All this talk of Enemy of My Enemy allowing toolboxes to be ultra-effective got me thinking...

1- Drop Character
Ronan The Accuser - Loyalty Enforcer
Kree - Flight - 1/2

You may discard 2 cards from your hand rather than pay Ronan The Accuser's recruit cost.

When Ronan The Accuser comes into play, target player names two team affiliations. Search through that players hand, deck, and KO'ed pile and remove from the game all affiliated character cards without either printed team affiliation. Shuffle that player's deck.

Not only does I think it heavily meta against the abuse of EomE as a utility card (which isn't really what it should be), it also makes sense against the Kree enemies ... Skrull. However, it doesn't shut down Skrull's viability, as they both have plenty of team affiliations within their own DA characters, and they could simply choose to team up with a team with plenty of DA characters, such as Doom, which is both a great team up for them because of both DA's and Ultron 11, and is very thematically nice due to the whole anti-FF thing.

Did Wolverine (Skrull) infiltrate someone's Inhumans deck? Let The Kree dig out the imposter!

It's an incredibly rough concept, I'm not even sure that it fits with who Ronan The Accuser really is, but I think something along this line might help with the Haywire / EomE situation. Like a cross between The Source and Betrayal.

Just a thought.

So, if I want to play with 3 teams, then I can't? You killed glock, newschool, etc.

Personally, I don't think 3+ team decks should have been all that viable in the first place. Plus I don't know if it kills them, it just really forces them to play within a team-up. You could still run Greenlatern/someone-else stall, for example. You just couldn't pick and choose the best characters of whatever teams you just felt like without having to worry about a Kree character in the meta.

(Plus, you could always try to run it yourself, so that if you played it first, only a player actually playing Kree in some capacity would get to keep it or make a ridiculous sacrifice and lose 1/4 of his deck. Not necessarily a "fix", but I'm not saying you can't play with a toolbox 3-multi team deck, I'm just saying that I think those kinds of deck are what's causing the utility/toolbox problem and should be less viable.)

This is just an idea though, if you think it causes too many problems, then go ahead and shoot it down, but I think running more than 2 teams is really just going for "game-locking" combos more than anything else, which is something that should be meta'd against. Loyalty, for example, shouldn't mean "oh, I run 1 copy of this 1 guy, so I can play Captain Marvel", it should mean "I get this guy for having made a comittment to this team affiliation".

It makes a few (mostly unbalanced) decks alot less viable, I agree, but I think it makes HUNDREDS of new and existing decks MUCH more viable. You want game diversity, have people start choosing a team or two, not just have everyone playing with all the best characters in the game. Unchecked, I think the accumulation of cards leads to things like Highvoltage, because all the different things of the same effect type pile up and allow abuse like that.

Team affiliations were always meant to be what you would play, and you can still combine any teams you like; you would just have to choose TEAMS not single CHARACTERS.

IMO, 1 or (more often) 2 team decks should be the standard, not the exception.

Are you trying to make his argument for him? ;)

Justice League of Arkham was banned for a reason.

Exactly. Now, any suggestion of this scale is bound to cause a massive backlash.

I stand by this idea in concept, but I'm half expecting to be flamed in

3...

2...

1...

Heh, in before your "I'm going to be flamed" remark, though it was more of a criticism than a flame. I just think you have to be very careful when printing cards that will cause someone to miss their recruit step.

Um i may be wrong but that card sucks

if you read its effect it says
so how does his do anything at all if my opponent is playing Heralds of Galactus(OR ANYOTHER TEAM WHO CARES NAME 1) and he names marvel knights and spider friends then how the heck is this card cool i think someone either misread it or i misread it but it says TARGET PLAYER NAMES maening your opponent would name them therefor they could name 2 random teams and nothing would happen to them.If i am wrong then correct me:ermm:

Nothing wrong with critcism. I don't see how people will miss their recruit step though unless they are playing a 3+ team deck, which is what I think should be discouraged.

Not to be contrary (which I am) but if this game was turning into a situation where everyone was just playing the best characters possible at each drop - all of the decks would be the same. Unfortunately since diversity and teams (and team advantage) still exists, we haven't got to that point in VS yet.

Not saying that we won't eventually get there, but I've been perfectly satisfied with the results of the recent 10ks/PCs when it comes to deck diversity.

However I will express my dislike for High Voltage - not necessarily because of the fact that it's too good, but because it always runs like crap for me.

It may be because I'm just absolutely horrible - but I wouldn't even begin to consider running Voltage because even after mulling my opening hand usually consists of 5 plot twist and a 5 drop character. :(

Nah, that's nothing to do with you.

That's the OCTGN shuffler at work ;)

USE MWS FTW SEZ FTN.

The keyword is "without" the printed team affiliation. If they actually did THAT, it would remove all the characters from their deck. If they named the team they were playing, and they were playing a mono-team like you mentioned, then it would do nothing

Essentially, it would remove cards from their deck that didn't match up the team affiliations that they're "Playing".

For example, let's say I'm running a Master of Evil / Secret Society deck and I run a copy of Kang Cobra as "utility" that I can easily get out to lock down certain decks with Enemy of my Enemy. If they play this concept, I than choose two team affiliations. Most likely, I would choose to keep my curve, and say Masters of Evils and Secret Society. The opponent would then search my deck for everyone who I was playing that wasn't Masters of Evil or Secret Society (the Kang Kobra I put in there from someone else's team) and remove it from the game.

I kind of find it amusing though, that while I'm expecting like 100 people to say that the concept is "overly powerful and broken", that 1 person thought it was under-powered and lame.

If only I could blame it on an online program, I'd gladly do it...

No, I'm really just this horrible. ;)

Was it Golden Age though? If it was - that's great!; and this card need not exist.

Everyone on these forums though keeps talking about how High Voltage is ruining Golden Age and EomE is broken because it functions as utility as well. Personally, I don't run into these things, because I play in casual play, not high-level tournaments, but if those are the main problems, I came up with what I believe is a solution to remove the broken "net-decking toolbox/rush" concepts and add diversity back to Golden Age.

So really, this is just kind of my response to that debate.
"If it really is a problem, here's your solution ...."

If the problem was highly exaggerated, then yes, the concept need not exist. If everything is exactly as everyone is complaining it is though, then I think this goes a long way towards solving that.

I'm not making a decision, I don't work for UDE, I'm just presenting a solution to a supposed problem to see what people think.

Your card is obscenely powerful and ruins several perfectly viable decks that do not even need Enemy of my Enemy, and/or were playable before it was released.

Why is your argument not just 'Ban Enemy of my Enemy'?