Ice Shield | Permafrost Shield

[jmizzle7]

Ice Shield NAME Permafrost Shield Water ELEMENT Water 6 COST 7 Permanent TYPE Permanent - STATS - Common RARITY Upgraded 60 | 42 BUY | SELL 1560 | 1163 5i9 CARD CODE 7gp WIKI PAGE: http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/cards-water/ice-shield-permafrost-shield/ USES: Ice Shield is one of the most powerful shields in the game, with blocking power few other shields can provide. Every attacking creature that can bypass its protection has a 30% chance to get frozen for 3 turns. When upgraded, Permafrost Shield also gains another point of damage reduction, and because of this, is often used in upgraded False God grinder decks. EXAMPLE DECK: by jmizzle7 Hover over cards for details, click for permalink Deck import code : [Select] 5i4 5i4 5i4 5i8 5i8 5i8 5i8 5i8 5i8 5i9 5i9 5i9 5i9 5jm 5jm 5jm 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5lh 5lh 5li 5li 5li 5li 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 8pp

Discuss.

[Kamietsu]

It's a great shield, especially permafrost with their chance of freezing. The high cost sort of turns me off to it, but I guess it doesn't matter much since i don't use much water at all in my rainbow deck. I will have to try it out. Could come in real handy.

[Baily18]

To me, this is one of the most annoying(if not The most annoying) shield

[Essence]

From the Hope thread in "In Development":

It definitely needed to be nerfed. It would make FG farming too easy IMO. Most rainbow decks could just throw one in and swap out the elite FQ for a regular one. Getting the 5 light quanta would be no issue whatsoever. I use a altered version of PuppyChow's deck so swapping out the permafrost for hope is a no-brainer. Even at 8 quanta upped it doesn't seem that bad and am sure just doing that swap alone will add some nice percentage points to FG farming.

If it stays immaterial this shield will make Divine Glory a very beatable FG and most of the other FG's slightly easier.

Don't discard the Permafrost so quickly, Mr.B.  In addition to the 2 damage block from Permafrost, over a few turns, that 30% chance to freeze for 3 turns effectively blocks more damage per turn than Dusk Shield or Procrastination (averaging out a total blockage of 57% of incoming damage after the 5th turn -- NOT COUNTING the 2 damage blocked in addition).  You'd have to get Hope up pretty decently high to get that kind of result.

[Delreich]

that 30% chance to freeze for 3 turns effectively blocks more damage per turn than Dusk Shield or Procrastination (averaging out a total blockage of 57% of incoming damage).

How do you arrive at that figure? 47% seems far more likely to me (freeze for 9 turns per 10 successful attacks).

[Essence]

I won't get deep into the math here, but basically if you write it out:

Turn 1: 70% of damage gets through.  (30% has 3 turns wait on it).
Turn 2: 49% of damage gets through (30% has 2 turns of wait, 21% has 3 turns of wait).
Turn 3: 34.3% of damage gets through (30% - 1; 21% - 2; 14.7% - 3)
Turn 4: 30% comes back, making 64.3% coming at you, of which 30% is frozen, so only 45.01% gets through.
Turn 5: 21% comes back, making 66.01% coming at you, of which 30% is frozen, so only 46.207% gets through.

And so on.  It turns out, once things stabilize around turn 9 or so, that about 57% of damage is consistently blocked (i.e. 43% gets through.)  You end up with 18%, 19%, and 20% on different levels of frozen-ness, but they're just cycling through those three numbers over and over. 

Of course, this is thrown off by the opponent adding new creatures, but the basic math is solid.

[Astaroth]

Ah, very nice math Essence. Master of my favorite element AND good at statistics? Will you adopt me?

[Delreich]

Except at turn 1, 100% goes through. Also, it's not 30% of the critters getting frozen, it's a 30% chance for each critter to get frozen.
[edit]
Turn 1: 100% of damage gets through.  (30% gets frozen, 3 turns wait on it).
Turn 2: 70% of damage gets through (30% has 2 turns of wait, another 21% gets 3 turns of wait).
Turn 3: 49% of damage gets through (30% - 1; 21% - 2; 14.7% - 3)
Turn 4: 34.3% of damage gets through (21% - 1; 14.7% - 2; 10.3% - 3; 30% unfreezes)
Turn 5: 54% of damage gets through (14.7% - 1; 10.3% - 2; 16.2% - 3; 21% unfreezes)
Turn 6: 58.8% of damage gets through (10.3% - 1; 16.2% - 2; 17.6% - 3; 14.7% unfreezes)
[/edit]

From a per creature perspective: on average, 3 of 10 attacks will leave the critter frozen for 3 turns. Hence, on average, for 10 successful attacks there's 9 turns of frost.
10 of 19 turns worth of attacks = 47% blocked.

One of us is obviously not quite right. If you can spot anything wrong with my arguing, please point it out. (Language is almost certainly wrong, but lets focus on the maths for now.)

[Astaroth]

Except at turn 1, 100% goes through. Also, it's not 30% of the critters getting frozen, it's a 30% chance for each critter to get frozen.

From a per creature perspective: on average, 3 of 10 attacks will leave the critter frozen for 3 turns. Hence, on average, for 10 successful attacks there's 9 turns of frost.
10 of 19 turns worth of attacks = 47% blocked.

One of us is obviously not quite right. If you can spot anything wrong with my arguing, please point it out.

Wait. I can't remember. When a creature freezes, does his attack go through THEN he freezes? If so, then Delreich is onto it I think. Although his wording kind of confused me, I finally got what he was trying to say. This is how I interpreted it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Hence, on average, for 10 successful attacks there's 9 turns of frost. This really confused me at first, but I finally got it. Out of ten non-consecutive, arbitrary attacks from a single creature, it will spend 9 turns frozen.

10 of 19 turns worth of attacks = 47% blocked This also confused me, but I think I got it too. 9 of those 19 turns (I assume 20 isn't accounted for since ALL attacks go through before freezing occurs) are going to block the attack completely via freeze. 9/19 = 47.36 or 47%.

Whew. And this doesn't account for the -2 reduction on successful hits. I think we could go even further with this and find the average attack of ALL creatures and plug the percentage of that reduction somewhere up in that mess.

[Scaredgirl]

Except at turn 1, 100% goes through. Also, it's not 30% of the critters getting frozen, it's a 30% chance for each critter to get frozen.

From a per creature perspective: on average, 3 of 10 attacks will leave the critter frozen for 3 turns. Hence, on average, for 10 successful attacks there's 9 turns of frost.
10 of 19 turns worth of attacks = 47% blocked.

One of us is obviously not quite right. If you can spot anything wrong with my arguing, please point it out.

Wait. I can't remember. When a creature freezes, does his attack go through THEN he freezes? If so, then Delreich is onto it I think. Although his wording kind of confused me, I finally got what he was trying to say. This is how I interpreted it, so correct me if I'm wrong.

Hence, on average, for 10 successful attacks there's 9 turns of frost. This really confused me at first, but I finally got it. Out of ten non-consecutive, arbitrary attacks from a single creature, it will spend 9 turns frozen.

10 of 19 turns worth of attacks = 47% blocked This also confused me, but I think I got it too. 9 of those 19 turns (I assume 20 isn't accounted for since ALL attacks go through before freezing occurs) are going to block the attack completely via freeze. 9/19 = 47.36 or 47%.

Whew. And this doesn't account for the -2 reduction on successful hits. I think we could go even further with this and find the average attack of ALL creatures and plug the percentage of that reduction somewhere up in that mess.

Yes, attack goes through before the creature freezes.

As a rule of thumb I recommend everyone to triple check their numbers before questioning Delreich's math.

[MrBlonde]

From the Hope thread in "In Development":

It definitely needed to be nerfed. It would make FG farming too easy IMO. Most rainbow decks could just throw one in and swap out the elite FQ for a regular one. Getting the 5 light quanta would be no issue whatsoever. I use a altered version of PuppyChow's deck so swapping out the permafrost for hope is a no-brainer. Even at 8 quanta upped it doesn't seem that bad and am sure just doing that swap alone will add some nice percentage points to FG farming.

If it stays immaterial this shield will make Divine Glory a very beatable FG and most of the other FG's slightly easier.

Don't discard the Permafrost so quickly, Mr.B.  In addition to the 2 damage block from Permafrost, over a few turns, that 30% chance to freeze for 3 turns effectively blocks more damage per turn than Dusk Shield or Procrastination (averaging out a total blockage of 57% of incoming damage after the 5th turn -- NOT COUNTING the 2 damage blocked in addition).  You'd have to get Hope up pretty decently high to get that kind of result.

Hmmmm.. you definitely make a valid argument here.  Looking over all the FG's i definitely see pros and cons for both. Perma is useless against DG and Rainbow. It also usually never stays up long vs. Hermes and Octane. Perma certainly would be better against Scorpio and Paradox.  Ehhhhh.... i'd probably have to run a bunch of games with it but the more i look at it the more i think you might be right.

[jmizzle7]

Perma is useless against DG and Rainbow.

I call Shenanigans. Permafrost Shield is an absolute wrecking ball against Divine Glory.