[Official] Short Sword | Long Sword

[Seiya]

The generic weapons in other deal extra damage with specific marks.  I think Short Sword should too.  I'm leaning toward Light and Aether because they both have two sword cards (Morning Star and Crusader for  , Lobotomizer and Immortal for  ).  What are your thoughts?

[Jappert]

My thoughts are that this is probably the most succesfull weapon in rush-decks. It does 6 damage for 1 quanta (upgraded) and should therefore not deserve a buff.

It has a major place in rush decks for the speed at wich it can be played, it's damage (especially cost/damage ratio), the fact that it's an "other"card makes it even better. It's a good card!

Please create a poll, so we can vote! (there's a button between "REPLY" and "NOTIFY" that says "ADD POLL") Thanks in advance.

[BluePriest]

 READ THIS FIRST  (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10223.0.html) this board isnt just regular suggestions since it is talking about balance. It requires structure since so many people have different opinions.

[jumpoffduck]

Sword doesn't have the damage bonus of hammers/bows, but it also costs 1 less, and it has a higher base damage than dagger. It's fine.

[killybob]

besides we don't need other based weapons that comply with particular elements because we already have weapons that do that. plus if all the weapons were specialized there could never be a universal one that goes with anything and we certainly don't want to have to create another 8 other weapons to go with each element. the short swords cheap diversity gives it great use in many decks. no buff required.

by the way, has anyone else noticed how easy it is to sound blunt or even offensive when writing an opinion or counter argument?

[TheIdioticIdiot]

The generic weapons in other deal extra damage with specific marks.  I think Short Sword should too.  I'm leaning toward Light and Aether because they both have two sword cards (Morning Star and Crusader for  , Lobotomizer and Immortal for  ).  What are your thoughts?

that's not a good argument at all...
what you THINK will fit into the game better doesn't make it UNDER-POWERED
and if it's not under-powered, which this card is clearly not (1 for 3/6 damage a turn? heavenly...), IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE "Buff This Card!" AREA!!!!!!

[Seiya]

Fair enough.  Thematics aside, you are correct.  I am wrong.  Locking the topic.

[UndeadSpider1990]

Please vote in the poll!



The flying Short/Longsword has the dud ability "sword" (see spoiler). Unlike dagger, hammer and bow, it doesn't do anything. There is only one situation where it is possibly of consequence: using Luciferin.

Spoiler for The "sword" ability:

I welcome discussion on whether this would be a broken combo. If flying swords were vanilla, they could gain 'Light'. Additionally Crusader's would be able to gain 'Light' by Endowing them — enabling a mono-light deck using Hope. Light has plenty of ways to produce so the expense of Crusaders would not be a huge weakness. This deck would still suffer from flying sword's weak HP, Crusader's weak-point before endowing, and Light's lack of CC/PC — so I don't think it would be OP. It would however open up a new strategy for mono light (though, notably more aggressive for upped play).

Here's an example deck. I'm aware it's not technically a mono. :-)

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

4t4 4t4 4t4 4t4 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5l8 5lf 5lf 5lf 5lj 5lj 5lj 5lj 5lj 5lk 5lk 5lk 5ll 5ll 5ll 5ll 5ll 5ll 5oi 5oi 5oi 8pr

[andretimpa]

short/long sword is already better than a hammer/gavel in most cases because of the reduced cost.

[UndeadSpider1990]

short/long sword is already better than a hammer/gavel in most cases because of the reduced cost.

I agree with you, but I don't think this change would make it OP — in most cases, it wouldn't make a difference at all.

*Thanks for votes everyone

[Rutarete]

How are you so sure the ability does nothing?

[Naesala]

How are you so sure the ability does nothing?

Well, what does it do then?