What I am against in OT's statement is the complication 'utility' or 'generic' cards to justify a card's theme when you can argue the way a player builds his deck already does that.
Could you give an example of the complication 'utility' or 'generic' cards to justify a card's theme?
I am not sure if I am in favor or against it.
Sure.
As of now there are two items in ETG that are explicitly devoid of any element alignment : Short Sword and Shield.
You state the following:
However lets talk about Shield. Shield is a generic DR shield that originally belonged in Death, Life and Light. Many have noted that its effect does not seem to fit Fire.How could we mechanically represent this in as simple a manner? Russianspy's suggestion would require adding 12 quanta types which is medium effort for this desired effect. Can we identify a simpler method?
By the context of your suggestion, I assume you are willing to make mechanical changes to Shield in order to maintain Fire's thematic dislike of defense, similar to how Shield was transferred from
to
because it was appropriately generic.
There have been two suggestions on this thread so far on how to do this so far : one is use of banning quanta types and the other is providing 'modal' alternatives to make the card fit both themes at once. There is a third possible method, which is to Elementshift the card into one explicit element but that makes no sense due to shield being too widespread.
I have problems with the current methods:
Regarding banning quanta types to maintain thematic appropriateness:
Fridge Logic - This is not a magical cursed shield that hates elements, nor is Fire unwilling to use shields. Fire is known to even adopt a passive-aggressive strategy from time to time (Firestall). So what prevents a Fire elemental from picking up a generic shield in the middle of battle and just using it?
Regarding Modal Cards :
Complication of Mechanic - While at face value this seems like a good idea (both suggestions here could probably be if done right), I find it odd that
every such Other/Elemental card would probably have to receive such a drawback/altered effect due to the fact that we would have to delve into the specifics of each card and why element X hates them. I feel that we are analyzing an Elemental's fighting style too deeply if this method is used to specifically 'align' Other cards : as I stated in my above post about Shield, it is a generic equipment designed to be used by everyone. The impractically of using a shield with a certain Element (you noted Fire does not like Shield) is reflected in deckbuilding, rather than specific effect: Fire would rather have the damage-oriented Fireshield for a Fire Stall because it can potentially kill creatures that way. Gravity would prefer Shield because it's current shield does not provide actual DR against every threat on the board (E.g. Akebono). A Firestall using Shield in place of Fire Shield would be strictly less effective unless an additional strategy was introduced. There is no need to alter shield when the decks themselves show that certain elements dislike certain cards.
I feel this complication would apply to any attempt to change shield, not just modal. The reason being is that if we alter the card in some way we are inherently adding a new mechanic, be it element ban, ability switch, etc... Some cards in ETG need to be simple IMHO because it allows for designers to have a model to compare to for new cards and it allows straightfoward building for newer players. (Vanilla creatures do not need to have abilities to be part of an effective deck, either.)
For Both:
Why does every card in Other have to be aligned with a specific element? - As of 1.31, Dagger has been shifted to favor
and
. Out of all the Other cards (including the Shards), that means only two Other-type cards are now left without a mutable alignment towards an element : Short Sword and Shield. These effects are perfectly simple and straightfoward, and set a baseline for other weapons and shields with fancier effects that seem 'cooler' or 'more effective'. Short Sword and Shield see use as they currently are as well, so I see no reason to change what already works. In addition I think ETG itself is slightly overlooking the possibly of having Other cards with -no- alignment to an element, despite the numerous user ideas that have been submitted.
