On Liquidation 5. "problematic card"

This is the fifth thread of the discussions about cards some people see as problematic.

As this is a collection of arguments for keeping the card as it is (PRO card) or changing it in whatever way (CONTRA card).

It would be most useful, if you could write above your entry, if your arguments are PRO or CONTRA the card as it is to attain best clarity of what speaks in favor of the card and what does not.

After 7 days of discussion I will initialize a poll about that specific card, in which the alternatives can be found.


Liquidation [Tenth:A/B]
Cardtype: Master
Master. Do not replace until your discard phase.
Burn seven cards from the top of your library to gain 3 pool.

UNSURE
I think the game mechanic of Liquidation is okay. You pay seven cards to get pool. Changes ar given that your most important card is among the seven. Problems really just evolve because the good synergy this card has with recursion tech.
I think the three pool are too high for the price. Think about Ascension, that gives you 1 pool for 1 master phase and master card. Liquidation could be one added pool (so two) for an added cost to play (burn cards). So three pool is one pool too good IMHO. But as I don't like changing cards very much I'd keep it, as it is not that big difference. Still there is the recursion-problem.

No problem with It. It is it's interaction with ashurs that is the problem

If burning cards are supposed to be a cost for playing the card, why not remove the cards from the game instead? Instant solution to recursion problems and three pool seems alright. Sadly that means less cards for me to eat with my trochomancy deck...

PRO

the cards is good like it is

PRO

It's fine. For example dreams of the sphinx is vastly superior to this but no one is complaining.

Liquidation is totally fine.

It's competitive in combination with Imbued (Convictions), Sudario and Ashur Tablets but other than that it really doesn't (and shouldn't) see play.