Wings | Wings

[teffy]

A problem could be the Fallen Elf / Wings combo in a rainbow deck as creature contol - Abominations are not airborn.

[Dragoon1140]

A problem could be the Fallen Elf / Wings combo in a rainbow deck as creature contol - Abominations are not airborn.

Interesting, but you also risk making any mutant with Destroy or Steal.  If this shield is released though, I might actually replace it with Bone Wall in my deck.  Permafrost and Wings would make an awesome combo.   

[Bender74d]

Heh, all spiders should gain an ability to remove airborne from target creature for one turn. "Web"

[Dragoon1140]

Heh, all spiders should gain an ability to remove airborne from target creature for one turn. "Web"

Eh, it is rather unnecessary to create an entirely new ability to counter an entirely new passive skill that counters an entirely new shield.

[melzardust]

Eh, it is rather unnecessary to create an entirely new ability to counter an entirely new passive skill that counters an entirely new shield.

Agree.

I like the idea, and Wings is descriptive enough. (this discussion is maybe settled, but not into reading whole post).
Go Elements!!!

[Bender74d]

Heh, all spiders should gain an ability to remove airborne from target creature for one turn. "Web"

Eh, it is rather unnecessary to create an entirely new ability to counter an entirely new passive skill that counters an entirely new shield.

Eh, at that rate its "rather unnecessary to create an entirely new passive skill that counters an entirely new shield."  but its in the works....

This card will have a ripple effect on the entire game one way or another, might as well have some fun with it.

[jmizzle7]

Eh, at that rate its "rather unnecessary to create an entirely new passive skill that counters an entirely new shield."  but its in the works....

The passive skill is necessary to define the structure of the flying mechanic so that Wings can be a functional card. If the airborn passive skill doesn't exist, there is no definition for what can attack through Wings.

[Bender74d]

I understand that a large number of the current cards are going to be altered in some way in order for this one card to be put into play.  But this "airborne" passive opens the door for so many other things....waterborne, grounded, granting airborne to creatures that wouldn't normally have it, taking away airborne....etc etc etc.  I understand that web isn't really a good idea, thats what the "heh" in front of it was supposed to hint at.  It was just a funny idea i had that i thought i'd share.  As for whats unneccessary...well, i personally like the idea of this card, but i personally belive that if your only going to add one card at a time, then that card should only effect itself and gameplay in general.  However this one card is effecting abilities all across the board.  With such a "game changer" then i personally belive several cards with a similar theme should all be added at the same time.  But thats not for me to say....

[PuppyChow]

Question for Zanz regarding flying arsenic: Since you were trying to find a name for something that's both poisonous and airborne, I'm assuming you were just going to create a new passive ability that has both airborne and poisonous.

So... Why not just make the skill called "airborne and poisonous"? Or "airbornepoison"/"airborne/poisonous" if no spaces are allowed?

[Decktrya]

if octane gets this shield in his hands were done
... wyrm+ wings + mark of water + freeze + shockwave  make good damage with wyrm(no matter if your opponent steals it) get no damage from non flying opponents... and kill flying creatures/(unfair?)

[Selenbrant]

I already mentioned it. If you play with wings as your keycard and you know about the opponents perm control(or just guess it considering the element he is using), why you should play it without PA?
(I just think of most Rainbow decks which would add this card. Ofc a mono couldnt play PA, but the most mono decks couldnt destroy wings anyway)
I just mean I dont consider whether it could get destroyed or not. If you consider that, there are no strong cards. I just dont expect it gets destroyed, because you cant prevent anybody using PA.

In addition the idea with flying and none-flying wasnt there right from the start, therefor flying creatures arent well balanced among the elements.

But this "airborne" passive opens the door for so many other things....waterborne, grounded, granting airborne to creatures that wouldn't normally have it, taking away airborne....etc etc etc

If you add more effects and corresponding shields, you will just be in the situation always to have all kinds of creature in your deck or else you simply cant defeat some decks.
And losing, because your opponent is practically immune isnt a great feeling.

In my opinion wings is a card taking an unimportant attribute to distinguish whether you can attack or not. This is too random.
I thing to distinguish in a kind like this wouldnt be nice either:
*imagine new cards*
"Chamaeleon" (creatures with the same colour your element has cant attack you)
"Waterproof" (water creatures cant attack you)
"Mirror" (ugly creatures cant attack you pretty ugly creatures even get destroyed), though I like this idea, a good idea to remake some images
"dark cave" (creatures not emiting light hit 80% of the time just air)
"salad" (herbivore eat 5 turns and cant attack)

[melzardust]

"salad" (herbivore eat 5 turns and cant attack)

I lol'ed at that one.