MonoAether before SoW was a good example of a deck that gained abnormal advantage from Arena.
If u read this, pls explain this statement, because it doesnt make any sense to me.
Arena is a different format than normal PvP. These differences (the FG abilities) favor some effects/strategies/combos more than others. There is a normal/average amount that a deck benefits per level in arena. Decks that gain more benefit per level have an abnormal advantage.
Potential damage per turn increases as the game goes on. Thus Dimensional Shields do not scale linearly in value. 6 Dimensional Shields are more than 6 times as beneficial as 1 Dimensional Shield. 12 Dimensional Shields are more than 2 times as beneficial as 6 Dimensional Shields. Thus the Dexterity Arena ability gives Mono Aether an abnormal advantage. (Dexterity + Dimensional Shields predated Shard of Wisdom)
Abnormal advantage is a flaw in the current level prices for the abilities in Arena. If an imbalance appears in Arena but not in normal PvP then the imbalance is in the ability system not in the cards. However if the imbalance appears in normal PvP then the imbalance is in the card.
How do your normal PvP experiences relate to my theory about control vs control in normal PvP?
Your theory about copntrol vs control didnt fit in this topic from the very beginning. Monoaether + SoW is direct damage not control. (except lobotomizer, which is not a vital ingredient )
I consider any deck with the following to be a control deck using the Aggro,Control,Combo model:
a majority of its resources and efforts put into active or passive defenses [Dimensional Shields]
and a steady sure win condition that is not card intensive [Immaterial creatures]
Back to my question here:
Since Arena experience with MonoAether (preSoW) revealed abnormal advantage, Arena is not a good test to measure the balance implication of additions to MonoAether. Thus what do your normal PvP experiences tell you about the outrush maneuver?
In light of making reflection more "useful": well it would be much easier if the shield had a "bonus" of giving "reflection" - not that the shield's main point is reflecting. In that case you could use reflection shields also decently against non-spell-based decks.
I completely agree with pully23 here and I dont agree with ur logic (which is hard to grasp at least for me) . Why should I (as long as I dont play rainbow) integrate shields from other elements in my deck, if my native elements shields are highly superior and not situational.
In fact why should any mono or duo, which doesnt include light and life in his natural asortment use these 2 shields if u have bone, phase , perma , chaos etc.
This was the rational. We agree it is not an ideal solution.
Sorry but introducing a horribly broken mechanic which itself is restricted to 99% one specific element to justify the existence of 2 cards which are like u expressed "marginalized" is just another 0815 mistake many cardgames make.
I am sorry I was being unclear here. However a quick summary would be:
We both agree that adding Reflection to the game (as it is) was a bad move.
I am pointing out that Wisdom was added to help reduce the problem of Reflection. Thus I think it is unfair to criticize Wisdom for the faults of Reflection.
Poll
