[Official] Dimensional Shield | Phase Shield

[kimham8a]

this card so op all u have to do is spam it and if u dont have pc you lose  >< >< >< *ahem* Barring all nooby complaining, this card actually is kind of OP. Not every card with a counter is balanced. Sure, thunderstorm a SoFo fractal. Doesn't make it any less OP.

Your claim: This card is actually OP
Your evidence: The existence of a counter is not proof of balance

Please provide more evidence that supports your claim's likelihood rather than merely supports your claim's possibility.

Agreed. Fire shield counters Photon. Doesn't make photon any less UP XD (Ray of Light is good though).

I don't know why you are quoting me. I was informing skyironsword that the evidence that something is not necessarily balanced is not sufficient evidence for the claim that something is imbalanced.

I quoted what I was agreeing with, then adding a counter example of skyiron's example that showed how skyiron's example could be used both ways in arguing that a card is OP.

Then you might have misunderstood skyironsword. Many have claimed that since Dim Shield has counters then it must not be OP. He was reminding people that this is not necessarily true. A card can have counters and still be OP. Your example does not address this logic.

Maybe my example isn't clear, but I would think it shows that a card can have counters and still be UP (as well as OP), meaning that a card's power is not fully determined by whether it has a counter.

Thus you were repeating what skyironsword said. Agreeing with someone is not an effective way of making a counterexample.

Skyironsword said dim shield is OP. I said no, because his argument can work both ways. That's not agreeing.

EDIT: This discussion is getting nowhere; I'm just going to stop posting about this disagreement.

[OldTrees]

Skyironsword said dim shield is OP. I said no, because his argument can work both ways. That's not agreeing.

Skyironsword had a claim. He supplied insufficient evidence to conclude his claim. You disagree with his claim. You used the same type of insufficient evidence to try to refute his claim.

Skyironsword:
Claim 1: Dim is OP
Evidence 1: A card can be OP even if it has counters.

OldTrees:
Evidence 1 does not imply Claim 1 is true

kimham8a:
Claim 2: Claim 1 is false
Evidence 2: A card can be UP even if it has counters.

OldTrees:
Evidence 2 neither implies Claim 2 is true nor does it refute any evidence Skyironsword provided. You did not address his logic.

You agreed that the evidence provided (the existance of counters does not imply the balance/imbalance state) was true.
You both made the mistake of using insufficient evidence.
The only thing you disagreed on was whether the card was OP or not.
Agreeing with someone's evidence either implies that you agree with their conclusion or you believe their valid evidence is insufficient to reach the conclusion. Either way, using the same type of evidence is not an effective way of making a counterargument.

TLDR:
The existence of counters does not determine the balance/imbalance of a card. This fact is also insufficient evidence to determine the balance/imbalance of a card.

[skyironsword]

Well, if you're not packing PC, then you're dead. Immaterial creatures? Fine. Spell damage? Whatever. Untargetability for 18 turns? What the heck? 

...his...his...his...

his

I'm a girl.

[Absol]

Well, if you're not packing PC, then you're dead. Immaterial creatures? Fine. Spell damage? Whatever. Untargetability for 18 turns? What the heck? 

...his...his...his...

his

I'm a girl.

You only need one turn or two to bust through those defense. Usually a MA player chains dim after 2 turns away from death. Unused shield is wasted shield.
Your gender is unknown, and so it's just natural to assume.

[kimham8a]

Well, if you're not packing PC, then you're dead. Immaterial creatures? Fine. Spell damage? Whatever. Untargetability for 18 turns? What the heck? 

...his...his...his...

his

I'm a girl.

Pardon me, young lady. 

[OldTrees]

Well, if you're not packing PC, then you're dead. Immaterial creatures? Fine. Spell damage? Whatever. Untargetability for 18 turns? What the heck? 

So there are around 30-6.5=23.5 turns for a 30 card deck. Damage increases as time goes on so the Aether deck prefers to prevent the last 18 turns. This leaves 5-6 turns for the non PC, non direct damage using deck to deal 100 damage. Most rush decks have a low TTW with 5-6 being a reasonable target.

...his...his...his...

his

I'm a girl.

I apologize.

[meowww]

Well, if you're not packing PC, then you're dead. Immaterial creatures? Fine. Spell damage? Whatever. Untargetability for 18 turns? What the heck? 

You should pack PC anyways, at least 2 PCs save you from many death, Dim-shield are not the only "Bring some PC or lose" card.
To kill someone chaining Dim shield but don't weird any other deference, usually you only need one well timed PC, sometimes two.
(In almost every case, they can't afford anything else, as Aether deck already demand a lot of resources.)

[Pepitoss]

Definitely no , dim shields are quite balanced and vry week to any sort of permanent control cost is good.

[majofa]

It's already been established that PC is not an auto win vs Dim Shields.

Furthermore, it is not to be assumed that all decks that use Dim Shields are slow, under-quanta'd mono Aether decks where the player waits until they're 1-2 turns from death to start their Dim Shield chain.

If I play Eternity with Dim Shields, how are you effectively going to draw your PC when I keep rewinding your creatures?

[Jenkar]

By being a stall. Or an OTK. Or having draw advantage. Or using indirect damage, in general (poison, bolts ect)

[meowww]

It's already been established that PC is not an auto win vs Dim Shields.

Furthermore, it is not to be assumed that all decks that use Dim Shields are slow, under-quanta'd mono Aether decks where the player waits until they're 1-2 turns from death to start their Dim Shield chain.

If I play Eternity with Dim Shields, how are you effectively going to draw your PC when I keep rewinding your creatures?

Did you ever really make a deck of this?
I don't think it works well.

If you pack Eternity with Dim shields, how many Eternity and do you put in your deck?
You need 6 Dim-shields to chain, and if you want to able to start chaining with 60 HP (so you won't die in 2 turns), you need at least 12 towers to have good chance.
Without a lot of luck, 2 Eternity and 6 tower won't works early game most of time, but with more Eternity/tower you will find you don't got enough space left for offence cards without expending your deck beyond 30 (if you do so you can't chain your shield well.)

[eaglgenes101]

It's already been established that PC is not an auto win vs Dim Shields.

Furthermore, it is not to be assumed that all decks that use Dim Shields are slow, under-quanta'd mono Aether decks where the player waits until they're 1-2 turns from death to start their Dim Shield chain.

If I play Eternity with Dim Shields, how are you effectively going to draw your PC when I keep rewinding your creatures?

Did you ever really make a deck of this?
I don't think it works well.

If you pack Eternity with Dim shields, how many Eternity and do you put in your deck?
You need 6 Dim-shields to chain, and if you want to able to start chaining with 60 HP (so you won't die in 2 turns), you need at least 12 towers to have good chance.
Without a lot of luck, 2 Eternity and 6 tower won't works early game most of time, but with more Eternity/tower you will find you don't got enough space left for offence cards without expending your deck beyond 30 (if you do so you can't chain your shield well.)

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

6rn 6rn 6rn 6rn 6rn 7n2 7n2 7n2 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q8 7q8 7q8 7q8 7qe 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 80d 80d 80d 80d 80d 80d 80h 80h 80h 80i 8pu

Deck answer to your rhetorical question. This is a slight mod of a once-dominating still-workable FG killer.