MArcomage

This card is way overpriced for what it does. While I understand it can be used with Emissary of the afterlife, this combo is just not worth it. The cost should be lowered.

As further proof, it's one of the least used uncommon cards.

Sooner or later, my Undead decks always end up without this card. It's way too expensive. And that's supposed to 'help' being among the also expensive Undead.
What also doesn't help:
*Max 1 U -> R limits the Emmisary combo.
*No certainty for the combo.

why call of wild takes only 1 resource and this 27 resource and i must admit call of wild is 2 imba.

This is not in my Undead deck, I'll say that much.

only good thing: it can start a combo with emissary of the afterlife.
but yes, call of the wild is much better (and quite overpowered)

justfun wrote:
why call of wild takes only 1 resource and this 27 resource and i must admit call of wild is 2 imba.

Call of the wilds takes 1R PLUS production. Its cost is 3B/3G/4R with standard facilities.
By the way, I take my words about new Call back - it appears to be pretty effective. Considering that the only Beast uncommons with relatively high attack and reasonable cost are Keeper of souls and Wolf raiders (Forest spirit is more defensive and expensive and Wolf mistress is just a summoner with attack), and Beasts' main firepower is rare Frenzy cards and Byakko - something like this version of Call is crucial for Beasts. But what makes Beast deck REALLY viable is reworked common Beast cardset - Thunderbird, Fire fox, Abyssal viper, War wolf and Dire wolves (Werewolf is kinda meh).

About Necromancy amplifier - Undead decks have some good resource cards (Vampire countess, Crypt sentry which is still very good, and CRYYYYYYPT!!!) on top of insane attack potential (-48 wall from Deathwood shaman for 10G/10R, 36 attack from Banshee for 9G/9R...) and epic support (Death wave, Eternal guardian...). I'm not sure if Necromancy amplifier should be cheaper in that case. Maybe make it 4/4/4 cost plus production x0... but nothing more.

How about Stock: +2?

i'd prefer stock + over lowering cost
that's for sure

7/7/7 cost after returning? I think it's a good idea.

Why not make this and call of wild affect all GAME cards, not just player hand? It will be much more "fair", in most situations useless to the other player, but will give him some edge, provided he steals/copies some uncommon beasts/undead

Damalycus wrote:
Why not make this and call of wild affect all GAME cards, not just player hand? It will be much more "fair", in most situations useless to the other player, but will give him some edge, provided he steals/copies some uncommon beasts/undead

I thoroughly disagree with this notion, regardless of the card (see Catastrophe discussion). The only instance where I feel it is somewhat acceptable is for 0-cost cards, and even then I'm not a fan.

In that case I would NEVER take this card. It's like Beastmaster, but worse - you're making enemy hand just plain better for free and giving first shot to him for your own resources.

Isn't that card actually replacing?
Because right now it does not appear in the replace filter.

Maybe that is intentional, as creatures become new, but their bones are the same.

I dont see the logic behind the +2 stock.It isnt wise to play this card if you dont have surplus resources to play the upgraded versions of your cards so the stock gain is obsolete and should only be granted to cards which would be too good if too easy to play

It is an opportunity cost mechanic. It costs 9 stock, but gives 2, essentially costing only 7, but needing a higher amount of play. It makes the card harder to play while also retaining its efficiency. It's a change that was made for balancing and can be seen in quite some card games. at 9 stock it would be too inefficient, at 7 stock undead it would be just too fast, although the effect is reasonable. So it was changed to make it somewhat slower while also mantaining the efficience (which isn't too high in the first place)

(For example if you have a high bunch of recruits and just hope for some rares from which some take mostly recruits, like koshei)

Yes i understand all that but as i said you need to have more then the card cost in the first place to play it effectively.the higher cost and stock + would make sense when you want to make a card not so easily played but since this card make no sense to play without a higher amount of resources then it costs in the first place the way it is now makes no sense

Actually the +2 to stock and cost 9/9/9 has no impact on the game and changing it to 7/7/7 without the stock +2 would also have no impact on the game because as i said you will need more then the card cost in resources for it to be of any use so changing it would just add more sense

It's a point actually. It would make more sence on a card which has some impact right away.