Flooding | Inundation

[Avenger]

"neutral" creatures are no longer hit by flood - so aflatoxin/flood wont work anymore

Worked about 30 mins ago in the trainer when I was playing around lol, it was quite fun actually.

Doesn't work now, the cells just float in the water happily.

[Deedle]

This is my Fav thing about Elements Zanz listens to the players and adjust. 

[omgarm]

Oh wow, the new art was added! <3

[xiongwen8]

I think one possible way to balance this card is to add cumulative upkeep, as in increasing the upkeep cost every turn. So for example, 1st turn:2 , 2nd turn: 3 , 3rd turn: 4 , and so on. When the upkeep cost can not be payed, flood/inundation is destroyed.

[Avenger]

I think one possible way to balance this card is to add cumulative upkeep, as in increasing the upkeep cost every turn. So for example, 1st turn:2 , 2nd turn: 3 , 3rd turn: 4 , and so on. When the upkeep cost can not be payed, flood/inundation is destroyed.

It is already cumulative upkeep by draining 3 water quanta continuously.

[Essence]

Nah, that's not cumulative, Avenger.  It's the same every turn: 3 .

[Wisemage]

I agree with essence, its a good way to balance it, and it gives reason to play multiple ones.

But if this happens essence, there needs to be a way to ditch your current flood before it sucks all your mana.

[Xinef]

I agree with essence, its a good way to balance it, and it gives reason to play multiple ones.

But if this happens essence, there needs to be a way to ditch your current flood before it sucks all your mana.

Why? Dissipation shield has no 'built-in' way to ditch it, yet it is useful enough to be used. If you really feel you need to ditch it, use deflag/pulvy/butterfly.
And I've been thinking about antimatter+flood+permafrost deck, so I guess butterfly would be the best addition ( ), yet so far my attempts at building such a deck have very low damage potential, and also don't have any serious reason to ditch flood (you need a few water pillars anyway, so no problem to regain water after flood drains all).
Also + seems pretty good, though I like adding a few ulitharids then, to counter momentum, anubis etc, probably cheaper in water quantum than squids.

[-Samura-]

hm.. just to say that Malignant Cells are not dying with the flood area in my trainer .. -.-

[Kameda]

That's because it was changed.

[PhuzzY LogiK]

I think it's crap that this card is based on board position, but I have zero influence as to where my creatures are positioned.

Where's the strategy here?  I'm completely at the mercy of the luck of the draw, because only the first seven creatures are safe, not the seven I want.  This is still OP because I could aflatoxin my opponent's first creature or two and fill up his middle row before he can get anything else out.  If you're going to make a card that position matters for, then let me choose where my creatures are.

[Xinef]

I agree with PhuzzY LogiK that now player should have some influence on his creatures position, especially because it also affects which creatures attack first (important when you have antimattered creatures, feral bond, opponent has a bone wall etc.)

Also if in your middle row there are less than 7 creatures (eg. one was killed) but you have creature in top or bottom row, you should be able to move it to middle row. Also after you make a creature immortal you should be able to move it to top or bottom row to make space for non-immortal creatures.

Unless it is Zanz's intention that you cannot move your creatures, not a 'not yet implemented feature', then it would also make sense, though I would prefer being able to move.