[Official] Flooding | Inundation

[rosutosefi]

Flooding is ok IMO. It completely ruins creature spamming decks and in combination with freezing effects the 5 central creatures your opponent can still play will likely stay frozen for the rest of the game. Furthermore, in combination with SoPatience it can create a tremendous army. No buff is needed, this card is already powerful in mono- decks and its lack of versality is not a good enough reason to buff it.

Then go use it.

But seriously,  if you have the squids to freeze the creatures, why not freeze them all? Most decks that spam creatures can be easily shut down by freezing the "mother creature" (mitosis mother, pharaoh, FFQ) and water itself can not generate a lot of water creatures except for Water Nymph, which doesn't really fit with SoPa or Flooding. Yes, they do have a very strong interaction, but how many cards and turns do you need to set this up? 10? Is that even good in competitive PVP?

Lack of versatility is a good reason for buffing, as long as the reason leans more on "because you cannot control what the enemy will use and will be near-useless if things fail" than "because I need to bring this creature/permanent/potato"

[ARTHANASIOS]

Flooding is ok IMO. It completely ruins creature spamming decks and in combination with freezing effects the 5 central creatures your opponent can still play will likely stay frozen for the rest of the game. Furthermore, in combination with SoPatience it can create a tremendous army. No buff is needed, this card is already powerful in mono- decks and its lack of versality is not a good enough reason to buff it.

Then go use it.

But seriously,  if you have the squids to freeze the creatures, why not freeze them all? Most decks that spam creatures can be easily shut down by freezing the "mother creature" (mitosis mother, pharaoh, FFQ) and water itself can not generate a lot of water creatures except for Water Nymph, which doesn't really fit with SoPa or Flooding. Yes, they do have a very strong interaction, but how many cards and turns do you need to set this up? 10? Is that even good in competitive PVP?

Lack of versatility is a good reason for buffing, as long as the reason leans more on "because you cannot control what the enemy will use and will be near-useless if things fail" than "because I need to bring this creature/permanent/potato"

 Flooding & Permafrost Shield combo is pretty enough to slow down tremendously the attacking force of your opponent, even completely blocking it. I don't have enough Squids & SoPs yet to perform the combo I wish, that's why I don't use it as much as I want, but that doesn't mean I haven't used Flooding.
 About Squids, you'll never have enough mana to freeze everything and freezing the mother creature is good in creature spamming decks that rely on a mother creature, but what about Fractal? And don't tell me that Fractaled Creatures decks are rare! 5 creatures are much easier to be CC.
 By the way, Rotusosefi, isn't you the one who believes SoP is OP? Isn't Flooding the main buffer of SoP?

[rosutosefi]

Actually, I've used this Permafrost + Flooding + Squid combo, too, but it turned out that the Flooding never actually helped. 4 Squids are enough to shut almost any creature-based deck down, so there's no need for flooding. Squid's efficiency in freezing is very good. 0.66|0.5 upkeep to freeze a creature, even less with permafrost and you can choose to cast it only on the times where you need it. Compared to flooding, you need 1 per turn even if the enemy will not use those creature slots and you don't even have any choice to use it to block the first 5.

Against fractal, yes, it works, but against any other thing, nope. RoF does the job better.

I never even saw Flooding interact with SoP in any match I've played. Plus, forced combos are bad. Very bad.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I never even saw Flooding interact with SoP in any match I've played. Plus, forced combos are bad. Very bad.

+4|+4 for every creature in a flooded area is not bad at all and in a mono deck the SoP & Flooding combo is not as forced as many people think. Flooding has great abilities, it is a shame most of people are very bored in order to search/test them.
 Also, Flooding is much more cost-effective and faster mass CC than repeated Squid/Octopus freezing.

[rosutosefi]

+4|+4 for every creature in a flooded area is not bad at all and in a mono deck the SoP & Flooding combo is not as forced as many people think. Flooding has great abilities, it is a shame most of people are very bored in order to search/test them.

SoP itself adds 2|2. It only adds 2|2 more on your 6th+ creature. You've pretty much won the game at that point. That's SoP winning, not Flooding.

Also, Flooding is much more cost-effective and faster mass CC than repeated Squid/Octopus freezing.

But only useful against fractal and mass creature decks. Squids are much, much more versatile.

[UndeadSpider1990]

Isn't Flooding the main buffer of SoP?

Personally, I haven't yet seen a use of SoP with Flooding that impresses me. I use SoP with water critters, but more than anything else to make squids less poppable. Flooding is, for me, besides the point.

[Nicolas95014]

How about underwater water creatures are untargetable? With no added upkeep? How about a buff of +2|+2?

Hmm ...

I really like the un-targetable idea who be a major buff to water decks which I feel don't have enough attention sadly no current water card is worth spamming like that (mito-puffer?) this buff should come when either a new water creature is release or when and if chysora gets a stat boost

[aristalis]

I personally just want the first two options. Fish underwater aren't struck by lightning or fire because the energy is conducted across the surface. They still stay away from lava because the heat permeates. When I'm running a nymph tears darkness duo I want to be able to use the card to deal with the intense spam of creatures in arena, and I don't want to have a shield that can be stolen to use against me. Being able to cancel it would allow me to make darkness nymphs when I already have 5 creatures. Having immortal water creatures would tip the mirror match in favor of arena decks though.
At most I'd be in favor of 1 and 2, the rest are just for discussion from earlier topics.

[neuroleptics]

1st option is the best. 2nd option is good but 3rd, taking the effect of SoP, not a good idea. To me, 4th option is a bad idea.

[gomorycut]

About the +4/+4:
I don't like that it applies to flooded water creatures. It's not that common to have a significant number of water creatures outside of the middle 5.
The flooded area already kills off the nonwater creature, that's fine.

But when the board is flooded, it is like changing the whole environment to a waterworld. Much like how darkness and death creatures gain +/+ at nighttime or during eclipse, I think it is reasonable to say that all water creatures in play (whether in the water or in the middle 5) gain +3/+3 while the effect is on. +3/+3 is a good enough bonus I think, that even if flooding didn't kill off non-waters, it would still be used just as often as eclipse is.

[aristalis]

It would become stronger than nightmare if it applied to everything, but I'll add an option for that

[ARTHANASIOS]

First option is a must have and it will increase its versality. It is up to player's decision if he/she wishes to keep paying the upkeep cost to maintain Flooding or to destroy the card. I greatly approve of option 1.