That last line was just my hatred towards Neonra, lol. There is just something about that card that I dont like and I think its giving all characters Kree and it comes in play hidden. It just seems like an all to easy team up and could become a bit too good.
I think thats my opinion b/c of my friends Inhumans/Sckull team up thing(cantremember the name) and Neonora alwasy seems to be thta freking 3rd afillation that HAB just cant blew up =/

Edit-or were you talking to the guy above me now that I look at the post we posted at the same time and I typed all this for nothing, o well

Let me take another tangent for a second.

The National Hockey League has gone through this exact same process over the last ten years. Here's what happened in that game.

The first few years of the nineties were like the Origins sets in Versus, wide open fun. Then the mid to late nineties saw the rise of intense defensive schemes that slowed the game down and made it into Greco-Roman wrestling on ice. There was a huge public outcry against the trapping, hooking, holding, steer-wrestling style but it worked so most of the winning teams used it. During these years, the superstars of the league whined and whined and whined about their lack of opportunity to showcase their skills. They wanted the league to impose rules that would limit the contact that the defenders could employ and allow them to skate more freely without the puck.

During the "wrestling years", our beloved Florida Panthers made one of the more spectacular runs of all time and made the Super Bowl of hockey. We had the Stanley Cup in the building and even though we didn't win it we shocked the whole world by even being there. Stu had the most glorious season of his life, beating the legends of Lemieux and Jagr along with his rat-loving teammates. David had never been so small against giants like that; we were in only our third year after starting with an expansion team of rejects. It was a beautiful thing.

Then the idiot general manager (we still call Bryan Murray "B.M.") traded Stu and it fell apart. The league spent a whole year on strike due to the inability of the greedy people to get along. And when hockey came back a year later there was a MAJOR ban list in place. Now there is no hooking and holding and the stars are allowed to skate. It is a beautiful thing.

That's it.

Err, no. Mobilize exists primarily to level the playing field for mono-team decks vs. team-up decks. Before Mobilize, it was impossible for any mono-team deck to be as consistent as the best team-up decks. Now any team with one good team-stamped tutor can be consistent enough to be competitive. For example, Future Foes discard with 4x Fatal Five Hundred and 4x Mobilize is remarkably consistent.

Too many people in this thread are looking to throw out the baby with the bath water. The decks that are bogging down the metagame right now are the ones that use combinations of cards from various teams in such a way that more time is spent in the build phase than the combat phase. All of these decks do play Enemy, and all of them are made possible by Enemy. But Enemy is just an enabler. By itself, it's completely benign. You can put it in a deck like Squadron Supreme, and all it does there is make the deck a little more consistent. The real problems in these decks are some of the character cards that Enemy is searching for, not Enemy itself.

A huge source of metagame problems was eliminated when Dr. Light was banned. Frankie Raye obviously needs to be next, and perhaps Attend or Die along with her. There's no downside to doing so. But banning Enemy and other generic search cards would create as many problems as it solves. One of the very best things about Vs. is that any team with a few good characters and supporting cards is playable, thanks to the concept of team-ups and the variety of search cards available. It would be a horrible shame to lose that.

Two things to note about this:

Cards do not exist in a vacuum but in the context of a bunch of other cards. In an enviroment with pretty bad 2 drops and/or ways to get them to the KO pile. I can see Dr.Light being incredibly powerful but fine (something similar was said in the metagame article regarding the banning). When considering the strength (and ban worthiness) of the card consider all the cards with which it is played.

My other point is you could have cards that are "just enablers" completely banworthy. The tutors in Magic are a great example. Hell if you think about it the artifact lands in Affinity were just enablers for the mechanic. And it is not only making the deck a little more consistent: it is making ALMOST ALL decks a LOT more consistent AND allows for silver bulleting and cherry picking WITHOUT a seriousl drawback.

Seriously, I hate to repeat myself, but it is a generic search card that is way more powerful than pretty much all team-stamped tutors. It's drawback is less and/or it's effect more powerful than team-stamped cards even if you are playing the team and and a good part of their strategy. In about 90% of the viable decks it is an automatic 4x.

Note that I am not against generic search nor against Mobilize, SttG, etc but I do believe EOME is too powerful.

Nothing you said can be construed as an argument AGAINST Enemy. Consistency = good.

And going by your argument, STTG is way better than Enemy because it allows you to fetch any character on any team (or without team, even) a turn sooner AND without a discard. Of course you have to have a recursive location, but that's as easy as pie.

Kansas: Mobilize is obviously made to be a mono-team tutor, but it's also the best character tutor you can ask for if you run a deck that will reliably be teaming up. Let team-up decks play that and hack EOME out of the game.

I'm not against all generic search. I think Straight to the Grave is powerful but not broken since it requires something that interacts with the KOed pile to be of real use, Mobilize is fantastic but doesn't allow you to cherry-pick from other teams and is generally limited to fair decks, Creation of a Herald is a great on-team tutor that just has the bonus of being the ultimate generic tutor. EOME lets you combine any two broken character combinations and play them together with ease. It, by allowing players easier access to the widest range of characters possible, lets you play every degenerate combo you can find in the game.

To a degree, SttG can do this too, but as I said it also requires some other card that interacts with the KOed pile and because of this is not guaranteed as a character search (aside from the fact that you need multiple Swamps/Worlds to make use of multiple sttg as tutors, whereas EOME works just fine on its own in multiples).

Aku: Your counter-point is completely moot against Nue because you make it sound like you will ALWAYS have the card that lets you interact with your KOed pile. While there's a good chance you will have something by turn 3 or 4 that lets you turn SttG into a generic character tutor, it's not guaranteed. And even then, like I said above, you are limited to using SttG as a tutor based on the number of recursion cards you have access to. Obviously it gets better later in the game when you have a bigger resource row, but for degenerate decks most of the time they only get one tutor use out of SttG per turn. EOME works just fine on its own, without the aid of other cards. Ever. And you can use these multiples to pick the combo characters out of your deck with ease.

And while I hate to go into this question: what are the primary reasons WHY you are defending Enemy of my Enemy? Is it because you paid money for your playset, or is it because you think the game can never have enough search? If so, what's the difference between Frankie, which is blind card-drawing, and EOME, which is sure-fire search power? Seriously, I love consistency as much as the next guy (it's one of the big calls of this game for me), but there's a limit to how good search can be.

P.S. Wtf? When did I start attacking people with walls of text? Shouldn't I just be saying "RUJK" and not backing up my arguments. This is so out of character -.-

First, it's not a moot point. With three different recursive locations and a host of ways to get them, 9 games out of 10 is, for all intents and purposes, "ALWAYS".

Second, I have 6 Enemies and I paid for 2 of them. The reason I am defending it, is because it is the best search card in the game, I don't want to run 1 or 2 teams. I want to run 3 or 4 teams. CONSISTENCY = GOOD always and forever. I play a checkmate/league of assassin deck that runs 4 Brother I sats, 4 Enemies, 3 Moutain Strongholds, 4 Ahmeds and 4 Connies. Do I need the Enemies? I could probably make due without them, but why? If you are playing more than 1 team, Enemy just makes sense.

As for what's the difference between Enemy and Frankie... Discounting the fact that I have been advocating NOT banning Frankie for like 3 days now, the main difference is that, in a normal deck, you can use Enemy 4 times in game whereas you can use Frankie 25 times a game. I'm afraid the comparison of the two is lost one me though, because I don't think they have anything in common.

In response to the "two team decks can easily just use Mobilize".


1) This is never true for your first drop of another team affiliation.

If my turn 1, 2, and 3 drops are X-Statix, I cannot use my search to get my 4 drop B.P.R.D., for example.

2) Personally, I run a deck with 8 team-ups, sometimes they still don't come up. This hurts, but then making it so that you're unable to search? That's harsh.


The two-team team-up is the backbone of casual VS.

I still assert that EomE is integral to a huge amount of the casual environment, and that, if necessary, we should push it into Golden Age and push the Pros a bit more towards Silver and Modern since this is arguably inevitable at some point anyways.

An outright banning of EomE would do far too much unnecessary damage to the casual game - even if you think the game would be better off without it, notice the majority of players who are going to the bat to defend it. These are people who support the game too.

We can both get our way. It's called formats.

Yes consistency is good too much consistency without a good cost is broken. This discussion was earlier in the EOME thread but the main point of mine is that having too much consistency at a low cost can be a bad thing for the game. The games rule state you start with a minimum of 60 card decks, 4x max of each card except armies, draw 4 cards and than 2 cards a turn, etc. There is an inherent randomness in the game and an inherent lack of consistency. You can and should improve this through cards like tutors and card draw, but these should have a cost, like only certain teams can use the card or you need to follow a certain strategy to be usable. Now what these cost is, is up for the designers to decide. While I know that some tutors are strong, some are downright unusable EOME stands head and shoulders above them simply because it's a generic card with an enormous effect and minimal drawback, even when compared to the best of the team-stamped tutors.

And no STTG is not way better than EOME for a few reasons:

First it needs some way to get the card out of the KO pile. That means you need to dedicate more slots just to make the tutor work.
EOME simply works fine on it's own as a 4x. It's drawback is not much of a problem if you run 2 or more teams, and even in mono it's drawback means that you should now run silver bullets. Not exactly a huge drawback.

Second it is more disruptable. KO pile hate works wonders against it. I know there is not much in the environment in the moment, mostly because Phantom Zone's "teams" suck right now. But if either Revenge Squad or Team Superman end up playable Phantom Zone will be maindecked if everyone does use SttG in the metagame. And just printing some other KO-pile hate is easy and can easily keep SttG from being an automatic include and a sure-fire generic tutor.
The only way I see they doing this to EOME is printing some serious loyalty requirements on basically every powerful drop that otherwise could be "cherry-picked" or silver bulleted with EOME. Not only would this restrict design, it is not a foolproof as they can overlook things easily and would do nothing about the existing cards.

Now as for the solution: I think UDE put themselves in a position that they can not outright ban the card without alienating a lot of their customers. So a compromise would be to ban it in silver and restrict it to 1 in golden. This way the card would drop in price but would not be useless nor worthless. Not to mention most people who own more than one will most likely just put it in their other decks instead of proxying the thing.

It sounds as though you wouldn't mind occasionally missing drops, which is the equivalent of getting mana screwed. MTG added myriad land tutors because people were sick and tired of losing games they should win because they didn't draw the land they needed. UDE has done the same thing. There was a time that if you missed a drop, you lost. Period. That time has gone the way of the dodo because of cards like Enemy and STTG. Personally, I don't ever want to go back to those inconsistent days, it is no fun. Enemy makes running teams that don't have great on team search viable. Why should those teams suffer, because the cost of discarding a card is not enough, in your opinion.


Agreed. But using your argument above, it is. As I stated above in my reply to Yoshi, getting a recursive location online by turn 2 is simple, that means that you have a better tutor than Enemy online a turn sooner. Also, it's not like I'm adding recursive locations to my deck solely for Straight. They are good in general and would have already been there, so no extra slots were taken to make it work. I'm not really that worried about Phantom Zone, as you will likely only run one of them or Tar Baby seeing as now you would have to eschew your normal 2 drop or underdrop on 3 (which is also fine) to use him at all. As far as printing future KO pile hate, that's just speculation. You could also say that they'll print future search hate. Banning Enemy is not viable or smart.

I should really read threads before I post.

I wonder what's everyone going to do w/ their EomEs if it gets banned? What's going to happen to the price?

Yeah, we've already covered that, Paul. I was simply making a point that by using his logic, STTG was better. It was a hypothetical argument.

This is why everyone should just use MK and Midnight Sons. Brokzers!

This is because the card has an actual drawback. As in it is "good but balanced" instead of "ridiculously good and broken". You actually have to build your deck around it more if you use 2 teams: why not vary your low drops between the teams, or include an X-Statix 4 drop.

Yes sometimes #### happens. Sometimes I need a pump and even though 20 cards are pumps and I draw maybe one the whole game. Things like that happen in a tcg, you can not stack you deck after each shuffle. That is part of the game. Yes I know it sucks and hopefully does not come up often, but playing with less than perfect draws can be exciting, and is not always mean that you lose (remember it can happen to your opponent too). Some of the most fun and complex games that I have played were when I did not draw optimally and yet still managed to squeeze out a win.

I strongly disagree with you on this. I think for the two-team team-up decks (that and mono decks make up the majority of casual decks here too) the banning of EOME would be great. Almost every new team out there now have a tutor that is based on their theme. So you have, depending on the deck 4 to 8 tutors already. If they decide to ban EOME I expect to some generic replacements which might not be auto 4x nor as powerful but still useful.
What you do have now is that because of EOME those cherry picking decks that seem all the rage all way more powerful than the casual 1-2 team decks. The reason for this is that it is a generic tutor that encourages cherry picking that is better than the team stamped tutors by a large margin and is basically independent of the decks strategy. I do not have to explain that team-stamping is a constraint and assigning yourself to a certain strategy is a constraint (say playing lots of leaders or must be doing breakthrough, etc). So why should a generic, not strategy constrained tutor be better than the team-stamped and strategy specific ones ?

Yes sure the casual decks with 2 teams can play it too, but the card works just as good for the cherry-picking deck and they have a lot bigger card pool to pick their drops. Honestly if you want things to be better for the casual crowd, ask for better and more team stamped tutors in for every team or generic cards that are of normal powerlevel. Than people get a lot better chance to win a tournament with those 1-2 team decks.


I think that the big issue that needs to be touched on is that you think (correct me if I am wrong on this) that most combinations of teams should be equally and very consistent and I do not. While the idea might be inviting on paper the problem is this:

Some combinations of cards are just more powerful than others. This is often the case where one deck can pick out the best cards out of say 6 teams instead of 2. If we allow both decks to be equally consistent than the team that is cherry-picking out of the 6 teams will consistently beat the 2 team deck.

Or there can normally be decks that can get incredibly explosive games where they demolish all opposition but the price for that is that they sometimes lose badly when the right cards are not drawn (AGL was close to this imo). I am perfectly fine with these decks, sometimes they run you over no matter what you do but sometimes you beat them with a mediocre draw. They trade their consistency for all that power and that is perfectly fine. Now if we gave these deck the tools to be just as consistent as every other deck, basically the regular deck would lose almost every time.

the last line of STU's post smart guy. you posted like 3 seconds before me D<