MArcomage

This post's point is just to prove how bad of a card conjurer really is. even for a mage deck
its actually popular and i have no idea why

First of all, this card is a common card thats durable. this is pretty bad because you are sure your next card will be a common card, and we all know uncommon and rare cards are much better

secondly, this card makes your production xO. so we can assume you probably loose 3 bricks and 3 recuits, if not more. so 6 ressource loss.

so if u had 3 magic, it actually gives a nice 3 gems boost (but is it worth loosing 6 more ressource?). but in most cases, mages deck often have +magio, so the boost will often only be of 2 gems or even a single one. some cards give a 2 gems boost and some more boosts whitout any negative aspects

ok the card also gives 3 wall....

so we have a card that gives 3 wall and 3 or less gems, but also force u to get dealth a common card next turn and also loose 6 ressources

i think this card is horrible

I don't know if it's horrible, just very situational. The only case where I would put it in a deck would be if I were expecting to have diminished magic, and facilities in general (especially if you're using sacrifice, glacial temple, and/or vampire).

I've tried a few decks that worked on that principle (bringing down facilities with cards like vampire, work overtime, etc. and taking advantage of the deficit with cards like soul cleaver, earth elemental, and flat increase cards), but they never worked terribly well.

All in all, I agree it could use a little boost. Not completely and utterly useless though.

I've seen it used rather defensively, repairing the wall while hastening the gem gain to the play of a powerful card. That being said, it wasn't difficult to surpass it.

I would like to see it with a Fallen Knight dynamic, because then you could use it to cycle cards, while still getting it's bonus.

i agree fallen knight dynamic would be interesting

I also like the fallen knight dynamic idea :)

To make it more consistent shouldn't this card be durable with discard one card from the hand?

No, since it's not equivalent.

Sorry, but what the difference? I can only remember the change position (ok some cards uses the position for and effect)

The Durability keyword? It makes difference.

It originally was Durable. If I remember it correctly, the change was inspired by Fallen Knight. It gave the card the ability of not being just a recurring common.

It would have consequences for Token accumulation, since it no longer switches another card for itself, a mage, giving 6 additional tokens. I think it would be more consistent not to.

It would have consequences for Banish <> Durable. Making it durable again, would be more consistent with how the card once was.

What I personally think to be wrong with Conjurer is that by it's Prod X0, it's hardly worth playing. It would be nice if it costed 3/3/3 again (which it did even longer ago) and had no Prod X0.

Agreed! That'd be quite nice.

_I have also noticed that becomes a kind of booby card when your production is 4/6/4.

I think that is good to trigger Nature effect and also Meditation.

And eight of my games say you lose while trying to do that. Of course, if it was switched to 3/3/3 cost then it couldn't be used when it's probably needed more. Why not an effect like Production (not facilities) -3?

The card is balanced as it is now. Useful at the start of the match or if your opponent is crippling your facilities, less useful when you've increased your facilities but still used in a pinch if you need to increase your wall to defend against a Charge card. Always useful in discarding something while gaining a little extra, including additional copies of itself.