Comparing cards in different clans never works, so don't try and validate your argument by doing so. if you truly want to validate your argument, do it empirically, not by saying x>y therefore x is amazing.

Oracle we obviously have hugely varying opinions on what an amazing card is. Via my definition and amazing card controls the game, they force your opponent to play their entire hand differently. (Liam doesn't sway the way i play my entire hand). Via your definition Defeat: + 2 life is amazing.

Jeena is sub par. Provides 1 function. Good cards provide multiple roles, as far as i can see she does one.

Ojibway is by far their best 5* but they have no depth. Most clans have at least 3 5* cards that can fit within the synergy of a deck. Roots have 1.

Outside of Roots maybe 4 of their cards would be used.

I'm sick of arguing with you. This thread was meant for discussing the bans on cards. Let's keep it that way.

If anything less bans would make the game more interesting. Balance in the meta game is nice, but it also makes it far less fun. Bring back some cards from times gone by so we determine if they're still broken in the current meta game.

"lets compare them to Piranas which have a less useful bonus
Tuck -- Raeth: Raeth is slightly better, but pretty much the same thing, so Tuck is better.
Jeena -- Ulrich: again arguably better because of bonus and Ulrich is banned
Noodile Cr -- Tyd: same
Gertjan: Taljion plain better"

@oracle: You cant compare cards this way. Lets say Ulrich is unbanned, Ulrich makes a better DR against Jungo, Berzerk, La Junta, Fang Pi Clang. Different clans work differently. You should NEVER compare cards with similar abilities when both of them are in different clans. All of them serve differently in a deck.

@Fanta: Jeena is still amazingly good even without his bonus.

Whoa. first of all cut the logical fallacies. in one post you've managed to have at least 3, ad hominem, argument from authority and slippery slope. secondly, yes i don't do well with Roots. they don't fit my playstyle. i much prefer Piranas/Junkz to Roots.

I've play Roots to my highest Elo score, i know how they work.

All I suggest is that people see Roots as a greater threat than they are.

Rosen has potential. If she had 1 more damage she'd be their best 5*. Sadly she doesn't and this makes her a gimmick rather than a powerhouse card.

As i've stated before i want 2* cards which can change a battle, and as i've said before i want to remove more bans not add them. Boonie Ld and Gil FTW

You should know elo is about balance, believe it or not some clans/cards break this balance. I for one don't really mind, as its your tactics which direct your game.

For example, if you know Uppers are weak against SOA. Thus not many players would go mono Uppers, in the latter case why not unban Zatman. I havent been around that long when he was in the elo, but l dont see him as a threat.

I''ve been told before each and every clan has its own weaknesses, therefore counter-clans to oppose them. IMO l think balance is slowly being created thus as oracle calls op cards don't decide matches. Like Palmer and Virginia, their surprisingly strong cards but being 5 stars is what prevents them being 'op'.

Thus my reasons for Zatman

Zatman works the same as Lehane. A super annoying and unfair wall. Also, unlike Lehane, he has 4 damage, a sort of noticeable amount you can't just let through.