MArcomage

What is the reason the current far sight keywords are what they are? Personally i think it should somewhat counteract what cards of given type is mostly used for. The recruit cost effect is reasonable since most recruit only cost cards are direct damage cards. The zero cost effect is reasonable since they are not particularly strong at anything. The mixed cost effect is reasonable since they can be more or less anything. Its the brick and gem variants that are more puzzling. Brick focused decks are most likely to build tower and wall and should in my opinion remove one of those values from your opponent. Gem costing cards is harder but some sort of defensive action would also made a lot more sense than to counter "magic" with tokens. Something should in my opinion be done.

so here goes one possible suggestion, Give the current "brick" effect to "gem" cards and have far sight when matched against a brick costing card reduce the opponents tower or wall (highest chosen)

Well, bricks have the effect I think, with the idea that people playing with Brick decks aim on building up their tower so Far Sight helps you by building faster.

I kind of like the effects as they are now, but it wouldn't hurt to try a change I guess. Your suggestion is quite reasonable

I don't see why you feel that Far sight should have to counter the opponent. I use Far sight against bricks in races to be the first to a tower victory, and I've never felt that it should have to negate something rather than add to something.

Think of it realistically. Your army's scout sees the the enemy is amassing troops, so you build your wall. Sensible. Your army's scout sees that the enemy is trying to gain the upper hand by building a higher lookout point, granting a longer view than you have, so you counter with the same so not to have any blind spots. Also sensible.

If Far sight were truly about negation, mixed cost would reduce the opponent's stock and recruits-only would discard an attack card. I don't think that this is what Far sight is about at all.

As far as the gems effect, it's certainly the weakest in practice, but I don't really have anything else to say about it.

I like what DPsycho is saying, but don't wholly agree. (In realistic terms, )Just because you realise that it would be a good idea to build a wall, doesn't mean your Wizard is going to be able to do so all of a sudden.

Way I personally see it would be:

Brick-matching: Your scouts identify the enemy structures, possibly finding weak points and thus reducing the effective strength of the structure (-enemy wall/tower).

Gems-matching: You spot the sorts of magic the enemy has prepared for you and um, the next thief you send out grabs a little more swag than he normally would..? Not sure about this one.

Recruit-matching: You've spotted the enemy forces, seen what you're up against and thus are better able to defend yourself (+wall).

Mixed: Mixed cards are too varied to determine what exactly would've happened in a realistic situation, so the stock increase seems fine by me. Perhaps this could somehow reflect how this kno... aw, to hell with this. It just seems sensible :P

Zero-cost: Your scouts failed to spot anything useful.

EDIT: I haven't really thought through how these effects would affect gameplay. And I also have nothing against the current system, except that the brick- and recruit effects are quite similar and could provide more variety.
EDIT: My suggested gems effect is a remark on the potential absurdity of adding tokens, not a fully serious suggestion. I couldn't think of any better, mind you.

This would make far sight even stronger. Do we want that? It's already a strong keyword.

Just an idea.. but what if Gems effect made you draw..
Common FS: non-common from your deck
Uncommon FS: rare
Rare: Rare from your deck

or something along those lines?