This is a "Win more" card, you have to be in a good position for it to be any good otherwise she's a 1/1 for 2 fate.

8 minutes ago, BordOne said:

I don't know she doesn't seem that strong. She is basically a military/political Banzai! only during the fourth conflict of the turn and for a hefty price of 2 fate. She's not terrible but I think phoenix will have more powerful cards to put into their conflict deck.

She might still be played out of the core I guess.

What makes her better than a banzai, she can play to an empty field. The last round of attacks, you have no characters on field, you can defend with her. Pol or Mil. Add in some shenanigans and she's useful for multiple conflicts.

1 minute ago, SlackerHacker said:

This is a "Win more" card, you have to be in a good position for it to be any good otherwise she's a 1/1 for 2 fate.

Or a bad position for her to have 3/3. (Lost 2 conflicts, I mean)

Just now, RandomJC said:

Or a bad position for her to have 3/3. (Lost 2 conflicts, I mean)

Right, given it would trigger not matter who wins the ring. Could be good to help stabilize the board after a couple of bad conflicts.

Just now, SlackerHacker said:

Right, given it would trigger not matter who wins the ring. Could be good to help stabilize the board after a couple of bad conflicts.

Yes, it's a wonky card, but it isn't a bad card. If more Phoenix cards play of claimed rings it could make for an interesting game where the Phoenix opponent doesn't necessarily want to win the conflict.

3 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

In all honesty, why wasn't this card a Dragon card? ?

I realize that Phoenix has all types of ring stealing and ring manipulation within their theme, but again, this sort of ability would/could side with Dragon too. Just my initial thoughts here.

Dragon have their version of this card in the Seeker of Enlightenment.

Dragon clearly play off of the fate on the rings, and Phoenix seem to be playing off of the claimed rings.

Know the World, Solemn Scholar and now this all have to do with the claimed rings. And 3 other cards, Masahiro, Display of Power and Seeker of Knowledge also play with ring effects. I think it will fit right in with their theme.

32 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

Yes, it's a wonky card, but it isn't a bad card. If more Phoenix cards play of claimed rings it could make for an interesting game where the Phoenix opponent doesn't necessarily want to win the conflict.

So, it's almost as if the powerful pacifist clan can put people off attacking them.

Sounds like mechanics reflecting fiction quite well there

The thematic consideration with them being tied to rings is obvious. They have a strong connection to the elements and the kami. The thematic considering of them caring about claimed rings is interesting to me because that suggests they like acting in the later conflicts and therefore prefer to go second. Also seems fitting for the Phoenix clan. They are reinforcing that they are a reactive faction that prefers to wait until they can consider their options before acting.

3 hours ago, Gaffa said:

Suboptimal? It depends on what your deck wants to do and what you're up against (how surprising, cards need to be considered in context).

Conflict characters can't be considered as just a variant of conflict tricks like Banzai! or For Shame. They're not just stats, they're an additional character in the battle. This means they're better against an opponent who is mainly teching bow or send-home effects themselves, while being less good against someone mainly interested in buffing their own characters. They're better for clans who have access to a lot of AOE effects (Lion, Crab vs. Crane and Dragon right now), and also if nothing else can keep you from losing the unopposed honor penalty if you've got nobody left for defense.

In this case you're paying 2 for someone who can make a surprise appearance in any conflict sizing from anywhere from 1/1 to 4/4, and is also a shugenja to unlock shungenja-matters spells in case you're short on them in play at the moment. That's a completely different criteria to value the card than just comparing it to a generic 2-cost buff.

Which is why lists that just rate cards on some 1-10 scale in a void aren't particularly all that interesting or useful. Some decks will want this. Some won't. Cards need context; a powerful roleplayer in one deck might be useless in another.

I figured there would be some counter opinion to my own, but basically what I get from your response is, this card can be good sometimes in some decks. Which can be said for about 85% of the cards revealed. In contrast, conflict card like Charge, Banzai, Court Games almost always have a use and cost less.

Now if you want to compare it to conflict characters it is about average, likely good for phoenix straight out of core, because there aren't any better options. But the arguements I'm reading are "This guy is going to be a 4/4 exactly when I need him to be" are optimistic at best. Reality is, this character will be an average 2/3 at the cost of 2, with no ability. It having the shugenja trait makes it slightly more appealing, but so far shugenja hasn't really been a real need.

Well, a surprise 4/4 for the last conflict could mean a destroyed province instead of just a ring.

26 minutes ago, Silverfox13 said:

I figured there would be some counter opinion to my own, but basically what I get from your response is, this card can be good sometimes in some decks. Which can be said for about 85% of the cards revealed. In contrast, conflict card like Charge, Banzai, Court Games almost always have a use and cost less.

Now if you want to compare it to conflict characters it is about average, likely good for phoenix straight out of core, because there aren't any better options. But the arguements I'm reading are "This guy is going to be a 4/4 exactly when I need him to be" are optimistic at best. Reality is, this character will be an average 2/3 at the cost of 2, with no ability. It having the shugenja trait makes it slightly more appealing, but so far shugenja hasn't really been a real need.

If the basis of what is or isn't suboptimal is universal use, then 85% of the cards are suboptimal. Also to point out you are trying to compare an in Clan card, cards with generally narrower focus, with neutral cards, cards that are meant to be more well rounded and useable in multiple deck types.

A 2/3 cost reliable card that has potential to last more than one conflict is pretty good. And I'd argue that you'd see her played as a 3 more often than a 2, considering the nature of the game. This isn't a "suboptimal" card.

And you can't go writing off shugenja as an trait, since the major clan to deal with shugenja has yet to be spoiled.

1 minute ago, RandomJC said:

If the basis of what is or isn't suboptimal is universal use, then 85% of the cards are suboptimal. Also to point out you are trying to compare an in Clan card with neutral cards which by their nature are meant to be more well rounded and useable in multiple deck types.

A 2/3 cost reliable card that has potential to last more than one conflict is pretty good. And I'd argue that you'd see her played as a 3 more often than a 2, considering the nature of the game. This isn't a "suboptimal" card.

And you can't go writing off shugenja as an trait, since the major clan to deal with shugenja has yet to be spoiled.

The fact that she's a Conflict character also shouldn't be undervalued. Being able to drop an additional character into a conflict may be the difference between a province breaking or being saved. Anyone playing Phoenix (or a clan splashing Phoenix) will have to at least consider holding a part of their force back in early Conflicts to account for the possibility of seeing her pop up in later conflicts.

...and if your opponent holds back too much, where a single point could swing the Conflict, it may be worth playing her earlier; especially if you have access to straightening.

Just now, JJ48 said:

The fact that she's a Conflict character also shouldn't be undervalued. Being able to drop an additional character into a conflict may be the difference between a province breaking or being saved. Anyone playing Phoenix (or a clan splashing Phoenix) will have to at least consider holding a part of their force back in early Conflicts to account for the possibility of seeing her pop up in later conflicts.

...and if your opponent holds back too much, where a single point could swing the Conflict, it may be worth playing her earlier; especially if you have access to straightening.

Agree completely. I said it early, she's a wonky card. Has the potential to do weird things, and can give your opponent second thoughts on declaring conflicts for fear of powering up a card that might be in your hand.

I like it for personal and gameplay reasons. I always thought the ishiken were one of the cooler aspects of the Phoenix and void magic in particular always interested me. Now I can't wait to interest my opponents with an unexpected body/spell platform.

21 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

The fact that she's a Conflict character also shouldn't be undervalued. Being able to drop an additional character into a conflict may be the difference between a province breaking or being saved. Anyone playing Phoenix (or a clan splashing Phoenix) will have to at least consider holding a part of their force back in early Conflicts to account for the possibility of seeing her pop up in later conflicts.

...and if your opponent holds back too much, where a single point could swing the Conflict, it may be worth playing her earlier; especially if you have access to straightening.

I actual did not undervalue the card because it is a conflict character, I actual made my argument with that very thing in mind.

Every counter point that was made can be said about any conflict character, "they can surprise you when you least expect it", "it's good against this deck or strategy", "this character is in my clan", none of which makes a strong case that it is good.

I would rather have a character that is less unpredictable and has an ability. The character's average cost versus skill and no ability make this less than appealing to me.

13 minutes ago, Silverfox13 said:

I actual did not undervalue the card because it is a conflict character, I actual made my argument with that very thing in mind.

Every counter point that was made can be said about any conflict character, "they can surprise you when you least expect it", "it's good against this deck or strategy", "this character is in my clan", none of which makes a strong case that it is good.

I would rather have a character that is less unpredictable and has an ability. The character's average cost versus skill and no ability make this less than appealing to me.

But you're criteria kind of makes every card that isn't a neutral card bad.

It's fine that you don't find it appealing for those reasons, but that doesn't make it a bad card. It's easily a 3/3 for the cost of 2 fate. I've almost always seen at least two conflicts in a round. Add in that it has more utility than Charge or Banzai, both of which only effect military conflicts, and stats. Add in that Banzai is useless if you have no character at the conflict to begin with. It's more reliable than you're giving it credit for. It has no ability, but I'm not going to ever write off an extra body that can reliably be 3/3 for 2 in any game.

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

If the basis of what is or isn't suboptimal is universal use, then 85% of the cards are suboptimal.

This is unfortunately what usually card games come down to. If the card is not straight up broken/undercosted it rarely sees play. It might be an ok card but it is not enough unless it has a specific effect that no other card has. That's why I feel she might see play out of the core but soon will be forgotten(unless there are some wierd interactions with her). Being a "fair" ball of stats just isn't enough.

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

A 2/3 cost reliable card that has potential to last more than one conflict is pretty good. And I'd argue that you'd see her played as a 3 more often than a 2, considering the nature of the game. This isn't a "suboptimal" card.

The problem is that she isn't really reliable. You can get boosts that she gives for much cheaper in conflict(even for 0, and difference between 0 and 2 is huge) and cards that provide them work at all times, not only during the last conflict. You can drop her earlier but then you will be just paying too much. Also she is very weak if you are behind on tempo in which case it doesn't really matter if she will break a province in the last conflict or not.

It's not that she is weak it just seems to me that there are many better cards, even neutral, that could be played instead of her. I will give her a chance though.

3 minutes ago, BordOne said:

This is unfortunately what usually card games come down to. If the card is not straight up broken/undercosted it rarely sees play. It might be an ok card but it is not enough unless it has a specific effect that no other card has. That's why I feel she might see play out of the core but soon will be forgotten(unless there are some wierd interactions with her). Being a "fair" ball of stats just isn't enough.

But that isn't the same as suboptimal.

3 minutes ago, BordOne said:

The problem is that she isn't really reliable. You can get boosts that she gives for much cheaper in conflict(even for 0, and difference between 0 and 2 is huge) and cards that provide them work at all times, not only during the last conflict. You can drop her earlier but then you will be just paying too much. Also she is very weak if you are behind on tempo in which case it doesn't really matter if she will break a province in the last conflict or not.

It's not that she is weak it just seems to me that there are many better cards, even neutral, that could be played instead of her.

There are almost always two conflicts in any given round, which means she will have a 3/3. at the very least. Since she is a character, you can play her out of a conflict, so if you don't have anyone else, and it's your turn to attack, you can play her and declare that attack.

Those 0 costs cards are good, but cards like Banzai and Charge are also limiting, Banzai is straight up useless if you have no characters on the field. So are attachments and most other conflict cards. Charge will only help you in a military conflict. She can be played to an empty field with mid-level stats that can then be boosted by those 0 cost cards.

I'd argue she isn't weak if you're behind on tempo, she's a card to mitigate that damage, if you lost two conflicts, she's still a strong card that can be played to mitigate further losses, or even turn the tide. It also matters very much, losing a conflict isn't the same as losing a province. If you lose two conflicts, or even three, but that doesn't mean you lost a province. (I know this, I've played lion enough to just lose, but not have my provinces break.) Coming in a swinging and breaking a province matters a great deal.

My point on the difference between clan and neutral is of course neutral will have better cards, they're more flexible than any clan card can, or should be. It's isn't a comparison that can be easily made.

I'm not saying she's a great card, but it isn't as bad as some are saying on here. She's widely capable and a pocket character to play when least expected, which can give a massive swing in your favor late in the phase. She may not be as good a boost, but Fine Katana, and other 0 cost conflict cards mean jack if you have an empty field.

I'm on the side that the card is rather mediocre. she does thematically work well with the idea of the Phoenix being okay with losing (display of power being an example) but it feels like she might only be worth playing too late in the conflict round. The fact that she's cost 2 doesn't help her either.

She'll see play for the small card pool going into the core set.

Maybe the stronghold will let you temporarily claim a ring or something? Or other cards to help her out.

I think she is exactly what the phoenix are looking for. Phoenix seems to be all about "losing for advantage". They are fine losing battles and even provinces, because they use that to empower themselves after ward.

I see a turn can easily play out like:

Opponent's turn. They declare first conflict.

Phoenix respond by not deploying and then playing Display of Power to take the ring.

Phoenix then launch a heavy assault to claim another ring.

Then opponent attacks back to find phoenix able to just drop a 3/3 for 2f as a defender, no matter the conflict type.

Or, the phoenix defend enough to save the province but the opponent gets the ring. Now phoenix attacks again, able to drop a 4/4 for 2f, which is REALLY good.

She is meant to play into the idea that phoenix WANT to lose some conflicts and be able to still throw down a strong body after your opponent is out of momentum. Your opponent can attack heavily and overcommit (because you are a defensive deck) only to have you handwave the win and still attack twice successfully.

By herself she looks ok, but in the overall theme we are seeing for the phoenix she looks fantastic. If there are a few more cards like Display of Power she can be a powerhouse.

6 hours ago, LordBlunt said:

In all honesty, why wasn't this card a Dragon card? ?

I realize that Phoenix has all types of ring stealing and ring manipulation within their theme, but again, this sort of ability would/could side with Dragon too. Just my initial thoughts here.

Dragon's theme is fate manipulation. Fate can be put on characters and rings, thus they care about the Fate ON rings, but dragon doesn't care about the ring itself.

Phoenix care about the rings themselves, able to modify the conflict type, the ring contested, stealing rings from losing battles, and buffing from them being claimed.

They feel similar, but its a very specific difference being made. Like how Crane and Lion look similar, both want to attack in their favored conflict types and both field aggressive strategies that contain reactive cards to nullify the opponents attempts to push away their aggression, the difference comes from Crane's theme of gaining its aggressive power from intentionally honoring their characters for static bonuses while lion aims for more bodies with temporary buffs.

Its these subtle differences that matter.

24 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

But that isn't the same as suboptimal.

If being "optimal" is the same as being "the strongest possible card to be played for the effect" than it is indeed suboptimal. But these are just semantics at this point.

Regarding the rest of the post you make good arguments and I don't have time to answer them unfortunately. I will playtest with her thats for sure

I don't belive she is super bad, I also don't think she is very good(just like the rest of the 2 and 3 cost conflict characters with exception of stoic gunso, at least for now). I could be wrong

I think I need to start a list of what people generally consider to be the most underwhelming cards in each clan, so I can make sure to include them in each of my clan decks! It's always fun finding interesting ways to use cards other people dismiss.

@TheItsyBitsySpider my problem with that example are the costs attached to those cards. You have to have 4 just for the Initiate and Display of Power. That's not counting the "heavy assault" to claim a ring.

im rather apprehensive about the whole theme of "losing to win". The first problem is the idea that you are losing just means you're opponent is in the better position. The other problem is card balance when it comes to this play style. This might mean that Phoenix is the hardest clan to play and/or has a steep learning curve.

50 minutes ago, BordOne said:

If being "optimal" is the same as being "the strongest possible card to be played for the effect" than it is indeed suboptimal. But these are just semantics at this point.

Regarding the rest of the post you make good arguments and I don't have time to answer them unfortunately. I will playtest with her thats for sure

I don't belive she is super bad, I also don't think she is very good(just like the rest of the 2 and 3 cost conflict characters with exception of stoic gunso, at least for now). I could be wrong

When I see suboptimal used, it often is a way of calling a card bad, by saying it is less than perfect therefore not worthwhile. The other thing is cards like her are hard cards to truly judge in a vacuum. It's how she plays with other cards and even with decks that will judge her worth. Granted these are just my reads on the situation. Without seeing play, it's a hard card to truly judge.