Grave resistance and 0 cost cards

[Griffoneye]

I'm not sure if this topic has been brought up before, but the 0 casting cost seems kind of out of place. Even if the cost was just 1 resource I would be fine with it. It's not a game breaking card at all, I'm just looking at the cost of the counter card for it. If my opponent plays grave resistance and I want to counter with shriek of vengeance it will cost me 1 resource to cast and also 1 resource on the board. If it costs me that much to take it off the board I feel like they should at least have to spend 1 resource to cast it. I'm curious to know other plays opinion on this. In my opinion even the weakest card in SE should at least cost 1 resource to play and never be free.

[Ganjamus]

I was wondering the same thing. At the very least it shouldn't last as long as it does.

[Romakarol]

Well it sure is a very strong card, nuff said. OP? Dunno I suppose I do generally lose to undead decks.

[DSide Daemons]

Well it sure is a very strong card, nuff said. OP? Dunno I suppose I do generally lose to undead decks.

What hero?

[Kip thorp]

I've had a problem with zero cost anything in the game, I'm sure the PFG has played it out in many ways, but I think it's just plain stupid to have an ability or whatever that costs zero,

And if it's gonna stay that way ( which I can almost garuntee it will). Why bother naming a cost at all. It should be worded, like TDM or pol , their attributes are clearly stated, but no cost is associated. I suppose there are cards that make things cost more to cast, but that doesn't affect a zero cost card on the board already.

[ShrapnelFox]

This has been discussed before a few times.
Although the card has a '0 cost' for resources it still costs a 'card from your hand'.

It's an excellent card for control decks that use undead - (especially Bane Bow)
- however I wouldn't say game breaking.

Personally I don't have an issue with cards that have a 0 resource cost - as it still costs a card.

Look at 'pack an extra' which costs one resource but also allows a card to be draw, plus the benefit of the cards ability. - I would consider that cheaper then a '0 cost' card.

[Romakarol]

Ummm...vess swifthands if I remember right. Haven't played vs banebow in a while! Now I'm playing moonstalker, and if I didn't have captured prey/death from above/now you're mine I would have said the early tempo gain from grave resistance+strong undead cards+banebow is way too much.

[Griffoneye]

[QUOTE=ShrapnelFox;511810]This has been discussed before a few times.
Although the card has a '0 cost' for resources it still costs a 'card from your hand'.

It's an excellent card for control decks that use undead - (especially Bane Bow)
- however I wouldn't say game breaking.


Personally I don't have an issue with cards that have a 0 resource cost - as it still costs a card.

Then why should the counter card to it which is shriek of vengeance cost 1 card in your hand, 1 resource to cast, and 1 resource from your pool. That was my point to the card. To give it a 0 cost and say it costs you a card from your hand doesn't hold water when the counter costs you 3 times as much. That is why I brought up the issue as to why it should cost something to cast instead of 0.

[DSide Daemons]

Ummm...vess swifthands if I remember right. Haven't played vs banebow in a while! Now I'm playing moonstalker, and if I didn't have captured prey/death from above/now you're mine I would have said the early tempo gain from grave resistance+strong undead cards+banebow is way too much.

I was actually thinking of making an Undead Vess deck earlier this week. Somewhat surprised that someone else attempted it.

[Airact]

I've had a problem with zero cost anything in the game, I'm sure the PFG has played it out in many ways, but I think it's just plain stupid to have an ability or whatever that costs zero,

And if it's gonna stay that way ( which I can almost garuntee it will). Why bother naming a cost at all. It should be worded, like TDM or pol , their attributes are clearly stated, but no cost is associated. I suppose there are cards that make things cost more to cast, but that doesn't affect a zero cost card on the board already.

The thing is:

It has a cost. The cost just happens to be 0. If it didn't have a cost at all, something that would increase casting costs, or affect cards with certain casting costs, would not affect this card.

Cards like that would also probably need to have a specific ruling because they didn't have a cost. Making it 0 still works with the rest of the game.