Shards in War #9, a poll

[iancudorinmarian]

My idea for a shard role was something that would allow that player to exchange 2 upgrades for 1 shard. It was designed for 3 base upgrades, though. 6 base upgrades would be better with a 3:1 ratio instead.

Totally support this. (with a 2:1 ratio)

It's better than banning cards imo

[Spielkind]

Me is totally against shards in war!

BUT: if you wanna let them be part of it, then without restriction! We have strong elements with horrible set of inelement cards, and weaker with not so good sets. But thats part of the game, its what make war for that exciting event it is! Its the spirit of underdogs against monsters, David vs Goliath. So when shards, then all without any special rules for special elements!

Just my 2 

[Cheesy111]

BUT: if you wanna let them be part of it, then without restriction! We have strong elements with horrible set of inelement cards, and weaker with not so good sets. But thats part of the game, its what make war for that exciting event it is! Its the spirit of underdogs against monsters, David vs Goliath. So when shards, then all without any special rules for special elements!

[Espithel]

And SoI... seriously, with being forced to bring at least 50% in-element-cards, their Golem-deck will either be very RNGy or lack power/control. No way to compare this with other shards.

SoI works completely on its own, too.
Try it the next time you do a monoearth domination. Those dominations are so fun, seeing they only use 4 pillars.

Anyway, seriously:
I believe in a soft ban of four shards - SoFo, SouFflé, SoPa and SoSac.
Everything else can go wild.

One could make an argument for putting in SoW, SoR and SoBra in there, but I don't think that'll be necessary (SoW reflect, SoR being relatively powerful in only time, SoBra being a giant help to every element, more so than fire.)

Shards may be considered PvE, but really, only 4 shards are - the 4 mentioned. Why should the other 8 be spoilt?

And how do we know that these shards would even break the meta in the first place? Pardon my ignorance, but isn't mindgating a good enough buffer? I'm only up for a soft ban because I assume it would - I dunno.
I mean, you could look at tournaments, except I don't think, given how they only recently added shards into the mix, they'll be too much of an indication.

Either way, I think we should take the time to find out whether adding shards will break war. So why not just get it over and done with?

There we go. My opinion. Begin the angry butchering.

[Vangelios]

I like the idea of the team can use shards but limited, the idea of a team can use shards maximum 3x in the war is interesting.

Because it would be something more strategic (as relics for example) after the team use their shards the 3x can then transmute (1 to 1 card)

Relative the idea of banning cards is complicated, ok really change the meta, but I can imagine that instead shards the people ban discord, fractal, gabroid.. and suddenly some powerful shards allowed.

Also the idea of banning cards was highly rejected in the past S&F
Wm's said that War is different and can't be equal others competitions, and some players don't like because arise other powerful metas (OFC).

Exchange ups by shards is used in WC or trials, however some shards are very porweful even you with less ups cards.

However if 70% want shards in war we must strive to include this, in the most fun way and balanced as possible.

[Avenger]

I would totally oppose banning "normal" cards from war. Also it would be kinda unfair to ban some specific shards (though the air shard is very OP).

[willng3]

At least if Shards are allowed and end up breaking the event we can use them as a scapegoat for the usual "X team is in the lead because Y card is OP" comments/complaints.

[Chapuz]

Root's idea of above sounds VERY interesting.
Little number twist: After the Trials each Master chooses 3 cards. After that a public vote is made, where every member can vote up to 3 options. The 6 most voted cards are banned from the next War. It would be a pretty plot of the War meta

[treebeard xiii]

thats my issue with shards without restrictions the only element that could possibly gain from its shard is water and to an extent gravity the other strong shards belong to the already top tier elements namely time, air, aether and fire . ok death might become a bigger threat again with sosac. death and water are the only elements that will become more evenly matched with their shards and water still has the glaringly obvious weakness to wings and dims and then gravity shield will become a bigger threat to water. If shards do get added there have to be restrictions or war will be dominated even moreso by the already dominant elements.

[theelkspeaks]

thats my issue with shards without restrictions the only element that could possibly gain from its shard is water and to an extent gravity the other strong shards belong to the already top tier elements namely time, air, aether and fire . ok death might become a bigger threat again with sosac. death and water are the only elements that will become more evenly matched with their shards and water still has the glaringly obvious weakness to wings and dims and then gravity shield will become a bigger threat to water. If shards do get added there have to be restrictions or war will be dominated even moreso by the already dominant elements.

In the case of both fire and water, other elements gain more from having access to SoBr/SoP than they do

[eaglgenes101]

How about: For all effective War purposes, all shards are considered "off-element" regardless on the shard's actual element. This should reduce the impact of the varied power of shards.

[Avenger]

How about: For all effective War purposes, all shards are considered "off-element" regardless on the shard's actual element. This should reduce the impact of the varied power of shards.

Sounds like a good idea to me.