[Official] Dimensional Shield | Phase Shield

[Naesala]

Here's something worth mentioning. Unlike other shields, Dim shield is more "resistant" to PC. Why? Because you tend to pack 6 dimensional shields where, for most other shields, you only bring 2. So, maybe the flaw here isn't with dimensional shield, but with other shields inability to be used to full capacity. Even weapons can use 6 copies with AW, but other than dim shield and -maybe- bone wall, shields can not be used en mass.

[omegareaper7]

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.

Bonewall weaker? thats a laugh. Unless they get more then 2 creatures out/weapons out, then it lasts more then 3 turns. And does NOT have a time limit, so it can be played at the start and not take up space in the hand. Not to mention it can increase its size with death effects. And is resistant to PC without having to pack several copies in a deck.

[Drake_XIV]

You forget Wings, but yes, there is no reason to ever pack that many shields.  And with Salvagers, the need will definitely go down.

[Vangelios]

A shield that has a  DR infinite 3 turns renewable, of course it's worth putting 6 copies. to have a better idea, just imaginhar also a shield that lasts 3 turns, but that out instead of having DR infinity, has the ability to block the first 20 damage, would already be powerful, and would be worth putting 6 copies too.
And I'd rather see a bone wall against me than a dim shield.

[storyteller]

take a momentum, problem solved.

[Vangelios]

take a momentum, problem solved.

my dear, with this argument, you can create a  shield with DR infinite permanent that can not be destroyed or stolen it costs only 1
and momentum also solved the problem.

[jawdirk]

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.

I think we understand this theory differently. I'm not sure we could convince each other either way. I still maintain that adding explosion to five new elements would result in a shift in the metagame. Only experimentation could answer that question as far as I can see.

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.

I think if you reread my posts, you will see that I express that additional options and nerfing dim shield would be good things. I don't see how that impacts my argument at all that nerfing dim shield would increase deck diversity. To put it in your format, my argument is:

1) There exist many interesting decks that do not have the option to compete with Dim Shield in its current form.
2) Nerfing/Eliminating dim shield would allow those decks to compete.
3) More interesting competitive decks is good.
4) Therefor Eliminating/nerfing dim shield would be good (independent of any other proposed solution that might also be good).

[storyteller]

take a momentum, problem solved.

my dear, with this argument, you can create a  shield with DR infinite permanent that can not be destroyed or stolen it costs only 1
and momentum also solved the problem.

which is worse, a shield that stops creatures that dont do spell damage or have momentum for three turns, or a shield that stops everything including spell damage from creatures and momentum for only one turn?

there is a remedy for your ails. Dim shields is strong, but defeated in many ways. If anything, we should have shields with higher DR, not reducing the effectiveness of a useful, but hindered shield. Its simple. Out there in the realms of elementals, some of them can phase out for a short amount of time, and not be damaged by physical forces. Either A) wait them out, B) use Momentum to hit them anyway, or C) use spells and beat them at their own game.

I havent had trouble with a dim shield in at least 6 months. Its not that powerful in the end.

[OldTrees]

To put it in your format, my argument is:

1) There exist many interesting decks that do not have the option to compete with Dim Shield in its current form.
2) Nerfing/Eliminating dim shield would allow those decks to compete.
3) More interesting competitive decks is good.
4) Therefor Eliminating/nerfing dim shield would be good (independent of any other proposed solution that might also be good).

I take issue with your oversimplification of step 2.
2*) Nerfing/Eliminating dim shield or altering those decks would allow those decks to compete.
This has a cascading effect of
4) Therefor Eliminating/nerfing dim shield or altering those decks would be good (independent of any other proposed solution that might also be good).
5) Since more decks is good, the change that results in the most decks is better. [Adding X decks by removing Y decks is worse than merely adding X decks]
6) Therefore we should be biased towards strengthening the decks that cannot compete rather than weakening existing decks.


@Vangelios
You are overestimating the significance of infinite DR with finite duration. I have not seen you claim Sundial is OP. Since you do not consider Sundial OP, then the existence of infinite DR is not the problem.

[jawdirk]

5) Since more decks is good, the change that results in the most decks is better. [Adding X decks by removing Y decks is worse than merely adding X decks]
6) Therefore we should be biased towards strengthening the decks that cannot compete rather than weakening existing decks.

That's a good point.

@Vangelios
You are overestimating the significance of infinite DR with finite duration. I have not seen you claim Sundial is OP. Since you do not consider Sundial OP, then the existence of infinite DR is not the problem.

Sundial's infinite DR effects both players of course.

[OldTrees]

5) Since more decks is good, the change that results in the most decks is better. [Adding X decks by removing Y decks is worse than merely adding X decks]
6) Therefore we should be biased towards strengthening the decks that cannot compete rather than weakening existing decks.

That's a good point.

I would like to end that line of thought by admitting that I too feel that Dim Shield is OP. However I do not have a good argument to allow me to conclude that. I do know that Dim Shield can be balanced if it is not already. Intuitions from others that I trust have recommended a 2 turn duration for a cheaper cost.

[Vangelios]

which is worse, a shield that stops creatures that dont do spell damage or have momentum for three turns, or a shield that stops everything including spell damage from creatures and momentum for only one turn?

there is a remedy for your ails. Dim shields is strong, but defeated in many ways. If anything, we should have shields with higher DR, not reducing the effectiveness of a useful, but hindered shield. Its simple. Out there in the realms of elementals, some of them can phase out for a short amount of time, and not be damaged by physical forces. Either A) wait them out, B) use Momentum to hit them anyway, or C) use spells and beat them at their own game.

I havent had trouble with a dim shield in at least 6 months. Its not that powerful in the end.

I would like to end that line of thought by admitting that I too feel that Dim Shield is OP. However I do not have a good argument to allow me to conclude that. I do know that Dim Shield can be balanced if it is not already. Intuitions from others that I trust have recommended a 2 turn duration for a cheaper cost.

I'm realizing that the course of the discussion, is going to "dim the shield can be defeated or no" and should be " shield dim is balanced this with others or not"

The cost of dim shield should be 12 , because 15 is a miracle, and not often in less than 3 turns our HP already running out again because the opponent has creatures with high damage, dim blocks DR infinite, and 3 turns is finite but it is very long. And even costing 12 , it is often better than miracle in some situations.