Apocalypse | Apocalypse

[Uppercut]

@Uppercut
Let me put it this way. Mathematical analysis is less fallacious than my intuition. Therefore mathematical analysis should be used instead of intuition. Better models should be devised and used instead of my current model. I hope it takes less time for someone to one up me than it took me to improve on PhantomFox's work. This is one of the reasons I keep pushing you to try and hopefully out do me at my own game.

  Unless the formulas apply to this card this really isn't the thread to discuss them.

Ps: 1 used the first 2 card combo to determine the cost of the combined effect. I used the second combination to find the assumed average number of creatures affected by a mass CC.

But this isn't just mass CC, this is mass CC and PC. This is like playing X amount of Explosions on top of your equasion and since we've never seen mass PC outside of EQ guessing how it should scale is a shot in the dark.

[OldTrees]

My costing theory (not the formula but rather the design theory philosophy behind it) I am developing is not just on creatures (although that is most of what I have posted)
So the theory of Upgrade cost reduction, value of drawing a card, quanta cost (random, elemental, duo)... is all relevant.

Well if we know the minimum cost then we can work up from there.

Mass X is worth X * the average targets.

So what are the average number of pillars? = N
N/3 = equivalent earthquakes

So what are the average number of non pillar permanents? = M

Add N/3 earthquakes and M explosions and your in the ballpark (maybe even on the plate)

[BluePriest]

Just to point out something. I dont see you taking into account that it has a negative effect on you as well.

[OldTrees]

Just to point out something. I dont see you taking into account that it has a negative effect on you as well.

Doh! Thanks BluePriest! I simple copied pasted from another thread and forgot to add either of the differences to this calculation.

[BluePriest]

. People seem to be forgetting something about this card. It drains all    Seems like no big deal, I know, but it also destroys all your  towers as well. So you cant play any of your other cards in a mono  until you draw more towers and a lot of fire cards rely on growth or are expensive. Meanwhile, your opponent didnt lose any of his quanta.  Therefor this deck requires at LEAST a duo for it to be at all effective.

[TheCrazyMango]

this+bonewall=OP

[OldTrees]

this+bonewall=OP

this destroys bonewall

[joebob777]

aaah, well now im just disapointed, it was fun watching two different sides fighting over WHY it was op. but i supposse that now peace has been made (appearently) i should just say that we can all agree it is op, except for the one example bluepriest put up, but does it have to mean our reason why iis the only one. . . why am i even doing this, i normally make them argue more and/or at me *sigh*

[Kuroaitou]

CURATOR COMMENT
-Add a icon to the card's COST section of both tables (It should read '15 ' instead of '15' to match the card image, unless you're implying it uses generic quanta)
-Have you requested permission to use said artwork?



...anyway, I really don't know about this card.


Cards that generally do a 'destroy everything' mechanic usually gets frowned upon regardless of how 'balanced' it might be. I have a feeling that you (or someone) has sent up a similar idea before into the Crucible, but it didn't succeed as well. Either way, it should be noted that regardless of whatever counters you can provide (immaterial/protected permanents and creatures), the idea of a card that takes everything off both fields doesn't seem very fun or tactical, and more of a reset button.

[qetuol]

to any peolpe who think its OP:

WHY?

and dont say specific cases like "rain of fire is op cuz it destroys all your ray of light using hope-fractal" cuz i can say for every card a situation where its is OP. i need a correct non-situational description.

as BlueP said, this card destroys all your pillars as well... so you wont play any pillars? then you have to wait 12 turns to play this card. your enemy will probably kill you in 12 turns if you dont do anything... also, it consumes all your  ,  but your opponent will have much quanta, since you cannot play this card early..

so why is it OP?

@Kuro , how can i check who is the artist? i asked the owner of that site i taken the pic from , he said this image is not his property and he doesnt know who is the artist.

[EvaRia]

It's a pain because there's really nothing there to feasibly counter it.

If you run into it unprepared, you will basically automatically lose.
That means every single deck you make has to be prepared for it one way or another, or you will lose.
Since you have to include it as a factor in every single deck you make, it's an incredibly broken card.

[qetuol]

It's a pain because there's really nothing there to feasibly counter it.

If you run into it unprepared, you will basically automatically lose.
That means every single deck you make has to be prepared for it one way or another, or you will lose.
Since you have to include it as a factor in every single deck you make, it's an incredibly broken card.

the trick is, no deck needs to be prepared for this (who can be prepared for apocalypse, right? ). the point of this card is, it hurts you as well, in addition it hurts you more than your opponent. its up to you if you can use this as an advantage..