"Element Completion"

[watche]

When having a browse, I noticed people kept saying that Elements needed more cards to "complete" elements, but why would anyone want that? Isn't the absence of certain cards in certain decks sort of critical to the intrigue found in the game? "Completing" Elements seems like a terrible idea. Why is it so popular?

[dragonsdemesne]

I have no idea; I actually agree with you on this point, though I realize we are in the minority.  I do agree that the -game- as a whole should ideally be complete, but individual elements should have their own strengths and weaknesses, or else we might as well just have one element.  As a (reverse) example of what I mean by a 'complete game', imagine how Elements would be without any way to destroy permanents, for instance; the game would be missing a key concept to ensure balance.

[Chapuz]

Each element is designed to have one thing: a personality. The personality of each element is defined with the abilities of their cards as a whole.
For example, one aspect of the personality of  is healing, while one from  is vampire healing. A card that simply offers drawpower would be out of place if it isn't in  (SoBr is nor simple drawpower)

The elements don't need to have everything. If they did, choosing mono  would be just a matter of taste and not of strategy.

[OldTrees]

Isn't the absence of certain cards in certain decks sort of critical to the intrigue found in the game?

Complete means different things.
The majority likes the following: "Every element* should have the ability to engage (attack and defend) against most opponents."
The majority dislikes the following: "Every element should have element shifted mechanics/cards."

Adopting the first means matches and War are complex (underdogs have a chance to win) rather than "Element A trumps Element B".
Rejecting the second means elements can have individual personalities.

*Sidenote: A complete element does not mean a complete deck(in fact, I don't remember anyone being in favor of complete decks).

[Aneninen]

The elements don't need to have everything. If they did, choosing mono  would be just a matter of taste and not of strategy.

I'd say, the elements mustn't have everything. If an element existed which has hard-hitters, CC, PC, Extra draw and healing for a reasonable cost, sooner or later every player would choose this element.

Indeed, every element has a "personality" and this includes weaknesses too. Eg.  can't heal,  creatures have very few HP,  is expensive.

In addition, some cards are essentially stronger or weaker than others but, if we consider which element do they belong to, we might find the reason. Eg. Fog Shield gives 40% miss chance for 2  while Dusk Mantle gives only 10% more for 6  ! But,  has Steal too which means you can use your opponent's shield if you wish, also, via vampirization an access to healing...  on the other hand can deal damage damm quick (even without Shards, there is Sky Blitz and diving...) Plus, right now I've talked about only the two elements themselves and haven't examined the possible synergies.

[OldTrees]

The elements don't need to have everything. If they did, choosing mono  would be just a matter of taste and not of strategy.

I'd say, the elements mustn't have everything. If an element existed which has hard-hitters, CC, PC, Extra draw and healing for a reasonable cost, sooner or later every player would choose this element.

Indeed, every element has a "personality" and this includes weaknesses too. Eg.  can't heal,  creatures have very few HP,  is expensive.

In addition, some cards are essentially stronger or weaker than others but, if we consider which element do they belong to, we might find the reason. Eg. Fog Shield gives 40% miss chance for 2  while Dusk Mantle gives only 10% more for 6  ! But,  has Steal too which means you can use your opponent's shield if you wish, also, via vampirization an access to healing...  on the other hand can deal damage damm quick (even without Shards, there is Sky Blitz and diving...) Plus, right now I've talked about only the two elements themselves and haven't examined the possible synergies.

Again I think we should remember we are talking about 2[3] different definitions of completeness. The naive definition mentions concepts like "hard-hitters, Extra draw and healing" as well as many more. The naive definition is fairly criticized and nobody would ever defend it.

Let us remember the sophisticated definition: "Every element should contain an offense, defenses against each offense(not perfect defenses of course) and methods to overcome each defense". Would we really want to design an element that was hard countered by rushing? What about an element that is hard countered by Hope or Bone Wall? No. We may appreciate the possibility of a deck being hard countered but a hard countered Element merely unnecessarily reduces the possibility space.

[Technically there is a even more sophisticated definition but it is more abstract than this thread needs]

So while the naive definition discourages and eliminates diversity and personality, the sophisticated version is compatible with and demands the existence of diversity and personality.