Hungry for More
Guardian Instant - Aura
Suspense
When this leaves the arena, gain 3{h}.
Average Card Type Distribution
Average Attack Value:
4.404.397624832
Average Defense Value:
2.882.877709878
Hero
Bravo, Showstopper
50% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Bravo, Showstopper that play both.
Equipment
Nullrune Boots
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Nullrune Boots that play both.
Nullrune Gloves
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Nullrune Gloves that play both.
Fyendal's Spring Tunic
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Fyendal's Spring Tunic that play both.
Nullrune Hood
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Nullrune Hood that play both.
Quickdodge Flexors
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Quickdodge Flexors that play both.
Rampart of the Ram's Head
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Rampart of the Ram's Head that play both.
Crown of Providence
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Crown of Providence that play both.
Balance of Justice
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Balance of Justice that play both.
Gauntlets of Iron Will
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Gauntlets of Iron Will that play both.
Coronet Peak
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Coronet Peak that play both.
Nullrune Robe
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Nullrune Robe that play both.
Well Grounded
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Well Grounded that play both.
Weapon
Anothos
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Anothos that play both.
Titan's Fist
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Titan's Fist that play both.
Sledge of Anvilheim
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Sledge of Anvilheim that play both.
Action
Tear Asunder
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Tear Asunder that play both.
Midas Touch
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Midas Touch that play both.
Roiling Fissure
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Roiling Fissure that play both.
Buckle
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Buckle that play both.
Show Time!
Avg. played:
2.002.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Show Time! that play both.
Smashing Good Time (Red)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Smashing Good Time (Red) that play both.
Imperial Warhorn
Avg. played:
1.001.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Imperial Warhorn that play both.
Imposing Visage
Avg. played:
2.002.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Imposing Visage that play both.
Channel Lake Frigid
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Channel Lake Frigid that play both.
Channel the Bleak Expanse
Avg. played:
1.001.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Channel the Bleak Expanse that play both.
Attack Action
Macho Grande (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Macho Grande (Blue) that play both.
Thunder Quake (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Thunder Quake (Blue) that play both.
Cranial Crush
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Cranial Crush that play both.
Crippling Crush
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Crippling Crush that play both.
Disable (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Disable (Blue) that play both.
Ripple Away
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Ripple Away that play both.
Star Struck
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Star Struck that play both.
Buckling Blow (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Buckling Blow (Blue) that play both.
Chokeslam (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Chokeslam (Blue) that play both.
Command and Conquer
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Command and Conquer that play both.
Debilitate (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Debilitate (Blue) that play both.
Enlightened Strike
Avg. played:
2.502.500000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Enlightened Strike that play both.
Headbutt
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Headbutt that play both.
Autumn's Touch (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Autumn's Touch (Blue) that play both.
Felling of the Crown
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Felling of the Crown that play both.
Fruits of the Forest (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Fruits of the Forest (Blue) that play both.
Glacial Footsteps (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Glacial Footsteps (Blue) that play both.
Oaken Old
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Oaken Old that play both.
Plow Under
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Plow Under that play both.
Scar for a Scar (Red)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Scar for a Scar (Red) that play both.
Defense Reaction
Sink Below (Red)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Sink Below (Red) that play both.
Shelter from the Storm
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Shelter from the Storm that play both.
Fate Foreseen
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Fate Foreseen that play both.
Staunch Response (Blue)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Staunch Response (Blue) that play both.
Pulse of Isenloft
Avg. played:
1.001.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Pulse of Isenloft that play both.
Rootbound Carapace (Red)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Rootbound Carapace (Red) that play both.
Staunch Response (Red)
Avg. played:
2.002.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Staunch Response (Red) that play both.
Block
Fiddler's Green (Red)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Fiddler's Green (Red) that play both.
Instant
Oasis Respite (Red)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Oasis Respite (Red) that play both.
Sigil of Solace (Red)
Avg. played:
3.003.000000000
100% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Sigil of Solace (Red) that play both.
Remembrance
Avg. played:
1.331.333333333
67% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Remembrance that play both.
Arcane Compliance
Avg. played:
1.001.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Arcane Compliance that play both.
Poison the Well
Avg. played:
2.002.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Poison the Well that play both.
Seeds of Tomorrow
Avg. played:
2.002.000000000
33% of decksPercentage of decks that could play both Hungry for More and Seeds of Tomorrow that play both.