[Official] Toadfish | Puffer Fish

[zse]

On Topic:Let us compare the vanilla (no skill creatures) of Darkness and Water

Black Dragon
10|5 for 10
Ice Dragon
9|6 for 10
(0<HP<6) is worth 0, (5<HP<8] is worth 1
From these stats we can conclude that the stats of Darkness and Water creatures are comparable.
Now let us compare the Infect creatures of each
Parasite
1|1  :Infect for 2
Bloodsucker
3|1 :deathInfect for 2
Toadfish
6|4  :Inflate for 5
The difference in Cost - Value between these two is 2
From these stats we can conclude either
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 2 attack or
Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude or
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 1 attack and Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude.

The Current side discussion:
A standard can and has been calculated. This standard can be used to balance the cards within the rounding necessary by the game.

Fixed.

You should also notify widely co-used cards on your comparisons, here Nightfall/Eclipse.

[Uppercut]

They don't operate just fine, thats the point. Toadfish/Squid was the most common strategy used in the winner's brackets of Underworld.

Some strategy is bound to be the most common strategy in a given tournament. There is a finite number of cards, there is a finite number of deck possibilities.

But more importantly it hard counters a shitload of strategies. Hard counter, not soft counter, but hard counters.

It isn't the only deck in the game that hard counters some strategies.

And that is bad.

Can you prove it is objectively bad?

No, a strawman is a misrepresentation of my argument, a red-herring is the addressing of a non-point.

So do you really have no clue what a strawman is and are thus using an ironic strawman or do you know what a strawman is and are using a red herring?

[OldTrees]

On Topic:Let us compare the vanilla (no skill creatures) of Darkness and Water

Black Dragon
10|5 for 10
Ice Dragon
9|6 for 10
(0<HP<6) is worth 0, (5<HP<8] is worth 1
From these stats we can conclude that the stats of Darkness and Water creatures are comparable.
Now let us compare the Infect creatures of each
Parasite
1|1  :Infect for 2
Bloodsucker
3|1 :deathInfect for 2
Toadfish
6|4  :Inflate for 5
The difference in Cost - Value between these two is 2
From these stats we can conclude either
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 2 attack or
Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude or
Parasite needs a buff on the order of an equivalent of 1 attack and Toadfish needs a nerf of the same magnitude.

The Current side discussion:
A standard can and has been calculated. This standard can be used to balance the cards within the rounding necessary by the game.

Fixed.

You should also notify widely co-used cards on your comparisons, here Nightfall/Eclipse.

I only compared the unupped infects due to the lack of an upgraded Water infect to compare to. However I did not specify that I was comparing only the unupped. (The other reason I excluded Bloodsucker is because I did not want to complicate the argument by explaining the 1-2 cost reduction that is standard for upgrades)
I did not mention Nightfall/Eclipse because it, as shown with the dragons, does not affect the balance of the cards based upon their own merits.
Although its effects would show up in the comparisons of combos which does not excuse cards to be above the standard at the individual level although it does excuse them to be under the standard in which case they would never be seen apart. However Parasites are seen apart from Nightfalls so I would make the claim the Parasite was not designed to be subpar and make up for it with nightfall. Rather I would claim that the increase nightfall gives is balanced with nightfalls cost. This leads to the conclusion that therefore Toadfish is above the standard without reason.

[Kuross]

A thought for what it's worth...

Whatever the merits of an individual card may be, the specific cost to play a card is a huge factor to. Consider for a moment that a card does something extraordinary, say does 100 hp in one hit. But the cost is 40 Time quanta. Sure, the card may be way OP, but the chances of seeing several played at once is extremely low.

I know that's a huge exaggeration, but the point is valid. Though the Fish may not be on par for cost, it's cost at 5 quanta, unupped, is still rather high so it's very unlikely one will see it ever outrush decks that are based on rushing. simply because the Fish is more a control card. And consider it's effect. It can kill creatures, but over time, not instantaneously like Oty.

I honestly think the lack of dominant decks that are built around the Fish is enough of an argument that it needs no nerf. Maybe if Fish decks were running rampant in PvP and tournaments all over the place and were directly affected by the them I'd be more inclined to say otherwise. But the fact is, though they may be a powerful card in their own right, they just don't live up to the hype.

[OldTrees]

A thought for what it's worth...

Whatever the merits of an individual card may be, the specific cost to play a card is a huge factor to. Consider for a moment that a card does something extraordinary, say does 100 hp in one hit. But the cost is 40 Time quanta. Sure, the card may be way OP, but the chances of seeing several played at once is extremely low.

I know that's a huge exaggeration, but the point is valid. Though the Fish may not be on par for cost, it's cost at 5 quanta, unupped, is still rather high so it's very unlikely one will see it ever outrush decks that are based on rushing. simply because the Fish is more a control card. And consider it's effect. It can kill creatures, but over time, not instantaneously like Oty.

I honestly think the lack of dominant decks that are built around the Fish is enough of an argument that it needs no nerf. Maybe if Fish decks were running rampant in PvP and tournaments all over the place and were directly affected by the them I'd be more inclined to say otherwise. But the fact is, though they may be a powerful card in their own right, they just don't live up to the hype.

This would imply that the card needs both a nerf (to get it on standard) and then an adjustment (lower cost and lower value) to move it into popularity range.

[Kuross]

I was just simply stating that looking at the cost of a card that is somewhat over the norm, assuming 4 cost is a norm or average, can also be a factor for whether or not said card sees more or less action. If Miracle cost less, you'd likely see more of it in a deck. More me just making an observation about the "cost to play" perspective on using certain cards than anything else.

[OldTrees]

I understood that.

You were pointing out that there are trends that people tend to prefer cheaper and weaker cards to expensive and stronger cards due to the speed. This talks about the popularity of a card in practice that is independent of its theoretical balance.

[Kuross]

I don't think it's too theoretical to state that people will go for cards with speed over cards that may be strong but cost too much to play. That has held true in every CCG I've ever been a part of, MtG included. There's certainly been a lot of cards that have rolled through the card factory of MtG that have been great cards at the outset but their costs to play were ever so slightly more than could be allowed to make them viable for solid tournament play.

But I digress. I may be stretching here, but Toadfish has that feel to it. It's a solid card and looks  as though it's OP, but if that were the case it'd be in every FG rainbow and PvP deck that can support the cost. It's not and I think that speaks for itself. Like I said, I was simply pointing out an observation.

[OldTrees]

My point is
Theoretically: people shouldn't value cheap weak cards over expensive powerful cards.
Actually: people do over value speed.

I have been agreeing with you.

[Kuross]

My point is
Theoretically: people shouldn't value cheap weak cards over expensive powerful cards.
Actually: people do over value speed.

I have been agreeing with you.

lol, should have had that humble pie instead of pumpkin 

Gotcha now

[jmdt]

I agree with Kuross.  Nerfing Toadfish is complete and total lunacy.  Regardless of how a card looks on paper, its performance in decks is what determines its relative level of strength.  While toadfish is a good card, it has good attack and CC on a stick, it suffers a major flaw, everything it does is SLOW.  Toadfish is not a rushy card, nor is its effect and effective way to kill something on its own.  Toadfish need help from wings, shockwave, freeze, squid, fog, etc to be effective.

They are also too expensive to really be viable in a nova/SN based deck.  Although bloodsucker is weaker, its cost of 2 allows it to come out quicker and be played in a large variety of decks.

Another thing to look at is toadfishes place in its respective element.  Every element balances differently based on what thay have and what they do. Toadfish is the midrange attacker for unupped water.  Based on the other cards water has, it needs a strong toadfish card.

[OldTrees]

Theoretically:
Toadfish is not a rush card nor a stall card. It is a hybrid of both.
This means that is can act both as win condition and as stall mechanic. This is deck building advantage.
To balance the two cards in one effect Toadfish is slow.

Furthurmore Water is the opposite of Fire. Fire is the element of destruction hence Water's reduced destruction based control (Toadfish, Icebolt, Trident).

I personally think that an adjustment is needed. I further believe that once an adjustment is made that a nerf would be possible without the herd abandoning this card.

Say:
Reduce the attack by 1, increase the Activation cost by 1 and reduce the Casting Cost by 1.
or
Reduce the attack by 2, increase the Activation cost by 1 and reduce the Casting Cost by 2.