Electromagnetic Field | Electromagnetic Field

[bucky1andonly]

how about just an increased cost, of say 10/9?

[Genuinous]

how about just an increased cost, of say 10/9?

imo that would make it more balanced... but I don't have the experience to tell you what to do , I prefer to leave fine tuning for more experienced players. Saving up 60/54 quanta would be harder than saving up 48/36, so that seems to be more balanced.

[bucky1andonly]

The way I see it, it is a hard card to use and time properly right now, but I think an increased cost would prevent the possibility of chaining them for 30 turns.

[Flayne]

Okay, I understand what you're saying, but let's first look at Dimensional shield. It only protects you for 3 turns, (poison, spells, other instant damage, deflag, BE, so you're still not safe!). Even though all these counters (Discord not (only affects if causes damage) affecting, BH, come on, 3 quanta is nothing) it is possible to Chain against MANY decks, which doesnt use heavy PC or momentum (these are restricted to only certain elements). And Dimensional shield is 6/5  . So assuming ideal case you've stalled the opponent for 18 turns!!!

Now compare this with Electromagnetic Field. 5 turns of invincibility! Chance for 30! turns of chaining and the opponent can't do ANYTHING, but watch and deck out. True, that a well timed silence can stop you, but silence is only  . True, devourers can screw you up, but it's only 1 out of 12 elements, and honestly,  stall against fractaling devourers.... Well devourers will suck all your quanta before you ever get 8/6 to play your card in the first place. BH sucks 3 quanta and (after chaining your shields and collecting high amounts of quanta) it won't affect you greatly. And Discord doesn't scramble, unless it does some damage... So it won't mess you up.

This leaves us with 30 turns (you didn't draw during these turns!!) giving you a chance to deck your opponent out with a 31 card deck!! In total you can hold off your opponent from doing damage for 48 turns!!!! Even against 60 card deck your opponent will only have (60-48-7or8) cards left. So you leave your opponent with 4-5 turns to do anything. And honestly, how many 60 card decks are you facing ?

I'm not against your idea, I like it a lot, but consider making it targatable, not immaterial. Because in this way, with no way to counter it and with the chance to chain + shields, it is a tiny bit OP.

thats my point of view exactly, just in an expanded version ^^, I vote NO to immaterial.

[Genuinous]

The real problem with immaterial (now that I thought clearly about it) is that it's enough to chain for 10 turn. You start stalling with your shields circa 10-14 turns and then just play 2 of these fields, will give you 20-24 turns of invincibility. An average rush deck will deck out in 22-23 turns, depending on the coin toss. So without even thinking about 30 turns of chaining, you have 2 of these in your hand after 14 turns (dim shield, lobo, lighting, mindgate, so stalling for 14 turns) and then you play 2 of this card (even increased cost, you will have 20  . And just wait for deckout. I don't know how many decks are at 30 cards, but I think easily the majority of them.

In this case it was just 2 cards, with 3 you can win a game after stalling for 9 turns!! Thats why immaterial is a problem...

[Flayne]

The real problem with immaterial (now that I thought clearly about it) is that it's enough to chain for 10 turn. You start stalling with your shields circa 10-14 turns and then just play 2 of these fields, will give you 20-24 turns of invincibility. An average rush deck will deck out in 22-23 turns, depending on the coin toss. So without even thinking about 30 turns of chaining, you have 2 of these in your hand after 14 turns (dim shield, lobo, lighting, mindgate, so stalling for 14 turns) and then you play 2 of this card (even increased cost, you will have 20  . And just wait for deckout. I don't know how many decks are at 30 cards, but I think easily the majority of them.

In this case it was just 2 cards, with 3 you can win a game after stalling for 9 turns!! Thats why immaterial is a problem...

this being Immaterial isn't just a simple problem, its simply OP, whether it creates a problem for balancing, comparing to dim shield etc. Its OP, because this can possibly = perfect win guarantee, along side dim shield.

[Genuinous]

The real problem with immaterial (now that I thought clearly about it) is that it's enough to chain for 10 turn. You start stalling with your shields circa 10-14 turns and then just play 2 of these fields, will give you 20-24 turns of invincibility. An average rush deck will deck out in 22-23 turns, depending on the coin toss. So without even thinking about 30 turns of chaining, you have 2 of these in your hand after 14 turns (dim shield, lobo, lighting, mindgate, so stalling for 14 turns) and then you play 2 of this card (even increased cost, you will have 20  . And just wait for deckout. I don't know how many decks are at 30 cards, but I think easily the majority of them.

In this case it was just 2 cards, with 3 you can win a game after stalling for 9 turns!! Thats why immaterial is a problem...

this being Immaterial isn't just a simple problem, its simply OP, whether it creates a problem for balancing, comparing to dim shield etc. Its OP, because this can possibly = perfect win guarantee, along side dim shield.

Well that's what I'm saying... with examples
If your opponent can't do anything but watch... that's a not balanced card... However I like the original idea, but without immaterial possibly, or any way it becomes balanced.