Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game
Elements the Game => Cards => Earth => Topic started by: Terroking on March 10, 2012, 11:24:45 pm
-
(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/ShardGolem.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/Upgrade.png)(http://elementscommunity.org/images/Cards/ShardGolemUpgraded.png)
Shard Golem is formed by playing a Shard of Integrity (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37247.msg499154#msg499154). It's stats and ability vary according to the type and number of shards sacrificed. It is not a standalone card and is not available in the bazaar. The upgraded form is not attainable. The text refers to what the card does when not played directly by a SoI: Come into play as a copy of the last one you created.
Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqwbWqlis8bLdERFekUyMmtFOFNFTXFNaThHWDVNT1E#gid=0) is a Google Doc listing the various combinations & their results.
Discuss.
-
it might be overpowered compared to chimera, when reverse time is used.
-
What is the point of the gratitude one having adrenaline? If a creature has over 15 attack, adrenaline does nothing. Also, what activatable ability does the golem get if you use multiple shards of different kinds to create it? And, if you have multiple shards in hand, do you have to use all of them to build the golem or can you pick which ones to use?
Looking at the numbers for attack/defense, they're in the right ballpark for balance. I was worried that the golem was going to be too pitiful to use, but I can see this being used at least in certain types of decks. I don't think it will be a top tier card, but I expect to see it more often than, say, shard of patience :p
This card will probably be most useful in, strangely enough, rush decks. Imagine playing on your first turn nova, shard of integrity, and getting a 10 or 20 power attacker :p Well, then imagine it being reverse timed or antimattered, but hey, one can dream :)
-
Here is a detailed explanation on how this works.
Every shard in the hand (including the Shard of Integrity used) gives a stat boost to the golem. Each individual copy of a shard gives the following stat boost:
| Shard | ATK | HP |
| Integrity | 1 | 4 |
| Serendipity | 2 | 2 |
| Sacrifice | 2 | 2 |
| Focus | 0 | 6 |
| Gratitude | 2 | 2 |
| Bravery | 3 | 0 |
| Patience | 2 | 2 |
| Divinity | 2 | 2 |
| Freedom | 2 | 2 |
| Readiness | 2 | 2 |
| Void | 2 | 2 |
| Justice | 2 | 2 |
Each upgraded shard gives an extra 1 ATK and 1 HP. For example, 2 Bravery combines with 1 Integrity to make a 7|4 golem. If one of them is upgraded, the golem is 8|5. If two are upgraded, it is 9|6.
Now for skills. To find the final skill that will be used, work across, then down. Find the right-most skill that can be given. Then, if there are two or more skills available in the same column, the down-most one will be used.
| Shard | Skill (1+) | Skill (2+) | Skill (3+) | Skill (4+) | Skill (5+) | Skill (6+) |
| Integrity | 1: burrow | 1: stone form | | 1: guard | | 2: petrify |
| Serendipity | 1: dead/alive | 2: mutation | 2: paradox | 2: improve | scramble | 4: antimatter |
| Sacrifice | 1: infection | scavenger | | venom | 2: aflatoxin | deadly venom |
| Focus | | | | | 3: devour | 4: black hole |
| Gratitude | 2: growth | | | | 2: adrenaline | 4: mitosis |
| Bravery | | 1: ablaze | fiery | | 3: destroy | 2: rage |
| Patience | | 2: steam | | 3: freeze | | 4: nymph |
| Divinity | 1: heal | | 2: endow | | | 4: luciferin |
| Freedom | | 2: queen | 2: sniper | 2: dive | | 2: unstable gas |
| Readiness | | 2: scarab | 4: deja vu | neurotoxin | | 2: precognition |
| Void | | | vampire | | 2: liquid shadow | 3: steal |
| Justice | | | 2: lobotomize | | | 2: immortal |
Finally, note the following:
- 1 or more Shard of Freedom will give airborne.
- 1 Shard of Void will give devourer; 2 or more will give voodoo.
- 2 or more Shard of Focus will give momentum.
- 2 or more Shard of Gratitude will give adrenaline.
- 2 or more Shard of Justice will give immaterial.
Thanks to Jenkar and others for figuring out the skills.
I also made a tool that automatically calculates the stats and skills of any given golem combination. Enjoy (http://elementscommunity.org/tools/xenocidius/shardgolem/).
-
My new favorite card. :D Thanks for posting all that Xeno, and thank you to those who helped put it together.
-
honestly, this is closer to what chimera *should* have been like, imo. really like the mechanic, but it could use some work when it comes to balancing with fractal
-
so. this card alway have at least 1 :earth shard. right?
-
so. this card alway have at least 1 :earth shard. right?
Yes 1-8 Earth shards. 0-7 other shards.
-
Isn't it 0-6 other shards and 1-6 earth shards?
-
1-6 earth shards and 0-7 others will be eaten by the card but only 1-6 earth shards and 0-5 others will take effect.
Use with nova and shard of bravery will almost invariably give you a 12|? turn 1, which can then be fractalled later if you have an aether mark and earth pends (or vice versa I guess).
This is far from broken since it takes some time to get fractal out and the deck has no real options besides the golem but it is rather good still.
-
I personally think the cost of summoning should be changed from :earth to :rainbow. Rewind still kills this becasue you ususally cannot get 8 :earth to recast when using quantum towers/nova
-
I personally think the cost of summoning should be changed from :earth to :rainbow. Rewind still kills this becasue you ususally cannot get 8 :earth to recast when using quantum towers/nova
No, that's the POINT of Shard of Integrity - to have an influence by :earth. By having available :earth quanta or even an :earth mark, you can replay that same shard golem eventually due to SoI's elemental character. If the Shard Golem only required any type of quanta, then it wouldn't make sense to make the Shard of Integrity 'Earth's' shard, as it would essentially affect all of the elements equally (which is bad), and the name would be off as well (Golem = Earth, why call it Integrity when you can 'cheat' and use whatever quanta you like to summon the golem again?).
-
I personally think the cost of summoning should be changed from :earth to :rainbow. Rewind still kills this becasue you ususally cannot get 8 :earth to recast when using quantum towers/nova
No, that's the POINT of Shard of Integrity - to have an influence by :earth. By having available :earth quanta or even an :earth mark, you can replay that same shard golem eventually due to SoI's elemental character. If the Shard Golem only required any type of quanta, then it wouldn't make sense to make the Shard of Integrity 'Earth's' shard, as it would essentially affect all of the elements equally (which is bad), and the name would be off as well (Golem = Earth, why call it Integrity when you can 'cheat' and use whatever quanta you like to summon the golem again?).
Yes, it would reduce the SoI's alliance with :earth, but I thought having creature abilities cost in :earth was enough. After alll, just look at some shards like SoSe, SoF, SoD and even SoSac. Their alliance with their respective elements aren't that great. SoI's alliance with :earth seems too strong to me and needs more :rainbow. Just having the creautre cost :earth is already very aligned enough because the creature abilities of golem are probably the best bits of SoI.
-
Isn't it 0-6 other shards and 1-6 earth shards?
No. It is possible to have 8 Earth shards or 1 Earth shard and 7 of another shard in your hand. However achieving 7 or 8 of a kind is difficult.
I can be done in a few ways
1) Import AI deck in the trainer
2) Dexterity (Arena)
3) Shard of Focus + Creature card creation (Rewinding usually involved)
4) Mindgate vs a Shard using opponent.
1 + 4 was how I tested combinations during the investigation.
-
Ah, right. Still, the only serious (PvP is possible, but you'd have to set it up, and I'm not counting fun duels) in-game possibility when it comes out would be Arena, and including mindgates in an otherwise mono-shard/SoI based deck wouldn't be worth it in effectiveness, so its still practically 6 shards of each, though it is technically possible to have up to 7/8.
-
Ah, right. Still, the only serious (PvP is possible, but you'd have to set it up, and I'm not counting fun duels) in-game possibility when it comes out would be Arena, and including mindgates in an otherwise mono-shard/SoI based deck wouldn't be worth it in effectiveness, so its still practically 6 shards of each, though it is technically possible to have up to 7/8.
It would be a pain to get the AI to play the shards strategically. They ay just play random shards before SoI and use them up. Also AI dosen't know when to SoB to get more shards, when to SoR for free golem skills and when to just SoI to get a golem with deja vu etc.
-
Hmmmm, Fractal anyone?
Also, really looks more powerful than a nymph like to me, OldTrees.
Edit: oh, wait, it can still have Mitosis? lol, this can be interesting.
-
it can, but its difficult to get. i dont disagree that this is more powerful, and easier to obtain, than nymphs, in most cases.
and at a cost of 8 earth, this is less of an issue with fractal than it was with a cost of 5 earth, though it is still a bit lower than fractal dragons or something of the sort.
-
Hmmmm, Fractal anyone?
Also, really looks more powerful than a nymph like to me, OldTrees.
Zanz starts cards in the In Development as overpowered. However this will be a good test to see if I am undervaluing card costs or if Shard Golem is overpowered. Both might be the case.
(I am still waiting with my open invitation for anyone to make the 3rd generation of card cost theory)
-
There are some combo that are actually useful and other not.
Just keep shards combo above common cards combo.
I'm not so much excited about shards farming but three or four shards combo are likely to work and be playable.
However i'm quite puzzled by using 4 cards to pull out 'free' an equivalent 2 card combo, in a game where the biggest issue is to have the cards in hand.
Some Shards may also combine in spells with good effects like a free fractal or a miracle without quanta drain...
-
Shard of Bravery refills your hand as required. Not ideal since it helps the opponent too but still.
-
Hmmmm, Fractal anyone?
Also, really looks more powerful than a nymph like to me, OldTrees.
Zanz starts cards in the In Development as overpowered. However this will be a good test to see if I am undervaluing card costs or if Shard Golem is overpowered. Both might be the case.
(I am still waiting with my open invitation for anyone to make the 3rd generation of card cost theory)
Well, let´s speak clear. When you use the shard the game saves the stats of the new golem and then uses for every golem until you play the shard again. Does we get it? Or do it has rules like "only one golem for player" or something like that?
-
Hmmmm, Fractal anyone?
Also, really looks more powerful than a nymph like to me, OldTrees.
Zanz starts cards in the In Development as overpowered. However this will be a good test to see if I am undervaluing card costs or if Shard Golem is overpowered. Both might be the case.
(I am still waiting with my open invitation for anyone to make the 3rd generation of card cost theory)
Well, let´s speak clear. When you use the shard the game saves the stats of the new golem and then uses for every golem until you play the shard again. Does we get it? Or do it has rules like "only one golem for player" or something like that?
You can have multiple golems. I have only tested getting them from Shards of Integrity and the mitosis from the 6-7 Shards of Gratitude.
-
Hmmmm, Fractal anyone?
Also, really looks more powerful than a nymph like to me, OldTrees.
Zanz starts cards in the In Development as overpowered. However this will be a good test to see if I am undervaluing card costs or if Shard Golem is overpowered. Both might be the case.
(I am still waiting with my open invitation for anyone to make the 3rd generation of card cost theory)
Well, let´s speak clear. When you use the shard the game saves the stats of the new golem and then uses for every golem until you play the shard again. Does we get it? Or do it has rules like "only one golem for player" or something like that?
I tried to make a deck using fractal golems here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37361.0.html), but that was when the cost was still 5 :earth. The deck could use some major tweaks now...
Not sure if the quanta balance can be done that easily with a cost of 8 :earth.
-
Golem costs 8 now? Why? It's not as if fractal golems was good.
-
Is anyone going to update the original post with the correct costing cost?
-
Golem costs 8 now? Why? It's not as if fractal golems was good.
8 shards in hand = epic golem
-
I like the idea, but...
I did some testing in the trainer and Shard Golem seems to be very UP. Sacrificing 3+ valuable cards for a creature with about 10 damage/HP is far too expensive. Not mentioning that the creature can be easily cancelled. For example 1 SoI + 2 SoD (all upped) generates you a 8/11 golem with a poor "heal" ability. I think a single SoD alone worths more in most cases. Waiting for even more shards to come together is usually a nonsense against a typical arena deck that can kill you in 6-7 turns.
I would suggest the following buffs:
- More attack/HP when combined with non-SoI shards
- Skills boost: Skill 4+ is practically unreachable due to reasons above. I would eliminate many "holes" in the table.
- I would somehow allow to select shards to sacrifice when play a SoI.
- I would somehow allow to combine an already existing Golem with shards in your hand.
- 8 earth quanta seems to be too expensive even in an earth deck. Eternity/rewind can completely cancel the deck. If someone tries to use golems in a fractal/mitosis deck, then this deck cannot contain too many shards due to aether/life/earth quanta need so spamming RoLs/ball lightnings/pests/whatever is still a better idea. Maybe 5-6 earth quanta would be enough.
-
8 earth quanta seems to be too expensive even in an earth deck. Eternity/rewind can completely cancel the deck. If someone tries to use golems in a fractal/mitosis deck, then this deck cannot contain too many shards due to aether/life/earth quanta need so spamming RoLs/ball lightnings/pests/whatever is still a better idea. Maybe 5-6 earth quanta would be enough.
But any lower than the fractal problem arises. See the original 5/4.
7/6 doesn't solve rewind problem, either.
-
In another hand, its quanta cheapness make it very fast to show up.
A massive creature on the first turn is one of it's use.
Seems not UP at all to me.
-
I like the idea, but...
I did some testing in the trainer and Shard Golem seems to be very UP. Sacrificing 3+ valuable cards for a creature with about 10 damage/HP is far too expensive. Not mentioning that the creature can be easily cancelled. For example 1 SoI + 2 SoD (all upped) generates you a 8/11 golem with a poor "heal" ability. I think a single SoD alone worths more in most cases. Waiting for even more shards to come together is usually a nonsense against a typical arena deck that can kill you in 6-7 turns.
I would suggest the following buffs:
- More attack/HP when combined with non-SoI shards
- Skills boost: Skill 4+ is practically unreachable due to reasons above. I would eliminate many "holes" in the table.
- I would somehow allow to select shards to sacrifice when play a SoI.
- I would somehow allow to combine an already existing Golem with shards in your hand.
- 8 earth quanta seems to be too expensive even in an earth deck. Eternity/rewind can completely cancel the deck. If someone tries to use golems in a fractal/mitosis deck, then this deck cannot contain too many shards due to aether/life/earth quanta need so spamming RoLs/ball lightnings/pests/whatever is still a better idea. Maybe 5-6 earth quanta would be enough.
Yes you got a weak heal ability. But you recieved an 8|11 for merely 4 :rainbow + 3 cards + 3 upgrades. Stone Dragon is an 8|10 that costs 10 :earth + 1 card.
For 1 more Shard of Divinity you would have paid 4 :rainbow + 4 cards + 4 upgrades for an 11|14. Basalt Dragon is a 10|12 for 12 :earth + 1 card + 1 upgrade.
-
Yes you got a weak heal ability. But you recieved an 8|11 for merely 4 :rainbow + 3 cards + 3 upgrades. Stone Dragon is an 8|10 that costs 10 :earth + 1 card.
Do not forget that "+ 3 cards" is a big cost. Death of complicated decks is waiting for the needed combination. Stone/Basalt Dragon costs 10/12 :earth but requires a single card only.
For 1 more Shard of Divinity you would have paid 4 :rainbow + 4 cards + 4 upgrades for an 11|14. Basalt Dragon is a 10|12 for 12 :earth + 1 card + 1 upgrade.
This "just 1 more xy card" sometimes means to flip through the half of your deck. Too slow -> expensive.
As for the fractal/mitosis, I did less testing but I experienced that for example an Elite Charger - Fractal deck is much more powerful than a golem deck. And charger is a single card for 5 :gravity that provides 7 attack with momentum... But I keep testing.
You can utilize the many shards combination in a shard-only deck (= 6 SoI + many-many random shards, :earth :rainbow). Other cards just slow you down and raises the chance of many non-shard cards in your hand. Its obvious that the card must not be OP but such a deck is below average at the best (but again, I keep testing).
At least the following "buffs" would be much required: ;)
- I would somehow allow to select shards to sacrifice when playing a SoI.
- I would somehow allow to combine an already existing Golem with shards in your hand.
-
Yes you got a weak heal ability. But you recieved an 8|11 for merely 4 :rainbow + 3 cards + 3 upgrades. Stone Dragon is an 8|10 that costs 10 :earth + 1 card.
Do not forget that "+ 3 cards" is a big cost. Death of complicated decks is waiting for the needed combination. Stone/Basalt Dragon costs 10/12 :earth but requires a single card only.
Yes, additional cards are an additional cost. However you might be overestimating that cost. Quantify your assumptions for comparisons.
Generic Example:
W = :rainbow [4 :rainbow ~= 1.667]
X = :earth = 1
Y = cards
Z = upgrades ~= 1.5
4W + 3Y + 3Z vs 10X + 1 Y
4W + 2Y + 3Z vs 10X
1.667 + 2Y + 3(1.667) vs 10(1)
1.667 + 2Y + 4.5 vs 10
2Y vs 3.833
Is 1 card roughly equivalent to 2 :time?
- I would somehow allow to select shards to sacrifice when playing a SoI.
- I would somehow allow to combine an already existing Golem with shards in your hand.
I agree that buffs in versatility are beneficial even if the card's magnitude were balanced.
-
best new card in my opinion
-
Is 1 card roughly equivalent to 2 :time ?
No. It's roughly equivalent to 1 quanta of each color.
Also, no fortune needed here because this card isn't spinnable, correct?
-
Is 1 card roughly equivalent to 2 :time ?
No. It's roughly equivalent to 1 quanta of each color.
Also, no fortune needed here because this card isn't spinnable, correct?
1) For 1 card you can get 1 attack OR 1 elemental quanta per turn
2) For 1 card + 1 quanta you can get 1 attack AND 1 elemental quanta per turn
1+2->3) For 1 card + 1 quanta you can get 2 attack
1+3->4) A cost of +1 card = A cost of +1 quanta
Sources:
Photon, Pillar, Dragonfly, Ash Eater
-
1) For 1 card, you can get 1 quanta of each color.
Sources:
Nova.
Alternately:
1) For 1 card, you can get 1 :time per round for the rest of the game.
Sources:
Time Factory.
-
1) For 1 card, you can get 1 quanta of each color.
Sources:
Nova.
Alternately:
1) For 1 card, you can get 1 :time per round for the rest of the game.
Sources:
Time Factory.
I was informing you that you mistook a question about a quanta cost as a question about quanta production.
1 card cost -> 1 quanta production of each color
1 card cost ~= 1 quanta cost of 1 element
Or do you consider these results to be mutually exclusive for some reason?
-
No, I really just think that your logic is lowest-common-denominator and rather arrogant.
I could just as easily say that for 1 card + 1 quanta you can get 1 attack per turn (Skeleton), and therefore a cost of +1 quanta is equal to zero.
Or I could just as easily say that for 1 card +1 quanta you can get 3 attack per turn (Short Sword), and therefore points of attack are less valuable than elemental quanta per turn, despite your attempts to equate them on a one-to-one level to both card-cost and quanta-cost.
Or I could extend your logic onward to say that, if card-cost and quanta-cost are identical, we should totally be able to create a "knowledge pillar" that allows you to draw a card every turn without any cost.
tl;dr: There are far too many factors in play to make a logical leap like the one you're attempting to make, plain and simple.
-
No, I really just think that your logic is lowest-common-denominator and rather arrogant.
I could just as easily say that for 1 card + 1 quanta you can get 1 attack per turn (Skeleton), and therefore a cost of +1 quanta is equal to zero.
Or I could just as easily say that for 1 card +1 quanta you can get 3 attack per turn (Short Sword), and therefore points of attack are less valuable than elemental quanta per turn, despite your attempts to equate them on a one-to-one level to both card-cost and quanta-cost.
Or I could extend your logic onward to say that, if card-cost and quanta-cost are identical, we should totally be able to create a "knowledge pillar" that allows you to draw a card every turn without any cost.
tl;dr: There are far too many factors in play to make a logical leap like the one you're attempting to make, plain and simple.
Or you could note the following abilities that your counterexamples leaves out:
1) Undead which was added because a 1|1 for 1 :death + 1 card was underpowered
2) Expending the weapon slot
3) Equating quanta cost and card cost is not the same as equating quanta production and card production. Good proof about Card Production being more powerful than quanta production.
I disagree about there being too many factors especially when starting with examples without extraneous variables like Undead.
Additionally usually when one is faced with a question about how two types of costs relate, it usually is answered with an opinion relating the two costs not relating a cost and an effect nor is it answered with a blank post due to a possibility of the opinion being wrong.
-
OK, so how about some other examples. How about contrasting Gnome Rider instead of Dragonfly to reach the conclusion that +1 quanta production and +1 toughness are worth about the same as +1 attack, and therefore 1 card is worth 1 quanta production and one toughness?
Essentially, no matter what cards you're using, you're cherrypicking from a set large enough that examples that run contrary to your 'logic' are available, and it belies the authority thereof.
-
OK, so how about some other examples. How about contrasting Gnome Rider instead of Dragonfly to reach the conclusion that +1 quanta production and +1 toughness are worth about the same as +1 attack, and therefore 1 card is worth 1 quanta production and one toughness?
Essentially, no matter what cards you're using, you're cherrypicking from a set large enough that examples that run contrary to your 'logic' are available, and it belies the authority thereof.
Obviously not all hp increases are the same. +1hp to Spark is significant. Damaging CC has peaks.
Dragonfly is 1|1 Gen :air for 1 :air + 1 card
Gnome Rider is 1|2 Gen :earth for 1 :earth + 1 card
Since neither is seen as OP or UP, I would conclude that there is very little difference in creature resilience between 1 and 2 hp.
The theory is based on starting with the cards with the fewest variables and building up from there.
It derives its authority from 3 factors: Fairly accurate predictions, explanatory ability and my efforts to get others to make a better one.
It does a good job at predicting if a card will be judged OP or UP by the community.
It does a good job of explaining why creatures seen as overpowered / underpowered creatures are overpowered or underpowerd. (Almost no counterexamples, even theoretical ones, exist that are not considered UP/OP)
I have continuously encouraged members to create better theories to replace the current one. You know how long I have been here doing that.
However we can use an accurate pillar based test (cost compared to cost) to see if it matches your intuitions about balance.
A Pillar that cost 1 elemental quanta to play but replaced itself (drew a card) when cast would be UP, Balanced or OP?
Also consider a Tower that replaced itself (drew a card) rather than generating a quanta when cast.
-
A Pillar that cost 1 elemental quanta to play but replaced itself (drew a card) when cast would be UP, Balanced or OP?
Also consider a Tower that replaced itself (drew a card) rather than generating a quanta when cast.
The first one sounds reasonable to me. The second one sounds strong enough that it would probably end up replacing most Towers in most decks.
-
A Pillar that cost 1 elemental quanta to play but replaced itself (drew a card) when cast would be UP, Balanced or OP?
Also consider a Tower that replaced itself (drew a card) rather than generating a quanta when cast.
The first one sounds reasonable to me. The second one sounds strong enough that it would probably end up replacing most Towers in most decks.
In the upgraded environment, regular towers give you a 1 turn head start. Tempo is important for and against Rush decks. I would be ambivalent towards using regular towers or this variation.
-
Good for you. I'd rather quanta-balance my deck to not rely on the extra quanta, and use the extra cards (which are by far the harder-to-get resource) to drive toward the victory.
-
Good for you. I'd rather quanta-balance my deck to not rely on the extra quanta, and use the extra cards (which are by far the harder-to-get resource) to drive toward the victory.
Tempo means playing first not merely getting quanta first. An early Silence / Discord is the nice advantage of the tempo. However I personally do prefer stall decks (which would usually prefer the card advantage).
Those two example variations on pillars | towers seem to indicate (to me at least) that as far as different types of costs are concerned, +1 card cost is roughly similar to +1 elemental quanta cost. Although I would be amiss to not remember that Shard Golem will be an excellent test of whether this pattern holds and whether it can be extrapolated to +2 card cost ~= +2 elemental quanta cost.
-
This golem is great, i cant wait to win more shards. I like very much the general idea of this card. :)
-
Is it supposed to lose passives when PU'd?
Edit: Forgot that passives purposely don't carry over.
-
Does someone know how to use Shard Calculator (http://elementscommunity.org/tools/xenocidius/shardgolem/)?
No matter what shards I pick and how many, I always get
ATK: 0
HP: 0
Skill: : burrow
-
Does someone know how to use Shard Calculator (http://elementscommunity.org/tools/xenocidius/shardgolem/)?
No matter what shards I pick and how many, I always get
ATK: 0
HP: 0
Skill: : burrow
Try using a browser other than IE. Trust me, this will improve your entire web experience.
Also, next time, please post in at least a slightly relevant topic. Thanks.
-
As far as I can tell, activating the 'deja vu' ability on a golem that was airborne (due to having 1+ SoFrees) creates a new copy that is NOT airborne. is this a bug? what gives?
-
As far as I can tell, activating the 'deja vu' ability on a golem that was airborne (due to having 1+ SoFrees) creates a new copy that is NOT airborne. is this a bug? what gives?
Probably the same issue with webbed deja vu's creating airborne copies. Seems the deja vu ability creates a creature that has sort of wonky passives.
-
I kind of like the idea of this card. It is rather clever. Too bad I won't get to use it.