[Official] Black Hole | Black Hole

[Dm]

(Just posting to point out that there is a thread in the first page that follows the rules in which you should most likely continue this argument for clarity's sake.)

[Anarook]

I think it's a fine card and doesn't need a nerf at all, read the READ THIS FIRST section before posting please

You think wrong, then.

It doesn't hurt a lot of decks, but it DESTROYS rainbow decks, with no reasonable response to it, especially if they get out the nymph early on.

I'm probably wrong for continuing this but...
I recommend structuring your arguments better;
at the moment from what I can gather you're upset because a particular card counters your preferred strategy.
That's not the result of something being too powerful, that's the result of a well structured meta-game making it impossible for 1 deck type to win all the time.
Also - I tend to think rainbows are far too powerful and need more counters - thus I could probably argue for buffing black hole.

See where I'm going? If you're going to suggest a card be buffed/nerfed you're going to need a strong argument and the ability to back up claims - in my view you jumped the gun and raged against a card because it does exactly what it was intended to.
Food for thought.

[Joyrock]

I think it's a fine card and doesn't need a nerf at all, read the READ THIS FIRST section before posting please

You think wrong, then.

It doesn't hurt a lot of decks, but it DESTROYS rainbow decks, with no reasonable response to it, especially if they get out the nymph early on.

I'm probably wrong for continuing this but...
I recommend structuring your arguments better;
at the moment from what I can gather you're upset because a particular card counters your preferred strategy.
That's not the result of something being too powerful, that's the result of a well structured meta-game making it impossible for 1 deck type to win all the time.
Also - I tend to think rainbows are far too powerful and need more counters - thus I could probably argue for buffing black hole.

See where I'm going? If you're going to suggest a card be buffed/nerfed you're going to need a strong argument and the ability to back up claims - in my view you jumped the gun and raged against a card because it does exactly what it was intended to.
Food for thought.

My argument is just fine, thanks.

I've nothing against a meta, or against something having counters - that's absolutely fine.

There's a difference between having counters and completely removing the deck's potential, which is what rainbow decks deal with. There is no possible response to these cards gotten off early for a rainbow deck, and they're incredibly easy to get off early, regularly.

[Dm]

Black Hole costs 4 gravity, Sanctuary costs 4 light. Your point? They both have the same cost, and sanctuary removes Black Hole potential, being common and easy to add in a rainbow deck in a form that it will negate black hole. Also, people are smart. Black Hole does not negate a Rainbow completely - Speed Rainbows can time their Supernova use as to avoid black hole and only give the opponent minimum HP.

As for your argument, it got flawed when you placed the nymph. We're talking 'bout the card.

Also, pointing out again that this whole argument has already been developed in the thread I have pointed out earlier.

[Joyrock]

Black Hole costs 4 gravity, Sanctuary costs 4 light. Your point? They both have the same cost, and sanctuary removes Black Hole potential, being common and easy to add in a rainbow deck in a form that it will negate black hole. Also, people are smart. Black Hole does not negate a Rainbow completely - Speed Rainbows can time their Supernova use as to avoid black hole and only give the opponent minimum HP.

As for your argument, it got flawed when you placed the nymph. We're talking 'bout the card.

Also, pointing out again that this whole argument has already been developed in the thread I have pointed out earlier.

Meaning Black Hole can consistently be gotten off before Sanctuary can be consistently be gotten off, because of the randomness that rainbow decks have.

And it didn't get flawed when I brought the nymph into question, because it's the same issue.

[omegareaper7]

Black Hole costs 4 gravity, Sanctuary costs 4 light. Your point? They both have the same cost, and sanctuary removes Black Hole potential, being common and easy to add in a rainbow deck in a form that it will negate black hole. Also, people are smart. Black Hole does not negate a Rainbow completely - Speed Rainbows can time their Supernova use as to avoid black hole and only give the opponent minimum HP.

As for your argument, it got flawed when you placed the nymph. We're talking 'bout the card.

Also, pointing out again that this whole argument has already been developed in the thread I have pointed out earlier.

Meaning Black Hole can consistently be gotten off before Sanctuary can be consistently be gotten off, because of the randomness that rainbow decks have.

And it didn't get flawed when I brought the nymph into question, because it's the same issue.

Supernova is not random at all. Then there are also PSNbows which also GREATLY reduce the luck for entropy and element x.

[Dm]

Meaning Black Hole can consistently be gotten off before Sanctuary can be consistently be gotten off, because of the randomness that rainbow decks have.

And it didn't get flawed when I brought the nymph into question, because it's the same issue.

You're going to have to stop with the small messages if we want to create any argument. Again, what you said has already been pointed out in another thread, much more extensively than this and covering many other points that you are making. It also has been already shot down.

BH isn't used so often, the only increased occurance of it being due to SoFo (which is also a different problem as a whole.) As omegareaper7 has pointed out, the randomness that rainbow decks have is only limited to quanta pool IF your rainbow deck is a quantum tower powered deck, which is not the case (Most rainbows are speed rainbows, most rainbows have supernova, supernova does not randomize quanta pool. Figure out the result.) If you mean draw randomness, then the Gravity Deck with the Black Hole card also has it.

And yes, it did get flawed. Black Hole is Black Hole, Amber Nymph is Amber Nymph. Black Hole is a spell and therefore cannot be stopped through conventional means (only through sanctuary), and Amber Nymph is a creature that can be dealt with in several other forms (Examples being Fire Shield, Skull Shield, Procrastination, Reverse Time, Fire Bolt, Ice Bolt, Lightning, Freeze, Devour, Shockwave, Drain Life, Guard...). Black Hole also has a cost, while the nymph has double (or in the upgraded case, triple) the cost; also, the Nymph has a summoning sickness, which means not only will it be summoned late during the game, which makes the BH effect less useful (Supernova bows will have drained most parts of their quanta and if they are smart they will have only been playing what is necessary, therefore cutting down on the effect of BH and having already tons of creatures in the field if built properly), and that it will also have no effect other than a simple 1 damage on the turn it is cast due to the summoning sickness, leaving the opponent open to kill it / make it useless in that one turn of breather he has.

[eaglgenes101]

Nymph's tears has always been a useful card, but Nymph queen has been underused until fairly recent times. QED.

[Aneninen]

Can Black Hole ruin a rainbow deck? – Yes!
Guess what, Purify can ruin all the Poison/SoSa/NerveToxin decks. Eventually, I hate that card a lot.
So, in this case Purify should be nerfed or banned to, shouldn't it? ^_^

[Of course not. Black Hole is okay. It can be really annoying but, okay.]