uncommon damage unliving cards (Iron golem, clay golem)(With this i mean cards which are worth the cost for the damage), every rare unliving is just a bomb and then we have a few nice attack commons (petrified minotaur, flesh golem, conditional the mirrow golem, stone gargoyle deals just too less damage for its high cost). I miss here the chance for unvliving to become effective offensive, mainly because of the lack of offensive uncommons and commons which are worth their cost. Crystal golem was worth the cost because of its wall gain, which was indeed overpowered i think.

I would like to see some new offensive unlivings in this game to give unliving the opportunity to differentiate into more branches. Currently, the offensive variant of unliving is to hide in your shell ind slowly tear your opponent apart or hope for a rare. I think that Unlivings offensive tactic is too much rare depending now.

And on topic: leave the card as it is, it is fine now, just add a unliving in the game which looks like the old crystal golem, just with a lower wall gain :)