[Official] Flooding | Inundation

[BluePriest]

has a good synergy with arctic squid. Apart from that, not much uses.

Thats probably the biggest thing this card changed. Now it willl be much easier to lock down your opponents field with squids.

[ndclub]

Still think that its too weak even with the new shard. If only it generated a "wave" or something every turn in your top or bottom slot as a moderately weak creature I could see the use. Otherwise be ready to see mediocre fractal/water decks forcing the synergy to achieve a good flood and even then its relatively slow.

[TheManuz]

I would prefer a full field flooding, but not instakilling. Maybe it could halve HP each (rounded down) for non creatures.

[TheManuz]

I've been messing around with flooding lately, and while i was playing i thought "Why all these floodings in my hand are useless?"
And then i thought that i would be wonderful if flooding would stack, increasing the area flooded for each consecutive play.
I'm making a table to explain my point:

	Free slots left	Maintenance
Flooding x1	7 (like old flooding)
Flooding x2	5 (current flooding)
Flooding x3	3
Flooding x4	1
Flooding x5	0
Flooding x6	0

[stewie]

how about "Underwater water creatures get +1|+1"? then raise the upkeep to two.

I think it's a good idea it's logic and fair that water creatures becomes better in water!

[aristalis]

The permanent should be immaterial.

or

I've been messing around with flooding lately, and while i was playing i thought "Why all these floodings in my hand are useless?"
And then i thought that i would be wonderful if flooding would stack, increasing the area flooded for each consecutive play.
I'm making a table to explain my point:

	Free slots left	Maintenance
Flooding x1	7 (like old flooding)
Flooding x2	5 (current flooding)
Flooding x3	3
Flooding x4	1
Flooding x5	0
Flooding x6	0

But only a 1sq:flooding decrease.

[rosutosefi]

The permanent should be immaterial.

or

I've been messing around with flooding lately, and while i was playing i thought "Why all these floodings in my hand are useless?"
And then i thought that i would be wonderful if flooding would stack, increasing the area flooded for each consecutive play.
I'm making a table to explain my point:

	Free slots left	Maintenance
Flooding x1	7 (like old flooding)
Flooding x2	5 (current flooding)
Flooding x3	3
Flooding x4	1
Flooding x5	0
Flooding x6	0

But only a 1sq:flooding decrease.

5 squares and 4 squares will make a huge difference.

[Daguerreo]

I suggest something like this instead

	Free slots left	Maintenance
Flooding x1	5
Flooding x2	4
Flooding x3	3
Flooding x4	2
Flooding x5	1
Flooding x6	0

[Havok13]

Heal +1 per turn if using  mark

[pulli23]

Heal +1 per turn if using  mark

It's not a shard - I wouldn't really like it if more cards go the "way of the shards" where giving boni depending on your mark :/.


As for that table: I think it's even more situational then. Much more vulnerable to CC if you depend on it.

I think making flooding enchanted is a good approach, maybe make a table but then "double" the cost each turn (together with it being enchanted):

	Free slots left	Maintenance
Flooding x1	6
Flooding x2	5
Flooding x3	4
Flooding x4	3
Flooding x5	2
Flooding x6	1

6 would be "unplayable" me thinks? - 33 water a turn.

[rosutosefi]

2 floodings for a 3 upkeep flooding with the same power as now? I don't like it.

[pulli23]

2 floodings for a 3 upkeep flooding with the same power as now? I don't like it.

Problem with "stackable" flooding is reducing the field to 0 is just way too strong in my opinion.


Maybe something else (each "flood" increases maintenance by 1):
1 flood - 5 tiles left
2 flood - 4 tiles left
3 flood - 4 tiles left
4, 5, 6, 7 flood - 3 tiles left
8 flood 2 tiles left

(well just showing 8 to show the calculation: to remove an extra tile, you would need to double the cost).