MArcomage

rephrase "spellbook deals...(end)" with "Then attack based on last card's rarity (C-8, U-16, R-21)

i don't remember the values u put for the attack, these are just hypothetical

Ok reworded it even though it did'nt really become shorter :p

maybe replace "spellbook deals" with "then"

My understanding of the english grammar equals zero but if I'd exchange Spellboob by then it would somehow sound wrong to me.

no, if you change "spellbook deals" with "then", the whole thing would mean the same thing and it would be shorter

anw it's your card, i'm just suggesting how to make it shorter :)

Hm... I think it needs some changes.
Remove Destruction keyword. There is no Mage/Destruction cards, so you can either trigger keyword or effect.
Change "Gems: -4" to "Gems production: x0" and add "Mage tokens: +15". It would be better as Mage/Swift support.

Interesting idea to leave one's option between destruction-triggering or mage-damage-making...
...nevertheless, imo this is the "ultimate-unstoppable" destruction commmon as it costs zero.
Normally when playing destruction you always have to check if your ressources are enough for the next destruction card to trigger effect. On the other hand, it might be your opponents aim, to crush your gems enough after seeing a D-card being played to avoid this damage... with this card the chance of preventing this is even worse... just my idea... the gems-4 often doesn't hurt at all, when your magic is already decreased...

Making a long story short: IMO a zero-cost destruction is too good... when not "crippled" enough... I am saying this, although it would fit perfectly in one of my decks...
...the "mage-support" is IMO too weak...

Just my opinion ;-)

I feel that adding ANY new common Destruction cards will be too great a boon to the keyword. A zero cost one is out of the question.

If I counted right, there are 5u, 8c, 7r destruction cards available at the moment. Regarding, that playing several commons after another doesn't have any effect and regarding, that the chance for drawing a common is almost 2/3, it should be no problem to add further common destruction cards... They are not needed, to increase the keyword-power IMO.*

Greetz, HivedOne.

*(some math for the weekend ;-)
P(c)=5*0,65=3,25; P(u)=8*0,29=2,32 P(r)=7*0,06=0,42... so P(c)>P(u)+P(r).
In english, even with all destruction cards in game, you should get more commons then rare...
should there "accidently" be only rare and common destructions in hand: play them in a row... and see your opponents ressis. melting ;-)