Shard of Sacrifice | Shard of Sacrifice

[BluePriest]

Proposed Change for people who dont like the gamble....
Shard of Sacrifice
Immaterial. Reduce health to 1. Healing and damage you receive is inverted for 2 turns. Drain all of your non quanta each turn.

Removes the gamble, stall capability is destroyed, making it more of a come back from the grave card, and not a SCREW YOU card,  makes it less accessible to rainbows.

[OldTrees]

Proposed Change for people who dont like the gamble....
Shard of Sacrifice
Immaterial. Reduce health to 1. Healing and damage you receive is inverted for 2 turns. Drain all of your non quanta each turn.

Removes the gamble, stall capability is destroyed, making it more of a come back from the grave card, and not a SCREW YOU card,  makes it less accessible to rainbows.

Proposed alteration:
Lose the immateriality (it is overused in suggestions and often without sufficient justification)
Have a less drastic health loss like "Lose 3/4ths of your current hp"

[jmdt]

Proposed Change for people who dont like the gamble....
Shard of Sacrifice
Immaterial. Reduce health to 1. Healing and damage you receive is inverted for 2 turns. Drain all of your non quanta each turn.

Removes the gamble, stall capability is destroyed, making it more of a come back from the grave card, and not a SCREW YOU card,  makes it less accessible to rainbows.

I was actually thinking of suggesting the same.  Making it immaterial with a low timer i.e. 2 turns, would make both parties happier.

[Sevs]

Proposed Change for people who dont like the gamble....
Shard of Sacrifice
Immaterial. Reduce health to 1. Healing and damage you receive is inverted for 2 turns. Drain all of your non quanta each turn.

Removes the gamble, stall capability is destroyed, making it more of a come back from the grave card, and not a SCREW YOU card,  makes it less accessible to rainbows.

Proposed alteration:
Lose the immateriality (it is overused in suggestions and often without sufficient justification)
Have a less drastic health loss like "Lose 3/4ths of your current hp"

The 1 HP thing though is what makes it fun and a little risky though at least IMO. I support BluePriest's suggestion

[BluePriest]

Proposed Change for people who dont like the gamble....
Shard of Sacrifice
Immaterial. Reduce health to 1. Healing and damage you receive is inverted for 2 turns. Drain all of your non quanta each turn.

Removes the gamble, stall capability is destroyed, making it more of a come back from the grave card, and not a SCREW YOU card,  makes it less accessible to rainbows.

Proposed alteration:
Lose the immateriality (it is overused in suggestions and often without sufficient justification)
Have a less drastic health loss like "Lose 3/4ths of your current hp"

I believe this is pretty sufficient justification.

[Marvaddin]

Difficult to me say how much I hate this card idea.

1st, I hate this shards invasion thing, that will just add cards that are supposed to be OP and supposed to be used by all elements. This will probably make any normal ('shardless') strategy useless. Looks like the beggining of the end to EtG, something that will lead to a booooooooring metagame.

2nd, I hate this idea. A shard that is completelly unstable. If your opponent has PC or can use AM, LS in one of your creatures, etc, anything that counters it, you lose instantly. If it has no counter, you most probably just won. Doing moderate damage (creatures you can possibly play before playing SoS), you can already win in 5 turns.

3rd, ok, so these shards are supposed to be linked to an element? Sure, so they can give a small advantage to people using that element. But whats that? If you arent using Death, it will deny ALL YOUR QUANTA. If you are using mono death, it will do NOTHING. Looks unbalanced? No, looks terrible. If a shard is going to give an advantage to an element, could be something like "add 1 poison counter to your opponent every turn.", something that is theme related, and is a small advantage, never something like this.

This idea, in my opinion, is complete BS.

[LongDono]

If the turns were lowered to 1 or 2 it would not be so bad, really.

[OldTrees]

Difficult to me say how much I hate this card idea.

1st, I hate this shards invasion thing, that will just add cards that are supposed to be OP and supposed to be used by all elements. This will probably make any normal ('shardless') strategy useless. Looks like the beggining of the end to EtG, something that will lead to a booooooooring metagame.

2nd, I hate this idea. A shard that is completelly unstable. If your opponent has PC or can use AM, LS in one of your creatures, etc, anything that counters it, you lose instantly. If it has no counter, you most probably just won. Doing moderate damage (creatures you can possibly play before playing SoS), you can already win in 5 turns.

3rd, ok, so these shards are supposed to be linked to an element? Sure, so they can give a small advantage to people using that element. But whats that? If you arent using Death, it will deny ALL YOUR QUANTA. If you are using mono death, it will do NOTHING. Looks unbalanced? No, looks terrible. If a shard is going to give an advantage to an element, could be something like "add 1 poison counter to your opponent every turn.", something that is theme related, and is a small advantage, never something like this.

This idea, in my opinion, is complete BS.

1) Shards are not supposed to be OP. They are not "supposed to be used by all elements". They are "supposed to be able to be used by any element". If either of these were true then Shards would be required to compete. That is not and is not intended to be the case. Zanz tends to put OP versions of cards up for the community to nerf In Development.
2) Agreed
3) Agreed

However a calmer post would have been more persuasive.

[Jaymanfu]

No comments on my idea? D:

[OldTrees]

I was thinking of something, but in keeping the card a little similiar.

You lose 20 hp. Healing and Damage is inverted for one turn. Trigger 3 death effects.

I think the death effects are unnecessary complexity. I would remove than and increase the duration.

[Marvaddin]

1) Shards are not supposed to be OP. They are not "supposed to be used by all elements". They are "supposed to be able to be used by any element". If either of these were true then Shards would be required to compete. That is not and is not intended to be the case. Zanz tends to put OP versions of cards up for the community to nerf In Development.

"Supposed to be able to be used" is what I meant. But yeah, Shards are supposed to be OP. SoG and SoD are both OP, and having them is not required to compete, but is usually an advantage in most decks. SoR is more situational. If they arent OP, why are they rare?

It was a calm post, although maybe it didnt seem

[OldTrees]

1) Shards are not supposed to be OP. They are not "supposed to be used by all elements". They are "supposed to be able to be used by any element". If either of these were true then Shards would be required to compete. That is not and is not intended to be the case. Zanz tends to put OP versions of cards up for the community to nerf In Development.

"Supposed to be able to be used" is what I meant. But yeah, Shards are supposed to be OP. SoG and SoD are both OP, and having them is not required to compete, but is usually an advantage in most decks. SoR is more situational. If they arent OP, why are they rare?

It was a calm post, although maybe it didnt seem

Is it worse for a Common or a Rare card to be OP?
Answer: It is worse for a Rare card to be OP because there would be only a subset of skilled players that would be able to compete in pvp.
Conclusion: OP cards should not be rare. Therefore Rare cards were made rare for reasons other than that they are OP.

Specifically Shards were rare cards created to show Gratitude for donations.

More in general: Rare cards are a design tool that allows Zanz to make the game appeal to people of various degrees of patience from lazy (me) to perfectionists.