Design "problems"

[Dirich]

I don't want to sound cocky or something, so let me get this straight: the game is good. It's just that there are some issues with some aspect of the game that could be improved.
Also, what I say here is said thinking about FGs, not lvl 1-5 elementals.

Card related problems:
A) Lack of a way to deal with Permanents enchanted with Enchant Artefact and creatures who are Immortal (unless I missed something).
B) Too many times there's only one (or two) way(s) to deal with something.
Point A is a problem especially felt against Divine Glory (FG), where the player essentially is playing a timed match where how much time he has to kill the FG is dependent only on the number of Sundial and the kind of shields he plays and the number of Weapons the FG plays.
There's really nothing to this fight apart from luck. The only way to play this FG differently is trying to keep it from playing by destroying his lands since there's no counter for whatever he does.

For point B I'll just throw in some examples:
1) If a deck is built around some important Permanent, since many FG can destroy permanents we are forced to pick up Enchant Artifact and thus the Earth element.
2) If a deck is built around some important creature, something similar to 1 happens, and we thus have the choice to either go Time for Anubis or go Aether for Quintessence.

Essentially what I imply with point B is that if you wanna play against FGs you really feel the need to go for a rainbow deck or a fire/earth deck. With 12 elements and so many possibilities for 2 and 3 colored decks, it's a bit sad (from the metagaming point of view, aka from the "building the decks game" point of view) that so many options are viable.


If I can suggest something for point A: let Rain of Fire (or, more in general, aoe effect) affect immortal creatures. Immortal would be something more like "untargetable by something which choose a target".

[darkfrogger]

Btw immortal creatures are affected by shields.

[Dirich]

Yes, but shields do not deal with problems, they just delay them. You can have shields that block every damage for some round, or that block part of the damage but last until destroied or replaced. In either case they only lower the damage you would get without diminishing the damage potential of the enemy. And FGs have no problem with resources, lack of cards (double drow and sometimes even hourglasses): they keep putting creatures on the table.
When you are dealing with 6 Immortal Animated Weapon which deal 8 damage each, you have trouble keeping your life high. Not to talk about the fact that Morning Glory is mono-white and can spam Miracles easyly.


Anyway, I forgot to mention the thing that really triggered my post: FG dropping Pulverizer + Enchant Artifact in the same round. It happened me more than once and it really is overkill. You need to not rely on permanents against such combo, but you can't go on without lands and rushing a FG isn't really an option, so you really need at least 1 Enchant Artifact to protect your lands... kinda suck when you still haven't drowed it or if your deck has none.

[Kamietsu]

I drop Pulvy and Enchant Artifact on the same turn. I also drop Eternity and Enchant Artifact in the same turn. the FGs are supposed to be hard. They aren't supposed to be some walk in the park. All shield effects now work against Immaterial creatures. If we make AoE spells effect immaterials too, then there is almost no point for them. Immaterials are supposed to be hard, if not, next to impossible to get rid of. It's also why rainbow decks are so popular for FGs because they have the best winning chances. They can carry cards from any element, and use them how they wish. Immaterials force you to be strategic about what you do, same with the FGs with permanent control.

[Dirich]

I totally agree that FG should be hard, I'm not saying that.
What I'm saying is that there is NO WAY to do something against "permanent + enchant artifact".
You can't rush a FG (I mean "kill it fast"), so if the pulverizer+enchant artifact combo drops in the first half of the game you are essentially done for if you have not enough enchant artifact to save your permanents right in hand (or if you don't draw them in the next few hands if you have to save the pillars).
-this holds for FGs since they have no resource problems at all in the majority of cases-

-the problem with immortal creatures is that a deck using only them can be countered only by a deck faster than it is (impossible against FGs) or a deck fully based on control which do not run out of control options by not drowing the right cards or the needed pillars- so it's kind of a "forced strategy" deck.


Also, I'm saying that if everyone is forced to play rainbow with oty+queen+druid, aka, everyone plays the same deck with just minor variations, than there is not much point in having so many cards and elements.
So my suggestion is (since from the poll it seems many want more cards): imho it would be good if the new cards would help raise the chance to be succesfull against FGs with decks using only 2 or 3 elements.

[Kamietsu]

I totally agree that FG should be hard, I'm not saying that.
What I'm saying is that there is NO WAY to do something against "permanent + enchant artifact".
You can't rush a FG (I mean "kill it fast"), so if the pulverizer+enchant artifact combo drops in the first half of the game you are essentially done for if you have not enough enchant artifact to save your permanents right in hand (or if you don't draw them in the next few hands if you have to save the pillars).
-this holds for FGs since they have no resource problems at all in the majority of cases-

-the problem with immortal creatures is that a deck using only them can be countered only by a deck faster than it is (impossible against FGs) or a deck fully based on control which do not run out of control options by not drowing the right cards or the needed pillars- so it's kind of a "forced strategy" deck.


Also, I'm saying that if everyone is forced to play rainbow with oty+queen+druid, aka, everyone plays the same deck with just minor variations, than there is not much point in having so many cards and elements.
So my suggestion is (since from the poll it seems many want more cards): imho it would be good if the new cards would help raise the chance to be succesfull against FGs with decks using only 2 or 3 elements.

Yes, and that's what's happening. The nymph cards offer a nice advantage to decks that run just a few elements. Nymphs are difficult to place in a rainbow deck because of their high cost, and high ability cost.  Granted, mono/duo/trio decks can't take on all of the false gods, it will be a while until a single mono/duo/trio deck will fully be able to. and when that happens, people will just migrate to whichever one works best for them. Rainbows give the most versatility, making them ready for more situation than a mono/duo/trio deck. I understand what you want to do, and as this game grows, new cards will be introduced.

And also, Immaterial creatures can be countered many ways. Armagio with gravity pull, flying titan with gravity pull, fire shield, ice shield, Titanium/diamon shield shields a lot of damage, procrastination, bonewall. All of them are very good ways to counter immaterial creatures. Until new cards come out, i suggest you use them.

[Dirich]

The nymphs are nice, but honestly, they will not allow many elements to stand on their own. Like, i.e. the time nymph or the light nymph.
Also, even if you have a deck able to beat some FG, you still need to account for luck and bad luck, so if with nymphs a mono-something is able to keep its ground (50% win ratio) against 50% of the FGs but get beated 99% of the time by the other half, it means you have a winning chance of nearly 25%, and you'll probably end up switching to a rainbow deck.

Now, I don't want every element to have the counter to every problem, but there's need for a bit more ways to deal with anything. I.e. at least 4 wayas (spread along different colours) to deal with every kind of possible problem, may it be destroying permanents, destroying pillars (specific anti-pillar), destroying something protected by immortality or enchant artefact, protecting creatures, protecting artefacts, etc.
If the winning chance of a deck isn't around 50% it's unlikely that someone will really go for it (the winning chance against FG should be something LIKE (numbers are just to help get the idea) to 50% against 50% of the FGs, 75% against 25% of the FGs (deck is a counter for those FGs), and 25% against remaining FGs (these FGs are counter to the deck being played).

P.S.
As I said the numbers are just for example, subtract 10, or 20 if you wanna account for the fact that FGs are strong.

[Glitch]

I never got why you couldn't steal Morning Glories.  I don't care what it is, but if you can use it as a sword, you can steal it.