MArcomage

There is a "Worst rare card". We shouldn't miss the "Best rare card" thread. ;)

So what rare card(s) do you think the best?

Statistics:
Prince of thieves (Ben, Dindon)
Order of the White Lotus (Dindon, Sylonus)
Master of the Past (Dindon)

Got to be Prince of thieves. ANyone who doesn't have that in their deck needs it. I'm only ever unhappy to see that if I'm about to die the next turn.

Prince of thieves is definitely up there. I'd probably give an honourable mention to Order of the White Lotus. Master of the Past is another one that I would put in pretty much any deck.

"Order of the White Lotus" seems to be extremely helpful as an ultimate shield - suddenly both players start on equal grounds again. Near impossible to counter this shield.

This card is another non-sense (zero-cost abuse, price imbalance/flaws). Comparison:
==================
Return to the beginning (10 bricks, 10 gems)
Tower: =30
Enemy tower: =30
==================

This card is also mainly used as shield. It's much weaker but cost something to play. "Order of the White Lotus" has the power of redistribution but has an incredible price tag (zero o.O), making all other shield cards pointless, at least for this kind of uses.

All other redistribution/shield cards have price tags except this one.

It should be at least worth double the cost.

Really rare cards are supposed to be powerful. It makes no sense that they cost nothing to play (of course unless the true cost is hidden in other ways, eg Tubular bells).

Best Rare? Definitely Order of the White Lotus.

Rare cards are supposed to be powerful, a part of that means, a rare card can be under-costed for what it affects, that's a silly arguement, that said, Order of the White Lotus is WAY overpowered, and broken as crap.

(Though it doesn't make other shield cards pointless, you can't draw it nearly as often as you'd like, so others are still worth playing.)

Mojko, you thought the old Tax was broken.... and yet you let this slip by somehow? o.O

===============
Rare cards are supposed to be powerful, a part of that means, a rare card can be under-costed for what it affects, that's a silly arguement, that said, Order of the White Lotus is WAY overpowered, and broken as crap.
===============

Overpowered in what ways?

Strictly speaking, nothing can be way overpowered because both parties can select so-called "way overpowered" card. So whoever draws this card, he has a better chance to do much better off than the other. But it's usu deemed as bad/boring.

If overpowered means you will lose the game etc., this card is not offensive in nature. What it does is restart (fight again). No one will lose directly due to this card. Well then all non-offensive cards will never be overpowered.

Overpowered usually carries a negative meaning in card game, so let's use "much superior:.

Use/Effect: This card has a much wider effect. It's much superior than other cards of the same type in its own scope, ie as lifesaver/shield. (NB: strictly speaking different cards may have slightly different purposes but usually minor).

Cost: it's free unlike the rest. What justify the cost of nothing while all the rest have not-minor costs?

"Cost of powerful/more useful/wider usage card CAN BE EVEN (MUCH) LOWER THAN cost of less ones" <-- what a logic!

The price evaluation among the group are flawed, and should be revised.

==========
(Though it doesn't make other shield cards pointless, you can't draw it nearly as often as you'd like, so others are still worth playing.)
==========

Good point! If you want more than 1 shield/lifesaver, you have to pick others.

After all, the concept/idea of this card is wonderful but the price tag is flawed (way under-evaluated). Revision is preferred.

>> Overpowered in what ways?
>> Overpowered usually carries a negative meaning
>> Well then all non-offensive cards will never be overpowered.

It's overpowered because it's simply too far above the power level of any card in the game, I'd easily say it's over twice as good as any other card in the game. It shouldn't be THAT much more powerful than every other rare in the game.

I do mean that it's overpowered in a negative fashion, it's overpowered in that it's too powerful a card to keep the game somewhat balanced, I usually am very very much AGAINST changing the way cards work, and believe most things should be fixed by adding new cards, and fixing the "metagame", but in some situations, the card is simply too powerful as it is to let stand still.

Non-offensive cards can definitely be overpowered, in that they make an offensive strategy nearly unplayable versus this card, even if by luck. Mojko considered the old Tax "overpowered", and while I didn't think it was so, there can be no question that Order of the White Lotus is.

You can say that again. We think alike. I made my "overpowered" argument because some may argue it's not overpowered simply because you are not losing simply by this card. Blah blah...

It appears the game designer suffers from "zero cost disease".

Symptom: The more special/funny it is, the higher probability they will set it at a price tag of zero, even though they are really worth something.

Some of the patients:
- Order of the white lotus
- Architectural improvement (even pay you to use this card)
- Elven reinforcements (even pay you to use this card)

- Pegasus (Quick Card)
- Samurai
- Tax

- Graceful charity
- Judge
- Black Market
- Tribute
- Militia (Quick Card)
- Wind (Quick Card)
- Reuse the rubble

I'm not saying they are way overpowered. What I don't understand is the logic behind zero cost. The card should be so weak to justify zero price. Otherwise it doesn't make sense either for other weak cards which are still charging at low price.

What do you mean by (even pay you to use this card)?

Since the update Im a fan of Castle beyond looking glass. It has put me in a quite strong position twice or so.

Just like the Lotus it might need some (price) ballancing.

Pay you means you gain resources instead of spending resources (such as +15 bricks)

I don't have a problem with zero cost card that gives you resources, I think many cards work well with zero cost, concept makes sense.

============
I don't have a problem with zero cost card that gives you resources, I think many cards work well with zero cost, concept makes sense.
============

Let's take this as an example.

Card A (Zero)
Attack: 2

Card B: (1 Recruit)
Attack: 1

Is it problematic? This is the problem that I'm trying to describe. None is powerful enough to cause a serious game imbalance, so it is okay even if you don't fix it. Well it's cool since anyone likes free lunch. But, from the viewpoint of game design, such kinds of evaluation doesn't make sense (bad design).

Of course when you use that example card A card B there's a difference, but I don't recall any card truly resemble this condition

Thats the case too with Pegasus, but he forgot to mention it. :-)

Ya I've seen 3 Pegasus played in a row and boom 15 gems bonus

===============
What do you mean by (even pay you to use this card)?
===============

You get a generous +15/+20 resource bonus by playing this zero cost. Essentially they are paying you to use this card.

=======
Of course when you use that example card A card B there's a difference, but I don't recall any card truly resemble this condition
=======

There is. Of course it's not exactly the above example. I made a table to research some of the cards and rate them accordingly. I do see such kinds of non-sense. It's not hard to find if you do try. ;-)

Goblin (1R) attack 3
Lady Ellena (1R) attack 2, R+1
Mummy (1R) attack 5, gems -3
Rouge (1R) attack 2, enemy recruit -1
Swordsman (1R) attack 2, enemy gems -1
Thieves with honor (1R) attack 8, enemy stock +2

Wizard (1G) attack # of magic

Volunteer (zero) attack 1

Okay I look up all the common cards that attack with cost of 1 or less
They are all different, and I don't think Volunteer's zero cost make it more desierable relative to other cards