Flooding | Inundation

[Bleys295]

The yellow text explains the current realism. Flood creates a moat around a hill.

Okay, other than that, what do you think of the idea?

I dislike 1 card taking out an entire decks offense even at an absorb cost of 5.

That is why I like the rising tides idea where it takes 7 floods to cover the entire middle row.

7 copies of the card in play, or 7 turns of flood?

[OldTrees]

The yellow text explains the current realism. Flood creates a moat around a hill.

Okay, other than that, what do you think of the idea?

I dislike 1 card taking out an entire decks offense even at an absorb cost of 5.

That is why I like the rising tides idea where it takes 7 floods to cover the entire middle row.

7 copies of the card in play, or 7 turns of flood?

The 7 copies idea by kardo on page 2

[bigreen69]

i see this as quite a nerf.

it no longer works against fire flies or scarabs.  the moderate board control that it provided is now useless vs airborn creatures that apparently never ever have to land.

i think i am reading this card right "non airborn".  let me know if i missed something.

[johannhowitzer]

Check the OP again - the card says nothing about airborne.  They've always died to Flooding and will continue to.  Probably you were reading Xenocidius' suggestion, not the word of Zanz.

[Pineapple]

Talking about how this may have berfed Flooding in the wrong direction, Flooding decks are now more water-based, since you lost 2 non-water slots on your side of the field...

[ndclub]

Though I am happy to see its getting a buff(any change is FAR better than no change), like others I am still upset that its far too dependent on what deck your opponent is using. Its effects are incredibly devastating against the right colors but those are historically cards with the lowest usage. I feel the flooding should stay in only the top and bottom rows but for it to spawn a weak creature each turn within the casters flood area.(a "wave" or something more aptly named) These creatures would be pretty useful in every situation and provide a better synergy for the new shard. This could come with a higher casting or upkeep cost but I am really just worried about its usage.

My other idea is what if they were allowed to stack? Each one cast after the previous one continue to flood more and more area each time but I have long tried to figure out a balanced rate that this should happen in.(and it makes the most sense thematically)

I'm sure its too late for suggestions but whatever...It's far too situational in the current setting.

[zombie0]

flooding (as is) never should have been made at all.  trying to validate its existence by making it less marginal while refusing to allow it a powerful combo...whats the point?

flooding SHOULD cover a row each turn, so that by 3 turns the field is underwater.  then it resets.  powerful creatures that can only live underwater would be cool.  creatures that evolve when in water, but de-evolve when not works too (or vice versa).

get rid of the absorb mechanic.  simply make flooding a powerful theme with natural counters (such as rain of fire, pandemonium, earthquake, etc).  build on the elemental interactions and make people who use an element feel motivated by that theme.

if possible, i would make a sea monster deck.  similar to how people loved toon world decks in yugi-oh (except maybe it wouldnt be pants in this game if done right?)

[Contrary]

purify exists, and it is useful against exactly one type of deck.

That's true. Purify is also a stupid and lame card. But much like Flooding it is saved by the fact that in most situations it is useless. I don't know why you would use Purify as an argument, do you think Purify is a good card?

[Bleys295]

I think there is too much hate for this card. It has theme and application, the problem being that once the field is flooded everyone just sort of forgets what the point of a stall deck is. I will agree that water needs a way to deal serious damage outside of Ice Dragon. I use flooding in all my FG decks, and it works wonders on spam gods (Serket, Jezebel, Osiris, Eternal Phoenix, Ferox, Incarnate, and if I get lucky, Rainbow).

I feel this card is fine, and that Zanz has made all the right calls with it.

[omegareaper7]

I think there is too much hate for this card. It has theme and application, the problem being that once the field is flooded everyone just sort of forgets what the point of a stall deck is. I will agree that water needs a way to deal serious damage outside of Ice Dragon. I use flooding in all my FG decks, and it works wonders on spam gods (Serket, Jezebel, Osiris, Eternal Phoenix, Ferox, Incarnate, and if I get lucky, Rainbow).

I feel this card is fine, and that Zanz has made all the right calls with it.

Except there's one big problem with all of that, permafrost > most other shields against false gods.

[RavingRabbid]

Bwahahaha @ Post that too.

[Terroking]

Bwahahaha @ Post that too.

Heh. Although, was it no changed so that only the center 5 slots can be used? Not all 7?