[Official] Shard of Wisdom | Shard of Wisdom

[OldTrees]

It was pointing out that perceived fallacy of your quote. OP cards are not justified if they only work on UP cards because it results in a forced combo. Furthermore OP cards that only work on UP card can still be OP.

But they are not OP at the first place, yes they can be OP if they are not limited to place on some cards.
Just like Adrenaline, if Adrenaline work with dragons as if it works with frogs they will be uber-OP, but they are not OP because they don't work with Dragons.
Limited to immortal offset the power of the card itself.

BTW, Slippery slope is not a proper way to "point out" a fallacy.

Perceived fallacious premise: OP cards are ok if they only affect UP cards
Attempted counter: If that is true then an OP card that buffs only Antlions is ok.
This is not slippery slope. It was attacking the perceived premise in its normal format.

1) Is SoW OP in the first place?*
2) If Immortals are UP and Wise Immortals are not UP then SoW is a forced combo with Immortals.
3) Notice that Frogs are not UP. They are irrelevant to the concern.
4) The proper way to point out a fallacy is to identify the perceived fallacious statement/premise, explain how the perceived fallacy would be relevant and then form a detailed logical counterargument. Neither of you fulfilled your duty to your assertion that a fallacy existed. However you misunderstood what he tried to say. So I clarified his position.

*
Here is my argument

so far SoW is the ONLY reason you use Immortals in a proper deck.

0) Immortal is UP and SoW + Immortal is not UP (see quote)
1) If Immortal is UP then a balanced Immortal would be stronger. (balanced > UP)
2) If a balanced Immortal would be stronger than Immortal then SoW + a balanced Immortal would be stronger than SoW + Immortal.
(SoW is a buff that only cares about immaterial)
3) If SoW + Immortal is not UP and SoW + balanced Immortal is stronger than SoW + Immortal then SoW + balanced Immortal is OP.
(Not UP = balanced or OP. Stronger than either is OP.)
4) If a card + a balanced card is OP then the first card is OP.
5) SoW is OP if Immortal is UP.

[jawdirk]

3) If SoW + Immortal is not UP and SoW + balanced Immortal is stronger than SoW + Immortal then SoW + balanced Immortal is OP.
(Not UP = balanced or OP. Stronger than either is OP.)

I'm not sure I agree with that. Balanced isn't a discrete value. It could easily be a range of values. Stronger than balanced could be balanced.

[meowww]

So, the problem is forced combo, now I can agree with this.
But I still can't agree that if every single application of a card are not OP, it can still considered as OP, the worse it can go is forced combo.
My point is, the limitation making the card not able to from any OP combo must considered as a offset, we can't ignore that, just compair with everything else don't bear this offset and consider it OP.

[choongmyoung]

Btw, what is the reason for old SoW hated? (Quanta capacity)
Do we have any way to improve the old SoW?

[OldTrees]

3) If SoW + Immortal is not UP and SoW + balanced Immortal is stronger than SoW + Immortal then SoW + balanced Immortal is OP.
(Not UP = balanced or OP. Stronger than either is OP.)

I'm not sure I agree with that. Balanced isn't a discrete value. It could easily be a range of values. Stronger than balanced could be balanced.

You are right but I think that case does not appear in this case.

It is a range of values. However EtG has a very small balance variance. "Technically stronger" might be a small enough difference to be balanced in EtG but not the normal usage of stronger.

So, the problem is forced combo, now I can agree with this.
But I still can't agree that if every single application of a card are not OP, it can still considered as OP, the worse it can go is forced combo.
My point is, the limitation making the card not able to from any OP combo must considered as a offset, we can't ignore that, just compare with everything else don't bear this offset and consider it OP.

Then we are defining OP slightly differently. (Both valid usages) I use a definition of OP that includes theoretical cards and thus can make precise comments about the problem a specific forced combo is facing. Aka an UP+OP combo requires 1 buff and 1 nerf to fix. This usage also warns us when a card would become OP if the UP card were to be balanced in the future.

[furballdn]

I define OP as anything that is more powerful than something should be. This means that I will consider a 7|4 creature for 5 OP.

Btw, what is the reason for old SoW hated? (Quanta capacity)
Do we have any way to improve the old SoW?

Quanta capacity hardly does anything. Even with 6 on the board, it hardly does much. I think it was too situational, slow, and pricey to be considered worthy of use. You can read some complaints in the SoW thread that still houses some comments about SoC.

[OldTrees]

I define OP as anything that is more powerful than something should be. This means that I will consider a 7|4 creature for 5 OP.

Well, yes. But that is not being disputed. Inside that word "should" is a variety of slightly different valid measurement settings. In this case meowww and I use different settings for the limit of the cards to consider. These settings are mostly determined by the intended usage of OP we are trying to communicate. For example I would reduce my limit from all theoretical cards (aka variations and fixes) to all actual cards if we were talking short term like the ban list for an event. Why? Because the game is fairly static over short periods of time.

[timetock]

I think SoW should be nerfed, +4 atk is too overpowering. by the time you can draw some sort of shield/healing you're already dead from the onslaught of the dragon with 20 atk. even if you DO get some sort of reflective shield, the opponent then sommons more immaterial monsters with enough atk to partially go through the shield and finish you off. It's very hard to counter a quick dragon that comes up.

In addition, the cost of SoW upgraded is only 1 ?? ridiculous.

[meowww]

Then we are defining OP slightly differently. (Both valid usages) I use a definition of OP that includes theoretical cards and thus can make precise comments about the problem a specific forced combo is facing. Aka an UP+OP combo requires 1 buff and 1 nerf to fix. This usage also warns us when a card would become OP if the UP card were to be balanced in the future.

In my terms, if some parts of this card's application going to be changed (from UP to balanced, thus the combo tipping towards OP).
It can also considered as its offset being lifted, in this case (if the resulting combo become OP), this card become OP and need change as well.

In other word, I think this card should be touched only if some of its applications get a buff.

[choongmyoung]

Then we are defining OP slightly differently. (Both valid usages) I use a definition of OP that includes theoretical cards and thus can make precise comments about the problem a specific forced combo is facing. Aka an UP+OP combo requires 1 buff and 1 nerf to fix. This usage also warns us when a card would become OP if the UP card were to be balanced in the future.

In my terms, if some parts of this card's application going to be changed (from UP to balanced, thus the combo tipping towards OP).
It can also considered as its offset being lifted, in this case (if the resulting combo become OP), this card become OP and need change as well.

In other word, I think this card should be touched only if some of its applications get a buff.

= Buff Immortal, Nerf SoW. Done.

[eaglgenes101]

I'd like to suggest another nerf idea:

3 / 2 :
Target creature gains the status Wisdom: Deal 4 extra damage each turn, and deal spell damage if immaterial.

[boboexe]

Many cards which are introduced in the later course of the game serve the purpose to fill in gaps, counter op combinations or support  weaker cards.  Since shard of wisdom was partially implemented in order  to buff the rather situational light and life shield and failed in this regard , a first attempt to fix the situation would be to make those 2 shields more "attractive" for players.

For example
light shield: block spell +momentum
green shield: block spell +convert blocked damage into healing

This measure would not only increase the general usefulness  of shard of wisdoms natural counter but at the same time boost 2 elemnts which i consider rather weak.

To be quite honest I represent the opinion , that not only the card itself but rather the whole spell damage mechanic for immortal creatures
1. is overpowered +encourages even more players to build these primitive uninspired decks( tripple aether  mark ,tons of pillars , dragon, SoW ,phaseshield)
2. not needed since we have momentum basically doing  the same (not taking into account those 2 shields, which arent used frequently enough to justify their existence and immortal creatures , which dont need a way to bypass shields. This is a handicap monoather has to put up with).

Just my point of view. One of the core factors, why i like this game is ,that almost all elements posses advantages and a weakness, a specialisation and holes like  less survivabilty or a lack of item control etc. Bypassing shields  should be reserved for gravity only I think this shard should introduce a different more innovative mechanic instead of supporting literal braindead decks.