Chain of Water | Chain of Water

[odideph]

NAME: Chain of Water ELEMENT: Water COST: 5 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Engulf a random enemy pillar/pendulum. Chain: cast this again in the same turn for increasingly strong effect.	NAME: Chain of Water ELEMENT: Water COST: 4 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Engulf a random enemy pillar/pendulum. Chain: cast this again in the same turn for increasingly strong effect.

ART: odideph IDEA: odideph (inspired by this: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37282.0.html) NOTES: Details: "increasingly strong" = the amount of pillars/pendulums destroyed increases by 1 for each cast. Note that every reference to "pillars" below this sentence, treats pendulums the same way. Example: 1) I cast Chain of Water. 1 random enemy pillar is destroyed. 2) The turn after, i cast Chain of Water. 1 destruction again. 3) Now i play 2 other Chains of Water still in the same turn as the previous one. 2 additional pillars are destroyed + 3 additional pillars (total this turn: 6 pillars destroyed). 4) Next turn, i play Chain of Water again: 1 random enemy pillar is destroyed. For reference, maximum effect you can achieve with this (all 6 Chains in the same turn) is : 1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 = 21 destructions. Continuing the series, now with refined artwork! If you like the concept please check out the other Chains. SERIES: Elemental Chains (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42289.msg526204.html#msg526204)

[Drake_XIV]

Slightly more balanced than your original 12 |10, but I'd say this is still expensive.  Compare it to EQ|QS.  Maybe 3|2?

[odideph]

If it feels expensive compared to Earthquake, it probably has just the right cost then , because it should look:
-clearly overpriced for 1 use (no Chain)
-very slightly overpriced for 3 uses in a turn
-pretty cost-efficient for 4 and even more for 5 uses in a turn
-incredibly strong for a full 6-Chain.

This right here might just be the basic guidelines for balancing every positive-Chain cards' cost.

EDIT: This specific Chain could probably go abit lower in costs but since i don't like lockdowns in general i'll leave it there for now.

[Drake_XIV]

You're spending 10|8 to get rid of three permanents [equivalent to EQ].  That costs more than using 3 Deflag|Explosion.  The incentive to a chain should that it has a worthwhile effect while being affordable at that cost.  Sure you can now destroy 7 pillars in a stack.  But at the cost of 15|12 ?  Not worth it at all.

And when will you ever need to chain all 6?

Also, getting rid of pillars and whatnot slowly loses it's usefulness my midgame.  With these costs, you won't have any luck getting it right until endgame.

So, in your criteria.
-It is overpriced.  Too overpriced.
-Not even close to being slightly overpriced.
-Sure, but when will you need to do that?
-No one should even be packing that many pillars and survive long enough to get all 6.

[odideph]

You're right, but if i make the cost too low this will be avilable for rainbows aswell. I have nothing against rainbows, i find them the funniest to play, but this specific series of cards wasn't meant for that. I mean who knows what kind of madness could happen then... Chain of Water-Discord-BlackHole-SoFo-whatever?....

What if i make the initial amount of destructions 2 instead of 1 (with no cost change)? It would then go like this: 2;3;4;5;6;7, max 27 destructions in a turn. It would start to be decently useful at 2-Chain, and even 1 could offer an opportunity to destroy the pillar type the enemy has least of (like, just 1).
Basically this one Chain would be more useful in short chains than with the full 6-chain combo, but the latter would still remain the strongest you can get (for the theory at least).

[ARTHANASIOS]

You're right, but if i make the cost too low this will be avilable for rainbows aswell. I have nothing against rainbows, i find them the funniest to play, but this specific series of cards wasn't meant for that. I mean who knows what kind of madness could happen then... Chain of Water-Discord-BlackHole-SoFo-whatever?....

What if i make the initial amount of destructions 2 instead of 1 (with no cost change)? It would then go like this: 2;3;4;5;6;7, max 27 destructions in a turn. It would start to be decently useful at 2-Chain, and even 1 could offer an opportunity to destroy the pillar type the enemy has least of (like, just 1).
Basically this one Chain would be more useful in short chains than with the full 6-chain combo, but the latter would still remain the strongest you can get (for the theory at least).

IMO, make it like a permanent which can destroy a random enemy pillar each turn and increase its cost by 3 in both upped/unupped versions. You can have up to a total of 6 Chains of Water (though it will be extremely hard), so up to 6 random enemy pillars would be destroyed each turn.

[odideph]

I don't think the whole concept of a permanent destroying pillars every turn (xcept pulverizer) can be balanceable, especially since with the Chain mechanism, which is the whole point of this series, it wouldnt be 6 pillars destroyed per turn (that would be the effect of 6 normal permanents), it would be many more.

[Elite arbiter]

I don't think the whole concept of a permanent destroying pillars every turn (xcept pulverizer) can be balanceable

So what do you think of trident?


That said, the problem with this as a spell is that there aren't that many pillars to destroy at all, not to mention that earthquake does the job better in virtually every aspect. This isn't even that much more cost effective. Lets look at your new calculation since your old one needed all 6 to be cast to not be strictly worse than Earthquake. Now we'll just look at 4 castings for a reason I'll explain later.

Chain of Water: 2+3+4+5 = 14 Pillar destructions
Earthquake: 3+3+3+3 = 12 Pillar destructions

Here it gets to two more destructions, any less than 4 chain and earthquake is strictly superior. I only used 4 chain because once we get to over 10 pillar destructions, we really have to start asking ourselves what kinds of decks actually possess this many pillars. And even if they 'possess' them then they can't have them out on the field.

Worse still, if you have to play this in the same turn, to see any benefit, you have to wait until turn 12+ (necessarily, assuming a deck of 50% pillars which is about as high as it gets, 7 card hand, and 12 cards drawn, thats when they'll reasonably have 10+ pillars out.). But even with this absurdly ideal example earthquake still outshines for a better quanta efficiency half of the time. And even ignoring that, if you're waiting until turn 12+ to cast this spell they've gotten 10+ turns of quanta generation out of those pillars, which is usually enough quanta to last them the rest of the game, nevermind that you've devoted 6 slots in your deck to denying the opponent quanta that you just kept back for 12+ turns. Or the game is over because they've killed you.


tl;dr: Even with your new calculation, the regular Earthquake spell is superior in almost every conceivable scenario. Because you need to cast this 4 times in a row for this to be in any way shape or form more effective than earthquake, and do it at a time when your opponent has 13+ pillars out, more than most decks even posses entirely.

[odideph]

I don't think the whole concept of a permanent destroying pillars every turn (xcept pulverizer) can be balanceable

So what do you think of trident?


That said, the problem with this as a spell is that there aren't that many pillars to destroy at all, not to mention that earthquake does the job better in virtually every aspect. [...]

tl;dr: Even with your new calculation, the regular Earthquake spell is superior in almost every conceivable scenario. Because you need to cast this 4 times in a row for this to be in any way shape or form more effective than earthquake, and do it at a time when your opponent has 13+ pillars out, more than most decks even posses entirely.

Trident is duo, and it's a weapon, which means taking your weapon slot unless you have crusaders or can fly them.

Nonetheless, you got so many relevant points in there that it's now clear that a conceptual change might just the only thing capable of making that card useful, other than a huge cost decrease.

The best i can think of right now is making it target a random permanent at all.
That way you could have a chance to destroy shields, bonds, hourglasses and such things, but to get any chance to break significant things, you would need alot of destructions, justifying the incentive to wait and stack the Chains of Water in your hand. Permanents that cannot be destroyed or stolen would never be targeted by this, everything else would be doomed.

Would that version be okay or did i miss some horrible flaws again?

[Mathematistic]

How often do you draw all 6 of your novas while playing a grabbow?

[odideph]

How often do you draw all 6 of your novas while playing a grabbow?

I don't have a grabbow but i do have bows. I'd say i draw all of my novas... very, very rarely?
As for all my "any card" really.

This is precisely why i thought there should be a much bigger reward for actually managing to draw and keep all 6 of the same card in your hand, and so i made this series.

Obviously that idea came to my mind while experimenting with Shard golems. Have you ever tried to gather all 6 of a specific type of shard in your hand, plus the 1 shard of Integrity needed to make the golem? If so, you'll understand me.

[memimemi]

Nonetheless, you got so many relevant points in there that it's now clear that a conceptual change might just the only thing capable of making that card useful, other than a huge cost decrease.

If you're considering a conceptual change, how about something using flooding?  Say, the first one floods one random creature slot (opponent's, yours, both, whatever balances); the second one adds two more; third adds 3 more (6, a potential lock with these/Inundation/lotsaluck); etc.?

I would use these in a fat  Inundation/SoP control deck - the potential for randomized instant CC would help to slow swarms, and keep rushers on their toes!

Just a thought.