Shard of Wisdom | Shard of Wisdom

[TheCursedOne]

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.

[EvilDeathX]

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  in here. If you were to change Immateriality to being affected by  cards that would lead through a whole chain of events that would end up nerfing  . First the effect would change and few would really think much of it,  players,(Hi) would however be able to realize the possibility for insane combos. Which would either lead to Non- players running  decks or making decks that really have no business running them tech about 1-3 Lightning, or Lobotimizers|Electrocutors. This would inevitably lead to  players running less and less immaterial cards and thus weakening the Element as a whole. While  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  plus more.

[sirllama]

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?

[EvilDeathX]

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."

[sirllama]

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.

[EvilDeathX]

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.

[sirllama]

Thats perfectly fine. Anyone has the right to their opinion.

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.

[CuCN]

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.

[EvilDeathX]

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...

[UndeadSpider1990]

[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 ( 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 ( creature - and that's one having the 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.

[Zergva]

[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 ( 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 ( creature - and that's one having the 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.

[UndeadSpider1990]

[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 ( 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 ( creature - and that's one having the 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.