[Official] Flooding | Inundation

[RavingRabbid]

I can't even think of a way of buffing this card. You'd never use it in a deck, except for targeted deckbuilding. And even in that, it is hardly useful.

[suxerz]

Agree. This card is kinda... useless. However, water does have a good synergy with death (bonewall).
How about buffing it to affect burrowed/quinted creatures? Or make it immaterial permanent that lasted for 3 rounds? Or.. upgraded version only affect opponent's field.

[Demut]

Take away the 3 cost for one and make it so the flooding affects all but five squares.

[RavingRabbid]

Agree. This card is kinda... useless. However, water does have a good synergy with death (bonewall).
How about buffing it to affect burrowed/quinted creatures? Or make it immaterial permanent that lasted for 3 rounds? Or.. upgraded version only affect opponent's field.

It is still useless.
Not many decks need more than 7 creatures.
Even with forcing aflatoxin, it isn't so great.

[Uppercut]

Even with forcing aflatoxin, it isn't so great.

This doesn't work anyway. Malignant cells don't die to drowning.

[nerd1]

yeah, but they push out your opponents creatures so they don't have any card slots open in the "flooding free zone"

[Nepycros]

What if you gained the quanta cost (in ) of each creature killed?

[Demut]

Or if it was a card that last for three turns and simply flooded every other square.

[nilsieboy]

i'd like an idea like this:
floods 5 random spots every turn or something like that.
it'd give the card a way better use (also for stall decks)

[ArtCrusade]

So basically you could kill 5 creatures a turn for an upkeeping-cost of 3 water? That sounds worse than Otyugh

[RavingRabbid]

So basically you could kill 5 creatures a turn for an upkeeping-cost of 3 water? That sounds worse than Otyugh

Opponent has 5 creatures.

Chance of killing all those it's 1 in 33500.

[ArtCrusade]

Now we are discussing numbers. You know what I mean, move on