Post by: willng3 on October 08, 2011, 04:09:40 am
(http://i.imgur.com/xYugy.png)
New Shard currently in development.The aether shard is now Shard of Wisdom. It targets an immaterial creature; the target creature deals spell damage. It can be used in two ways:Join in on the discussion of the latest changes here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32132.msg503023#msg503023
Offensive: your immaterial creature ignores all shield but reflective shields
Defensive: play a reflective shield and use the shard on an opponent creature: the creature is now attacking your opponent.
Mechanic: physical attack is reduced to zero, the attack is transferred to a lightning spell instead.
Vampire healing does not apply to spells.
Negative damage spells (antimatter) will heal the target, as usual.
Added to development page.
Soon in the trainer.
Post by: GG on October 08, 2011, 04:11:19 am
Wondering about how useful this card will be.
Post by: Captain Scibra on October 08, 2011, 04:14:49 am
Post by: jmdt on October 08, 2011, 04:20:09 am
Post by: RootRanger on October 08, 2011, 04:34:02 am
Add this in with PA and you have a new fire stall nerf and stall nerf in general. Hooray.I'm not so sure about this. With the SoG nerf and Discord growing in strength to the Immo nerf, I see no reason why Firestalls wouldn't use Sanctuaries, which probably block this effect.
Post by: Terroking on October 08, 2011, 04:39:30 am
Post by: jmdt on October 08, 2011, 04:41:00 am
Add this in with PA and you have a new fire stall nerf and stall nerf in general. Hooray.I'm not so sure about this. With the SoG nerf and Discord growing in strength to the Immo nerf, I see no reason why Firestalls wouldn't use Sanctuaries, which probably block this effect.
Good point, we'll have to ask zanz about that. If so we'll really need it modified because its no longer useful for its biggest need.
Post by: jmdt on October 08, 2011, 04:46:57 am
[00:44:47] zanzarino: your turn*
Post by: furballdn on October 08, 2011, 04:47:46 am
Post by: mesaprotector on October 08, 2011, 04:50:11 am
Um... wow. I'm reserving judgment on this until we can try it out in beta.
Post by: RRQJ on October 08, 2011, 05:09:23 am
About the sanctuary thing. I know it's already been addressed, but I just wanted to add that there's only one way I can think of to gain quanta during your opponent's turn (solar buckler), so you'll almost never have an overflow anyway.
Post by: furballdn on October 08, 2011, 05:31:49 am
The additional benefit to aether seems rather small relative to the card's current power/utility. Perhaps I'm underestimating that additional 2 quanta reduction?All nymphs and dragons aren't usable. Sky blitz, miracle, pharaoh, and fractal are all unusable.
Post by: Kuroaitou on October 08, 2011, 05:55:47 am
Post by: Essence on October 08, 2011, 06:00:16 am
Post by: RRQJ on October 08, 2011, 06:01:19 am
many dragons aren't usable even if you didn't have an aether mark. Also, I think the real benefit from restricting an opponent's quanta cap to a low amount is not that you can prevent them from playing certain cards, but that you restrict the number of cards/abilities activated in a turn. So sure, if I didn't have an aether mark you can play sky blitz, pharaoh, nymphs, etc. But you won't have the quanta to activate abilities/play other cards. So the question is, is it worth it to take an aether mark just to outright prevent the opponent from playing certain cards?The additional benefit to aether seems rather small relative to the card's current power/utility. Perhaps I'm underestimating that additional 2 quanta reduction?All nymphs and dragons aren't usable. Sky blitz, miracle, pharaoh, and fractal are all unusable.
And by the way, this card would hurt monos/duos more than rainbows. Just thought I'd mention it.
Post by: furballdn on October 08, 2011, 06:02:07 am
The teal color is pretty. :) I wonder how the Air shard will look like since this seems to borderline look almost like light blue; the 'Conscience' part is another awesome touch. ^^For some reason I feel the air shard should act like a creature due to air also having flying weapon. It could have the bow's ability to do extra damage if your mark is :air.
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 08, 2011, 06:18:53 am
If your mark is Aether then -1 additional per shard after all halving down to a minimum of 7.
It might be a bit harder to code that way, and the Aether mark makes a slightly bigger difference. But the key factor I'm looking at here is that 3 divisions of 75 is 9.375, I'm assuming it rounds down, but it feels unintuitive that you need an entire fourth shard to get the full benefit of the Aether bonus.
Post by: CCCombobreaker on October 08, 2011, 06:19:51 am
With some RT and BH and the usual rainbow beaters. Great denial potential.
Post by: Pineapple on October 08, 2011, 09:44:49 am
Post by: The_Mormegil on October 08, 2011, 09:46:28 am
fracdev, BH, and rainbows just got a huge buff.Devtal needing 8-9 devourers and 3 shards for the lock... :o
Post by: TheonlyrealBeef on October 08, 2011, 09:57:53 am
Post by: moomoose on October 08, 2011, 03:06:54 pm
as far as the shard itself goes, its interesting, in combo with silence, or another fun-denial card, it could be really irritating. and as the above posters said, this would make a fractal pest deck insane lockdown.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on October 08, 2011, 03:10:20 pm
Woot.What he said. Denial just got much stronger with this card.
Though, it's also another indirect nerf to SS, Ice Bolt, and Drain Life. :(
Post by: hendrydext on October 08, 2011, 04:33:35 pm
If you want "denial". There is a lot of it.
Black Hole. Devourer. Earthquake.
This shard is not worth to have "shard" title.
It is worse than a flooding, denial of mass creature. "Have mass quanta, I am not scared of your mass creature..," it said.
It is worse than BlackHole. BlackHole is quick, denial and also healing..
It is worse than devourer. Devourer steal quanta, make enemy cannot use it, and also quanta generator.
It is worse than earthquake. Earthquake decrease the production, and this shard is only limit the production. Enemy still can produce it.
This shard is only limit the cap of quanta. Not useful in so many situations. Enemy can still use their card, so there is no denial.
And this card also have to played as many possible in the field. more card, more powerful. Very difficult to setup.
It is ok to make this card as NORMAL card.. But, i think "NO" if this card become a shard.
But, there is also limitation to this card, even to be normal card.
If this card effect became too powerful, such as "limit quanta to 0"!!
Then, the game will be very boring. (Consider if enemy use this card also, then no player can use the card, because the limit is 0).
In summary, I think this card should not be released.
Thank you for attention. CMIIW.
Post by: omegareaper7 on October 08, 2011, 04:47:55 pm
This shard is really boring..Its useful in a bunch of situations actually.
If you want "denial". There is a lot of it.
Black Hole. Devourer. Earthquake.
This shard is not worth to have "shard" title.
It is worse than a flooding, denial of mass creature. "Have mass quanta, I am not scared of your mass creature..," it said.
It is worse than BlackHole. BlackHole is quick, denial and also healing..
It is worse than devourer. Devourer steal quanta, make enemy cannot use it, and also quanta generator.
It is worse than earthquake. Earthquake decrease the production, and this shard is only limit the production. Enemy still can produce it.
This shard is only limit the cap of quanta. Not useful in so many situations. Enemy can still use their card, so there is no denial.
And this card also have to played as many possible in the field. more card, more powerful. Very difficult to setup.
It is ok to make this card as NORMAL card.. But, i think "NO" if this card become a shard.
But, there is also limitation to this card, even to be normal card.
If this card effect became too powerful, such as "limit quanta to 0"!!
Then, the game will be very boring. (Consider if enemy use this card also, then no player can use the card, because the limit is 0).
In summary, I think this card should not be released.
Thank you for attention. CMIIW.
Like its been stated before, with three, they cap at 8. That eliminates entire decks. Fractal decks are done with, people can't play dragons, miracle etc. Fire loses quite a bit of edge as well considering they couldn't get a bolt above 3 damage and fahrenheit wouldn't go above 6.
Post by: plastiqe on October 08, 2011, 04:53:19 pm
Cards like Shard of Conscience that stop you from playing cards are unfun. Sure it is great to be the one playing the counterspell, but it sucks being on the other end and not being able to even play your cards.
Post by: BluexLightning on October 08, 2011, 04:59:56 pm
Post by: maverixk on October 08, 2011, 05:02:17 pm
I have:
5 :aether
6 :air
20 :darkness
30 :death
40 :earth
50 :entropy
What happens tp me if my enemy plays SoC when I have all of that?
Post by: Jappert on October 08, 2011, 05:04:10 pm
Cards like Shard of Conscience that stop you from playing cards are unfun. Sure it is great to be the one playing the counterspell, but it sucks being on the other end and not being able to even play your cards.Yeah and cards that kill my creatures or destroy my permanents are un-fun also!
Please remove CC and PC from the game!
I actually like this card and a few more defensive cards and stall-love was well needed. Control and Rushes have owned stalls for long enough now!
Post by: plastiqe on October 08, 2011, 05:09:21 pm
There is a difference between having cards you've played get destroyed and not being able to play your cards at all.Cards like Shard of Conscience that stop you from playing cards are unfun. Sure it is great to be the one playing the counterspell, but it sucks being on the other end and not being able to even play your cards.Yeah and cards that kill my creatures or destroy my permanents are un-fun also!
Please remove CC and PC from the game!
Post by: moomoose on October 08, 2011, 05:17:14 pm
this card basically has synergy with every other means of quanta denial currently in the game.
Post by: CCCombobreaker on October 08, 2011, 08:21:10 pm
1) You can't play enough of these to stop someone from playing any card that destroys them.
2) It has NO effect on a lot of decks, which makes it risky and less likely to be played. (Think SoC vs a grabbow or bone bolt)
3) It gives a new dynamic to stall vs stall matchups which really needed some variation.
4) All this talk of 3 of them taking the cap to 8 is also a little weird because that relies on getting 3 reasonably into the game requires running 6 knowing 3 will be dead draws. Like running 6 weapons and only 2 animate weapons. It's designing a deck with wasted deckslots... So you would only run it as a counter.
Post by: Essence on October 08, 2011, 08:42:39 pm
The point #4 is so spot-on it makes me rather firmly believe that this card will end up in a selection of FG farmers and that's about it.
Post by: Terroking on October 08, 2011, 08:46:19 pm
Ok, I feel kinda stupid, but I'm a bit confused by this card. Ok, situation time:The quanta cap is imposed on each element separately, so while you can have 75 :earth and 75 :fire, you can never get 80 :fire.
I have:
5 :aether
6 :air
20 :darkness
30 :death
40 :earth
50 :entropy
What happens tp me if my enemy plays SoC when I have all of that?
In that situation your :earth and :entropy quanta will each drop down to 32 (Or 33, depending on rounding) and the rest will remain unchanged, until another SoiC is played.
Post by: Rutarete on October 08, 2011, 09:03:51 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on October 08, 2011, 09:53:04 pm
Post by: maverixk on October 08, 2011, 10:13:09 pm
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 09, 2011, 12:17:58 am
...
It might be a bit harder to code that way, and the Aether mark makes a slightly bigger difference. But the key factor I'm looking at here is that 3 divisions of 75 is 9.375, I'm assuming it rounds down, but it feels unintuitive that you need an entire fourth shard to get the full benefit of the Aether bonus.
Like its been stated before, with three, they cap at 8. ...
...
4) All this talk of 3 of them taking the cap to 8 ...
...Did I miss some special announcement from Zanz stating that 3 shards specifically goes around the division and drops right to 8? Because I see the math as
The point #4 is so spot-on ...
75
/2
= 37.5
/2
= 18.75
/2
9.375
Which rounds down to 9. Meaning four shards to actually gain the full aether benefit. Which actually matters, as the difference between 9 and 8 is the difference between Upped Fractal working and it being locked out by SoC.
Post by: Daguerreo on October 09, 2011, 01:15:56 am
Post by: DrunkDestroyer on October 09, 2011, 02:35:42 am
I can live with it. I would hate if decks using this took off (think Nightmare GotP), because, that would basically - suck.
But as long as its just another card which might get played and enhance a few strategies, then I'm sweet.
(Cool name and art too. Just thought I'd say that)
Post by: BluePriest on October 09, 2011, 03:04:42 am
I don't like the direction Elements is taking. Mono's, Duo's and Rushes keep getting nerfed, and Stalls and Rainbows get powerful new cards.I dont quite see how this card nerfs rushes... or monos... or duos... If anything its an anti stall card. This card, if anything, fits into a more mixed stall/rush instead of a pure version of either, and stops stalls more than anything.
Cards like Shard of Conscience that stop you from playing cards are unfun. Sure it is great to be the one playing the counterspell, but it sucks being on the other end and not being able to even play your cards.
Post by: PuppyChow on October 09, 2011, 03:37:39 am
It will add another counter -- a deck specifically built around stopping a fire stall using these would work, but it wouldn't do well against other decks. So the rock-paper-scissors meta fire stall creates will stay.
And, without PA, fire stall will just explode them.
Post by: furballdn on October 09, 2011, 05:40:15 am
Post by: Avenger on October 09, 2011, 10:31:57 am
Post by: furballdn on October 09, 2011, 04:29:25 pm
It will be difficult to play 3 of this, pulvy decks laugh at this.Enchant them :>
Post by: PuppyChow on October 09, 2011, 07:27:17 pm
Cool, so now we're devoting at least 6 cards, probably more, to stopping a single, not all that popular deck type. And half of those cards will require some specific earth quanta. And it's a two card combo.It will be difficult to play 3 of this, pulvy decks laugh at this.Enchant them :>
Wow, that deck sounds pretty bad.
Post by: RRQJ on October 09, 2011, 07:37:54 pm
The shards stack. So you only need one PA. Not that it makes an enormous difference...Cool, so now we're devoting at least 6 cards, probably more, to stopping a single, not all that popular deck type. And half of those cards will require some specific earth quanta. And it's a two card combo.It will be difficult to play 3 of this, pulvy decks laugh at this.Enchant them :>
Wow, that deck sounds pretty bad.
Post by: Elite arbiter on October 10, 2011, 01:48:46 am
So its 4 cards, 3 consciousness and 1 PA. Probably 3 PA to guarantee getting it quick, and 6 SoC's to get three of 'them'. So thats 9 deckslots to do something that most decktypes couldn't even care less about. A pulvy deck would just laugh, say "ok", and use the deckslot advantage to just directly kill you or stall you.The shards stack. So you only need one PA. Not that it makes an enormous difference...Cool, so now we're devoting at least 6 cards, probably more, to stopping a single, not all that popular deck type. And half of those cards will require some specific earth quanta. And it's a two card combo.It will be difficult to play 3 of this, pulvy decks laugh at this.Enchant them :>
Wow, that deck sounds pretty bad.
Post by: moomoose on October 10, 2011, 02:23:59 am
Post by: RRQJ on October 10, 2011, 06:20:52 am
I don't see why anyone would use this against pulvy decks even if you protect the shards. What, pulvy decks have a lot of high cost cards?So its 4 cards, 3 consciousness and 1 PA. Probably 3 PA to guarantee getting it quick, and 6 SoC's to get three of 'them'. So thats 9 deckslots to do something that most decktypes couldn't even care less about. A pulvy deck would just laugh, say "ok", and use the deckslot advantage to just directly kill you or stall you.The shards stack. So you only need one PA. Not that it makes an enormous difference...Cool, so now we're devoting at least 6 cards, probably more, to stopping a single, not all that popular deck type. And half of those cards will require some specific earth quanta. And it's a two card combo.It will be difficult to play 3 of this, pulvy decks laugh at this.Enchant them :>
Wow, that deck sounds pretty bad.
Post by: Snopel on October 10, 2011, 07:54:04 am
So does that mean... (ROUNDED UP - ROUNDED DOWN)
1 SoC = 37.5 (38 or 37) Quanta Cap
2 SoC = 19 or 18.5 (19 or 18) Quanta Cap
3 SoC = 9.5 (10 because that's the limit) or 9 (10 because that's the limit) Quanta Cap
From these statistics I think it sounds pretty fair enough. But farout. After No.3, your opponent is pretty much screwed unless they have heaps of pillars and some low-cost cards...
Oh and sorry if this has been posted already. =|
Post by: TheManuz on October 10, 2011, 08:03:58 am
BTW, i find this shard a little boring...
Post by: Contrary on October 10, 2011, 08:05:55 am
Post by: TheManuz on October 10, 2011, 08:49:06 am
Why do all the shards have to have mega game-breaking change-all-of-the-metagame power? Why can't they all be on the level of the current SoGs?Are you talking about my shard?
Post by: Picheleiro on October 10, 2011, 11:03:07 am
Post by: Vineroz on October 10, 2011, 10:30:33 pm
Post by: RRQJ on October 11, 2011, 03:16:54 am
who said it is hard to play 3 of these early? Tell that to arena decks with black hole. If nothing changes, I cannot imagine ANYTHING that can stop this+BH decks.Sanctuary > black hole.
And I don't exactly see how this+black hole is haxorz. Usually what screws people over in the arena are early black holes, not black holes that come after you've played all your creatures/permanents/whatever. And if the balck holes are early, these shards wouldn't have done anything other than use up quanta and slow the AI down since you wouldn't have more than a couple of quanta per element.
Post by: Terroking on October 11, 2011, 03:22:23 am
Post by: RRQJ on October 11, 2011, 05:52:08 am
Post by: Chapuz on October 11, 2011, 01:55:24 pm
Post by: BluePriest on October 11, 2011, 02:23:40 pm
We need at least 4 or 5 "weak PC" cards. I saw many ideas even in Armory, of cards that shut down permanents for 1 or 2 turns. That is something Elements The Game needs. Also, it would make the game more strategic.You mean like http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30673.msg416734#msg416734
Post by: Chapuz on October 11, 2011, 02:44:59 pm
That one, i saw a thunder birds (don't remember the name) thar paralizes perms for 1 turn, vines, etc.We need at least 4 or 5 "weak PC" cards. I saw many ideas even in Armory, of cards that shut down permanents for 1 or 2 turns. That is something Elements The Game needs. Also, it would make the game more strategic.You mean like http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30673.msg416734#msg416734
Post by: moomoose on October 11, 2011, 02:52:52 pm
Post by: TheManuz on October 11, 2011, 03:09:32 pm
I will not say which card it is, however! I make no self promotion! :P
Post by: Pineapple on October 11, 2011, 03:17:59 pm
And I don't exactly see how this+black hole is haxorz. Usually what screws people over in the arena are early black holes, not black holes that come after you've played all your creatures/permanents/whatever. And if the balck holes are early, these shards wouldn't have done anything other than use up quanta and slow the AI down since you wouldn't have more than a couple of quanta per element.The problem with black holes coming late is that they don't actually do anything because the enemy has reached the quanta generation/usage equilibrium and is starting to produce surplus quanta and the black holes are only taking the surplus quanta. Discord/BH is good because Discord throws more than just the surplus quanta into unusable elements. This destroys surplus quanta. Conscience and aether mark in combination with only one amber nymph means 7 quanta to use per turn (no dragons or higher-level bolts and decreased card advantage per turn) in a basic deck idea that can easily splash lightnings for the enemy's "creatures/whatever" and include fractal chargers or overdriven massives/armagios.
Post by: Skotadi Phobos on October 12, 2011, 03:14:59 pm
Post by: Bleys295 on October 12, 2011, 05:51:30 pm
Or VinesWe need at least 4 or 5 "weak PC" cards. I saw many ideas even in Armory, of cards that shut down permanents for 1 or 2 turns. That is something Elements The Game needs. Also, it would make the game more strategic.You mean like http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30673.msg416734#msg416734
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18812.0.html
Post by: Chapuz on October 12, 2011, 05:56:46 pm
Post by: Higurashi on October 12, 2011, 08:38:14 pm
Post by: moomoose on October 12, 2011, 09:52:53 pm
Post by: Terroking on October 13, 2011, 02:12:16 am
until the card becomes playable in beta, there's really not much more to add at this point anyway.Then just don't post.
Or at least, not on this thread.
Post by: ndclub on October 13, 2011, 02:20:23 am
Post by: moomoose on October 13, 2011, 02:35:55 am
no u.until the card becomes playable in beta, there's really not much more to add at this point anyway.Then just don't post.
Or at least, not on this thread.
Post by: Snopel on October 13, 2011, 04:57:00 am
I really think this shard will do good. It suits the :aether elements surprisingly well and will be a great addition to the game. It's a nice way to kick off the new Quanta-Cap function.
The only real problem I have with this is that the synergy with :aether is just not there. It doesn't exactly do anything until you use three of these. Perhaps a silence effect for that turn too would be awesome. But that would mean it should be a spell instead of a permenant.
Maybe increase your :aether quanta-cap by 5 (or 10 if upgraded)? That would be rather useful.
Post by: RRQJ on October 13, 2011, 05:29:40 am
For my ON TOPIC opinion?What use does :aether have for a (marginally) higher cap?
I really think this shard will do good. It suits the :aether elements surprisingly well and will be a great addition to the game. It's a nice way to kick off the new Quanta-Cap function.
The only real problem I have with this is that the synergy with :aether is just not there. It doesn't exactly do anything until you use three of these. Perhaps a silence effect for that turn too would be awesome. But that would mean it should be a spell instead of a permenant.
Maybe increase your :aether quanta-cap by 5 (or 10 if upgraded)? That would be rather useful.
Also, since topic derailed after my last post:
What if the shard drops the cap directly to some low number (15? 10 for :aether mark?), and lasts for a few turns? Something like how sundial works. As it is, the first shard, even possibly the second shard, is basically useless against 95% of decks. Only until the third shard does this do anything, and this "three card combo" feels rather underwhelming.
Post by: Higurashi on October 13, 2011, 07:05:58 am
I kinda miss the rumoured buff for immaterial creatures, mainly for the sake of Immortal. SoC is utterly useless in a Monoaether and all Aether duos that don't use denial or Fractal Dragons :/
Post by: moomoose on October 13, 2011, 01:59:25 pm
I kinda miss the rumoured buff for immaterial creatures, mainly for the sake of Immortal. SoC is utterly useless in a Monoaether and all Aether duos that don't use denial or Fractal Dragons :/good point, this shard, moreso than the others, doesnt synergize very well with its own element.
For my ON TOPIC opinion?nobody was stopping on topic discussion, we were just discussing something tangent while nobody else was talking.
Post by: nerd1 on October 18, 2011, 01:03:46 am
Increasing your own cap as well would be useful for some Fractal decks, such as the FG killer RoL/Hope or the PvP decks Bone Dragon Fractal or Devtal with Drains. It's good for any Fractal Dragon deck that wants to OTK and doesn't have access to Blitz.it would not be helpful for any aether decks, if you fractal, all your aether energy is gone anyways.
I kinda miss the rumoured buff for immaterial creatures, mainly for the sake of Immortal. SoC is utterly useless in a Monoaether and all Aether duos that don't use denial or Fractal Dragons :/
Post by: onnig on October 18, 2011, 01:27:16 am
"Your opponent can't store more than 15 quanta per element. 12 if mark is :aether. 1 less per card, up to 6."
Numbers can change, but the general idea is there. It's useful starting from the first one put in play, as opposed to the current one. However, you still need a handful of these in order to get the full and better effect, so getting an :aether mark helps with this. It does shutdown a bit harshly decks that depend on high quanta usage and storage of a few elements IMO once you get most of them out, compared to the current one, and it also seems like rainbows with cheap cards will probably get away with it easily. Maybe it should effect the total quanta, with the numbers being tweaked of course. I also put a cap to prevent abuse through double draws and mindgates.
What do you guys think?
Post by: MartyrX on October 18, 2011, 01:54:16 am
Post by: Chapuz on October 18, 2011, 02:00:17 am
SoG is "free" healing as it's not quanta specific and you don't need light or water to have some healing.
SoSe is freaking fun in rainbows, and a powerup.
SoSa is absolutely OP and even more in arena decks which (ab)use of their 200 HP with 12 of them, but in regular decks it's a lifesaver and proposes many new strategies.
SoC might be good in poison and gigh creature number decks
SoR is nice anywhere you can play it. Great with Steam Machines and time dragons, nymphs, etc.
And this one... where is it good? what strategy does it bring?
Post by: onnig on October 18, 2011, 02:14:00 am
Edit : Now that you edited you post, I do agree with what you say. I guess we'll have to see how this goes.
Post by: Higurashi on October 18, 2011, 01:36:07 pm
I hope you're joking. If not, read again.Increasing your own cap as well would be useful for some Fractal decks, such as the FG killer RoL/Hope or the PvP decks Bone Dragon Fractal or Devtal with Drains. It's good for any Fractal Dragon deck that wants to OTK and doesn't have access to Blitz.it would not be helpful for any aether decks, if you fractal, all your aether energy is gone anyways.
I kinda miss the rumoured buff for immaterial creatures, mainly for the sake of Immortal. SoC is utterly useless in a Monoaether and all Aether duos that don't use denial or Fractal Dragons :/
Post by: Avenger on October 21, 2011, 10:33:10 pm
Post by: Max Fire on October 27, 2011, 05:45:35 pm
I think it would be better to reduce the mana capacity each turn (like shard of void with life points) to a minimum of quanta capacity of 10 or 8 if you have an aether mark or not (like the actual shard of conscience).
Post by: Van Helsing on October 27, 2011, 08:25:07 pm
My opinion :)
Post by: Acsabi44 on October 28, 2011, 12:29:55 pm
Firebolt decks troll dimshield decks.
This trolls firebolt decks.
Dimshield + this trolls...?
Post by: The_Mormegil on October 28, 2011, 12:46:35 pm
Dimshield trolls rushes.Everything! Except:
Firebolt decks troll dimshield decks.
This trolls firebolt decks.
Dimshield + this trolls...?
- Poison
- Rushes with PC
- Non-quanta based Deckers
- Momentum
- Pestal
- Silence decks
- Discord rushes
...
Post by: sammybrahh on November 10, 2011, 06:29:12 am
Post by: Brontos on November 10, 2011, 07:06:25 am
If it's not too late, it shouldbe changed.
Post by: ralouf on November 10, 2011, 09:06:30 am
I don't like it.
I'd prefer something like a shard that :
Target a creature in play/your hand. At the end of your turn you get a copy of this creature in your hand. It looks way funny for example and I think we can do even better.
Post by: animemaster on November 15, 2011, 12:13:44 pm
Post by: SnoWeb on November 15, 2011, 03:00:46 pm
:gravity Shard of Moderation | Shard of Moderation (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,28846.msg395472#msg395472) :gravity (http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/21/77/somuu11.png)(http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/15/54/21/77/somup11.png) (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,28846.msg395472#msg395472) |
Post by: furballdn on November 17, 2011, 04:32:41 am
Post by: dracomageat on November 17, 2011, 06:56:36 pm
Post by: Chapuz on November 18, 2011, 12:30:03 pm
Post by: GG on November 18, 2011, 09:46:12 pm
Post by: DeathAngelx on November 18, 2011, 10:18:25 pm
Post by: CCCombobreaker on November 18, 2011, 10:59:52 pm
Post by: mesaprotector on November 23, 2011, 10:13:51 pm
How about, instead of limiting the number of quanta in each element, this card limits the number of elements from which you can use quanta? One shard = 6 elements, two shards = 3 elements, three shards = 2 elements, etc. To keep the advantage for Aether, having an :aether mark could allow a fourth shard to limit your opponent to one element. This would make it a really strong (maybe too strong) counter to rainbows.
I'm not quite sure how this would work, but I have an idea. When one of these is played, your opponent's six smallest quanta stacks could be set to zero, for as long as the shard is in play. This would seriously cripple a rainbow deck, but monos/duos/trios wouldn't even be affected until 3-4 shards were played.
Is this idea completely crazy, or could it work?
Post by: Rutarete on November 23, 2011, 10:14:43 pm
Post by: TheIdioticIdiot on November 23, 2011, 10:17:17 pm
does it limit the maximum quanta you can accumulate or something?
Post by: willng3 on November 23, 2011, 10:21:31 pm
I am not sure I know what this card does....Yes. Similar to how currently you are unable to accumulate more than 75 quanta of any element, this would reduce that amount further.
does it limit the maximum quanta you can accumulate or something?
Post by: Max Fire on November 27, 2011, 09:42:34 am
Post by: baracole on December 09, 2011, 06:19:30 pm
I would rather see a shard that could be used as silence, but for quantum. I have no idea how to make such a shard though, or how it should work.
Post by: hell7fire1 on December 09, 2011, 07:55:32 pm
Also,this,in a way, makes BHTm :gravity ltd way more effective,
and it also makes QTTm...er,other ltd more effective,not to mention SNTm :entropy ltd more useful.
With a max of 10 quanta(fully effective) those steals would seem eternally blessed.
Post by: onnig on January 09, 2012, 07:27:21 am
Post by: Chapuz on January 09, 2012, 12:43:46 pm
It is a shard which for me relies too much on changing 'the rules' of the game. Is directly interfering with the parameters we are given, instead of trying to make a strategy with the given cards within said parameters.Do you think the same about Shard of Void, Shard of Divinity and Stone Skin?
imo there will be many more aether - darknedd decks, specially ninja pests.
Does this effect (reduced cap) apply to the total quanta or individually for each element?Before 1.3: each element has a maximum of 75 quantum each.
After 1.3: each element's quanta cap is reduced by the specifications of the card.
Post by: Xamuel on January 09, 2012, 12:57:53 pm
I don't like the direction Elements is taking. Mono's, Duo's and Rushes keep getting nerfed, and Stalls and Rainbows get powerful new cards.Maybe they're trying to more authentically re-create the unique playstyle of Magic: The Gathering
Cards like Shard of Conscience that stop you from playing cards are unfun. Sure it is great to be the one playing the counterspell, but it sucks being on the other end and not being able to even play your cards.
>I summon a creature!
>I block it with this counterspell which costs 1 blue mana!
>I block your counterspell with my own counterspell which costs 5 life!
>I block your counter-counterspell with this other counterspell which costs a discard!
>I block that counterspell with this counterspell which costs me standing up and singing a silly song!
>I block that counterspell with this counterspell which...
Post by: UnderneathTheLens on January 16, 2012, 11:24:58 pm
Ex. The opponent cannot produce more than 10 quanta per turn; lasts 3 turns or something like that. That'd kill SNs though.
Post by: Poker Alho on January 16, 2012, 11:30:16 pm
Well, if you want it to nerf rainbows instead of monos and duos, I guess you can make this cap the quanta production per turn.shard of conscience doesnt seem very useful in its current form
Ex. The opponent cannot produce more than 10 quanta per turn; lasts 3 turns or something like that. That'd kill SNs though.
i would suggest this:
turn SoC into a permanent
lasts 2 turns. 3 if using mark of aether
your opponent cant produce more than 8 quanta per turn
i.e:
if your opponent has 3 quantum towers, only 8 random quanta would be produced
as for nova, supernova, immolation,cremation and other quanta producing cards i am not sure how it would work
this card would kill raimbow decks easily
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i just posted this in the elements 1.30 topic like 15 min ago lol
Post by: Powerfrog on January 24, 2012, 08:36:45 pm
If the numbers stay, at least make it none stackable, so the opponent can't protect artifact one stack and screw all decks reliant on expensive cards.
Just to be clear, it's:
75 ~plays shard
37 ~plays shard
18 ~plays shard
9 ~plays shard
8
OR
75 ~plays shard
38 ~plays shard
19 ~plays shard
10 ~plays shard
8
Also, i assume it removes current quanta if it's above the new minimum?
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on February 01, 2012, 03:17:30 pm
Post by: Powerfrog on February 01, 2012, 03:56:20 pm
For some reason this makes me think "Should there be a deck-killing card?" That is, something which, say, shows your opponent the top card of their deck, and throws it in the bin! Would work well with rewind, maybe too well xPThat's honestly a really awesome idea. It would have to be expensive though, as that's a kinda powerful ability.
As you say it would work nicely with reverse time but it also has good combos with eternity, mindgate, denial decks, deckout decks, any deck that can afford it, really.
Post by: Anarook on February 29, 2012, 06:39:49 am
I do have a thought though, someone ealier mentioned this being more focused on reducing what a player can do in a turn rather than limiting which cards can be played.
Why not make this a shard that
Post by: Avenger on March 14, 2012, 09:08:48 pm
Post by: willng3 on March 14, 2012, 09:14:17 pm
Was this renamed to Shard of Justice?It looks this way. When its rework is announced by zanz I'll update everything in the OP accordingly.
Post by: willng3 on March 15, 2012, 10:11:40 pm
To keep a record of Shard of Conscience:
(http://i.imgur.com/zjnwX.png)
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on March 15, 2012, 10:49:32 pm
Post by: Poker Alho on March 15, 2012, 11:51:41 pm
this can actually be a pretty good counter against mono-aether ironically
Post by: Avenger on March 15, 2012, 11:56:01 pm
Post by: willng3 on March 16, 2012, 12:13:53 am
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 16, 2012, 12:23:42 am
Post by: Absol on March 16, 2012, 12:40:28 am
Post by: willng3 on March 16, 2012, 01:13:14 am
1) SoW does not refund quanta when canceled. This is not consistent with SoR, therefore it seems like a bug to me.
2) SoW affects Burrowed creatures when Burrow and Immortality are two separate features. This also becomes a bit ridiculous with Graboids considering the status is maintained when it Evolves into a Shrieker. If this is to truly remain "Aether's Shard" then Burrow should not be included, in my opinion.
3) When Deja Vu splits the new copy will not retain SoW's effect. This seems inconsistent with it retaining Momentum, Adrenaline, and Quint. This seems similar to how Deja Vu works when Webbed though, so eh...
Huge improvement over its previous form though, if you ask me :D
Post by: Helston on March 16, 2012, 01:17:20 am
Post by: EmeraldTiger on March 16, 2012, 01:27:56 am
Post by: Kuroaitou on March 16, 2012, 01:31:06 am
While a good idea, I can't see this card being too useful, requiring either Immortal, Phase Dragon, Anubis (and how often do you see one of them?) or quintessence (or equivalent) to be used. Although it does give Immortals a well welcomed buff (as well as reflective shields).You also forgot Turquoise Nymphs. ::)
But in all seriousness, Wisdom seems to be a HUGE bonus to all immaterial creatures; obviously this benefits :aether moreso than any other element, but I'm sure in the future other cards will get their own unique forms of immortality (Earth has 'burrow' should the effect stay the way is now, Time has Anubis + SoR, etc.).
Also, grats to moomoose for inspiring this idea. :) You'll get an article once it gets finally implemented in-game.
Post by: kurathedog on March 16, 2012, 01:33:10 am
Intersting. Now mono aether has yet another buff. Makes sense. Although Dragons getting past Thorn carapace and fire shield will be a pain to deal with for my stall...
If so, it would be a great metagame decison. Run shard, adding extra to mono aether, but getting past other Hax shield? Run mirror/emrald, protecting you less, but working as a sudden win against mono-aether running the shard?
And another nerf to bolts, with the increased usage of reflect shields. Then again, conscience already did that.
This is also an intersting decision combined with quint.
This + Quint: Earlier quint for earlier damage, then momentum when you need to override a shield (Think lava golem).
Momentum + Quint: You have to wait for both if you want the entire affect. However, you need to wait for both anyway against thorn or fire shield, in the case of a golem. Momentum can also be cast before, if your opponent isn't cc heavy, and you want to get past a shield (Ex. Mono Aether)
Also, suggestion: Link to this page where you mention the shard change in the OP, so people can find the start of the discussion on the new shard easier. That has always bugged me about card threads, hard to find the beginning of discussions about a particular revision.
Post by: zanzarino on March 16, 2012, 01:58:25 am
Well this is super fun. A few things I've noticed though:1) Fixed
1) SoW does not refund quanta when canceled. This is not consistent with SoR, therefore it seems like a bug to me.
2) SoW affects Burrowed creatures when Burrow and Immortality are two separate features. This also becomes a bit ridiculous with Graboids considering the status is maintained when it Evolves into a Shrieker. If this is to truly remain "Aether's Shard" then Burrow should not be included, in my opinion.
3) When Deja Vu splits the new copy will not retain SoW's effect. This seems inconsistent with it retaining Momentum, Adrenaline, and Quint. This seems similar to how Deja Vu works when Webbed though, so eh...
Huge improvement over its previous form though, if you ask me :D
2) Fixed
3) Fixed
... hopefully. Thank you for the bug report.
Post by: willng3 on March 16, 2012, 02:08:49 am
Also, suggestion: Link to this page where you mention the shard change in the OP, so people can find the start of the discussion on the new shard easier. That has always bugged me about card threads, hard to find the beginning of discussions about a particular revision.Good point. I'll modify the OP accordingly.
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on March 16, 2012, 02:17:30 am
Post by: willng3 on March 16, 2012, 02:22:00 am
Just a note : the OP doesn't display the upgraded version giving a +4 | +0 buff for me.Yes I was in the middle of uploading the updated upgraded image as you posted this. Fixed now.
Post by: Helston on March 16, 2012, 02:48:23 am
Post by: ZephyrPhantom on March 16, 2012, 03:00:31 am
My browser shows it as this, despite clearing my cache (The new upgrade is in the spoiler labeled "Old Version" and the old one is still the upgrade):Just a note : the OP doesn't display the upgraded version giving a +4 | +0 buff for me.Yes I was in the middle of uploading the updated upgraded image as you posted this. Fixed now.
(http://i.imgur.com/bJsD1.png)Not sure if it's just me though.
Post by: willng3 on March 16, 2012, 03:06:10 am
Post by: Atico on March 16, 2012, 08:16:48 am
Then it will be useful card, also for tactic with reflect attack. Having 6 SoW, Reflective Shield and waiting for game against Aether won't be very popular and this card will be UP. When we change this card, then it will be interesting tactic with reflect.
Post by: SnoWeb on March 16, 2012, 09:41:42 am
This shard is good, but it is very situational. It will be more interesting when we change text into: "Target creature now deals spell damage. If Immaterial gain +4/0"Yes. Or if not immaterial gain -4|+0.
Btw. Should it work with borrowed creatures? and with Seraph (Seraph is not immaterial it is shielded)?
Post by: Xenocidius on March 16, 2012, 09:44:56 am
Post by: jacker on March 16, 2012, 10:15:18 am
Say, Target creature now deals spell damage, if the creature is immaterial (does it counts burrowed too?) or if the creature is :aether gains +4|+0.
Post by: Absol on March 16, 2012, 10:44:17 am
I don't like tha fact that is too specialized. It would allow a base effect (granting spell damage) adding an effect based on the mark or similiar.This might be a good idea, actually. As of now, it's too situational and can't even be used outside of highly specialized decks. (mono Aether, quinted critters)
Say, Target creature now deals spell damage, if the creature is immaterial (does it counts burrowed too?) or if the creature is :aether gains +4|+0.
Compare SoR, which can be usable in any deck but will benefit much more on :time decks.
Post by: Atico on March 16, 2012, 10:49:35 am
Aether has got low attack, so I prefer +4/0 for Immaterial. Burrow creatures shouldn't get this bonus, because this Shard should be for Aether, but we can discuss about it.This shard is good, but it is very situational. It will be more interesting when we change text into: "Target creature now deals spell damage. If Immaterial gain +4/0"Yes. Or if not immaterial gain -4|+0.
Btw. Should it work with borrowed creatures? and with Seraph (Seraph is not immaterial it is shielded)?
I think also about other buff. Maybe text "Target creature now deals spell damage. If Immaterial create Lighting" will be more interesting? But I don't know what change will be better - Lighting to hand or +5 damage instantly. This card has got potential, but we must allow use it on all creatures, not only Immaterial.
And last thing. When SoW can avoid shield then also SoFr need buff. Both cards have got similar effect (avoid shield and attack bonus). +4/0 means often more than +50% critical hit and You always avoid shield. In SoFr You need seven creatures (7x15% = 105%) to get this effect every turn (statistical), SoFr is too random effect, it is easier destroy SoFr than Immaterial creature and SoFr cost much more... We need balance here (nerf SoW or buff SoFr).
Post by: Avenger on March 16, 2012, 10:58:45 am
Post by: Shantu on March 16, 2012, 12:06:04 pm
This, reflective and AM: what can kill you?Poison.
Post by: Higurashi on March 16, 2012, 12:22:35 pm
Fractal~ (+Silence if you wanna)This, reflective and AM: what can kill you?Poison.
Also fast rushes/denial will easily overcome it as it's a combo and quanta-intense. It's still too situational due to requiring Quint, but if you can stall for a Turquoise Nymph it might be a decent domination concept.
Post by: teffy on March 16, 2012, 12:47:01 pm
It´s interesting, that "wise creatures" ignore all shield effect, also Fire Shield...
Should be changed.
I have also deck ideas, which would be better when +4/+0 would only be for the unupped shard.
AI: used "ablaze" to damage himself with spell damage + reflective shield.
Post by: Avenger on March 16, 2012, 01:17:55 pm
Mono Aether can use this shard instead of Immortal."Wise" creatures cast spell on the opponent, obviously they ignore the physical shield counter effects. They don't ignore the reflective effect, which physical creatures ignore.
It´s interesting, that "wise creatures" ignore all shield effect, also Fire Shield...
Should be changed.
I have also deck ideas, which would be better when +4/+0 would only be for the unupped shard.
AI: used "ablaze" to damage himself with spell damage + reflective shield.
AI: also uses dive on its own "wise" pegasus + reflective.
@Higs: yep, it is very slow, and there are finite number of shards. This could work vs. slow AI only. Or in a specific counter deck.
It can help aether to overcome most shields, though. So, as an offensive tool, it is best for mono aether. Have you tried this in mono aether vs. strong shield false gods?
Post by: RavingRabbid on March 16, 2012, 01:59:26 pm
Post by: Higurashi on March 16, 2012, 02:07:20 pm
Yeah, and it's extremely redundant. The only FG I found they are better against than SoG's is Gemini. Yes, not even Chaos Lord, because he has Momentums and PC where you'd rather have healing and bait his Steal with a Dim so he loses his Diss Field.Mono Aether can use this shard instead of Immortal."Wise" creatures cast spell on the opponent, obviously they ignore the physical shield counter effects. They don't ignore the reflective effect, which physical creatures ignore.
It´s interesting, that "wise creatures" ignore all shield effect, also Fire Shield...
Should be changed.
I have also deck ideas, which would be better when +4/+0 would only be for the unupped shard.
AI: used "ablaze" to damage himself with spell damage + reflective shield.
AI: also uses dive on its own "wise" pegasus + reflective.
@Higs: yep, it is very slow, and there are finite number of shards. This could work vs. slow AI only. Or in a specific counter deck.
It can help aether to overcome most shields, though. So, as an offensive tool, it is best for mono aether. Have you tried this in mono aether vs. strong shield false gods?
I went 2-13 with a SoW variant, but that was a bad streak. What I like is that it speeds the damage up quite a bit. It's fun, but.. so useless. See, the thing about Monoaether is that offensive power isn't that important. It's enough that the offensive power it has is almost impossible to remove and escape, similar to direct damage like Poison/Bolts.
Now if we juxtapose that to PvP, the same applies, with the added fact that if you want to beat MA, you bring PC. No one decides to stall Aether without sufficient quanta denial, because it has Fractal, so Shields are almost never a concern for MA.
Except of SoR-Anubis can it be used outside of :aether?It can be used with Quint and anything, both offensively and defensively, as well as Turquoise Nymph and anything.
Post by: willng3 on March 16, 2012, 02:25:17 pm
Also, Morning Glory and Seraph.Except of SoR-Anubis can it be used outside of :aether?It can be used with Quint and anything, both offensively and defensively, as well as Turquoise Nymph and anything.
Post by: moomoose on March 16, 2012, 02:27:43 pm
higs, how would you suggest this mechanic be improved to meet your expectations?
Post by: teffy on March 16, 2012, 02:35:17 pm
Well, I don´t think that the ignorance of normal shield effect is always obvious:Mono Aether can use this shard instead of Immortal."Wise" creatures cast spell on the opponent, obviously they ignore the physical shield counter effects. They don't ignore the reflective effect, which physical creatures ignore.
It´s interesting, that "wise creatures" ignore all shield effect, also Fire Shield...
Should be changed.
I have also deck ideas, which would be better when +4/+0 would only be for the unupped shard.
AI: used "ablaze" to damage himself with spell damage + reflective shield.
AI: also uses dive on its own "wise" pegasus + reflective.
[...]
Sundial stops creatures from attacking. Sundial stops creatures which do spell damage (check trainer)
The card text of Fire Shield says it damages attacking creatures - it doesn´t damage creatures with spell damage.
Either change card texts or the shields. I personally think that these "wise" creatures should ignore all damage reduction except Reflective/Jade, but shields should freeze, delay , damag , or turn them into skeletons.
Post by: Higurashi on March 16, 2012, 02:37:46 pm
worth mentioning that saraphs benefit its limited.As I quoted in the 1.30 thread, I had the same idea as Shantu. It's far too situational, so allowing it for use on all creatures with the attack bonus for immaterial creatures would be neat. The problem is of course that it'd be very similar to Momentum.. in honesty I think the entire concept is way too mild for a Shard considering the outrageous things Shards like SoB and SoSa do. As I commented in that thread, I actually think Zanz should bring back the Lightning-on-a-stick Shard.
higs, how would you suggest this mechanic be improved to meet your expectations?
See, the odd thing I find about it in its current state is that it's a buff.. but you can't combo it with TU at all. It's like it's working against its own element.
Aye, it works like Momentum, because it even bypasses Gravity Pull. But if you think about it, you're giving the creature a way to attack at range with lightning magic. It wouldn't make sense to get hurt by shields with that in mind.Well, I don´t think that the ignorance of normal shield effect is always obvious:Mono Aether can use this shard instead of Immortal."Wise" creatures cast spell on the opponent, obviously they ignore the physical shield counter effects. They don't ignore the reflective effect, which physical creatures ignore.
It´s interesting, that "wise creatures" ignore all shield effect, also Fire Shield...
Should be changed.
I have also deck ideas, which would be better when +4/+0 would only be for the unupped shard.
AI: used "ablaze" to damage himself with spell damage + reflective shield.
AI: also uses dive on its own "wise" pegasus + reflective.
[...]
Sundial stops creatures from attacking. Sundial stops creatures which do spell damage (check trainer)
The card text of Fire Shield says it damages attacking creatures - it doesn´t damage creatures with spell damage.
Either change card texts or the shields. I personally think that these "wise" creatures should ignore all damage reduction except Reflective/Jade, but shields should freeze, delay , damag , or turn them into skeletons.
Post by: RavingRabbid on March 16, 2012, 02:51:23 pm
*sigh* so I guess this will hardly have uses without using :aether...Also, Morning Glory and Seraph.Except of SoR-Anubis can it be used outside of :aether?It can be used with Quint and anything, both offensively and defensively, as well as Turquoise Nymph and anything.
Post by: moomoose on March 16, 2012, 03:02:57 pm
i have a card idea in mind for an aether shield that had a base damage reduction of 1|2, with an ability similar to saraphs, which would make the shield spell reflective for a turn. i think this would distinguish it from mirror/jade shields sufficiently but a case could be made for simply making it reflective by default, as well. in any event, the idea is to allow the effective defensive strategy for this shard in an aether focused deck. but obviously this shard cant be balanced around a potential shield idea which may never enter the game, and intrinsic boosts to the card may be warranted.
i understand aether is your favorite element, its tied as mine as well, but i dont think every shard can have the impact as a SoB or SoF or SoR etc, some shards are left by the wayside in comparison, SoD and void come to mind, even SoG has lost some of its luster. SoI may even be in the "fun but not reliable/useful" category when all is said and done. SoP was arguably the runt of the litter and it was given the opportunity to be buffed not too long after implementation. if SoW needs to be buffed after implementation, it very well may be even if it doesnt get it now, which it very well may still.
and im not going to pretend im not extremely biased on the matter, but still my 2 :electrum
Post by: RRQJ on March 16, 2012, 06:09:29 pm
The change mentioned (allowing this to be played on all creatures, buffing immaterial by +4 atk) sounds pretty good to me. And the momentum thing really isn't a problem. The card says to convert to spell damage, which has always ignored most sheilds; the card doesn't specifically say "ignore shields."
Also, if we stay with such rigid classifications, then antimatter technically should be changed, since it causes the creature to ignore most shields.
Post by: Higurashi on March 16, 2012, 06:20:37 pm
Post by: Atico on March 16, 2012, 06:31:29 pm
trying to argue that this shard needs a buff because it is weak compared to the OP shards is probably the wrong way to go about it. For all we know, zanz might have a nerf in store for SoSa and such.SoSa won't be probably nerf (unfortunately). Shards have one big problem, they aren't balanced.
The change mentioned (allowing this to be played on all creatures, buffing immaterial by +4 atk) sounds pretty good to me. And the momentum thing really isn't a problem. The card says to convert to spell damage, which has always ignored most sheilds; the card doesn't specifically say "ignore shields."
Also, if we stay with such rigid classifications, then antimatter technically should be changed, since it causes the creature to ignore most shields.
Some Shards gives bonus for specific Element (like SoG, SoD etc), others not or very small (SoFr, SoSe, SoFe).
Few Shards can work with all Elements (SoFr, SoR, SoSe), others has got problem with it (SoW).
Some Shards give new ability/tactics in game (SoW, SoFo, SoSe, SoV, SoSa, SoFe etc.), others changes nothing in game (SoG, SoD, SoFr).
SoR can be used on all creatures, so why SoW not? (argument for buff SoW)
SoFr has got similar skill and it is worst and more expensive than SoW (argument for nerf SoW)
Echh, it will be difficult to balanced all of this Shards...
SoV, SoFr - needs the biggest buff
SoSa - need the biggest nerf
But it is only my opinion.
Post by: RRQJ on March 16, 2012, 07:21:16 pm
Not what it's about at all. Life, Darkness, Gravity, Time, Water.. all rather calm and mostly constructive (except Darkness) elements. Fire, Aether and Death? Inevitable destruction, power, in your face, explosions in space, dragons everywhere. It's about elemental themes, not bias or OPness. Plus, as I said, a spell buff to immaterial creatures = works against Fractal and TU.So the aether shard just isn't destructive enough? I personally don't see aether as a destructive element. It's theme appears more aligned with duplication and immortality, with this mystical, spell-ish feel. The shard causes creatures to do spell damage, so it feels fitting to me. And at least it definitely fits more than the previous incarnation (reduce quanta pool cap, which seems more like a gravity thing).
As for not working with fractal and TU, well, stuff happens. Rage potion doesn't work well with fire creatures, reducing it to mostly another cc card, crusader can't endow morning glory, bone wall clashes with SoSa...and even fractal (and TU, to a lesser degree) don't work well with it own element's creatures, which actually would have more interaction with this shard.
Again, you're trying to compare shards with each other; you need to compare the shard's potential utility within the whole game. Some cards will be more powerful than others; you can't avoid that in games like this. All you can do is try to make their power good enough that they will find "sufficient use." Some shards will have more use just due to the kind of effect they have; that's okay. Shards like SoSa, and potentially the fire shard, are OP compared to all cards; they should be nerfed because of that, not just because they are better than other shards.trying to argue that this shard needs a buff because it is weak compared to the OP shards is probably the wrong way to go about it. For all we know, zanz might have a nerf in store for SoSa and such.SoSa won't be probably nerf (unfortunately). Shards have one big problem, they aren't balanced.
The change mentioned (allowing this to be played on all creatures, buffing immaterial by +4 atk) sounds pretty good to me. And the momentum thing really isn't a problem. The card says to convert to spell damage, which has always ignored most sheilds; the card doesn't specifically say "ignore shields."
Also, if we stay with such rigid classifications, then antimatter technically should be changed, since it causes the creature to ignore most shields.
Some Shards gives bonus for specific Element (like SoG, SoD etc), others not or very small (SoFr, SoSe, SoFe).
Few Shards can work with all Elements (SoFr, SoR, SoSe), others has got problem with it (SoW).
Some Shards give new ability/tactics in game (SoW, SoFo, SoSe, SoV, SoSa, SoFe etc.), others changes nothing in game (SoG, SoD, SoFr).
SoR can be used on all creatures, so why SoW not? (argument for buff SoW)
SoFr has got similar skill and it is worst and more expensive than SoW (argument for nerf SoW)
Echh, it will be difficult to balanced all of this Shards...
SoV, SoFr - needs the biggest buff
SoSa - need the biggest nerf
But it is only my opinion.
So when I say nerf SoSa, I'm saying to make it so that it isn't defining the game. It may still be the best shard in the end, but if it no longer defines the game, then it's fine.
Post by: Higurashi on March 16, 2012, 07:32:07 pm
Yes, Aether is also the element of wisdom, equilibrium and mystical energies from different dimensions and space, but I see potential and a trend in Shards to embody the more powerful/forceful parts of an element. I think it fits much better. To add to that, Aether will no longer be tied with Fire for the least amount of cards once Seraph is out; Aether will have the least amount of cards, period. As such, I'd love to see a unique card that embodies something calmer like wisdom, equilibrium, or anything else. The beauty of my element is that it embodies so many things. ^_^
If those roles are reversed, I don't mind at all. In fact, since Shards are usually banned in competitive PvP it would probably be beneficial to me as an Aether player.
Post by: RavingRabbid on March 16, 2012, 07:43:35 pm
Post by: RRQJ on March 16, 2012, 08:56:45 pm
It doesn't feel powerful or forceful, rather. The graphical effect and mechanics are perfect for that, it's just the weakness of the card that cripples it. Especially how situational it is.
My complain is for how little it works outside aether.Hence why I say just make the change that was mentioned (expand to all creatures, bonus damage only for immaterial creatures). Perhaps at a slight cost increase (5/3?), so momentum doesn't become outclassed completely. This would also indirectly buff the reflective shields, which have often been overlooked for not being worth it.
Post by: eaglgenes101 on March 16, 2012, 11:46:08 pm
Post by: Kuroaitou on March 16, 2012, 11:57:49 pm
There are only 4 cards for which this will work in its current form. Splashing will be extremely hard.Quintessence -> applies to everything
Anubis -> applies to everything
Turquoise Nymph -> applies to everything
Morning Glory (flown)
Phase Dragon
Immortal
Seraph (1 turn)
I don't think it's that bad to be honest, but it would be nice if it could target anything as a more expensive momentum.
Post by: Drake_XIV on March 17, 2012, 12:36:03 am
- More cards are added to work with spell damage
- Range of SoW is increased to all creatures, while Immaterial receives an incredible boost accordingly.
Post by: Picheleiro on March 17, 2012, 01:25:04 pm
Well, that´s a 3 combo card for one creature.There are only 4 cards for which this will work in its current form. Splashing will be extremely hard.Quintessence -> applies to everything
I would love what it can target nonquinted creatures too. If I had to say something, I would say that the shard removes the active hability of the target. You can use it in unquinted creatures but the mess with the growing creatures or control ones. Quinted creatures dont have more habs, so I think Its a good trade.
Post by: teffy on March 17, 2012, 01:48:18 pm
Cards , which cost X :rainbow are "cheaper" than a card with 1-2 :gravity. ALL decks with creatures could use this momentum-like effect.There are only 4 cards for which this will work in its current form. Splashing will be extremely hard.Quintessence -> applies to everything
Anubis -> applies to everything
Turquoise Nymph -> applies to everything
Morning Glory (flown)
Phase Dragon
Immortal
Seraph (1 turn)
I don't think it's that bad to be honest, but it would be nice if it could target anything as a more expensive momentum.
And the card Momentum ? Well, you know.
Post by: Absol on March 17, 2012, 02:36:02 pm
Still too situational though.
Post by: gphysalis on March 20, 2012, 06:47:19 pm
This shard is perfect for ignoring gravity shield with phase dragons
A nice buff to reflective shields too
Post by: waterzx on March 22, 2012, 12:59:06 am
In the case of Antimatter, we can kill/RT the affected creature
But if the opponent uses the SoW combo on your creature, there's NO way to fight back, everything in the combo is immaterial
Post by: Poker Alho on March 22, 2012, 01:14:39 am
Should we add a time limit to the spell damage effect ? maybe 4 turns ?its not really important that the combo has no way to fight back, there are other combos like that in the game:
In the case of Antimatter, we can kill/RT the affected creature
But if the opponent uses the SoW combo on your creature, there's NO way to fight back, everything in the combo is immaterial
momentum & quint
freeze & shockwave
all these 3 combos have something in common: you can only do them 6 times in a game, not counting the fact that a 2 card combo is less stable than a no-combo based deck
Post by: SnoWeb on March 22, 2012, 07:39:43 am
momentum & quintYou forgot SoV + PA
freeze & shockwave
you can only do them 6 times in a game, not counting the fact that a 2 card combo is less stable than a no-combo based deckYou can do it only 6 times, right. The arena decks however can do it 12 times. Ouch.
Post by: waterzx on March 22, 2012, 09:47:17 am
You can do it only 6 times, right. The arena decks however can do it 12 times. Ouch.
You may say it's slow to get the combo out. But I don't think you can get your creatures out fast enough to avoid the combo unless you have a lot of creatures or have some ways to speed up the drawing.
Especially when you are facing a Aether deck :
If you put out creatures one by one, you get hurt by the combo
If you hold the creatures in hand and wait for outburst, the phase dragons can still kill you.
Tell me what I can do to beat this ?
I think I have been over-worrying
Post by: Poker Alho on March 22, 2012, 10:42:39 am
You forgot SoV + PAYou can fight back that combo, with SoD and Stone skin, thats like saying SoG and PA is an unbeatable healing combo lol
Post by: willng3 on March 22, 2012, 01:32:47 pm
Couldn't the exact same be said of Momentum + Quint and the whole SoW Reflective combo?You forgot SoV + PAYou can fight back that combo, with SoD and Stone skin
Post by: Poker Alho on March 22, 2012, 01:54:23 pm
and we can just say that you can fight back freeze & shockwave with quanta denial and quintCouldn't the exact same be said of Momentum + Quint and the whole SoW Reflective combo?You forgot SoV + PAYou can fight back that combo, with SoD and Stone skin
Post by: zhangvict on March 22, 2012, 01:55:46 pm
No, with SoV damage is very limited, up to 18 a turn with darkness mark. Thus SS and SoD is much more effective against SoV + PA than Momentum + Quint. A single flying OD titan with quint can deal up to 158 dmg in 1 turn. No amount of SS can wing themselves out of that one.Couldn't the exact same be said of Momentum + Quint and the whole SoW Reflective combo?You forgot SoV + PAYou can fight back that combo, with SoD and Stone skin
and that SoSac > almost everythingand we can just say that you can fight back freeze & shockwave with quanta denial and quintCouldn't the exact same be said of Momentum + Quint and the whole SoW Reflective combo?You forgot SoV + PAYou can fight back that combo, with SoD and Stone skin
Post by: SnoWeb on March 22, 2012, 02:47:12 pm
and that SoSac > almost everythingSoSac < SoV + PA ..
Post by: zhangvict on March 22, 2012, 02:51:27 pm
and that SoSac > almost everythingSoSac < SoV + PA ..
and that SoSac > almost everything
Post by: willng3 on March 22, 2012, 05:20:18 pm
Consider the following scenario-
1. Your opponent plays an Elite Charger.
2. You Quint + SoW the Charger while you have a Jade Shield in play.
3. The Charger's damage is reflected next turn.
There's a conflict of mechanics somewhere here. On one hand we have Momentum which specifically negates all effects of shields used against you, while on the other hand we have spell damage which is reflected by the reflective status. I really don't know if this can be considered a bug, but since we have a creature doing the attacking here even if it is treated as spell damage, it seems like the attack should still receive a Momentum effect and ignore the reflective status of the Jade Shield.
There are two logical explanations for this occurring from my point of view:
1. The "Wisdom" status takes precedence over Momentum.
2. The idea of "Momentum spell damage" is not recognized and thus Momentum is completely ignored.
In the case of point two I then question why "Adrenaline spell damage" is possible when at this moment there is no spell which has a built in Adrenaline effect nor does one exist for a Momentum effect. In the case of point one (which I believe is more likely the case) I question if it wouldn't be possible to reverse the order since I assume they can't coexist simultaneously.
Post by: Zso_Zso on March 22, 2012, 05:40:30 pm
Does it start bouncing back-and-forth infinitely ? :o
Post by: ~Napalm on March 22, 2012, 06:01:09 pm
Post by: Avenger on March 22, 2012, 06:05:24 pm
...Not really. Adrenaline makes your creature attack x more times.
There's a conflict of mechanics somewhere here.
...
Momentum makes your creature's physical attack bypass any shield.
Spell attacks are not physical attacks, that's the whole point of this effect.
But they are still attacks, so adrenaline keeps working.
Post by: willng3 on March 22, 2012, 06:11:21 pm
It's not specifically stated on Momentum that it only applies to physical attacks in the same way that there's no note of this on Adrenaline. I'm not seeing why it's not applicable to both....Not really. Adrenaline makes your creature attack x more times.
There's a conflict of mechanics somewhere here.
...
Momentum makes your creature's physical attack bypass any shield.
Spell attacks are not physical attacks, that's the whole point of this effect.
But they are still attacks, so adrenaline keeps working.
Post by: The Chosen One on March 22, 2012, 07:07:42 pm
Post by: ~Napalm on March 23, 2012, 02:25:58 pm
Post by: willng3 on March 23, 2012, 03:38:03 pm
Well if you're going to try that argument, I want a note on Rustler telling me not to SoR it. Just sayin'.Which is a completely straw man argument.
SoR + Rustler is a unique interaction purposely designed to avoid the exploit of infinite quanta generation. How does Momentum applying to spell damage cause anywhere near the same type of exploit to the game?
Furthermore SoR + Rustler yields an effect which you would never expect to occur just from reading the two cards separately. Momentum however makes no indication that its ability is solely reserved for physical damage or spell damage. Therefore I make the argument that Momentum should apply to both physical and spell damage, which requires no new note to be made on the card itself. This note would however be warranted, based on your argument, if Momentum only applied to physical damage. So in other words, your comment does nothing except to reinforce my argument.
That aside, I have another strange phenomenon I thought was worth mentioning. Consider the following:
1. Antimatter'd creatures do not receive additional damage reduction from shields.
2. Antimatter'd creatures are not affected by the reflective status.
3. Holy Light is not affected by the reflective status.
4. Antimatter + SoW will cause a creature's attack to be affected by the reflective status, effectively healing their owners.
I list these facts to address the possible logical explanations for Antimatter'd attacks being affected by reflective shields. It has been agreed upon that Holy Light is not reflected because it is healing the player instead of dealing damage to them. Therefore the logical explanation for Antimatter'd SoW'd attacks being reflected would be that it is dealing negative damage (which is somehow different from healing the player I guess). However, Antimatter alone does not receive damage reduction from shields meaning that the attack is no longer physical. If the attack is no longer physical then it would be natural to assume that the creature is now dealing spell damage or is healing the opponent, thus bypassing damage reduction. But then Antimatter alone is not reflected, which would cause my method of logic to conclude that Antimatter converts the attack to healing. Therefore Antimatter + SoW would seem to be parallel to Holy Light such that it is not affected by the reflective status.
Is this not the case because SoW converts the "healing damage" into "negative spell damage"? Really, the more I try to grasp the concept of physical versus spell damage, the more I seem to confuse myself :D
Post by: Avenger on March 23, 2012, 05:31:19 pm
Zanz usually fixes quirks like these only if there is an exploit.
Post by: mesaprotector on March 23, 2012, 09:59:31 pm
*snip*There are other "exceptions" to SoW which also don't seem to make sense - Quint + a scorpion + SoW doesn't give the poison damage for a successful attack, and although I haven't tested it I suspect the same is true with vampires.
Post by: Essence on March 24, 2012, 05:58:36 pm
Post by: willng3 on March 24, 2012, 06:55:42 pm
Right, because as Zanz has said, the creature stops attacking and instead stands back and casts nukes at the opponent. So anything that would normally trigger on an attack (Momentum, Vampirism, Poison, etc.) doesn't. Right?Eh, I guess that makes sense. The only thing that wouldn't make sense to me is how a Spark or a Photon can be affected by those things considering that I can't see them ramming anything physical into the opponent, but a nuke, bolt of lightning, explosion, etc. is somehow unable to do the same. However, being pure energy neither one should be affected by Momentum to begin with from a physics standpoint and yet they are so...so I guess I'll just have to accept that logic doesn't apply to this situation the way it should.
Post by: Essence on March 25, 2012, 04:40:45 am
Post by: Chapuz on March 25, 2012, 10:39:01 pm
My only problem with this shard is that it seems like there's just not enough use for it outside of an :aether (or at least :aether -tainted) deck. I feel like it should be "target creature deals spell damage and if it is immaterial gains +4/+0." That wouldn't change the effect on Aether much, but would give it SOME use to other elements.Anubis + SoR + SoW + Mirror shield.
I agree it would be better, but I bet there are going to be suppa decks, like Liquid Antimatter 3.0 (Liquid shadow, antimatter + reflective damage for the not antimattered creatures)
Post by: EvilDeathX on March 30, 2012, 07:12:07 pm
Post by: Captain Scibra on April 10, 2012, 11:31:37 pm
Post by: valiance on April 11, 2012, 02:31:40 am
Post by: Laxadarap on April 11, 2012, 02:35:58 am
Feels to me like the spell damage part should be generalized to any creature, while the stat gain is for immaterial creatures, or even result in reduced stats for material cratures so it isn't a simple Momentum card. This would be a buff to reflectivity to have this card be more versatile, not to mention confining it to a requirement that is found only with one element, and a rare mutation, really gives the shard a low rating compared to other shards.
One of the problems I find with the other shards is that they don't support their respective elements enough. Shards shouldn't be able to be included in any old rainbow, sose excluded. SoW can't work without aether unless it's an SoR'd anubis or a Seraph. This is how the shards should be, not this SoF crap that can be put in any rainbow in exchange for explosions.
Post by: EvilDeathX on April 11, 2012, 02:59:24 am
Cool, phase dragons now need not fear gravity shields, and the attack boost is equivalent to that of an extra immortal, so I guess this could replace the immortals in mono aether. The only problem being this is a rare :P
I don't even use "Immortal" I just use a Mark of :fire and a few "Deflagration."
Works better in my opinion.
Post by: furballdn on April 11, 2012, 03:06:04 am
That requires an off mark, and spaces in your deck to be filled for deflags.Cool, phase dragons now need not fear gravity shields, and the attack boost is equivalent to that of an extra immortal, so I guess this could replace the immortals in mono aether. The only problem being this is a rare :P
I don't even use "Immortal" I just use a Mark of :fire and a few "Deflagration."
Works better in my opinion.
Post by: EvilDeathX on April 11, 2012, 03:41:12 pm
That requires an off mark, and spaces in your deck to be filled for deflags.Cool, phase dragons now need not fear gravity shields, and the attack boost is equivalent to that of an extra immortal, so I guess this could replace the immortals in mono aether. The only problem being this is a rare :P
I don't even use "Immortal" I just use a Mark of :fire and a few "Deflagration."
Works better in my opinion.
Say what you wan't but I am perfectly happy with my 35-card "Aetherofuze" Deck.
Post by: valiance on April 11, 2012, 04:04:16 pm
Anyways using deflags or SoW both have their pros and cons. While SoW not only allows phase dragons to bypass pesky shields, they also give a neat attack boost, which deflags dont provide. However you are completely screwed against reflective shields, which while can be played around with by not using SoW, it results in dead cards in your deck.
On the other hand, there would be no problem against most shields with deflags, and it also has the added bonus of removing troublesome weapons such as pulverizer.
I havent actually tried out the card yet, but I suppose it will be a matter of preferance, and all's good as long as you are happy with what you are using ;)
Post by: Drake_XIV on April 12, 2012, 10:37:58 pm
One of the problems I find with the other shards is that they don't support their respective elements enough. Shards shouldn't be able to be included in any old rainbow, SoSe excluded. SoW can't work without Aether unless it's an SoR'd Anubis or a Seraph. This is how the shards should be, not this SoF crap that can be put in any rainbow in exchange for explosions.My thoughts exactly. Particularly in SoBe and SoF, there aren't really strong ties with Shards' Elements. SoW is one that actually tries to incorporate some affinity while maintaining its Other status.
Post by: furballdn on April 13, 2012, 02:34:13 am
It's actually the least "other" out of all the other cards. As it is, it can only be used if you have :aether creatures, or are using quints. It can also be used as a counter against immaterial with reflective shields, but that's it. Outside of that, it's useless.One of the problems I find with the other shards is that they don't support their respective elements enough. Shards shouldn't be able to be included in any old rainbow, SoSe excluded. SoW can't work without Aether unless it's an SoR'd Anubis or a Seraph. This is how the shards should be, not this SoF crap that can be put in any rainbow in exchange for explosions.My thoughts exactly. Particularly in SoBe and SoF, there aren't really strong ties with Shards' Elements. SoW is one that actually tries to incorporate some affinity while maintaining its Other status.
Post by: Laxadarap on April 13, 2012, 02:43:01 am
It's actually the least "other" out of all the other cards. As it is, it can only be used if you have :aether creatures, or are using quints. It can also be used as a counter against immaterial with reflective shields, but that's it. Outside of that, it's useless.One of the problems I find with the other shards is that they don't support their respective elements enough. Shards shouldn't be able to be included in any old rainbow, SoSe excluded. SoW can't work without Aether unless it's an SoR'd Anubis or a Seraph. This is how the shards should be, not this SoF crap that can be put in any rainbow in exchange for explosions.My thoughts exactly. Particularly in SoBe and SoF, there aren't really strong ties with Shards' Elements. SoW is one that actually tries to incorporate some affinity while maintaining its Other status.
IMO, how a shard should be. And don't forget seraph :D
Post by: furballdn on April 13, 2012, 02:49:02 am
If that's the case, then why are shards other? Why not elemental?It's actually the least "other" out of all the other cards. As it is, it can only be used if you have :aether creatures, or are using quints. It can also be used as a counter against immaterial with reflective shields, but that's it. Outside of that, it's useless.One of the problems I find with the other shards is that they don't support their respective elements enough. Shards shouldn't be able to be included in any old rainbow, SoSe excluded. SoW can't work without Aether unless it's an SoR'd Anubis or a Seraph. This is how the shards should be, not this SoF crap that can be put in any rainbow in exchange for explosions.My thoughts exactly. Particularly in SoBe and SoF, there aren't really strong ties with Shards' Elements. SoW is one that actually tries to incorporate some affinity while maintaining its Other status.
IMO, how a shard should be. And don't forget seraph :D
Post by: Drake_XIV on April 13, 2012, 05:46:26 am
Post by: Captain Scibra on April 13, 2012, 11:38:22 am
Because existing Shards have set the precedence
That doesn't really make sense. zanz intended that they be Other so they had general use, while being augmented when a feature found mostly or entirely of a specific element is present.
Post by: The_Tao on April 16, 2012, 06:07:58 pm
Post by: Mammalman on April 18, 2012, 05:24:06 am
Which I think is cool. It's fine that Shards have natural obvious power in their home element but it would be boring/lame if they could ONLY be used effectively AT ALL in such decks.
That said I also agree with The_Tao's point that in general it seems like shards are taking over everything by being the most crucial components of the most powerful decks. You practically need sharded/unsharded as much as you need upped/unupped...
Post by: Zso_Zso on April 29, 2012, 08:52:55 pm
When I play SoW on a quintessenced vampire, it no longer heals me...
Which is rather sad :-[
Post by: Vineroz on April 29, 2012, 10:27:04 pm
Is it intentional or a bug that this card takes away the vampire's healing ability ?
When I play SoW on a quintessenced vampire, it no longer heals me...
Which is rather sad :-[
the ability Vampire is always depended on physical damage, as in it can affect by shields.
And I think Spell damage > vampire is thematically reasonable too.
Post by: stc4025 on June 27, 2012, 09:12:51 pm
Post by: Cheesy111 on June 27, 2012, 10:56:29 pm
I disgaree with Drake that the existing shards have set the precedent of only being useful in decks composed mostly of their primary element. SoRs have plenty of uses outside of :time decks, for example. SoSe obviously goes in rainbow decks of many kinds. A common :light/ :darkness deck uses SoSac's with :light mark. Etc.SoW, SoFre, SoD, SoR have the greatest links to their respective elements. After that, probably SoV/SoG/SoBe which have loyalty not to the element but to the mark. SoSe is (I assume) meant to be rainbow because of the nature of Entropy as 'the rainbow element' and SoI is only usable in a shardbow. SoSac is not very useful in death, but it's not very useful in anything but monolight and even then it's eh because of how splashable puri/sopa are. Speaking of which, SoPa/SoFo are far too splashable.
Which I think is cool. It's fine that Shards have natural obvious power in their home element but it would be boring/lame if they could ONLY be used effectively AT ALL in such decks.
That said I also agree with The_Tao's point that in general it seems like shards are taking over everything by being the most crucial components of the most powerful decks. You practically need sharded/unsharded as much as you need upped/unupped...
I am curious as to what the light/darkness SoSac and non-Time SoR decks you are referring to are. Just posted the above to give the rest of the thread some context as to splashability in the meta (for example, you won't see SoVs used as a main strategy without darkness mark, you won't see SoDs in a monolife, but you could see SoPa in a shrieker rush or SoFo in a monofire).
Post by: Laxadarap on June 27, 2012, 11:47:21 pm
IMO this card is a little OP, it's cost needs to be raised or it needs to have only a temporary spell effect. The only counters for this are reflective shields and sundials...which is a total of like 3 individual cards to counter it. One of those things that is great if you have it but a game killer if you don't.
Definitely not. This requires a 3 card combo or immortals, which aren't too common except in monoaethers. And also unstoppable=momentum, but ignores ALL shields, this is perfectly balanced.
EDIT: Also, even if 1 creature bypasses your shields, just outrush them, its really not that hard, most strategies requiring multiple card combos are slow.
Post by: sieglsiegl on August 04, 2012, 08:18:09 pm
Post by: Higurashi on August 04, 2012, 08:27:18 pm
However, it also allows for antics with Quint and your own reflective shields.
Post by: kimham8a on November 03, 2012, 02:42:35 pm
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on November 03, 2012, 04:22:12 pm
The problem I find with this card is that you MUST have :aether to play it, which takes out the whole most-decks-can-use-it thing. Maybe allow it to buff any creature, but only quinted creatures getspell damage and +4 while any non-quinted creatures simply get +2?
Actually I like your idea. It could see use in decks that want to use doubling cards (like PU, Deja Vu or Dive-creatures), but without a second element.
Post by: kimham8a on November 03, 2012, 10:43:16 pm
The problem I find with this card is that you MUST have :aether to play it, which takes out the whole most-decks-can-use-it thing. Maybe allow it to buff any creature, but only quinted creatures getspell damage and +4 while any non-quinted creatures simply get +2?
Actually I like your idea. It could see use in decks that want to use doubling cards (like PU, Deja Vu or Dive-creatures), but without a second element.
Hmmm... I haven't thought about that, but what I really want is to make :aether usage not strictly necessary.
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on November 04, 2012, 06:21:17 am
The problem I find with this card is that you MUST have :aether to play it, which takes out the whole most-decks-can-use-it thing. Maybe allow it to buff any creature, but only quinted creatures getspell damage and +4 while any non-quinted creatures simply get +2?
Actually I like your idea. It could see use in decks that want to use doubling cards (like PU, Deja Vu or Dive-creatures), but without a second element.
Hmmm... I haven't thought about that, but what I really want is to make :aether usage not strictly necessary.
How about use on a non-quint creature only gives it spell damage? Without the +4 atk
Post by: kimham8a on November 04, 2012, 02:49:04 pm
The problem I find with this card is that you MUST have :aether to play it, which takes out the whole most-decks-can-use-it thing. Maybe allow it to buff any creature, but only quinted creatures getspell damage and +4 while any non-quinted creatures simply get +2?
Actually I like your idea. It could see use in decks that want to use doubling cards (like PU, Deja Vu or Dive-creatures), but without a second element.
Hmmm... I haven't thought about that, but what I really want is to make :aether usage not strictly necessary.
How about use on a non-quint creature only gives it spell damage? Without the +4 atk
No. Momentum would be useless.
Post by: TheManuz on November 04, 2012, 04:58:09 pm
Actually, I think it's a good idea for the following reasons:The problem I find with this card is that you MUST have :aether to play it, which takes out the whole most-decks-can-use-it thing. Maybe allow it to buff any creature, but only quinted creatures getspell damage and +4 while any non-quinted creatures simply get +2?
Actually I like your idea. It could see use in decks that want to use doubling cards (like PU, Deja Vu or Dive-creatures), but without a second element.
Hmmm... I haven't thought about that, but what I really want is to make :aether usage not strictly necessary.
How about use on a non-quint creature only gives it spell damage? Without the +4 atk
No. Momentum would be useless.
-it's called Shard of Wisdom, and spell damage is more appropriate to the wisdom theme than the buff.
-more decks using spell damage will rise (it would increase the meta)
-and so it would buff reflecting shields, increasing its use.
-momentum would still be more powerful, since it cannot be reflected, only lobotomized. Also, shard of wisdom costs 3|1 :underworld, momentum costs 2|1 :gravity. Since SoW wouldn't grant a buff for non-quinted creatures (while momentum always give a buff), momentum still maintain its use. It's better when you have access to gravity quanta and don't use immortal/quinted creatures.
Post by: kimham8a on November 04, 2012, 06:24:30 pm
Ah. Forgot momentum costs less and gives +1/+1 lol.Actually, I think it's a good idea for the following reasons:The problem I find with this card is that you MUST have :aether to play it, which takes out the whole most-decks-can-use-it thing. Maybe allow it to buff any creature, but only quinted creatures getspell damage and +4 while any non-quinted creatures simply get +2?
Actually I like your idea. It could see use in decks that want to use doubling cards (like PU, Deja Vu or Dive-creatures), but without a second element.
Ah. Somehow forgot momentum gives +1/+1.
Hmmm... I haven't thought about that, but what I really want is to make :aether usage not strictly necessary.
How about use on a non-quint creature only gives it spell damage? Without the +4 atk
No. Momentum would be useless.
-it's called Shard of Wisdom, and spell damage is more appropriate to the wisdom theme than the buff.
-more decks using spell damage will rise (it would increase the meta)
-and so it would buff reflecting shields, increasing its use.
-momentum would still be more powerful, since it cannot be reflected, only lobotomized. Also, shard of wisdom costs 3|1 :underworld, momentum costs 2|1 :gravity. Since SoW wouldn't grant a buff for non-quinted creatures (while momentum always give a buff), momentum still maintain its use. It's better when you have access to gravity quanta and don't use immortal/quinted creatures.
Post by: Laxadarap on November 05, 2012, 01:30:57 am
Post by: TheManuz on November 05, 2012, 10:44:08 am
Also, as of note. If SoW doesn't require a quinted creature, it makes the mirror shield so much stronger. It's basically the same as Pu-ing the opponents creature and then killing (2 card combo), but for 2 :light+1 :rainbow.But if they're not quinted, i bet you can lobotomize spell damage. So it's powerful but not op.
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on November 05, 2012, 01:20:21 pm
Also, as of note. If SoW doesn't require a quinted creature, it makes the mirror shield so much stronger. It's basically the same as Pu-ing the opponents creature and then killing (2 card combo), but for 2 :light+1 :rainbow.
I didn't think about the possibility of using it on Opp. Creatures when I made my suggestion. Now it reminds me of another thread here (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,44408.0.html), before the card was revised, anyway.
Post by: Jenkar on November 30, 2012, 05:27:43 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on November 30, 2012, 06:31:57 pm
Post by: Zso_Zso on November 30, 2012, 10:01:48 pm
Well, when it is changed to spell damage, then it no longer "hits" the enemy, so that could explain it.
What I mean, this might very well be intended behavior rather than a bug.
Post by: deuce22 on December 21, 2012, 09:50:17 pm
Post by: dragonsdemesne on December 21, 2012, 10:24:04 pm
Post by: Absol on December 22, 2012, 12:55:39 am
What happens if I play this new version of SoW on a creature like, say, horned frog or light nymph, and then later play quintessence on it? Will it now deal spell damage, or will it still deal physical damage? Is the new version playable on immortal creatures like the old version was?1. Probs still physical.
2. Still playable on immortals.
Post by: Rutarete on December 22, 2012, 06:53:14 am
Post by: TheAccuso on December 22, 2012, 07:02:34 am
I look forward to making new decks with this. Specifically, I shall post new scorpion decks in the beta section in the next few days.If i don't do that before MUAHAHAHAHA
Post by: Drake_XIV on December 22, 2012, 08:18:07 am
Post by: qetuol on December 22, 2012, 03:57:45 pm
Post by: Avenger on December 22, 2012, 07:10:16 pm
Post by: qetuol on December 25, 2012, 07:45:30 pm
Still has a bonus if not targetable (spell damage).
i know, let me explain. target cards like fire ball cannot target untargetable creatures. SoW was the opposite, it was able to target non-targetable craetures but was not able to target targetable creatures.
Post by: jawdirk on December 25, 2012, 10:43:46 pm
i know, let me explain. target cards like fire ball cannot target untargetable creatures. SoW was the opposite, it was able to target non-targetable craetures but was not able to target targetable creatures.
Yes, that is true. However, the old SoW pretty much forced you to use only immortal creatures in your deck because the old SoW was a dead card until you drew your first immortal creature. This one can be used (with significant risk) on any creature which allows more variation in which decks can use SoW. I think this change is very good for this card. For example, this is a kind of neat combo which allows you to choose between CC and creature buff:
+ You can add quintessence as well to either protect your demon or give a creature spell damage.
Providing multiple uses for cards is very good for the game.
Post by: reshiucS on March 05, 2013, 07:13:08 pm
I recommend to delete this card or remake it, to make untargetable creatures untargetable again. Otherwise we have to add a card that makes untargetable cards truely untargetable. Or change the text of that ability to somewhat like "cannot be targeted by anything but aether cards" but i prefer to say goodbye to this card.
Post by: TheCursedOne on April 27, 2013, 06:20:34 pm
This card always bothered me a little. The ability immortality says that the creature cannot be targeted. So, why should someone add a card that can target untargetable creatures. I know first it was created as a colorless Shard that should have an affinity to aether, therefore it was designed that way because aether and immortality go hand in hand but it makes no sense. Some might say: But this card only adds bonuses to the card. That's not true in some cases, for example if someone has any reflecting shields, suddenly your creatures turn against you and you cannot do anything against it because its ability makes it untargetable...
I recommend to delete this card or remake it, to make untargetable creatures untargetable again. Otherwise we have to add a card that makes untargetable cards truely untargetable. Or change the text of that ability to somewhat like "cannot be targeted by anything but aether cards" but i prefer to say goodbye to this card.
maybe it's better they should change the text ''this card can target the untargettable cards''.otherwise if this card make untargettable cards touchable by aether cards your opposition may use lightning etc on ur untargettable cards.
Post by: EvilDeathX on May 15, 2013, 10:03:15 pm
This card always bothered me a little. The ability immortality says that the creature cannot be targeted. So, why should someone add a card that can target untargetable creatures. I know first it was created as a colorless Shard that should have an affinity to aether, therefore it was designed that way because aether and immortality go hand in hand but it makes no sense. Some might say: But this card only adds bonuses to the card. That's not true in some cases, for example if someone has any reflecting shields, suddenly your creatures turn against you and you cannot do anything against it because its ability makes it untargetable...
I recommend to delete this card or remake it, to make untargetable creatures untargetable again. Otherwise we have to add a card that makes untargetable cards truely untargetable. Or change the text of that ability to somewhat like "cannot be targeted by anything but aether cards" but i prefer to say goodbye to this card.
maybe it's better they should change the text ''this card can target the untargettable cards''.otherwise if this card make untargettable cards touchable by aether cards your opposition may use lightning etc on ur untargettable cards.
Just throwing my two :electrum in here. If you were to change Immateriality to being affected by :aether cards that would lead through a whole chain of events that would end up nerfing :aether . First the effect would change and few would really think much of it, :aether players,(Hi) would however be able to realize the possibility for insane combos. Which would either lead to Non- :aether players running :aether decks or making decks that really have no business running them tech about 1-3 Lightning, or Lobotimizers|Electrocutors. This would inevitably lead to :aether players running less and less immaterial cards and thus weakening the Element as a whole. While :aether is one of the most powerful elements, it needs no nerf as it's power is at the cost of time.
This is my two :electrum plus more.
Post by: sirllama on June 09, 2013, 01:49:12 pm
This card always bothered me a little. The ability immortality says that the creature cannot be targeted. So, why should someone add a card that can target untargetable creatures. I know first it was created as a colorless Shard that should have an affinity to aether, therefore it was designed that way because aether and immortality go hand in hand but it makes no sense. Some might say: But this card only adds bonuses to the card. That's not true in some cases, for example if someone has any reflecting shields, suddenly your creatures turn against you and you cannot do anything against it because its ability makes it untargetable...
I recommend to delete this card or remake it, to make untargetable creatures untargetable again. Otherwise we have to add a card that makes untargetable cards truely untargetable. Or change the text of that ability to somewhat like "cannot be targeted by anything but aether cards" but i prefer to say goodbye to this card.
I have to second that point. Came here just to post and complain about that. Its a severe breach of the game rule mechanics. Its completely non sensical. If you compare the phrasing from quint and SoW the inconsistency is even more obvious.
Quint
"Grant immortality to the target creature. The target creature can not be targeted."
SoW
"The target creature gains +4/+0 and now deals spell damage if immortal."
How can you target a card that can not be targeted?
Post by: EvilDeathX on June 09, 2013, 04:28:44 pm
I have to second that point. Came here just to post and complain about that. Its a severe breach of the game rule mechanics. Its completely non sensical. If you compare the phrasing from quint and SoW the inconsistency is even more obvious.
Quint
"Grant immortality to the target creature. The target creature can not be targeted."
SoW
"The target creature gains +4/+0 and now deals spell damage if immortal."
How can you target a card that can not be targeted?
Forgive me for being a TCG nerd for a moment here. But in any real card game, the rulebook always has a section saying "If the text on a card conflicts with the rules, the card always takes precedence. For example, in MTG, if a card says ignore the mana cost, you ignore the mana cost. In Yu-Gi-Oh, there is a card called Counter Counter, and it is a normal trap card, that can be played in response to a counter trap card. In Cardfight Vanguard, the Angel Feathers focus on defying the thought that anything in the damage zone is untouchable. My point is this seems to be along the same lines. Think of it as this...
Immortal effect:
"Card cannot be targeted."
SoW:
"This card may target an Immortal creature. Give target creature +4|+0, and if it is Immortal, it now does spell damage."
They probably just couldn't fit the words "This card may target..." on the card, or couldn't figure out how. Of course there always is the chance they just forgot to say that. But the bottom line is this effect is implied and any player who reads this should be able to tell what the implied rule is. By not having that implied rule, this card just gives +4|+0, now for 3 that is not terrible, but it's no shard. Very few card games have cards that do nothing, but without implied rules like this there would be plenty more. Cards that say this card can attack twice, but the rules say creatures can only attack once, so it only gets one attack. No, just whenever you see a card that defies the rules, mentally input one sentence at the end. "This card defies rule in question."
Post by: sirllama on June 09, 2013, 06:32:57 pm
To me its obvious this is a do-over.
Post by: EvilDeathX on June 09, 2013, 09:24:01 pm
Thats a cop-out right there. I am not complaining that the card text does not try to phrase itself as a spin doctor, I am complaining that a card exists which is plainly contradictory to the existing rules. Now I am only been playing for a couple of years and recently took a year long break. But to my knowledge all cards that made it into the game has always respected the game mechanics. Before SoW that is.
To me its obvious this is a do-over.
I am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. As for why you were complaining, I am well aware as to why, the card text was just a statement. I was simply saying that the card text could be changed. My main point however, was saying that in nearly every card game, there is at least one card that defies some rule or another. Why should ETG be any different. Personally I like the card, however I would not run more than two in a deck. This card, as with any other card has just as many down sides as it does up sides. For example, you have a 14|6 Elite Phase Dragon that does spell damage, but your opponent is playing light, and drops a reflective shield. you had better hope you are doing more damage to them than you are to yourself. Also, "A cop-out"? Don't insult me. Probably the only reason you are on here complaining about this card is because you lost to it in some horrible way shortly before posting. I am on here defending it, because this card as it should be.
Post by: sirllama on June 09, 2013, 09:55:32 pm
I dont think that elements should be as any other card game in that regard. To me the strict adherence to the game mechanics and still making the interplay work is the art that makes this game special.
Dont take the cop-out remark as an insult, it was not meant that way. I dident post because I lost horribly to a deck using SoWs. Although that has happened, its the obvious inconsistency that irks me. Besides, I always carry the mirror shield in my rainbow grinder.
Post by: CuCN on June 09, 2013, 11:29:44 pm
Post by: EvilDeathX on June 10, 2013, 03:44:01 am
By that line of reasoning, Rain of Fire, Thunderstorm, Plague, and Pandemonium should affect immortal creatures because they say "every enemy creature" and don't target creatures.
I am confused as to who you were meaning this toward...
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on June 10, 2013, 12:08:13 pm
[the] card [...] is plainly contradictory to the existing rules. [...] [T]o my knowledge all cards that made it into the game has always respected the game mechanics. Before SoW that is.
To me its obvious this is a do-over.
It's against the rules to use your creature's ability on the first turn it's played, yet with Shard of Readiness you can break that rule - provided you meet the criteria ( :time creature ). You even gain a perk (you can use it twice).
It's also against the rules to target a creature that is immaterial, yet with Shard of Wisdom you can break that rule - provided you meet the criteria ( :time creature - and that's one having the :time symbol for immaterial). You even gain a perk (spell damage - usually beneficial).
My point is that cards 'break the rules' all the time. That doesn't mean that I entirely disagree with you or think your opinion is invalid, just that I don't think "rule-breaking" is enough to disqualify a cards merits.
Post by: Zergva on June 10, 2013, 02:42:50 pm
[the] card [...] is plainly contradictory to the existing rules. [...] [T]o my knowledge all cards that made it into the game has always respected the game mechanics. Before SoW that is.
To me its obvious this is a do-over.
It's against the rules to use your creature's ability on the first turn it's played, yet with Shard of Readiness you can break that rule - provided you meet the criteria ( :time creature ). You even gain a perk (you can use it twice).
It's also against the rules to target a creature that is immaterial, yet with Shard of Wisdom you can break that rule - provided you meet the criteria ( :time creature - and that's one having the :time symbol for immaterial). You even gain a perk (spell damage - usually beneficial).
My point is that cards 'break the rules' all the time. That doesn't mean that I entirely disagree with you or think your opinion is invalid, just that I don't think "rule-breaking" is enough to disqualify a cards merits.
I think this 2 cases is not equal. The first case is just a "summoning sickness". It's not break the rules, because the card just removes the "summoning sickness" and that's allowed. That's like saying that SoDiv/Stone skin breaks the rule that you only have 100 life.
The SoW absolutely breaks the rules (of logic) in this wording, but that's just a grammatic failure. It just needs rewording it to target immortal.
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on June 11, 2013, 02:23:32 pm
[the] card [...] is plainly contradictory to the existing rules. [...] [T]o my knowledge all cards that made it into the game has always respected the game mechanics. Before SoW that is.
To me its obvious this is a do-over.
It's against the rules to use your creature's ability on the first turn it's played, yet with Shard of Readiness you can break that rule - provided you meet the criteria ( :time creature ). You even gain a perk (you can use it twice).
It's also against the rules to target a creature that is immaterial, yet with Shard of Wisdom you can break that rule - provided you meet the criteria ( :time creature - and that's one having the :time symbol for immaterial). You even gain a perk (spell damage - usually beneficial).
My point is that cards 'break the rules' all the time. That doesn't mean that I entirely disagree with you or think your opinion is invalid, just that I don't think "rule-breaking" is enough to disqualify a cards merits.
I think this 2 cases is not equal. The first case is just a "summoning sickness". It's not break the rules, because the card just removes the "summoning sickness" and that's allowed. That's like saying that SoDiv/Stone skin breaks the rule that you only have 100 life.
The SoW absolutely breaks the rules (of logic) in this wording, but that's just a grammatic failure. It just needs rewording it to target immortal.
Point taken.
The key difference with Wisdom is that it acts in direct contradiction to another card.
So I agree: if the card is to remain as it is, a rewording ought to be made.
I think the card is balanced and I see no reason why a card shouldn't exist with the ability to affect immaterial monsters. Just perhaps some clarification is in order.
Post by: Zergva on June 17, 2013, 12:25:45 am
By that line of reasoning, Rain of Fire, Thunderstorm, Plague, and Pandemonium should affect immortal creatures because they say "every enemy creature" and don't target creatures.
I am confused as to who you were meaning this toward...
Immortal cards just f*cked up (no offense). Change the 'targeted' with 'affected' and everything is correct. Kay, not everything, my idea is to change it "This card can't be affected directly". I've discovered it a long ago, but I haven't knew about the forum, so I just get used to the mistake. I think the others too.
Post by: CuCN on June 17, 2013, 04:45:45 am
How is this any different? Why would Shard of Wisdom not "affect" the creature?By that line of reasoning, Rain of Fire, Thunderstorm, Plague, and Pandemonium should affect immortal creatures because they say "every enemy creature" and don't target creatures.
I am confused as to who you were meaning this toward...
Immortal cards just f*cked up (no offense). Change the 'targeted' with 'affected' and everything is correct. Kay, not everything, my idea is to change it "This card can't be affected directly". I've discovered it a long ago, but I haven't knew about the forum, so I just get used to the mistake. I think the others too.
Post by: Zergva on June 17, 2013, 12:42:02 pm
How is this any different? Why would Shard of Wisdom not "affect" the creature?
Immortal cards just f*cked up (no offense). Change the 'targeted' with 'affected' and everything is correct. Kay, not everything, my idea is to change it "This card can't be affected directly". I've discovered it a long ago, but I haven't knew about the forum, so I just get used to the mistake. I think the others too.
*Wild Joker appears* "It's not about the shard, it's about correct the cards."
I said about the shard earlier with UndeadSpider1990, with one big difference. The card should be reworded and I think the ability either. Not too much work, just a picture change.
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on June 18, 2013, 12:09:42 am
Alternate wording? Just my effort I'm sure there could be better ways to fit it on the card.
(http://i.imgur.com/6UoIkoA.png)(http://i.imgur.com/23XX42C.png)
Seems like if anyone had thought this was good enough it would've been done already.
I feel as if anyone with a trace of common sense can figure out the original wording anyway, but maybe this is slightly less vague.
Post by: sirllama on June 18, 2013, 10:39:37 am
Post by: jawdirk on June 18, 2013, 05:08:45 pm
Post by: UndeadSpider1990 on June 19, 2013, 11:27:32 pm
Post by: CuCN on June 20, 2013, 12:51:50 am
Post by: Pineapple on June 20, 2013, 07:06:56 am
it seems to me you'd be better off with Antimatter + Offense of your own).
Antimatter doesn't kill the opponent for you, so Quint+SoW+Reflect takes up almost as little deck space as Antimatter+Offense, but it also pretty cheap in quanta and almost a Mono. The added bonus is that there is basically no way to counter Quint+SoW+Reflect, as all cards on the field become immaterial, while the Antimatter'd creature and the Offense can generally be CC'd.
Post by: farscape on July 15, 2013, 04:53:39 pm
Post by: DoubleCapitals on July 05, 2014, 04:20:19 pm
Post by: CuCN on July 05, 2014, 05:07:46 pm
Post by: Espithel on July 05, 2014, 05:17:17 pm
In 1.31 it could target any creature, but only gave spell damage to immortal ones. I don't know if there was an earlier version.
Isn't that what it already does?
I think you mean it COULDN'T target any creature.
Post by: DoubleCapitals on July 05, 2014, 05:28:53 pm
Post by: CuCN on July 05, 2014, 05:56:55 pm
In 1.31 it could target any creature, but only gave spell damage to immortal ones. I don't know if there was an earlier version.
Isn't that what it already does?
I think you mean it COULDN'T target any creature.
My internet died for a couple minutes when I was fixing the post.