Pandemonium and PU Effect

[Captain Scibra]

Just a realization, but when Pandemonium is cast unupped, causing the random effect Parallel Universe on the caster's creature, s/he gets the copy.  In my opinion, with the way that Pandemonium is supposed to work, that when a creature is cast upon Parallel Universe via Pandemonium, the copy should be played opposite the original, regardless of who cast the Pandemonium spell.

EDIT: Spelling fixed. >.<

[Genuinous]

Disagree.

When you cast a PU on either your on your opponents creatures you get the copy. Since effectively you (or the AI) uses PU, then you (or the AI) should get the targeted creature. So whoever casts pandemonium will get the resulting creature.

[QuantumT]

Agree.

The above argument isn't really valid since you don't generally do any of the other things that pandemonium does to your own creatures either. Any of the effects triggering on your own creatures should be negative, as that's the whole point of having the downside of the card.

[Genuinous]

The point I'm making is as follows

Whenever you cast a damaging spells it damages the creatures, whichever side they are on. You might just as well do positive effects with damaging your own creatures. Damage on Voodoo Dolls is inflicted on the opponent, you could kill malignant cells and other creatures occupying your space.

Whenever you cast freeze, RT, gravity pull it effects the creatures the same way whichever side they are on. You might get to do some good with these though. RT might be used on a highly damaged creature of your own, gravity pull on a high HP one or help you survive and freeze (taking AI3 for example) used on Voodoo Dolls to freeze the opponents weapon. True, there are no guarantees, you will hit the creatures you'd like to with the certain spells, but it's the same with every spell! You could simply get a shockwave on the opponent's Animated Titan, leading to positive results equal to 0 (mostly).

Whenever you cast PU, you get the creatures. Therefore (following the logic of PU and the way all other cards worked before) YOU should get the targeted creature. You might be lucky, or unlucky again, you might not get anything useful (Ash for example in a mono  deck).

The idea behind Pandemonium is that it will cast certain spells at creatures. Why would only PU be reversed from it's original use if other spells might have positive effects too? Should those positive effects be reversed as well? I'm not saying, that PU is negative, mostly positive (again situationally can be (Malignant Cells)), but the other effects can be positive as well! So therefore I don't think it's valid to claim that PU should be reversed, because based on this argument all gaining from Pandemonium (frozen opponent weapon, damaging opponent, RTing damaged creatures, etc) should all be reversed.

I hope I made my point more clear this time. (And pretty long..... )

[QuantumT]

That's fine, I'm just saying that the intent of Pandemonium is to cast a randomly chosen negative effect on the creature. In the case of PU, that means the creature goes to the opponent.

If you want, you could just as easily pretend that whatever random effect is chosen, it's as if your opponent is casting it.

[BluePriest]

That's fine, I'm just saying that the intent of Pandemonium is to cast a randomly chosen negative effect on the creature. In the case of PU, that means the creature goes to the opponent.

If you want, you could just as easily pretend that whatever random effect is chosen, it's as if your opponent is casting it.

but your opponent isnt casting it. You are. Your opponent pays nothing for it. Your opponent has no say on any part of it. Neither do you. There are plenty of reasons wy you would use pandemonium even IF your opponent had no creatures on the field. IF you had a bunch of antimattered creatures, Pandemonium! Malignant cells, Pandemonium! In fact, one of the best things ABOUT pandemonium is that it is one of the few mass CC spells that also effects your own cards. Aka this and flooding are the only one.

EDIT

"A random effect is inflicted to every creature on the field. Removes invisibility." I dont see th word negative in there btw,

[QuantumT]

That's fine, I'm just saying that the intent of Pandemonium is to cast a randomly chosen negative effect on the creature. In the case of PU, that means the creature goes to the opponent.

If you want, you could just as easily pretend that whatever random effect is chosen, it's as if your opponent is casting it.

In fact, one of the best things ABOUT pandemonium is that it is one of the few mass CC spells that also effects your own cards. Aka this and flooding are the only one.

There's also Unstable Gas, but that's not really important.

EDIT

"A random effect is inflicted to every creature on the field. Removes invisibility." I dont see th word negative in there btw,

Basically, part of Pandemonium's cost is the fact that it also inflicts negative effects on your own creatures. Otherwise it would be incredibly OP when compared with cards like thunderstorm and rain of fire (in fact, there are people that still think it is OP (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,18515.0.html)).

[ratcharmer]

The casting cost for pandemonium is designed for the spell as is, not as you think it should be. This means that the spell cost was chosen based on the PU effect as-is. This means that the argument of "the cost includes negative effects on your creatures" is NOT valid.

The mere existence of a thread asking to nerf a card is not good evidence that said card is OP. I'm sure we've all seen threads asking to buff already strong cards or nerf cards that aren't particularly strong. In the thread you mention the majority voted that pandemonium is not overpowered.

I believe the propose change is:
1) inconsistent with other cards. You propose changing the way TU works in pandemonium but not in chaos seed or the TU spell
2) unnecessary for game balance. Pandemonium decks are not overpowered or completely dominating the PvP circuit. Yes, some of them are playable or even quite strong but there are other decks just as strong.
Making the proposed change would make it so you risk committing suicide every time you try to cc your opponent's creatures. This is utter nonsense from a balance point of view, as the whole point of the card is to prevent the opponent's creatures from hurting you.

Finally, doesn't this discussion belong more in the "nerf this card" section?

[BluePriest]

Unstable Gas is a permanent.

If you are arguing mechanically, that TU should make it on the opponents side of the field, then im sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Normally anything you say QT, I pay close attention to and considerer well thought out, however, mechanically, it would be BACKWARDS for it to put it on the opponents side of the field because no matter how you look at it, YOU are casting the spell, not the opponent.

Now if you are arguing balance wise that it should be put on the opponents side of the field, that is another thing entirely, and you should instead discuss that on the link you mentioned that this card has on the nerf this card board. Game Suggestions general, when it comes to cards, should only deal with mechanics, and not balance.

So in summary, balance wise, I make no comment on what Pandemonium should do with TU, however, mechanics wise, it is doing exactly what it should do.

Ninjad by RC

[QuantumT]

The casting cost for pandemonium is designed for the spell as is, not as you think it should be. This means that the spell cost was chosen based on the PU effect as-is. This means that the argument of "the cost including negative effects on your creatures" is NOT valid.

When I think about the cards functioning though, that's a much more consistent way to look at it. "Hmm, Pandemonium inflicts a negative effect on every creature on the field" seems better than "Hmm, Pandemonium inflicts a negative effect on every creature on my opponent's side of the field, and a negative effect on most of mine, but occasionally a positive effect on mine". The first just seems better to me (I admit that's more of an opinion than anything else).

1) inconsistent with other cards. You propose changing the way TU works in pandemonium but not in chaos seed or the TU spell

Neither of those are field effect spells/

2) unnecessary for game balance. Pandemonium decks are not overpowered or completely dominating the PvP circuit. Yes, some of them are playable or even quite strong but there are other decks just as strong.
Making the proposed change would make it so you risk committing suicide every time you try to cc your opponent's creatures.

Umm, isn't that more or less the case already?

This is utter nonsense from a balance point of view, as the whole point of the card is to prevent the opponent's creatures from hurting you.

But it does so in a very specific way. There's already the chance that pandemonium will completely wipe out my field and do basically nothing to my opponent's.

Finally, doesn't this discussion belong more in the "nerf this card" section?

Perhaps, but it's more of a discussion on game mechanics than a nerf request. It just so happens that changing the mechanics this way would be a nerf.

[BluePriest]

Mechanically it is doing exactly what it should be doing.


"A random effect is inflicted to every creature on the field. Removes invisibility."
When it causes TU, it causes the TU effect which is "Summon an exact copy of the target creature"  If it changed it to the opponents side of the field, then it wouldnt be the TU effect, it would be the "modified TU" effect.

[Captain Scibra]

As QuantumT gets the idea, the TU effect is inconsistent with the rest of the card.  Everything else is always negative when inflicted (in general), but TU is always positive to the caster regardless which creature on which side.

Also yeah, I wasn't entirely sure whether or not this belonged in the nerf section, but I figured it didn't really because it's not the actual balance of the card, just a minor inconsistency, very minor in fact, but the small things can really count.  However, yes the change could be considered a nerf.