Phalanx | Phalanx

[Pineapple]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx

exactly, to save people some read [...] any massed infantry formation, regardless of its equipment [...]
in other words, numbers

Don't you know what a phalanx is? This doesn't mean that numbers = better defense from the formation. In fact, the reason why phalanxes were so efficient was because each constituent had high defense alone, e.g. each individual in the first row held a big shield, and each individual in the second row had a long-reaching spear. All that mattered after organization was defense. In other words, HP.

Plus, it would obviously be bad to increase 0 HP creatures' HPs by a positive value. Balance considerations aside, what good would a phalanx formation be if half the people were poorly equipped and dying?

Finally, why are you even suggesting I completely overhaul the mechanic based only on theme when, in the notes, I specifically say one of the things that are negotiable are theme changes?

[iskelion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx

exactly, to save people some read [...] any massed infantry formation, regardless of its equipment [...]
in other words, numbers

Don't you know what a phalanx is? This doesn't mean that numbers = better defense from the formation. In fact, the reason why phalanxes were so efficient was because each constituent had high defense alone, e.g. each individual in the first row held a big shield, and each individual in the second row had a long-reaching spear. All that mattered after organization was defense. In other words, HP.

Finally, why are you even suggesting I completely overhaul the mechanic based only on theme when, in the notes, I specifically say one of the things that are negotiable are theme changes?

what part of "regardless of its equipment" is not clear? phalanx is a military formation based grouping units, and it does depend on numbers, if you dont want to change the mechanics, you could change the name to "fortification" or whatever.

Balance considerations aside, what good would a phalanx formation be if half the people were poorly equipped and dying?

we are not talking about theory here, but about what phalanxes actually were

Plus, it would obviously be bad to increase 0 HP creatures' HPs by a positive value

not necessarily, it could create decks arround it, giving sparks scrabs +0/+x thing.
but if you want to avoid that, you can always add "to every creature with hp>0.
agreed, you could add: add +0/+X to a creatures

[OdinVanguard]

This secondary ability can make catapult otks with very few cards, right? 2 of them are equivalent to 4 PUs. Omg

Catapult's damage doesn't scale linearly; for an OTK deck you need two 100+ HP creatures, three 50+ HP creatures, four 32+ HP creatures, or five 24+ HP creatures. I would use this in a Cata-Titan deck.

also, phalanx should have an effect like scarab making hp depend on amount of creatures

Um. Why?


What if I keep the cost, but decrease the effect to +25% HP, rounded up?

2 Elite Armagios
2 BB
2 Catapults
1 of these
Its an exact OTK for a 100 HP opponent
Only a slight downside that catapults must be in play 1 turn prior to strike... throw in 2 PA and you make them deflag immune so you get:
Setup:
2 Catapults
2 PA
Killing blow
2 Elite armagios
2 BB
1 of these

I think that is a very viable deck. The finishing blow requires only 5 cards in hand, 16 2 ... Not too shabby. Very easily run off of earth mark and grav towers

[Pineapple]

@iskelion: 1. Phalanxes are phalanxes regardless of equipment, but it's wrong to say that the effectiveness of phalanxes depend more on numbers than equipment. I am staying true to phalanxes as the actual military formation and what made it viable, not some trivially general definition of a category. Your logic can be used for why it's not dependent on numbers: the power of this card does scale to the number of creatures you have, like a phalanx formation should, because you have more creatures gaining HP.

@OdinVanguard: Okay, but that's only 1 deck that can be easily countered, and I've already conceded that the buff may be too powerful at +100%.

So I ask again, what about +25%?

[iskelion]

@iskelion: 1. Phalanxes are phalanxes regardless of equipment, but it's wrong to say that the effectiveness of phalanxes depend more on numbers than equipment. I am staying true to phalanxes as the actual military formation and what made it viable, not some trivially general definition of a category. Your logic can be used for why it's not dependent on numbers: the power of this card does scale to the number of creatures you have, like a phalanx formation should, because you have more creatures gaining HP.

this card wont put more creatures in play, and you can't possibly say that a 1 soldier is as effective as a well made phalanx formation.
like it or not, phalanx is a formation that depends on stacking units, and becomes more effective the closer you get to an ideal number
phalanx being the formation that is, making it's buff depend on the number of creatures is only logical. the best example of a phalanx in Elements, would be Scarabs

[Pineapple]

@iskelion: 1. Phalanxes are phalanxes regardless of equipment, but it's wrong to say that the effectiveness of phalanxes depend more on numbers than equipment. I am staying true to phalanxes as the actual military formation and what made it viable, not some trivially general definition of a category. Your logic can be used for why it's not dependent on numbers: the power of this card does scale to the number of creatures you have, like a phalanx formation should, because you have more creatures gaining HP.

this card wont put more creatures in play, and you can't possibly say that a 1 soldier is as effective as a well made phalanx formation.
like it or not, phalanx is a formation that depends on stacking units, and becomes more effective the closer you get to an ideal number
phalanx being the formation that is, making it's buff depend on the number of creatures is only logical. the best example of a phalanx in Elements, would be Scarabs

I never said it'd put more creatures in play, but if "defensiveness" is equivalent to the total health on your side of the field then the amount of "defensiveness" increased by playing this card does already scale with the number of creatures in play. In fact, it scales proportionally, and whose to say the relationship with the number of creatures is a different mathematical function?

[Submachine]

Why I think this is a bad idea:



Titans completely ignore opponent shields + gets wondrous amount of HP and not even for a limited time.
Upgrade the Flying Weapon, and tada! you can even do the combo in a mono.