[Official] Shard of Patience | Shard of Patience

[skyironsword]

Aflatoxin on self... Plus this... wonderful

[timetock]

Deflags, steals, etc...
not to mention triple plague and gravity shield

[omegareaper7]

My suggestion was to make the lifegain only apply to water creatures again, it would make ball lightnings, damselflys etc. CC-able, so it would look like this:

+2/+0 to all
+2/+2 to water creatures
+5/+5 if flooded (very hard to pull off, not OP in my book)

(probably not gonna happen after phase salvager though)

That was what it was before, and it was not very good at all, bordering on useless for many many decks that currently see use.
Its fine as is.  If your going to make a nerf thread, please present a valid reason.

[Cheesy111]

1. What can try to outstall mono-aether without PC? Nothing. Except maybe another mono-aether.

2. This card is easily a game breaker, but it creates more fun situations than destroys.

3. It doesn't mess with the metagame, because there are faster rushes out there.

1. Please please please tell me this is a joke or something.
2. Creating fun situations while breaking game balance is bad, not good.
3. Are you arguing that having faster rushes in a metagame is the determining factor in game balance..? I honestly don't understand the argument here.  SoP is not even a rush card, so why would it be compared to rushes?

[Marsu]

The design could probably be better, as it indeed effectively doesn't have an in-element Bonus.
In unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.

[Cheesy111]

The design could probably be better, as it indeed effectively doesn't have an in-element Bonus.
In unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.

While low amount of play may be a result of underpoweredness, it is not proof or cause for a claim.

[Marsu]

Yes, of course it's no proof. There is still a strong correlation between how op a card is and how often it is played in a serious, unlimited environment.

[skyironsword]

^ ... coughdimshieldcough

[Cheesy111]

Yes, of course it's no proof. There is still a strong correlation between how op a card is and how often it is played in a serious, unlimited environment.

There can be.  But you claimed that it was not OP in the unupped meta because you encountered it rarely.  If there is no other proof for it, it is an unsubstantiated claim.

[Marsu]

There can be. 

No. There is a correlation. When I say 'There is a correlation between being overweight and dying early' and you show me a person that is fat and 100 years old, the correlation still exists. In the same way, my statement stays correct even if SoP was OP, but seldom used, simply because it is true for more than 50% of all cards that can be considered OP.

But you claimed that it was not OP in the unupped meta because you encountered it rarely.

That is also false.

In unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.

That's what I said, which is totally different from 'not op, because I [...]'.

[Cheesy111]

There can be. 

No. There is a correlation. When I say 'There is a correlation between being overweight and dying early' and you show me a person that is fat and 100 years old, the correlation still exists. In the same way, my statement stays correct even if SoP was OP, but seldom used, simply because it is true for more than 50% of all cards that can be considered OP.

But you claimed that it was not OP in the unupped meta because you encountered it rarely.

That is also false.

In unupped meta, it's not op though. I encountered it once in over one hundred unlimited BL games.

That's what I said, which is totally different from 'not op, because I [...]'.

Apologies for the confusion.  I took your statement as meaning that there is a strong correlation for each card's power to the amount it is used, as that would be the interpretation that supports your other statement ("In the unupped meta...BL games").

I believed that the two were connected because otherwise the additional information would have been useless and unrelated to the topic.

[Vangelios]

 For me it would be more balanced, "your creatures do not attack and gains +1|+1, creatures gains +2|+2"