I guess this will be a good post in UDE's eyes, because I disagree with
just about everything you said, or certainly the degree in which you
say it. While I'll address your comment, don't you agree this is rather trivial without seeing the whole set? What if there is some cheap engulfing blaze effect? That would certainly make this less of a bomb and by no means "far and away the most powerful limited card in the history of WoW." Certainly part of a limited card's power is the answers that exist to deal with it.
747828:
My problem is that Army of the Dead is simply TOO strong for limited play. Limited is all about ally-based strategies, and the ability to wipe both sides clear and simultaneously create an army of 3/3's on your side is far and away the most powerful limited card in the history of WoW. Stronger than Misery, stronger than Ishanah, stronger than any "bomb" in the past, and I will defend that against any card you can name.
If my opponent has a reasonable deck and my deck isn't absurdly aggressive, I feel like I have little to no chance versus Misery. I certainly don't feel this way about AotD. And I disagree to the utmost that it's the most powerful limited card in the history of WoW. In fact, both your examples are cards I was ready to cite as more powerful. With Misery already addressed, I think Ishanah is pretty devastating as well. I'm not going to go into detail about anti-Ishanah strategy, but the card was pretty ridiculous to play against. Lets just say that I would pee my pants a lot more versus Ishanah than versus AotD.
747828:
The main problem is that this card doesn't require any
finesse or skill to use this card to win the game. With previous board
sweepers, like Invoke the Nether, there was a skill to determining when
the "right" time to play these cards were, and a skill to "baiting"
your opponent into playing more allies to catch with them. And, when
you played them, you had to have a good plan of "now that all the
allies are gone, how do I translate this advantage into a win"?
With Army of the Dead, there is almost no "wrong" time to play the
card. Basically, any time there are more than 3 allies on the board, if
you play this card, you are at such a huge advantage that it would take
a significantly powerful counter-play from your opponent to overcome
the advantage. If you ever resolve this card with more than 5 allies in
play, barring a board-sweeper from your opponent, I can't imagine how
you could lose the game.
Of course there is skill involved in playing this card. You want to measure the threats your opponent has versus the threats you have. How exactly do you plan on resolving this card with more than 5 allies in play? This seems like a severe miscalculation from your opponent if they just throw down 6 allies, or 3 allies and fail to make the appropriate trades with your allies. Simply knowing that this card exists makes combat trading all the more powerful and necessary.
747828:
Sure there are "better" times to play this
card, but I suspect that even when this card is not played at the
optimal time, it will still win the game for its player very often. I
would argue that a sealed deck comprised solely of blank,
average-statted dudes, and had no abilities other than Army of the
Dead, would win almost every game where it resolved Army of the Dead if
the opponent didn't have an immediate board sweeper to counter it.
Basically, where limited decks are expected to "play fair", Army of the
Dead is the most unreal unfair card in limited play.
What kind of situation are you imagining? I don't see eye to eye at all on this. It doesn't remove relevant abilities or equipment, for one. Blank, average dudes will probably get demolished in ally to ally combat meaning your AorD is only going to kill an opposing board. It only takes one or two fatties to pressure an opponent and force some sort of answer. In your example, you AotD away two, even three opposing allies and get three 3/3 ghouls (not even accounting for any support abilities or equipment the opponent has). So then the opponent gets to drop a large ally, ideally with protector if possible. I'm really failing to see where the "best limited card ever" is coming from. Granted I did make my own example good for my argument, but what would you claim is inaccurate about it? What about the possibility of decent weapons? If I have a solid weapon to bash your average-statted dudes then you are likely only AotDing my board, once again.
It's quite powerful, there's no doubt. But I see absolutely no basis for claiming it's too powerful or the most powerful ever. I can see many situations where you can play this and certainly not win (and that's not even having a spoiler to cite potential engulfing blaze effects). In any case, your example is clearly hyperbole. I would probably be rather disappointed to have a deck of only average allies and a single AotD as my ability. You seem to be assuming some Black Ice standoff of four allies each, where I believe (based on previous limited precedent) that most allies will be traded off the board asap.
