troll question because I have a deck with 2 of them. The question is : is it dumb to have a card in your deck that you KNOW is unusable part of the time? Nick Fury: no activators and Jammers: no ANY CHARACTERS . Is it so powerful a card that it's worth it? mmmmmmmm :o
The tournaments we've run have a rough 50/50 split for Any Heroes/Battlesite.
Personally, I used to run Nick Fury and Starjammers in a deck but just had Nick Fury's LS.
The Starjammers' one is strategically flawed, preventing your opponent to not play something in the next battle just doesn't work.
Yeah, let's take a potentially great card, (No any heroes may be played by opponent), and rather than give it to a character that's been screwed, let's give it to the Starjammers, because they're clearly in need of another good card.
Oh, that's too much, they're already good? Well, let's let them keep it and just nerf it so that it's not as strong thereby wasting a new card idea.
Yup, a sample of the thought process that went into our beloved game.... *sigh*
It's not a bad idea. Worst case scenario you pitch it. Best case scenario you lock down some of your opponent's cards. I think it's worth the risk. (At least, for the Battlesite blockers... jury's out for the Jammers card, I haven't bothered to try it often enough to gauge.)