Home | About | Tournament Winning Decklists | Forums

Card Ratings [Priority: Low]

I know a lot of you stopped checking BGG, but I’m curious to get all levels of skill knowledge answering the survery. Its in short a list of every card in the game right now as of O&C where you rate from binder fodder->broken.

Interesting things (thanks to nordrunner and others for pointing out) as of now:

  • legwork is 100% powerful (not broken or just good).
  • Astro only has one not-broken vote
  • Core is the strongest “block”
  • Spin has the least “oomph” on average of all cycles

(Poll does not close, if you have the time fill out the whole thing; I understand it may take a while)

At some point I plan on collecting the powerful and broken and doing some more pollings and possibly an article.

1 Like

“Broken” here appears to mean “is used in NEH Astrobiotics”


I think that’s the general populace’s take for a lot of cards… which is why I’m reaching out for a wider view now.

as i commented on reddit, there are too many tiers. should be 4 i think

I voted, in a hopeful effort to counteract some of the silliness of so many “broken” cards that are obviously not actually broken. I know it won’t work, but whatever :slight_smile:

1 Like

Can’t be changed and last time people complained there weren’t enough. Pick the 4 you like most. * shrugs *

I’ll bite then =)

Good: Titan, MaxX, Day Job, Vigil

Good: ITD, Next Silver, EBC, Leela, Cache, Switchblade, Utopia Shard
Powerful: Architect, ELP, Lotus, DBS, Blue Sun, Inject, D4v1D, Lady, Hades Shard
Broken: NEH (due to influence IMO) – I take Broken to mean design errors on the side of power


Thanks for putting this together. It gives me a better sense of the progress of power levels over time, instead of blathering abstractly about power creep. :smile:

I voted. My "broken"s are NEH, DBS, Future Perfect, Eli, Desperado, Corroder, and Sucker.

I gave IHW and Wontons powerful. Otherwise agree.

Edit: Also having fun looking at the random 1-of votes for totally balanced cards as being broken. Utopia frag? David? Quandary? HoK? SOT? Ash? Emergency? Kate??

Also will proudly admit to being a merely powerful vote on astro.


People seem to love the extremes on that list. There are a lot of perfectly playable cards with a surprisingly high number of Binder-Fodder votes for perfectly decent tier-2 cards.

1 Like

Heh, me too. I have 0 broken cards, though NEH’s 17 influence is still mystifying; all in all it seems like I’m a softer hand than you lot (more good/powerful).

NERF QUANDRY 2015 :wink:

I find just the opposite. Everyone seems to give those tier-2 cards Good or even Powerful when they deserve nice, or tier-3 cards that deserve niche or suboptimal. Literally even Cell Portal’s majority is on niche. I think the general populace acts like cards are much better than they actually are, either calling perfectly fine cards “broken” or acting like horrible cards are actually playable.

For the record, my only Overpowered votes went to astroscript and desperado.

Wait, someone said Restructured Datapool was OP? ???

omfg i had all my votes thru HNP and wasn’t logged in… f********d

I wanna meet the 1 person who voted The Board as broken

god I want this poll only with Stimhack people


I’d be willing to set one up over the weekend, maybe on sunday. Four ranks even if people can agree on what they should be.

1 Like

some people are clearly trolling the data too, gingerbread got a 5 O-O

For me personally, 4 tiers are

Jank/Fodder: Leviathan
Suboptimal/Niche: Cyber-Cypher/Refractor
Good: Gordian/Yog.0
Meta: (we don’t really have a Meta Decoder right now IMO)

this would just be my suggested scale, another example

J/F: Monolith
S/N: Toolbox
Good: Vigil/Astrolabe
Meta: Desperado

note that all cards can be played with. this is a card game after all. the J/F category is for jank and the utmost unplayables, like Bug. while unlikely, cards in S/N could be used in competitive decks, but would likely sacrifice consistency for some specialization. Good cards are a solid call in the majority of decks of that Faction. Meta are too powerful to ignore

1 Like

There’s a problem with using “Broken” as terminology. None of the cards are broken at all. “Broken” seems to imply it “breaks the game”. I don’t think that applies to any card in the cardpool.

Instead of adjectives to describe the card I wish it was just a ranking from 1-10 power level. That way it would be less subjective to how people define terms and more looking at power perception.

1 Like

Fair point, but 1-10 is way too wide a spread. What’s the real difference between a 3 and a 4? or a 5 and a 6?

1 Like

agreed. The use of descriptions to rank ‘power level’ of cards is going to make it very difficult to compare the data between this poll and last year’s. To wit: last year Andy got a majority of votes in the “Doesn’t Bother Me” category (the lowest category) but this year she’s at “Powerful” (the second highest category) so far. Is that because perception of Andromeda has radically changed in the last year, or because of people misunderstanding / being influenced by the category titles?

Here we go again… :wink:

I found the categories to be sufficient. “Broken” simply means “Meta-warping; the game would be substantially improved if this were costed less aggressively”. And the “niche” category adds an element of “this card can be good but it’s meta-dependent or only in the right deck” that the 1-10 scale doesn’t capture.

In fairness I think that ranking cards in a vacuum, through whatever category or scale, fails to capture a lot of information.

Agreed - I’ve been considering doing something like a 2 tier rating system, 1 for “power level” and another for difficulty of use, as a standin for how much you need to build your deck to get its power out.

If grade on a 5 point scale, i’d expect cards like Desperado to be 5/1, a card like Keyhole to be 4/4, and a card like Oracle May to be 4/5.

Anyway - I did some prelim data analysis stuff. I pasted it over on BGG, so if you want to see the stuff like top 10 / bottom 10, its over there.

Regardless of weirdness of card labeling or the perceived talent level of BGG posters, looking at the data is still interesting.