[Official] Dimensional Shield | Phase Shield

[Cheesy111]

"any card that eliminates vanilla creature damage if chained, better have a really good reason to exist" - Why? What is so important about eliminating vanilla creature damage for a costly investment that means that dim shield has to have a specific reason to exist?

Because the vast, vast majority of creatures do vanilla creature damage. That means that when you play dim shield, you aren't just protecting yourself from the highly optimized rush damage, you are also protecting yourself from any typical creature that wasn't specifically selected for its ability to evade dim shield. Maybe it was a Maxwell's demon selected for its effectiveness against dragons. Maybe it was a mind flayer selected to protect against maxwell's demons. Maybe it was a firefly queen selected to generate . Vanilla creature damage is the default form of damage. You have to go out of your way to build a deck that doesn't do vanilla creature damage. Even scorpions do vanilla creature damage.

The problem is that you are in the line of thought of thinking that winning with creatures killing the opponent should be the "standard" procedure. I disagree. Deckout and spell-damage based decks should, in my opinion, have a usage as widespread as "standard vanilla damage".

Don't forget denial and alternative damage(Catatitans/chrysaora/unstable gas).

[jawdirk]

The problem is that you are in the line of thought of thinking that winning with creatures killing the opponent should be the "standard" procedure. I disagree. Deckout and spell-damage based decks should, in my opinion, have a usage as widespread as "standard vanilla damage".

.

Making a deck that kills with vanilla damage isn't the standard procedure because it should be, it is the standard procedure because a card is unlikely to have momentum AND have an interesting ability or synergy. Look at the special damage cards. Do any of them have an ability as interesting as Maxwell's demon, otyugh, dive, druid's mutation, mind flayer, pheonix, etc., etc.? Maybe the only exception is Chimera. Do you see my point now?

[jawdirk]

Decks that deviate significantly from this equilibrium (without substitution) end up being less effective because they are ignoring an existing threat to a significant degree. Changing which elements have access to PC would not alter the causes for this equilibrium. Thus I would suspect the equilibrium would remain stable since the influx of decks would conform to current norms for competitive decks.

I think that there is a natural pressure to try to be creative and to use strategies that are incomplete, simply because they aren't boring. Many people are satisfied with a deck with a 40% win percentage if it uses a rarely used set of cards or a lesser element. I believe giving these people access to cards which would make their strategies complete would alleviate a sort of vacuum, and would result in a change in the equilibrium of PC vs. permanents. It's a shame that this happened in the form of SoF, which is obviously overpowered, because if it had been balanced, we would have a clear example of this equilibrium shift (if it exists).

If the elements in question were more complete then those decks could be competitive in the metagame despite Dim Shield. Since the decks can coexist with Dim shield they are not mutually exclusive. Hence asking to choose between them is a false dichotomy.

I used the word "viable" and you used the word "coexist." What does coexist mean? I don't see how "false dichotomy" has anything to do with my argument.

[Jenkar]

Nope. I don't see anywhere where this goes on the argument that vanilla damage to <kill> the opponent should be the standard. For example, an interesting ability is that purple nymphs can cast antimatter. They aren't doing any non-vanilla damage, yet they can play a big role in decks that do not need vanilla damage to win (entropy based stalls).

[OldTrees]

Decks that deviate significantly from this equilibrium (without substitution) end up being less effective because they are ignoring an existing threat to a significant degree. Changing which elements have access to PC would not alter the causes for this equilibrium. Thus I would suspect the equilibrium would remain stable since the influx of decks would conform to current norms for competitive decks.

I think that there is a natural pressure to try to be creative and to use strategies that are incomplete, simply because they aren't boring. Many people are satisfied with a deck with a 40% win percentage if it uses a rarely used set of cards or a lesser element. I believe giving these people access to cards which would make their strategies complete would alleviate a sort of vacuum, and would result in a change in the equilibrium of PC vs. permanents. It's a shame that this happened in the form of SoF, which is obviously overpowered, because if it had been balanced, we would have a clear example of this equilibrium shift (if it exists).
.

The natural pressure to be creative is exerted on the player. This results in testing of the bounds of the actual metagame. These tests result in a natural pressure for the actual metagame to conform with the theoretical metagame.

However I do not see where a change in the PC vs Permanents equlibrium would result from adding more equivalent PC to the game. Currently there are decks not being used because they are not sufficiently prepared against permanents like Dim Shield. A sub set of those decks exist in elements that enable variations that are prepared for permanents. We see those variants in the metagame. The other subset does not have the option to be prepared for permanents and thus we do not see its variants in the metagame. If we gave those decks the option to be prepared against permanents then we would expect them to develop variants that were prepared for permanents. These variants would be competent in the metagame. However the PC vs permanent equilibrium has not changed. The equilibrium exists in the metagame. The excluded decks had to change to match the metagame before they were able to enter.

This is different from the effects of adding non equivalent PC. When OP PC is added to the game, PC becomes more efficient. People add the more efficient versions of PC instead of their previous PC. Since the new level of PC is more efficient, permanents are nerfed. People remove some permanents for other cards. This nerfs PC so they remove some of the more efficient PC cards. A new equilibrium is achieved with fewer more efficient PC and fewer permanents.

In summary: The equilibrium is only affected by changes in the level of PC in the metagame. If a deck changes its PC level outside the metagame (adding PC to ) in order to enter the metagame then no shift would be observed. If a deck within the metagame changes (SoF replacing PC) then a shift is expected.

If the elements in question were more complete then those decks could be competitive in the metagame despite Dim Shield. Since the decks can coexist with Dim shield they are not mutually exclusive. Hence asking to choose between them is a false dichotomy.

I used the word "viable" and you used the word "coexist." What does coexist mean? I don't see how "false dichotomy" has anything to do with my argument.

Coexist meant the decks were viable in an altered metagame that still contained Dim Shield.
An argument in your posts has been:
1) There exist decks that do not have the option to compete with Dim Shield
2) Therefore we need to choose between those decks and Dim Shield
3) Therefore we should nerf Dim Shield
I think that 2 is a false dichotomy and should be amended with "or add options". For if we add options we are not choosing between Dim Shield and those decks but rather letting both exist in the metagame as viable.

[kimham8a]

All elements can make a mono deck and beat mono with a decent winrate (except ). Therefore we don't need to add soft PC because all elements already have options to beat mono . People just don't use them because it makes their decks less efficient vs other decks.

[Jenkar]

All elements can make a mono deck and beat mono with a decent winrate (except ). Therefore we don't need to add soft PC because all elements already have options to beat mono . People just don't use them because it makes their decks less efficient vs other decks.

This being actually a potential problem.

[Laxadarap]

All elements can make a mono deck and beat mono with a decent winrate (except ). Therefore we don't need to add soft PC because all elements already have options to beat mono . People just don't use them because it makes their decks less efficient vs other decks.

This being actually a potential problem.

Not a potential problem as far as I can see, even though they call can beat it, that is a mono deck going into mono aether knowing exactly what to build against, all aether has to do is change it's deck and it could beat 90% of the decks. 

[Vangelios]

Well a  shield block all damages is simply ridiculous, can say that it is can be  stolen or destroyed UG, Firebolt, Poison, but so what?, the other shields also have the same defects? and are all MANY weaker, Bone Wall is weaker.

[OldTrees]

Well a  shield block all damages is simply ridiculous, can say that it is can be  stolen or destroyed UG, Firebolt, Poison, but so what?, the other shields also have the same defects? and are all MANY weaker, Bone Wall is weaker.

1) It does not block all damage. It merely blocks damage shields block.
2) It has a finite duration unlike the indefinite shields.

The capability to block all damage is not ridiculous given a finite duration. (See current Sundial)

Bone Wall is a difficult comparison but appropriate. Bone Wall plus a death trigger engine is an indefinite Dimensional Shield for a much high cost.

I cannot conclude from your argument that Dim Shield is OP.

[storyteller]

dimensional shield is powerful, not overpowered.

[Vangelios]

Well a  shield block all damages is simply ridiculous, can say that it is can be  stolen or destroyed UG, Firebolt, Poison, but so what?, the other shields also have the same defects? and are all MANY weaker, Bone Wall is weaker.

1) It does not block all damage. It merely blocks damage shields block.
2) It has a finite duration unlike the indefinite shields.

The capability to block all damage is not ridiculous given a finite duration. (See current Sundial)

Bone Wall is a difficult comparison but appropriate. Bone Wall plus a death trigger engine is an indefinite Dimensional Shield for a much high cost.

I cannot conclude from your argument that Dim Shield is OP.

He simply has a DR infinite of 3 turns  renewable for another what's next