What the game mechanics should be

[Scaredgirl]

Why would we forget the word "Untargetable"? It's right there. On the card. It has a specific meaning that everyone understands.

Because English is not Zanz's native language and some things are not expressed clearly. Just forget the word "Untargetable" and focus on the card itself and how it functions.

- It's called immaterial
- It cannot be targeted
- It doesn't take damage from spells
- It doesn't take damage from Fire Shield
- It doesn't take damage from ANYTHING
- It's IMPOSSIBLE to kill with anything that is found in Elements the Game

Now do you honestly think that Zanz only meant the card to be "Untargetable" but it became impossible to kill by mistake?

Immaterial creatures are working as Zanzarino intended and I agree with him 100%. Having these unkillable creatures is good for this game because they are a good counter to crowd control-decks.

So stop crying that we need to have a way to kill immaterial creatures.

[Scaredgirl]

Yep, arguing on internet forums is generally useless because some people are not here to find out the truth, they are here to "win" an argument and to get the last word. Whatever you say to them makes no difference because they will never admit they are wrong. And if they cannot come up with any counter-arguments, they resort to derailing the discussion or doing personal attacks.

ROFLOL! Interesting you should state that. Next time try to take your own advice, because I'm sick of your double standard. I'm pretty much not holding back with you anymore on the or bothering with giving you the benefit of the doubt. You're rude to everyone here, and when you disagree with someone, you attack them. You've attacked mods, you've attacked new people on the forums, and others have pointed this out before (it's not just me stating that).

You are a perfect example of what I was talking in my previous post. You stopped talking about the subject because you realized you were wrong and now it's suddenly all about me and how I am rude.

p.s. You still haven't given an answer to your earlier comments about MtG gameplay being real-time because of "instants". That's what.. 4 times you've dodged the question? Admitting you're wrong is never an option for you, is it?

[Scaredgirl]

MTG gameplay is not "real time", as I've stated before, even with its instants. MTG online client is "real time" (as I've stated before too) in terms of software, but still not "real time" in terms of gameplay.

How many times do I have to repeat that? SG, just move on, please.

Maybe you should read that post by Daxx again?

It's you who should learn to admit when you are wrong and move on. Anyone can read this whole thread and see that even though you talked about this "real-time in terms of software" (lol you also talked about MtG gameplay being real-time.

But it's easy to see that you will NEVER admit being wrong on an internet forum so I'll move on now, and maybe go play some "turn-based in terms of software" PvP.

[Scaredgirl]

Yeah, I'm done here. There's no point arguing about a game with someone who doesn't know the rules. Have fun with the rest of the thread.

Yep, arguing on internet forums is generally useless because some people are not here to find out the truth, they are here to "win" an argument and to get the last word. Whatever you say to them makes no difference because they will never admit they are wrong. And if they cannot come up with any counter-arguments, they resort to derailing the discussion or doing personal attacks.

You gave a perfect explanation about this whole real-time vs. turn-based that even a retarded house cat would have understood but seems like even that was not enough.

That's how e-mail chess (or Axis &  Allies for a more complex board game) works.  You make a move, and send it to your opponent and wait for him to send back what he does.  Very slow, but can be done.  It's also what could be a good test for 'turn based' vs. 'real time' gameplay.  MTG, Elements, Chess are all possible to play via e-mail (turn based).  It's impossible to play WoW, Starcraft, C&C, or even Speed via e-mail (real time).

QFT.

[Scaredgirl]

Immaterial creatures aren't only unable to be targeted, they are also immune to damage and infection. This is why RoF doesn't (and shouldn't) affect them.

What he said.

Man, I cannot BELIEVE that so many people want Rain of Fire to hit and an IMMATERIAL creature, who is basically a freaking ghost.

Just think about it. If you try to aim the creature with a Fire Bolt, you are not successful. But if you make fire drop from the sky (Rain of Fire), suddenly it hits the creature! Wtf kind of twisted logic is that?

Seems like the only way to hit an immaterial creature (a ghost) is the pretend like you are not trying to hit him.

Forget the word "untargetable" in the card. The creature is IMMATERIAL, a ghost. Nothing can hit him. Nothing. If you want to take down a creature like that you need to call Ghostbusters.

[Uncle Jellyfish]

In the future, who knows... maybe it would be kind of fun to include Wrath of God effects as a counter-measure to immaterial creature spam decks, if they exist.

I'd personally like to see cards that force a player to sacrifice (remove) N number of creatures. That would get around Immaterial. If they have quite a large number of creatures, the ones they care about are safe. If not, they lose the precious ones. So a card like this would add more strategy with determining when to play it.

Problem is that a card like this passes priority between the players in the middle of a turn, which the current PvP system can't handle. Perhaps a permanent that would force the player to sacrifice a creature at the beginning of their turn or something would be a more viable option.