PDA

View Full Version : Eldritch Dreamer Bugged



LunarFlames
11-29-2013, 11:26 PM
Some people mentioned to me in game that this card is working as it should; that is: It is unblockable and has a MAJOR socket for a cost of 4 with 3/3.

In comparison with the other blue card Mystic of Tranquil Dream, a 4 cost with 2/4, MINOR socketable and no other bonus effects, Eldritch would be the obvious pick in almost all cases. In fact, compare Eldritch to any 4 cost or under [SOCKET] card and it is clearly far better.

Anyone could simply make a mono or two color deck and abuse it with:
Prime Wild Orb of Dominance: When this troop deals damage to a champion, create a 3/3 rhinoceros and put it in play
Prime Sapphire of Mind: Same condition as above, but draw a card
Prime Diamond of Solidarity: Same condition as above, but all troops you control gain +1/1

The text CLEARLY doesn't say anything about unblockable nor do I think it should be, atleast not with MAJOR gems.
How is this card not bugged?

Derringer
11-29-2013, 11:32 PM
Check the spoiler; the card is bugged, though, the text saying that is unblockable never appears on the card.

Drop 3 resources to conflict, murder it, or a few more to get rid of it other ways.

LunarFlames
11-29-2013, 11:48 PM
Right, it's not a problem when you keep a spell handy, unless they have 2 or 3 of them in hand which makes it difficult to control.

Lawlschool
11-30-2013, 07:58 AM
Oh so it is still unblockable? That's good, I was worried when I didn't see the text on the card. Also, as for Dreamer v Mystic, you'd use Mystic when you don't have access to Dreamer (e.g. in Draft formats), or in some other more creative ways.

Dreamer seems to be the "when you damage opponent" gem effect equivalent to Inquisitor's "When the card comes in play" gem effect.

HyenaNipples
11-30-2013, 08:59 AM
I'm a bit wary of this card at the moment, as it is unclear on whether or not it's supposed to be Unblockable or not. I feel the golden rule is to obey what the card says, so as far as I'm concerned, it's bugged and shouldn't be unblockable. I decided not to play it again until it was patched.

Vengus
11-30-2013, 10:36 AM
He's supposed to be unblockable. Cory told me so a while ago when I played against him.

LockeCole
11-30-2013, 11:03 AM
this game is not about 1:1 Balance. It is a Tcg, and in tcgs there are always some Cards who are better then others. But know what, you can only Play 4 of them. Diamond has the nearly the same issue with the 2 2/1, one has a minor socket, the other a Major and another good skill. They cost is the same.

It is okay too say the Text is missing, or that you think it is too strong. Saying each Card Needs to have equal value is just silly.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 02:09 PM
If someone played it with Prime Wild Orb of Dominance and you have NOTHING in hand to deal with it, then your opponent would get a free 3/3 troop every turn on top of 3 extra damage to your champ health. Obviously some cards should be better than others but this one is far, far superior than most cards in the entire game if it has unblockable + major socket.

If it were up to me, I'd make it minor socket or rework it completely. It would still be one of the better cards but as it is right now, it's completely overpowered or not working as intended.
Not to mention there's also the 2 cost spellshield buff card Eldritch Shield which would it make it even more ridiculous to deal with.

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 02:29 PM
If someone played it with Prime Wild Orb of Dominance and you have NOTHING in hand to deal with it, then your opponent would get a free 3/3 troop every turn on top of 3 extra damage to your champ health. Obviously some cards should be better than others but this one is far, far superior than most cards in the entire game if it has unblockable + major socket.

If it were up to me, I'd make it minor socket or rework it completely. It would still be one of the better cards but as it is right now, it's completely overpowered or not working as intended.
Not to mention there's also the 2 cost spellshield buff card which would it make it even more ridiculous to deal with.

Well, to be fair, it isn't much different from wild ramping up to a fist and the other player having no cards to play to stop it. It doesn't have spellshield, so it is vulnerable to removal. You have to have the correct threshold to activate any gems - not the simplest of tasks.

Perhaps it could be dropped by 1/1 to make it a little less powerful on it's own, but it isn't much better than a theiving magpie for a mono deck. Making a dual shard deck is a little more powerful, but you have a lot of options - you could set up many powerful combo's that you could fail to pull off for all the same reasons why this one is not OP.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 02:49 PM
I completely agree that dropping it by 1/1 would make it less powerful, then it becomes more vulnerable to a larger range of spells. You mention setting up powerful combos but just getting a 2 green and 2 blue threshold for this card is not something I would consider a combo. As a 3/3 it is difficult to deal with already without spell shield as not every hand or deck will have something to prevent it.

I think a fist can be handled more easily than a card that gives a free 3/3 troop or card draw or +1/1 to all troops every turn. At least you can perhaps block a fist with a high health troop or win the damage race against your opponent since fist must attack every turn.

Lawlschool
11-30-2013, 02:55 PM
If someone played it with Prime Wild Orb of Dominance and you have NOTHING in hand to deal with it, then your opponent would get a free 3/3 troop every turn on top of 3 extra damage to your champ health. Obviously some cards should be better than others but this one is far, far superior than most cards in the entire game if it has unblockable + major socket.

If it were up to me, I'd make it minor socket or rework it completely. It would still be one of the better cards but as it is right now, it's completely overpowered or not working as intended.
Not to mention there's also the 2 cost spellshield buff card Eldritch Shield which would it make it even more ridiculous to deal with.

Welcome to the game. It is a powerful threat, and should be a priority to deal with, which is why you should always have some form of removal in your deck. You've described narrow situations where it becomes very dangerous, but you shouldn't judge a card by how it performs in the most optimal conditions for it. Don't forget, you can build a deck around this card and use it to your own advantage. Don't just look at how cards can be used against you, look at how you can use them against your opponent.

That said, having it be a 3/3 does seem a little excessive for something that's mostly a conduit for the Major "on damage" gems. It's already fairly dangerous as a guaranteed 3 damage/turn, the on-damage gems are just icing on the cake. I'm a huge fan of this card, but it wouldn't bother me if it was dropped to a 1/3.

Resand
11-30-2013, 03:01 PM
Agreed it's the 3 body and unblockable major socket bit that's important. Would not mind one bit if became a 2/3 or a 1/3.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 03:06 PM
I don't think getting a 3/3 troop or buffing all troops another +1/1 or top decking a great card every turn is just icing on the cake.
Making it 2/2 as the other poster mentioned would make it more fair and retain it's ability to proc major gems. It's also very common to spell shield a card that is almost only prone to mass removal or single target control, especially since it shares the same color as Eldritch Shield

Aradon
11-30-2013, 03:34 PM
Playing it with the Spellshield green gem is probably the best play. Drop it, then just deal with their other threats while you swing in for 3 every turn. Control decks should love it.

And yeah, it's pretty clearly above the curve. Whether that's a problem or not is a matter of opinion.

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 03:34 PM
I don't think getting a 3/3 troop or buffing all troops another +1/1 or top decking a great card every turn is just icing on the cake.
Making it 2/2 as the other poster mentioned would make it more fair and retain it's ability to proc major gems. It's also very common to spell shield a card that is almost only prone to mass removal or single target control, especially since it shares the same color as Eldritch Shield

So its a 2 card combo that either gives you card advantage, or requires you to have board position to be able to benefit?

I have heard of worse, but its not insanely OP. And there are always boardwipes. It might be a little too potent versus certain deck types, but so are a lot of bombs.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 03:50 PM
So its a 2 card combo that either gives you card advantage, or requires you to have board position to be able to benefit?

I have heard of worse, but its not insanely OP. And there are always boardwipes. It might be a little too potent versus certain deck types, but so are a lot of bombs.

Why would you need board position to benefit? Itself getting a +1/1 is already huge since you can't block it. Getting 2 cards per turn or giving you board control with free 3/3's each turn is amazing. You mentioned Thieving Magpie as well, but that card is nothing like this one. It is blockable by flight or reach troops and it doesn't have the option of getting +1/1 or creating troops.

I think it's one of the best cards you can put in any blue deck.
I'm curious though, what do you think is worse than this? I'm not saying this is the worst

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 04:01 PM
Why would you need board position to benefit? Itself getting a +1/1 is already huge since you can't block it. Getting 2 cards per turn or giving you board control with free 3/3's each turn is amazing. You mentioned Thieving Magpie as well, but that card is nothing like this one. It is blockable by flight or reach troops and it doesn't have the option of getting +1/1 or creating troops.

I think it's one of the best cards you can put in any blue deck.
I'm curious though, what do you think is worse than this? I'm not saying this is the worst

Well, board position would be beneficial. Since every time you attack, you are wide open without some kind of blocker.

And by worse, do you mean 2 card combos? I think the fist and spellshield is pretty nasty, but requires a lot more setting up - it would be potent for a 2 card combo, and is most definitely worse to set up. Or did you misunderstand me? I meant worse in the sense that its requiring specific cards for a rather situational payout, while still being quite good when you pull it off. I mean it isn't unstoppable by a long shot.

If you let someone set up with spellsheild, you either have no reason to worry, or you weren't going to be able to stop it anyway.

jtatta
11-30-2013, 04:04 PM
Putting an off color shards prime gem into this is just begging to resource screw you. With the Diamond or Wild damage prime you would need two Sapphire threshold as well as two of the off color shard. Take it from someone who has played as many games as anyone here that that isn't going to happen as much as you'd like it to.

Guys, it's a Rare. The power level of the card is going to be inherently higher than the minor socketable 2/4 for the same cost. The other one is common for balancing purposes and for alternate formats. Some of the arguments I'm reading aren't making any sense at all. The card is good but it's by no means the best card or even the best sapphire card.

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 04:07 PM
Putting an off color shards prime gem into this is just begging to resource screw you. With the Diamond or Wild damage prime you would need two Sapphire threshold as well as two of the off color shard. Take it from someone who has played as many games as anyone here that that isn't going to happen as much as you'd like it to.

Guys, it's a Rare. The power level of the card is going to be inherently higher than the minor socketable 2/4 for the same cost. The other one is common for balancing purposes and for alternate formats. Some of the arguments I'm reading aren't making any sense at all. The card is good but it's by no means the best card or even the best sapphire card.

Exactly. There are arguments here that make it sound broken - but there are similar arguments for several cards that are in no-way game winners unless people allow their opponents to set up.

Basically, this is a good card. No-one will deny it, but it will not win you a game solo. In all likelyhood, if you make it the basis of your deck, you will end up with more losses than wins. Its a tool more than a bomb, to be frank.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 04:24 PM
Putting an off color shards prime gem into this is just begging to resource screw you. With the Diamond or Wild damage prime you would need two Sapphire threshold as well as two of the off color shard. Take it from someone who has played as many games as anyone here that that isn't going to happen as much as you'd like it to.

Guys, it's a Rare. The power level of the card is going to be inherently higher than the minor socketable 2/4 for the same cost. The other one is common for balancing purposes and for alternate formats. Some of the arguments I'm reading aren't making any sense at all. The card is good but it's by no means the best card or even the best sapphire card.

4/5 of the decks I use are two-colored. It is common to get 2 of each resource by turn 4 or even 5 if you build the deck properly to do so. Even if you don't you should have other cards to play in the meanwhile.
What arguments don't make sense to you?
Of course some cards should be inherently better than others. This one in particular has a MAJOR socket over the 2/4 MINOR socket but it's also has blockable which works far too well together along with 3 health. It already avoids any one card that can dish out 2 damage and then on the next turn, you'll have to deal with even more after it procs the gem.

jtatta
11-30-2013, 04:29 PM
I'd like to think that I'm "building my decks properly" given my current track record in the game. Mathematically, it's not very likely to consistently hit SSWW by turn four. I'm really happy that you're getting this results but would like to reiterate the statistical anomaly.

You can't agree with me that cards are inherently better than others and then follow it up with a statement that goes against that.

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 04:35 PM
4/5 of the decks I use are two-colored. It is common to get 2 of each resource by turn 4 or even 5 if you build the deck properly to do so. Even if you don't you should have other cards to play in the meanwhile.
What arguments don't make sense to you?
Of course some cards should be inherently better than others. This one in particular has a MAJOR socket over the 2/4 MINOR socket but it's also has blockable which works far too well together along with 3 health. It already avoids any one card that can dish out 2 damage and then on the next turn, you'll have to deal with even more after it procs the gem.

Even with the shards of fate, Howling braves, and whatever other minor colour fixing cards there are right now, and with an even split of resources, I have very, very rarely had 2/2 split for resources, even keeping a 3 resources starting hand. While it's not impossible, it happens a lot less often than you are trying to imply - and every turn you don't drop the Eldritch Dreamer is a turn that the opponent has to prepare for it, by either putting on the pressure, or drawing answers.

You make it sound like a win condition, when very rarely will it ever win by itself. Nor is it going to reliably make it out on the turn you want it to. It makes a much better tool in a larger strategy, using other bombs for win conditions. And that means it is not OP, its simply strong. And thats fine.

I swear, when cards like Zombie plague and Eye of creation hit the alpha, these arguments are going to crop up all over the place. And cards like these will be forgotten completely.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 04:47 PM
Exactly. There are arguments here that make it sound broken - but there are similar arguments for several cards that are in no-way game winners unless people allow their opponents to set up.

Basically, this is a good card. No-one will deny it, but it will not win you a game solo. In all likelyhood, if you make it the basis of your deck, you will end up with more losses than wins. Its a tool more than a bomb, to be frank.

The argument is that, it has far too much for it's cost of 4 and is difficult to control/remove unless you were playing a Blood deck or control blue deck which is why I liked your idea of -1/1 on it.
Combos on this card would obviously make it better but it is already difficult to deal with alone. Not having something to deal with it the turn it is played puts you at a huge disadvantage and there should be more options to do so for this card in particular.
Not to mention, I don't see any reason to not put 4 of these in your deck as it is incredibly cost effective if it gets 1 attack in (which it almost always will unless you are facing a blood deck) and synergizes well with the available gems.

You also mentioned board position but how likely is it that you'll hit turn 4 without a single troop on the field? You'd have to have a terrible hand or deck for that to happen.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 04:53 PM
I'd like to think that I'm "building my decks properly" given my current track record in the game. Mathematically, it's not very likely to consistently hit SSWW by turn four. I'm really happy that you're getting this results but would like to reiterate the statistical anomaly.

You can't agree with me that cards are inherently better than others and then follow it up with a statement that goes against that.

When I say build your deck properly I mean to increase the probability of getting an even amount of desired shards. Not to you in particular about how you craft your deck. I don't have a mathematical proof and I am simply going by my experiences with over 100 games on decks that have 40~45% resources with an even amount of two different shards.

Yes I can say that. There is a line between strong and too strong which is why balancing exists

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 05:42 PM
The argument is that, it has far too much for it's cost of 4 and is difficult to control/remove unless you were playing a Blood deck or control blue deck which is why I liked your idea of -1/1 on it.
Combos on this card would obviously make it better but it is already difficult to deal with alone. Not having something to deal with it the turn it is played puts you at a huge disadvantage and there should be more options to do so for this card in particular.
Not to mention, I don't see any reason to not put 4 of these in your deck as it is incredibly cost effective if it gets 1 attack in (which it almost always will unless you are facing a blood deck) and synergizes well with the available gems.

You also mentioned board position but how likely is it that you'll hit turn 4 without a single troop on the field? You'd have to have a terrible hand or deck for that to happen.

Well, considering it will always synergise better with conrtol, then it is entirely possible to be on turn 4 with no other troops, either because your deck doesn't need them, or because you had to sacrifice them as blockers. As for aggro, its a bit of a different story, but 4 cost for a 3/3 in aggro is not optimal - if you are against another aggro deck, they could easily outrace you, and against control its going to get removed.

While I don't mind if it gets nerfed to 2/2, I dont think it really needs it. Especially with so many things that are already weak to heatwave (which is often as effective as extinction.) In all the games I have had it used against me, it has mattered once or twice out of every ten or so games? And same when I used it, it mattered about 10% of the time, and it never won me anything outright.

It might be strong for the budget, but there are going to be sooo many cards like that. We already have Spearcliff cloud knight, Claw of the mountain god, Wild root dancer... Potent cards for a very low cost. And you complain about this one? I wonder if you can outrace the cloud knight? The claw? And they come from shards with removal - so they have just as much chance at locking you down.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 05:53 PM
Well, considering it will always synergise better with conrtol, then it is entirely possible to be on turn 4 with no other troops, either because your deck doesn't need them, or because you had to sacrifice them as blockers. As for aggro, its a bit of a different story, but 4 cost for a 3/3 in aggro is not optimal - if you are against another aggro deck, they could easily outrace you, and against control its going to get removed.

While I don't mind if it gets nerfed to 2/2, I dont think it really needs it. Especially with so many things that are already weak to heatwave (which is often as effective as extinction.) In all the games I have had it used against me, it has mattered once or twice out of every ten or so games? And same when I used it, it mattered about 10% of the time, and it never won me anything outright.

It might be strong for the budget, but there are going to be sooo many cards like that. We already have Spearcliff cloud knight, Claw of the mountain god, Wild root dancer... Potent cards for a very low cost. And you complain about this one? I wonder if you can outrace the cloud knight? The claw? And they come from shards with removal - so they have just as much chance at locking you down.

Spearcliff and Wildroot is downable with a single 2 damage removal which almost any deck can afford. Mountain Claw has a drawback of 2 damage to it's owner which becomes hilarious if you can manage to use mesmerize or the white can't block/attack card (forgot name, drawing blanks here lol). They all share one thing in common though, you can block them and bait them in many situations whereas there are far less answers for Eldritch.

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 06:02 PM
Yeah, and Eldritch is played later - and gives less of an advantage if the gem isn't active. So you pay more for something that is more situational and less threatening on the surface - perfectly acceptable. Even if you get the absolute optimal hand, you can't start attacking or protecting Eldritch until turn 5 - by which time even a chaos key is available.

Turn 3 is difficult to deal with. Turn 4 less so. And when its only 'broken' when it has spellshield, and is still vulnerable to damage that doesn't target or board wipes... I am just saying you are blowing this way out of proportion.

I will admit that Eldritch is one of the most powerful 4 cost cards right now, but that is simply because most of the bombs are more expensive, or are lower cost with drawbacks.

You gotta admit, if he had flying or was simply vanilla, he would be terrible. Flying is borderline, but plenty of blockers exist that can be waiting for it. So unlockable seems perfectly fine, for the cost. If someone manages to make it broken, then we will either see it nerfed (pre-beta) or banned (post-alpha) and you won't have to worry anymore.

Lawlschool
11-30-2013, 06:08 PM
I've an idea that might settle this debate, Lunar. Build a deck or two around Dreamer, play a bunch of games with it, and report back on whether you still think that it's overpowered. Theory is only going to get us so far in this argument, experience is going to be a better measure of its overpowered-ness.

jtatta
11-30-2013, 06:09 PM
Still don't know why everyone is so up in arms about Dreamer. The cards that you mentioned that deal with Cloud Knight also deal with Dreamer so that's a wash.

I still think the most dangerous troop in the game is Wild Root Dancer so whatever.

ossuary
11-30-2013, 06:25 PM
As evidenced by the 3 or 4 of these exact types of threads floating around for a couple of the "big bad" cards available right now, there really isn't much point even responding. The kind of people who can't understand that power levels differ and there will always be "really good" cards, who think that something is "too strong" just because they personally got beat by it, are the same type of people who just cannot listen to what anyone else has to say.

They've already convinced themselves they know best, so generally speaking, it's not even worth going back and forth about. I've tried a few times myself, but ultimately it's just a waste of time. Just shake your head, smile to yourself, and let them whine. :)

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 06:26 PM
Sweet, servers are up. Good discussion, and yeah I will try a couple decks with it :)

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 06:28 PM
Sweet, servers are up. Good discussion, and yeah I will try a couple decks with it :)

Let us know if you manage to make it as dangerous as you are saying. I will be happy to hear about how it didn't pan out.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 06:31 PM
Let us know if you manage to make it as dangerous as you are saying. I will be happy to hear about how it didn't pan out.
Why would you say that if you just admitted it was one of the strongest 4 cost cards at the moment? I don't get it.

ossuary
11-30-2013, 09:33 PM
Because there is a significant difference between powerful and overpowered. A difference that casual, inexperienced, or overconfident players can't necessarily identify.

Lawlschool
11-30-2013, 09:42 PM
Sweet, servers are up. Good discussion, and yeah I will try a couple decks with it :)

Sweet, let us know how it goes. I'm gonna test it out myself tomorrow.

Xenavire
11-30-2013, 10:16 PM
Adding to what ossury said, the 4 cost cards aren't really that stellar right now. Almost all of them are fairly vanilla or need some kind of setup to be any good. Being the best of a bland bunch is not a great achievement. Honeycap is great in a mono wild deck, but isn't so easily splashed. Noble citizenry is also great, with little setup needed. But most of the rest are combo pieces or unique, or with high threshold cost limiting them...

In fact, a lot of the 4 cost cards suffer the same problems as Eldritch. Not so easily splashed, somewhat situational, or unique. There are obvious exceptions like Extinction, which is practically a staple.

LunarFlames
11-30-2013, 10:57 PM
Well, just played 6 games and won 3, the deck I'm using is Emerald/Sapphire
1W 2L vs Blood and Blood/Diamond
2W vs Emerald
1L vs Diamond

Made a few mechanical mistakes in the matches but asides from that:
Pretty much exactly as what was discussed happened, first 2 games were vs Blood/Diamond and Diamond.
Played Eldritch alone in both games, it got sniped by murder/conflict

vs Mono Blood, kept Eldritch in hand until I had 6 resources to play it and counter with spell shield [and time ripple]. Worked incredibly well and slowly took out 30 health while building an army.

vs others, not much to say.. it was either not drawn or barely used.

Deck Loadout
Champ: Wyatt
4x Sylvan Wild Dancers
4x Pack Raptors
4x Charge of Beasts
4x Howling Braves
1x Onslaught
4x Time Ripple
4x Eldritch Dreamer [Prime Sapphire of Mind Gem]
3x Countermagic
4x Spell Shield
4x Mesmerize
13x Sapphire
13x Emerald

Also, 3 out of 6 games I had 2 of each threshold by turn 4.
Not much data but yep.
Based the deck on trying to get card draws for the escalation cards while buffing with Sylvan and blue spells for good opportunities to counter.

HyenaNipples
11-30-2013, 11:59 PM
If you ain't playing Oracle Song with Sapphire, you need to write an essay to yourself about why not.

jtatta
12-01-2013, 12:08 AM
Well, just played 6 games and won 3, the deck I'm using is Emerald/Sapphire
1W 2L vs Blood and Blood/Diamond
2W vs Emerald
1L vs Diamond

Made a few mechanical mistakes in the matches but asides from that:
Pretty much exactly as what was discussed happened, first 2 games were vs Blood/Diamond and Diamond.
Played Eldritch alone in both games, it got sniped by murder/conflict

vs Mono Blood, kept Eldritch in hand until I had 6 resources to play it and counter with spell shield [and time ripple]. Worked incredibly well and slowly took out 30 health while building an army.

vs others, not much to say.. it was either not drawn or barely used.

Deck Loadout
Champ: Wyatt
4x Sylvan Wild Dancers
4x Pack Raptors
4x Charge of Beasts
4x Howling Braves
1x Onslaught
4x Time Ripple
4x Eldritch Dreamer [Prime Sapphire of Mind Gem]
3x Countermagic
4x Spell Shield
4x Mesmerize
13x Sapphire
13x Emerald

Also, 3 out of 6 games I had 2 of each threshold by turn 4.
Not much data but yep.
Based the deck on trying to get card draws for the escalation cards while buffing with Sylvan and blue spells for good opportunities to counter.

I feel like you confirmed two things just now. 1) The card is well balanced and 2) you have roughly a50% chance to hit both double thresholds.

I think you validated my points from earlier lol

Xenavire
12-01-2013, 07:19 AM
That is about the result I expected as well. It obviously works very well with spellshield, as discussed, but to play it without being sniped, it basically becomes a 6 cost card instead - around the level of high tomb lord or the phoenix, and one turn faster than Ozawa.

Its good when done properly, as you have proven, but very rarely does it win the game itself - making it a fantastic tool, but a sub-par bomb.

Eierdotter
12-03-2013, 11:16 AM
this card is fine for its cost.
it screams for combo, like many others to make it much stronger.
but as a 3/3 that draws a card /attack it is fine for beeing a rare.

dropping its defence 1 lower would make it unplayable vs Ruby.
blood has enough answers to it.
wild needs to race it, like it needs to do with every big troop on the other side of the field.
diamond and sapphire got counters for him.

card text could be updated sometimes...

decoy11
12-03-2013, 11:25 PM
http://hextcg.com/sapphire/

read that page and you will see that eldritch dreamer is exactly the type of card sapphire should get

Tempura
12-04-2013, 03:51 AM
This card is powerful, but not "Overpowered". It gives Sapphire a very good edge on creatures. It also plays into the style of Sapphire, that is, a control deck. One would not complain about you Wild users who gorge yourselves with 8/8's and escalating 4/4's ect. You have many options to counter this card and many more options to build around or build out of a mitigation vs. Sapphire. Hell even a straight Burn oriented deck would do very well vs. this card and its elaborate combos.

The card is well balanced for what you pay for. 4 shards @ 2 Threshold