[Official] Flooding | Inundation

[Glitch]

Even with forcing aflatoxin, it isn't so great.

This doesn't work anyway. Malignant cells don't die to drowning.

Well theres your solution.  Make it cost more, make cells drown again.

Alternative option:  Have it flood the first row, not the bottom two.

[ArtCrusade]

@Mifurre: So you think having a permanent that can freeze 50% of all attacking creatures is a good idea? So you must've forgotten about Permafrost Shield that adds another 30%. That'd be so OP I didn't feel the need to tell you why when I said "think before posting".

@Shantu: Much too situational. You can only need this card in combination with Flooding. You don't add one card for another card to get useful.
 

[Memorystick]

@Mifurre: So you think having a permanent that can freeze 50% of all attacking creatures is a good idea? So you must've forgotten about Permafrost Shield that adds another 30%. That'd be so OP I didn't feel the need to tell you why when I said "think before posting".

@Shantu: Much too situational. You can only need this card in combination with Flooding. You don't add one card for another card to get useful.

Ah, but more cards might come that affect the rows, so it might end up being like light nymph- seemingly useless, but cards are introduced, like fractal, that make it much more useful. So yeah, in the short term, it'd be almost useless, but in the long term... you never know what cards zanz might make.

[TheIdioticIdiot]

perhaps giving it a permanent control effect would be better
like, idk, every non-water and non-neutral/other permanent can last only 5 turns (more? less?)

[Mifurre]

@Mifurre: So you think having a permanent that can freeze 50% of all attacking creatures is a good idea? So you must've forgotten about Permafrost Shield that adds another 30%. That'd be so OP I didn't feel the need to tell you why when I said "think before posting".

50% chance to freeze for 1 turn is actually worst than Turtle Shield and much more costly, i don't think it's OP

With the same unkeep cost you can virtually disable 4 creatures at your choice for the rest of the game.

And btw your opinion to me is completely useless so don't even waste your time trying to argue nothing.

[QuantumT]

@Mifurre: So you think having a permanent that can freeze 50% of all attacking creatures is a good idea? So you must've forgotten about Permafrost Shield that adds another 30%. That'd be so OP I didn't feel the need to tell you why when I said "think before posting".

50% chance to freeze for 1 turn is actually worst than Turtle Shield and much more costly, i don't think it's OP

With the same unkeep cost you can virtually disable 4 creatures at your choice for the rest of the game.

And btw your opinion to me is completely useless so don't even waste your time trying to argue nothing.

It's better than turtle shield because it's not a shield, so it stacks with permafrost, for a whopping 65% chance to freeze something every turn. And it would stack.

[Mifurre]

It's better than turtle shield because it's not a shield, so it stacks with permafrost, for a whopping 65% chance to freeze something every turn. And it would stack.

A 2 card combo is allways better than a single card.

Multiple inundations should not stack like nightfall (the unkeep would still stack)

Actually a flood + squid potentially blocks 87% enemy field. With this changes for the same cost that % would be lowered to 58.5

With the actual flooding + permafrost potentially 79% of enemy field is blocked, with same cost.

Actually those stats are only true if all the creature slots are full but i just wanted to point the actual lockdown % of flooding.

I still think permafrost is OP anyways, and should be nerfed

50% chance i suggested could be lowered, not stackable with permafrost or what ever but would make it more balanced and less situational that it actually is and not as crazy as it seems (in my opinion).

[ArtCrusade]

@Mifurre: What, do you say card combos shouldn't be of any importance when changing/adding a card? That's not the spirit..

Basically your idea makes it too strong. Additionaly, freezing a creature may be part of Water, but not of Flooding, because Flooding has nothing to do with ice. While the idea of delaying a creature sounds good, it's more of a Time effect. Besides, Procrastination would be stronger, since the chance for delaying a creature is 100%.

My suggestion for Flooding is something delay-ish, just that it wouldn't delay the creature like Procrastination. It'd disable the creature's ability for 1 turn. The chance for this can be discussed. Or it should work a bit like Luciferin, just for water.

[Mifurre]

I was just pointing the 2 card thing cos of QuantumT's argument, I know it cannot be compared while discussing a card's power

As for the disable skill thing it's fine but fits better to aether maybe, and i still think that wouldn't justify the unkeep

[ArtCrusade]

I don't like the upkeep either. I think it should be decreased to and it'd be fine

[gavsword]

My vote is having it kill cells. You could build some ridiculous decks with Flooding+Aflo+Soul Catcher

[zorzz]

Maybe completely change it to be defensive spell?

Since swimming under water is similar to be burrowed and flying creatures may fly above water, flooding description may be
 "Halves attack power of all non-water, non-neutral, non-flying creatures. Lasts 2 turns".

So like lighter version of dimension shield but with more openings and not so annoying. And also works against momentumed creatures.