[Official] Shard of Wisdom | Shard of Wisdom

[jawdirk]

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.

I agree. Spell damage is not different enough from momentum. For that matter, poison is pretty much the same thing too. As it is, reflective shields aren't generally useful, in much the same way that purify isn't generally useful -- they are pretty much relegated to being hate cards.

[pulli23]

Here is my argument
.....
5) SoW is OP if Immortal is UP.

I'm not really sure the point you are trying to bring across: but it is quite common in games like these that "sole" cards are "Weak" and "combinations" are strong.. That's the whole idea of deck building: finding cards that increase each other's worth & combining those.

So when comparing combinations to sole cards you have to take this in mind: a combination IS SUPPOSED to be stronger. I honestly think the power is about right - however it should be more expensive, like 1-2 more quanta cost. This would also fit the theme of immaterial creatures nicely: slowly but eventually becoming unstoppable.

[OldTrees]

Here is my argument
.....
5) SoW is OP if Immortal is UP.

I'm not really sure the point you are trying to bring across: but it is quite common in games like these that "sole" cards are "Weak" and "combinations" are strong.. That's the whole idea of deck building: finding cards that increase each other's worth & combining those.

So when comparing combinations to sole cards you have to take this in mind: a combination IS SUPPOSED to be stronger. I honestly think the power is about right - however it should be more expensive, like 1-2 more quanta cost. This would also fit the theme of immaterial creatures nicely: slowly but eventually becoming unstoppable.

Yes it is common for games to be lazy and reduce the players options. That is not ideal. Ideally there would be a balance between combos and sole cards such that both are viable for their costs. This results in combos remaining stronger than the sum of their parts.

Why is the game balanced if combinations are stronger? Because it takes time to get the cards together. The more complex the combo the harder it is to get the cards together. This translates to the combo happening later. This delay is the additional cost that balances the combo. If a combo is so much stronger than the sole card that it exceeds this additional cost by a significant degree then there is a balance problem.

If a 2 card combo is balanced for its cost (including the additional cost of delay) and one of its components is UP then we would suspect that the other card is OP. In other words our treatment would be to strengthen the UP card and maintain the balance of the combo by weakening the other card. In the end we should see a balanced combo and a balanced sole card.

[mega plini]

I agree with Old trees. the shard is underpowerd if you combine it with creatures other than immortal creatures. If you want to make good use of it, you have to combine it with an immortal creatue. these creatures are EXPENSIVE. you can also try to combine it with any creature and then quint it, but this makes you lose even more card advantage. If you add all of these negatives together you will realise that this card is balanced as it is.


also I have read the argumenty that spell damage looks a lot like momentum. in a way, it does but then again I can't see the problem with that.

[OldTrees]

I agree with Old trees. the shard is underpowerd if you combine it with creatures other than immortal creatures. If you want to make good use of it, you have to combine it with an immortal creatue. these creatures are EXPENSIVE. you can also try to combine it with any creature and then quint it, but this makes you lose even more card advantage. If you add all of these negatives together you will realise that this card is balanced as it is.

Um. You might want to read what I write before saying you agree with it. While I did not say the opposite of that, I did not say that either.

[mega plini]

Um. You might want to read what I write before saying you agree with it. While I did not say the opposite of that, I did not say that either.

So do you agree?

[OldTrees]

Um. You might want to read what I write before saying you agree with it. While I did not say the opposite of that, I did not say that either.

So do you agree?

Rather than answer I will analyze.

The shard is underpowerd if you combine it with creatures other than immortal creatures. If you want to make good use of it, you have to combine it with an immortal creatue. these creatures are EXPENSIVE. you can also try to combine it with any creature and then quint it, but this makes you lose even more card advantage. If you add all of these negatives together you will realise that this card is balanced as it is.

Non immortal creatures
Blessing vs Shard of Wisdom
Cost: 3 + 1 card
Effect: +3|+3 vs +4|+0
I am ambivalent between these choices. This is evidence to me that Shard of Wisdom used on mortal/material creatures is UP IFF Blessing is UP. The same form holds true for OP and balanced. So how is blessing? (UP, Balanced, or OP?)

Immortal creatures
Why would the cost of immaterial creatures matter? If they are balanced, then the cost is already accounted for. If they are imbalanced, they should be rebalanced and then the cost would already be accounted for.

Why would the card disadvantage of Quint matter? If Quint is balanced, then the card disadvantage is already accounted for. If Quint is imbalanced, it should be rebalanced and then the card disadvantage is already accounted for.

[SnoWeb]

The problem is not the card SoW itself which is imbalanced. The problem is that it changes what immateriality is.
Before SoW, an immaterial creature cannot be targeted either by good or by bad cards but could be heart by shields.
Since SoW is available immaterial creature can be buffed but still cannot targeted by negative cards and there is a way for them to bypass annoying shields.

Compare this with creatures with burrow and you'll realise that the only way to balance the whole thing is to rebalance immortality.
IMO the cost of quintessence as well as the immortal creature should be raised. SoW can stay as it is.

[jawdirk]

I think the best way to handle the unpleasantness of the SoW + immortal creature combo would be to buff many of the shields that are currently marginal by giving them the ability to block spell damage from creatures. Dusk shield would be an excellent candidate for this. Procrastination/Turtle Shield should definitely work on spell damage creatures. I'd like to see titanium/diamond shield buffed this way as well. Similarly, the shields that reflect spell damage should be buffed so that they have a non-spell damage usage. I could see giving emerald shield some partial protection against poison. I could see giving reflective shield protection against some other effects such as nightmare, black hole, and ghost of the past, or even combining it with sanctuary in some fashion.

[choongmyoung]

^
Reflectives are immaterial. That's kinda big advantage.

[jawdirk]

^
Reflectives are immaterial. That's kinda big advantage.

Unless you are playing a deck that kills with spell damage, you ignore it, so it doesn't matter if it is immaterial. Reflective shield is a hate card. Hate cards are bad. They aren't fun to play with or against. Maybe it was ok when you could make a decent SoW + reflective shield + quint combo deck, but now that SoW costs 2 that is all over.

Trying to bring this back on topic: reflective shield doesn't effectively balance SoW + immortal, because it is just a hate card. If you are playing immortal + SoW and you come up against a hate deck then you are going to lose, obviously. But why would anyone rationally play reflective shield? Only if their deck had some weird weakness to spell damage but was otherwise super strong against everything else, and could afford to waste 2-3 slots on shields that do nothing. No deck like that exists! Any deck that is super strong against non-spell damage would be strong against spell damage too and the reflective shields would just be gravy.

Thus, reflective shield (and other shields) should be made generally useful against a wide variety of strategies so that there is a motivation to play them when you don't know what deck you are going to face.

[choongmyoung]

^
Reflective Shield, yes.
Mirror/Emerald/Jade Shield, no.
Even without reflective characteristic, these are undestroyable good DR shield.
For example, Ragequit Factory uses Jade Shield because it's immaterial, not because it is reflective.