Erosion | Erosion

[guolin]

NAME: Erosion ELEMENT: Water COST: 10 TYPE: Spell ABILITY: All enemy permanents have a chance to be destroyed within the next three turns.	NAME: Erosion ELEMENT: Water COST: 8 TYPE: Spell ABILITY: All enemy permanents have a chance to be destroyed within the next three turns.

ART: http://projects.ischool.washington.edu/tabrooks/343INFOAutumn09/SilverlightTextFont/SilverlightTextFont.Web/SilverlightTextFontTestPage.html IDEA: Guolin NOTES: Here's how Erosion works: At the end of your turn after this card is played, there is a 15% chance any given enemy permanent that was played before this spell was played will be destroyed. At the end of your turn after that turn, there is a 30% chance any given enemy permanent that was played before the spell will be destroyed. At the end of your turn after 2 turns, there is a 45% chance any given that was played before the spell will be destroyed. This amounts to a 67.275% chance that any given permanent played before the spell will be destroyed, excluding any permanents that are destroyed not from this spell. Before you scream "OP!!", remember it takes 3 turns 67% of the enemy's permanents to be destroyed -  3 turns is huge against a rush deck, too. This spell probably counters stall decks the best because of high cost and the fact that stall decks rely on stuff like Bonds and SoG's. SERIES: Water, the Element of Control (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10137.0.html)

[Fredd0]

Ok but how it works against a stack of pillar? :s

[guolin]

Ok but how it works against a stack of pillar? :s

I was going to put that down, but that it was pretty obvious - it works the same way as Bone wall against Steal and Explosion. Each pillar (and bone wall counter, for that matter) acts as one individual permanent for this spell. If you have a stack of 10 pillars, and in 3 turns it is not perma-controlled via other methods or added upon, after 3 turns, about 6-7 are destroyed from this spell. The rest survive. But you have to remember - it takes 3 turns (which is huge in a rush-type setting) and the owner of the pillars can add on to the stack without the new pillars being affected.

[Xelax]

So you've got an almost 50% chance of losing each permanent. Or adding it up, you're likely to lose half of them over the three turns.

This is an odd type of spell- you seem to be mixing and merging the card types if you don't mind me saying. Permanents that attack, Spells that are semi-permanent. It's odd. I'm not sure whether it's OP or not.
I think, if you make it a Perm, so it can be destroyed, it would be better. It's a cool idea though

[Rainbowz]

AMAZING IDEA I would really like this going into the game. Water has too many speelsthough :/

[guolin]

So you've got an almost 50% chance of losing each permanent. Or adding it up, you're likely to lose half of them over the three turns.

This is an odd type of spell- you seem to be mixing and merging the card types if you don't mind me saying. Permanents that attack, Spells that are semi-permanent. It's odd. I'm not sure whether it's OP or not.
I think, if you make it a Perm, so it can be destroyed, it would be better. It's a cool idea though

Lol, if you read my Notes, I did all the math (which wasn't difficult as long as you know a thing or two about probability) - it's a 67.275% chance over three turns if you're too lazy to look up. Personally, I do not see it as that OP (especially since it's not creature-based, stupid Fractal). My justifications are provided in the Notes section. However, it is possible for me to change it to 10%, 20%, and 30%, yielding a 49.6% chance of destruction.

Also, I prefer aesthetics over mechanics when I design my cards.  I'd rather have a forest be a permanent that a creature, even though it damages, because of the realisticness and uniqueness. Same goes here. I thought it up as a permanent, but I figured it felt better as a spell, is much easier to clarify (I would need to write "This permanent lasts three turns" and "This effect only works if this is in play"), and is easier to balance. (no worrying about perm control - perm control, like with my other permanent, would make this card a huge waste of quanta, but on the other hand, without perm control, it might be too powerful)

[Xelax]

So you've got an almost 50% chance of losing each permanent. Or adding it up, you're likely to lose half of them over the three turns.

This is an odd type of spell- you seem to be mixing and merging the card types if you don't mind me saying. Permanents that attack, Spells that are semi-permanent. It's odd. I'm not sure whether it's OP or not.
I think, if you make it a Perm, so it can be destroyed, it would be better. It's a cool idea though

Lol, if you read my Notes, I did all the math (which wasn't difficult as long as you know a thing or two about probability) - it's a 67.275% chance over three turns if you're too lazy to look up. Personally, I do not see it as that OP (especially since it's not creature-based, stupid Fractal). My justifications are provided in the Notes section. However, it is possible for me to change it to 10%, 20%, and 30%, yielding a 49.6% chance of destruction.

Also, I prefer aesthetics over mechanics when I design my cards.  I'd rather have a forest be a permanent that a creature, even though it damages, because of the realisticness and uniqueness. Same goes here. I thought it up as a permanent, but I figured it felt better as a spell, is much easier to clarify (I would need to write "This permanent lasts three turns" and "This effect only works if this is in play"), and is easier to balance. (no worrying about perm control - perm control, like with my other permanent, would make this card a huge waste of quanta, but on the other hand, without perm control, it might be too powerful)

Your argument against it being overpowered was that 3 turns is huge against Rush Decks. Rush Decks are ones that generally don't use permanents- at least anything except pillars. Rainbows are the ones that use permanents, and they take more time.
Maybe I got the percentages wrong ( I just added up the 15%, rather than doing 15% + chance of 1st one missing*2nd one hitting, etc), but you've just magnified what I was saying. 2/3 of all permanents gone is pretty big.

Nevertheless, I said I liked the idea, so don't get too annoyed.

[guolin]

So you've got an almost 50% chance of losing each permanent. Or adding it up, you're likely to lose half of them over the three turns.

This is an odd type of spell- you seem to be mixing and merging the card types if you don't mind me saying. Permanents that attack, Spells that are semi-permanent. It's odd. I'm not sure whether it's OP or not.
I think, if you make it a Perm, so it can be destroyed, it would be better. It's a cool idea though

Lol, if you read my Notes, I did all the math (which wasn't difficult as long as you know a thing or two about probability) - it's a 67.275% chance over three turns if you're too lazy to look up. Personally, I do not see it as that OP (especially since it's not creature-based, stupid Fractal). My justifications are provided in the Notes section. However, it is possible for me to change it to 10%, 20%, and 30%, yielding a 49.6% chance of destruction.

Also, I prefer aesthetics over mechanics when I design my cards.  I'd rather have a forest be a permanent that a creature, even though it damages, because of the realisticness and uniqueness. Same goes here. I thought it up as a permanent, but I figured it felt better as a spell, is much easier to clarify (I would need to write "This permanent lasts three turns" and "This effect only works if this is in play"), and is easier to balance. (no worrying about perm control - perm control, like with my other permanent, would make this card a huge waste of quanta, but on the other hand, without perm control, it might be too powerful)

Your argument against it being overpowered was that 3 turns is huge against Rush Decks. Rush Decks are ones that generally don't use permanents- at least anything except pillars. Rainbows are the ones that use permanents, and they take more time.
Maybe I got the percentages wrong ( I just added up the 15%, rather than doing 15% + chance of 1st one missing*2nd one hitting, etc), but you've just magnified what I was saying. 2/3 of all permanents gone is pretty big.

Nevertheless, I said I liked the idea, so don't get too annoyed.

I used 100% - [85%(probability of survival on first turn)*70%(probability of survival on second turn)*55%(probablity of survival on third turn)], which goes down to 67.275%. I probably worded it in a confusing manner, though. It's basically 15% chance of destruction on first turn - if it survives, there's a 30% chance of it being destroyed the second turn - if it survives then, there's a 45% chance of it being finished off in the third turn.

Nah, I'm not annoyed at all. I like constructive comments. I could easily change it to 10% destruction on first turn, 20% on second, and 30% on third. After all, it IS a spell.

[johannhowitzer]

With the mechanic the way it is, this card needs to be a permanent with a counter, like Dimensional Shield or Sundial.  Spells are one-time effects and won't be present the next turn around (though effects like poison might be).  This also opens it up to being controlled before it ends, which is a nice balance feature.

[guolin]

With the mechanic the way it is, this card needs to be a permanent with a counter, like Dimensional Shield or Sundial.  Spells are one-time effects and won't be present the next turn around (though effects like poison might be).  This also opens it up to being controlled before it ends, which is a nice balance feature.

Now that I think of it, if I turn it into a permanent, I could add "This cannot be stolen." to the end. First of all, it's kind of hard to "steal" a river that's currently wearing down your permanents. Secondly, this means that I won't have to worry about the worst-case scenario: having the permanent stolen to be used against the original owner. You'll still have one turn to kill 15% of the opponent's permanents before it gets Deflagged/Exploded.

[johannhowitzer]

All current permanents that are protected from Steal are also protected from Destroy/Deflagration - this is because they automatically generate the Protect Artifact status on themselves.  They're untargetable.  I don't think this card warrants a new mechanic... and I don't see a problem with it being stolen.  Smart players don't mind the Steal card/ability, because they try to think one step ahead of their opponent and prevent such things!

I know you probably like the increase in probability, but being the advocate of simplicity that I am, I'd rather see it be a 25-30% flat rate chance for each turn.  OR you could make it just remove one random permanent each turn for three turns, if you want to toss probability out the window entirely... Fog Shield is rarely used for a reason. 

[guolin]

All current permanents that are protected from Steal are also protected from Destroy/Deflagration - this is because they automatically generate the Protect Artifact status on themselves.  They're untargetable.  I don't think this card warrants a new mechanic... and I don't see a problem with it being stolen.  Smart players don't mind the Steal card/ability, because they try to think one step ahead of their opponent and prevent such things!

I know you probably like the increase in probability, but being the advocate of simplicity that I am, I'd rather see it be a 25-30% flat rate chance for each turn.  OR you could make it just remove one random permanent each turn for three turns, if you want to toss probability out the window entirely... Fog Shield is rarely used for a reason. 

It being stolen would be deadly, as it causes YOU to lose 61.5% of your permanents. Also, how can a river be stolen? (this being the reason I made it a spell)

Aesthetically, things get more and more eroded the more they are exposed to the river/glacier/whatever. Now that it could be a permanent, there's also a mechanical side - Deflagging/Exploding it earlier is more beneficial.