[Official] Flooding | Inundation

[Farin44]

I think that cost should be increased by one, but it does more damage to more creature slots.

[Dm]

I think that cost should be increased by one, but it does more damage to more creature slots.

How can flooding deal more damage when it already automatically kills anything that isn't water or other in the flooded slot?

[Naesala]

I think that cost should be increased by one, but it does more damage to more creature slots.

How can flooding deal more damage when it already automatically kills anything that isn't water or other in the flooded slot?

I think he means that flooding should fill more of the field

[Ignite]

Different idea: Remove the cost entirely, but lower water quanta to 0 when inundate leaves.

[legion_bre]

Firstly as the votes appear to be showing, it definitely needs to be able to be removed as there is a ongoing cost associated with it.

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

Secondly a very good point was brought up earlier albeit by mistake, that presents an excellent idea for the card

but it does more damage to more creature slots

Why not have the card cover the whole field and cause damage to all non-water and non-neutral creatures. That way its area of effect could be increased, but to prevent if being OP, the instant kill would be changed to a -1 damage per turn.

This would ofcourse also require modification of the shard of patience so that the +5/+5 in flooded areas is changed to something more reasonable like +3/+3

[laxnut90]

Why not have the card cover the whole field and cause damage to all non-water and non-neutral creatures. That way its area of effect could be increased, but to prevent if being OP, the instant kill would be changed to a -1 damage per turn.

This would ofcourse also require modification of the shard of patience so that the +5/+5 in flooded areas is changed to something more reasonable like +3/+3

I really like the idea of flooding covering the whole battlefield and constantly damaging all non-water creatures instead of killing them. 

Should it deal  the same amount of damage to airborne creatures as land creatures?

[legion_bre]

Yeah thats makes a good point - perhaps to prevent it being OP keep air creatures immune.

The most similar card would be plague - that causes poison damage that causes 1 damage per turn to all enemy creatures on the field.
Differences:
- Plague cannot be stopped as it is a magic card, Flood is a permanent and so can be targeted
- Plague doesnt affect new creatures played, while flood would
- Flood affects both sides of the field

Fire shield has a similar principle - every attacking creatures loses 1 hp each turn. This is also a permanent that has similar effects.

Because of these, I would suggest that this is reasonable without being too OP if the following conditions are met:
- THe cost of teh card has to increase - perhaps 5
- Each turn 2 should be absorbed (instead of just one)

[Blaze]

I think it should be able to be canceled and nothing more. It's already quite a strong card.

[kaempfer13]

I think a good fix for Flooding would be if it occupied one of the earlier creature slots (maybe the third to not make it too powerful) and left one of the later slots open. It could be soft countered by playing multiple creatures in one turn and would allow tactical play especially in decks that have water creatures splashed in or that combo SoP and flooding (the way it works right now that combo wouldnt be any stronger if it gave +100|+100 because its easy to make it an otk if you can keep 6+ creatures alive with SoP regardless of Flooding).
Edit: The AI would have to be adjusted to deal with it, but it shouldnt be that difficult to program it to only play water creatures into that slot or the weakest creature of at least 2 that it can both play in this turn.

[Aneninen]

What if

(1) it would be removable
(2) targeting creatures in the flooded area misses with an 50% chance (similar to Shard of Freedom)

[montrossen]

Should also be that  creatures automaticly go to the outside of the field if there are non- creatures in the flood zone.

[Chapuz]

Should also be that  creatures automaticly go to the outside of the field if there are non- creatures in the flood zone.

This really is an interesting idea