MArcomage

There is something to be said of consistency that you seem to be ignoring.

Let's say you have a deck in which you want as many of your rare draws as possible to destroy the opponent's tower directly. In this case, the only way Earthquake wouldn't make the cut is if there are 15 other rares that fit that criteria more effectively. This is true even though it costs too much and also hits their wall, which you care little about.

Lowering/modifying dragon egg &/or Forest dragon is something I can get behind.
Forest dragon:
"Attack: 10N
N = #Nature cards in game
If no Nature cards found in game
N = #Dragon cards in hand"? It's not exactly a strong boost, but it's something. If it's worth the extra space is another question.

On Earthquake however, I think it's a good card. It can come in handy due to cheap cost etc. Also, it spices up things a bit.

earthquake is a pretty useful card but it has to fit the case.
i.e. if u r playing with alliance and ur opponent with beast, then it's easy to boost up ur wall and tower and then keep smashing ur opponent down, using the nature keyword over and over, while u maintain a relatively high wall that ur opponent cant get through.

another example would be in a finishing blow, where u have 20 tower and ur opponent just 10, but he has a massive wall built up as a last resort.

i will agree on changing forest dragon. it costs 30 recruits and usually deals 30 damage, as u will certainly combine Nature with other keywords and mathematically speaking u'll have small chances of having more than 4 Nature cards in hand. Therefore its Attack/Cost ratio is pretty low compared to other rares

"Let's say you have a deck in which you want as many of your rare draws as possible to destroy the opponent's tower directly..."

Well if your premise is arbitrary and illogical, it's no wonder that it leads to a silly conclusion :P

What's illogical about forming a deck with a focus on attacking the tower? EricH is right, in such a deck, Earthquake is a solid choice within the Rare card pool. If building a deck with the idea of attacking a specific weakness (Tower, Stock, Production, zero wall) is arbitrary and illogical, then several of us are winning matches wrong.

Seriously, though, I don't see what you're getting at with this comment.

If you follow the directive I quoted, then you would take a rare card that costs 100 of each resource and does 1 tower damage over, say, Prince of Thieves, or Valhalla. I guess it's a matter of interpretation whether or not that decision would be illogical. My assertion would be that, if your goal is to win games, then it is.

If you want to discuss the viability of cards that don't exist compared to those that do, feel free to create the Concept and we can discuss it there. =P

I thought it was pretty clear that he was talking about comparable usefulness for a tower attack deck given the 15 Rares you must take in total. Since there are only ten Rares right now that deal direct tower damage, anyone would have to select others anyway. And even without a card as weak as you've posited that deals tower damage, I can already attest that some of them aren't worth using in such a deck. Whereas I do use Earthquake, Damnation has to sit it out as being unfit for such a strategy.

EricH's argument also appealed to a thought experiment (imagining a world in which there are 15 tower destruction rares better than earthquake), so I don't think that invalidates my argument.

Anyways, this is getting rather off-topic. If someone wants to make a topic on first-order logic, we could definitely continue this there.

On topic: Maybe a way to make Dragon Egg better would be to give the dragon keyword some decent synergies. Right now, the dragon keyword is one of the few keywords in the game without any support cards (unless you count dragon egg itself). Adding one or more cards with dragon synergy (maybe something like Sorcerer's Outpost, except for dragons: Dragon Roost?) would make the keyword a little more appealing and interesting.

The problem I have with the Dragon keyword is the lack of variety. Most of them are just Dragon - big attack (with negligible stock reduction). All other keywords have a variety of cards that do a variety of things.
-
Possible suggestions:
Red Dragon - give him flare
Golden Dragon - replace matching and neighboring cards with Purified Ashes
Spectral Dragon - production x4
Etc.

Nice idea, jbryant.

Basic concept: Dragon is kinda big-damage, high-cost rare. Something ultimate.

Second thought: each dragon can be linked to a keyword like forest, bone, spectral and golem ones. Green - beast, red - burning, ether - mage, golden - holy, black - soldier, water - restoration or alliance if +stock will be replaced with production x4.

There are many reasons why people play specific types of cards, and not all of them have to do with how good the cards are.

I see nothing wrong with making most dragons huge and having few cards that interact with them in a specific way. People will still play dragons for the coolness factor alone, assuming that dragons are at least playable.

I would direct more effort toward making other types (like nature) better before saying we need better stuff for dragons. The flavor of dragons is so high that I don't think they need any extra help.

The problem with making a Dragon-deck is you'd probably go Alliance-resource booster, and you could just as well chuck in Wishing lagoon, and you'll get an awesome card you need much faster with 10x more playability than dragon egg.

I agree with My. Dragons in their current state just aren't that playable when you have Orc regiment that does more damage for about the same cost. That's why I was thinking their selectability could be changed and why I started this thread.