MArcomage

Vigilante, Common, 1r

Attack=3N+4
Recruits -2N
N=#Brigand in enemy hand


Not bad. I suppose that in most cases it would deal 4 damage for 1 recruit or 7 damage for 3 recruits, which seems like a good baseline for a common not meeting its optimal conditions.

The potential problem is that its scaling cost doesn't apply in the very conditions when it would come into play. When the opponent is playing a deck where he has Brigands making up more than half his hand at any given time, it's probable that your recruits are going to be in the single digits as a natural result of his play. So you're left with a Common card that can deal 28 damage (not likely, but possible) at a cost of at best 1 recruit, realistically 5 or fewer (just guessing since it would be impossible to know without it being in action.) Since the opponent has no way to strategically negate the damage short of playing a full hand replacement card, what with the near-zero cost, I'd see this as overpowered.

Ideally, the additional recruit cost would be something that prevents playing the card for high damage twice in a row, but as it stands now, the opponent would have to be successfully putting recruits to 0 on every turn to manage that, and since it's common, you can expect to see it drawn a lot. I think the basic cost should be at least 4. This could be retooled to refund some recruits if there are no Brigands present so it doesn't become terrible in such a case.

And all this is ignoring the simple consideration that no Common card should be able to deal more than 20 damage by itself.

I like what you're trying to do with this. I think it just needs some adjustment.

I have one "plot-wise" idea, which can tweak this card
I'll make it count only common thieves, which would be the only concept in marcomage to count specific rarity #keywords :) (or so i believe)

that will deal with 95% of possible 28dmg problem

also moved cost up to 3

thanks for such a constructive critique

And thank you for not treating my critique as an attack. =D I'm always worried people are going to go on the defensive when I scrutinize their suggestions.

when I create a concept I always wait for DPsycho's comments to balance it.
Your comments are useful and welcomed.

Redid this old concept to work against non brigand cards too

This concept is great against Brigand or Destruction, but it's a deadweight against, say, Unliving or Beast. Spring wood, for example, has Restoration keyword and +3 wall, so it can be picked as Restoration chain finisher. Judge is more situational, but it's really strong, plus it's a zero-cost card. Same with Graceful charity, except Holy keyword.
I'd add a keyword or two to this. Holy/Soldier would be interesting.

Redid it even more.

Now it's working against any resource loss and has soldier.

Against building deck it would be puny 6dmg if played after medusa though :) But still soldier token ++.

depending on the defenition of the word "stolen", it might not harm destruction players at all (what's good imo, as they are not that powerful at all).
Concerning that, I have to agree to Damalycus: It can't compete with other "anti-stock-reducers".
On the other hand, I wouldn't add holy+soldier keyword, as these keywords work together fine anyway (dozen supporters for both!). Another common holy soldier would make this combo even more powerful. (IMO both keywords don't fit that much to a "vigilante"... what about far sight (or even brigand ;-)

IMO more thematic:
replace enemy common unholy or brigand cards with palisade wall. (max 3)
If none replaced: gems+2 (as reward for his good job)
rec. costs should be adjusted of course (maybe replace max 1 or 2 or just discard)

haha, i made changes 10 minutes before you wrote your post :)