Post by: Plastica on July 24, 2013, 12:25:57 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/MIcZZG5.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/FL1F6uA.png) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Post by: CuCN on July 24, 2013, 01:47:09 pm
Post by: xsindomanx on July 24, 2013, 01:54:11 pm
Do weapons also deal their regular damage?
I would assume so, since there is nothing about the permanents being delayed for 1 turn.
Anyways, this deals spell or physical damage? You contradict yourself in the description.
Post by: Submachine on July 24, 2013, 03:08:52 pm
Use it with Emphatic Bond :D Ooh man, it would be great :D
Post by: Plastica on July 24, 2013, 07:16:28 pm
Do weapons also deal their regular damage?
I would assume so, since there is nothing about the permanents being delayed for 1 turn.
Anyways, this deals spell or physical damage? You contradict yourself in the description.
The spell is responsible for 12 damage; however, the damage dealt is physical.
Post by: skyironsword on July 24, 2013, 10:58:10 pm
12 damage would be worth ~2, maybe 2.5
5 damage is worth ~1 (compare to lightning, -1 cost since it cannot harm creatures)
Post by: Plastica on July 24, 2013, 11:22:38 pm
Seems ridiculously costly for such a low variable damage...
12 damage would be worth ~2, maybe 2.5
5 damage is worth ~1 (compare to lightning, -1 cost since it cannot harm creatures)
What would you suggest changing the cost to? (considering that a deck using such a card would most likely be packing permanents, and too low of a cost could become OP)
Or, another thought, pillars/pends deal 1 damage each?
Thoughts from anyone are appreciated. ;D
Post by: GamerJL on July 25, 2013, 02:37:59 am
SO situational and useless if theres no permanent in the field , SoF will Destroy you
Post by: serprex on July 25, 2013, 02:49:31 am
Does damage reduction apply to each permanent's attack, or only the combined damage?
Post by: CuCN on July 25, 2013, 03:22:56 am
Post by: jawdirk on July 25, 2013, 06:50:12 am
Post by: kaempfer13 on July 25, 2013, 09:21:03 am
Comparing it to unstable gas it should deal at least 25 dmg (maybe even 35) in order to be balanced, because it costs a few more quanta, has no synergy with the vast majority of dmg dealing cards and most likely requires permanents that are off element. Also it does not bypass shields and does not ofer cc.
Let me check that: Rainbow: 29 dmg: 12 +4 from pulverizer +3 from sanctuary+4 from Hourglas +6 from dimensional shield
It could work but does not necessarily do that.
Mono: 12 + 7 from jade shield +2 from jade staff +2x4 from 2 feral bonds=29dmg
This is even less likely since it requires 2copies of a card and has no synergy with draw power from hourglas
I would suggest giving it 1 bonus dmg for each liferelated permanent including pillars.
Edit: How does it interact with unstable gases generated by nymphs? Does it still gain 6 dmg from them?
Post by: rob77dp on July 25, 2013, 02:28:32 pm
Do I get that right that it deals 12 dmg extra + the total quanta cost of your permanents?
Comparing it to unstable gas it should deal at least 25 dmg (maybe even 35) in order to be balanced, because it costs a few more quanta, has no synergy with the vast majority of dmg dealing cards and most likely requires permanents that are off element. Also it does not bypass shields and does not ofer cc.
Let me check that: Rainbow: 29 dmg: 12 +4 from pulverizer +3 from sanctuary+4 from Hourglas +6 from dimensional shield
It could work but does not necessarily do that.
Mono: 12 + 7 from jade shield +2 from jade staff +2x4 from 2 feral bonds=29dmg
This is even less likely since it requires 2copies of a card and has no synergy with draw power from hourglas
I would suggest giving it 1 bonus dmg for each liferelated permanent including pillars.
Edit: How does it interact with unstable gases generated by nymphs? Does it still gain 6 dmg from them?
Twelve was the damage total from the example given, not a base damage to which summon costs of permanents are added.
I am working up a deck example right now... Example included now, below.
Exact damage win:
(http://i.imgur.com/xBEura8.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/xBEura8.png)
Would have been even sooner had AI not dropped early BE'd Cat :).
What does this mean? Well, really only means that it isn't so UP as to not be use-able in AI3 decks and not probably not OP. Perhaps someone could work up a Time (good expensive shield, expensive stalling weapon, Hourglasses, Deja Vu synergy with Bond?) example...
Post by: skyironsword on July 25, 2013, 04:20:04 pm
So now it's even more underpowered!
To be honest, it should cost 3|2.
Post by: jawdirk on July 25, 2013, 04:43:14 pm
Consider Ghostal:
something like this, couldn't find the tuned deck:
It only uses 2 GotP + 2 Fractal for its damage. Would your card have a place in Ghostal if it was an aether card? I'm not suggesting that it should be an aether card, I'm just saying that it is a little underpowered compared to fractal. Even though Ghostal uses only permanents other than its killing combination, Animism would be too expensive and too weak to work with that deck.
I agree that it should be significantly cheaper.
Post by: kaempfer13 on July 25, 2013, 07:51:19 pm
An eternal stall is quite fitting; replace the nymphes with animism. Well the combo would have worked if the nymphes where animism however it also worked with the actual nymphes :P. So I am not sure whether the stall itself is just that powerful or animism would actually be a good addition.
Also thanks for clarifying how the dmg is calculated.
Post by: skyironsword on July 25, 2013, 11:57:58 pm
Post by: Plastica on July 26, 2013, 12:06:35 am
Also, a poll has been added to decide how much the cost of the card should be reduced.
Pillars are FREE so you can only deal damage with catapults, graveyards and etc.The idea was to include pillars dealing 1 point each in the card's description.
Would that be something that could merit a slightly higher cost than skyironsword's suggestion?
/even a good idea in the first place?
Does damage reduction apply to each permant's attack, or only the combined damage?Damage reduction would be applied to each permanent.
However, if the card is already UP, should this be changed to direct spell damage?
Post by: jawdirk on July 26, 2013, 01:37:53 am
The idea was to include pillars dealing 1 point each in the card's description.I don't think it is a good idea. I think the casting cost of permanents is much more interesting than the number of pillars you can draw.
Would that be something that could merit a slightly higher cost than skyironsword's suggestion?
/even a good idea in the first place?
Quote
Damage reduction would be applied to each permanent.The physical damage seems nicely thematic - the idea of the objects crashing into the enemy. I like DR per permanent. Most of the DR shields are rarely used anyway and could use a buff.
However, if the card is already UP, should this be changed to direct spell damage?
I could see buffing it by making it based on the combined cost of ALL permanents, not just your own.
Post by: andretimpa on July 26, 2013, 01:38:13 am
Post by: CuCN on July 26, 2013, 01:50:03 am
You should include the 12 spell damage in the card description.What 12 spell damage?
Post by: Plastica on July 26, 2013, 05:16:08 am
The physical damage seems nicely thematic - the idea of the objects crashing into the enemy. I like DR per permanent. Most of the DR shields are rarely used anyway and could use a buff.I like the idea of using all permanents in play. Do you think, in that case, that 3 | 2 (or something within that general range) is still going to be a balanced cost?
I could see buffing it by making it based on the combined cost of ALL permanents, not just your own.
Post by: jawdirk on July 26, 2013, 05:43:24 am
The physical damage seems nicely thematic - the idea of the objects crashing into the enemy. I like DR per permanent. Most of the DR shields are rarely used anyway and could use a buff.I like the idea of using all permanents in play. Do you think, in that case, that 3 | 2 (or something within that general range) is still going to be a balanced cost?
I could see buffing it by making it based on the combined cost of ALL permanents, not just your own.
My intuition is that it would still be balanced. Many decks use few or no permanents with cost, and many permanents give life every turn or protect against physical damage, and those abilities counter this spell anyway. I like this odd form of direct damage for life. I think it would be an interesting challenge to make a deck with this card, since most permanents are stalling, and direct damage is rushing.
Post by: andretimpa on July 26, 2013, 03:00:20 pm
You should include the 12 spell damage in the card description.What 12 spell damage?
Do weapons also deal their regular damage?
I would assume so, since there is nothing about the permanents being delayed for 1 turn.
Anyways, this deals spell or physical damage? You contradict yourself in the description.
The spell is responsible for 12 damage; however, the damage dealt is physical.
The one Plastica is talking about. It's in the notes of the card, but not in the card text.
Post by: rob77dp on July 26, 2013, 03:04:56 pm
You should include the 12 spell damage in the card description.What 12 spell damage?Do weapons also deal their regular damage?
I would assume so, since there is nothing about the permanents being delayed for 1 turn.
Anyways, this deals spell or physical damage? You contradict yourself in the description.
The spell is responsible for 12 damage; however, the damage dealt is physical.
The one Plastica is talking about. It's in the notes of the card, but not in the card text.
The card "notes" mean a spell-type card being played, not the type of damage. The "12" comes from adding up the values in the example. The card text does not mention 12 spell damage because there is not 12 spell damage. The example does add up to 12 damage being done (in the example) by the spell card idea being proposed.
Hopefully that helps clear up this recurring "spell damage base" mistaken inquiry. :)
Post by: andretimpa on July 26, 2013, 08:11:45 pm
You should include the 12 spell damage in the card description.What 12 spell damage?Do weapons also deal their regular damage?
I would assume so, since there is nothing about the permanents being delayed for 1 turn.
Anyways, this deals spell or physical damage? You contradict yourself in the description.
The spell is responsible for 12 damage; however, the damage dealt is physical.
The one Plastica is talking about. It's in the notes of the card, but not in the card text.
The card "notes" mean a spell-type card being played, not the type of damage. The "12" comes from adding up the values in the example. The card text does not mention 12 spell damage because there is not 12 spell damage. The example does add up to 12 damage being done (in the example) by the spell card idea being proposed.
Hopefully that helps clear up this recurring "spell damage base" mistaken inquiry. :)
Got it. The wording in the notes could be made clearer then. (something like: "So playing Animism caused a total of 12 physical damage")
Post by: serprex on July 28, 2013, 05:58:42 pm
Post by: Blacksmith on August 01, 2013, 04:37:47 pm