Guest posts by Rooftrellen

73

Nerf This Card! / Re: Scarab | Elite Scarab

« on: October 05, 2010, 03:18:05 pm »

I like the increasing health.  It goes with the old idea that dung beetles helped each other, and the increasing health is a nice nod to that.

What I would like to see, though, is their devourer not raise their stats, or, at least, not raise their health.

Giving them the ability to get more health from methods other than adding more scarabs is fairly confusing.  It also makes them more like otyughs, while their ability to get bigger as more come should be the way they are able to eat bigger things.  One scarab shouldn't be able to eat a dragon.  They aren't growing out of control as they eat.  Several of them should be able to swarm and eat a dragon, though.

Just my 2 cents on the subject.

74

Issue Archive / Re: Rustler + Shard of Rediness [unconfirmed]

« on: October 05, 2010, 10:00:46 am »

I see why its not a bug, but how about a small note added to the shard of readiness that states that "free abilities cannot be used more than once per turn."

It's hard enough to get the hang of this game (no where are the numbers on creatures explained, let alone the difficulty of hidden rules to cards like this).  No need to complicate things with more complex hidden things.

I'd say the bug is more in the text for the shard of readiness, not the combo, but its a problem all the same.

75

Buff This Card! / Re: Nymph Queen | Water Nymph

« on: October 05, 2010, 03:10:42 am »

I don't think the pattern should be broken.

If a nymph is to get a new ability, the element would need to get a card to go with it.

Nymphs are too rare to give them an exclusive ability, and breaking the normal pattern would set a bad example.

However, I can't imagine a simple little buff in stats would really help.  If it was a 3/6 (upped: 3/7) creature, would people use it?  This would put it equal to life's nymph, which has a pretty good attack and health for a nymph.  I don't know that I would, even if I had them, except in very very specific situations, as in I had a deck planned around nymphs.

The nymph could not get much, if any attack buff, simply because it can multiply with its ability, so something like time's nymph (6/8)  would be too good.  It could get more life, but, then, still, it has to be good for the ability, not its stats.

That's not to say the ability has no potential, but it is unlikely that new cards will ever change how we see the ability, due to the fact that it works only on pillars, and unless it creates at least 2 nymphs, nymph's tears would be better.  It's not impossible for the current ability to be good, but considering there is plenty of room for the game to grow, there is plenty of room for a new card AND new ability for the nymph.

I'm not a terribly long time player, but the post for the light nymph is from 2 months before the post for hope, so I imagine those are the times those cards came out.  That would mean that people started using that nymph for a deck that became possible only later.

I want to state this very carefully, because I am no expert on this game...I cannot imagine a situation where this nymph could be useful, when compared to just having the nymph wanted, or nymph's tears, except for downright OP cards (something that gives +1/+1 to creatures for every identical card in play, for instance).

That doesn't mean that such a card doesn't exist.  It may exist, and it may make its way into the game, but my personal view is that us mere mortals are better making suggestions about what is currently in the game, rather than what could be, but hasn't even been brought up.  If something that could create a combo with this ability is on the forum somewhere, I will gladly read and may change my mind about the potential of making nymphs using a creature like this.  If it doesn't, are we meant to think of balance around potential future ideas?

Anyway, to bring a long post to its end, I don't disagree, the pattern should not be broken, but there is no reason to bring up the pattern if another idea could fit it.  Introducing a new card to give a nymph a new ability would be a big addition to the game, but so long as a card with the ability were to come into the game, as well, the pattern would not be broken, and, unless there are card ideas, or cards in development, that will make the ability good, like hope did in your example, not changing the ability would seem to be balancing around potential future ideas, rather than current cards and card ideas.

76

Buff This Card! / Re: Nymph Queen | Water Nymph

« on: October 05, 2010, 12:56:10 am »

I don't like the ability, at all.

Making your pillars into nymphs sounds good, but nymphs are only dangerous with their abilities, with few exceptions.

To get the nymph you want and to be able to fund the ability reliably, specific elemental pillars are needed.  The more quantum pillars this nymph relies on, the more luck gets involved.

I would be more than willing to use a nymph like this if it had an ability I would use, and even if it got a buff in stats, I'm not sure I would use it, until it just became a good fighting creature, which isn't really the point.

At the same time, the ability can't be TOO good.  The idea of a purify nymph is tempting, but it would totally destroy poison, as well as giving as much healing as it would be possible to have, restricted almost totally by the number of turns your deck could last.

I would suggest making a new water card, so that the nymph for water still uses a spell from the element.

Reflecting Pool/Mirror Pool
Cost: 4 /3
Effect: Transforms one of the enemy's permanents into one of your permanents

This could affect pillars, shields, weapons, or other permanents, but always to the same type (so quanta generation, towers/pillars/pendulums can only turn into quanta generation) and could potentially change it into itself (just as discord can turn quanta from one type into the same type), so not overly powerful, and benefits water based decks, and not so much rainbow decks that would be likely to make a quantum pillar for the other side.

Then, give the water nymph this ability, for 3 .

This would be something I would want to use, but I can't imagine it would be too strong, just disruptive, like the other nymphs.

77

Design Theory / Re: Steal My Idea!

« on: October 04, 2010, 03:16:13 am »

Each card with a number can have this number increased or decreased by one, once per turn.

With one of this card, a bone pillar would always produce  but a quantum pillar could produce 2, 3, or 4 random quanta.  A spark could deal 2, 3, or 4 damage, and may even get its life boosted to 1, while a skeleton may die if its life drops.

I would call it Uncertainty Principle, and make it entropy, but that's just me, and I'm putting the idea out there to be stolen, so...not all up to me, I suppose.

78

PvP Tournaments / Re: Post your tournament ideas here

« on: October 04, 2010, 02:59:15 am »

Hannibal's March - Use only ground creatures, no spells, only basic weapons (other element weapons)

Can I assume no wings? 0.o

Yes, no wings.  I didn't mention it because I was thinking...of course, people could destroy or steal it.  But no spells, not quite the case, so wings would have to be out, too.

Another idea just hit me.

Elemental's Guide to the Galaxy - Each deck must have EXACTLY 49 cards, no cards that add cards to a deck (such as Eternity) or remove cards from a deck (such as sundials)...and the answer is now 42....turns to kill your enemy!

79

PvP Tournaments / Re: Post your tournament ideas here

« on: October 04, 2010, 02:37:25 am »

Wonder Twin Powers, Activate! - All decks must have water and exactly one other element, and all creatures must have abilities that can be activated (passive abilities are out)

Hannibal's March - Use only ground creatures, no spells, only basic weapons (other element weapons)

80

General Discussion / Re: Grammar and Elements

« on: July 28, 2010, 03:34:45 am »

Ah, grammar drives me mad in many cases, and it is actually one thing that bothers me with this game.

Mostly that is due to "quantums" being used, when quanta is the actual plural, but it is a bit odd, considering "quanta" is used on some cards, and "quantums" on others.

As far as nova goes, novae would be the plural in my book.  English really keeps those (now) irregular plurals, just as they were.

As for electrum, can you give a situation where you would ever use a plural of it?  I can't seem to think of a situation in which I have used "golds," for instance...we just don't need the plural of certain things.  Even thinking of a metal from different locations, I would still use the singular...

Isn't English fun?