oEtG Forum

General Category => Cards => New Card Suggestions => Topic started by: Zaranir on June 20, 2015, 05:09:51 am

Title: Refactorization
Post by: Zaranir on June 20, 2015, 05:09:51 am
(http://i.imgur.com/AY0Zvvz.png) (http://i.imgur.com/PMN4Ggn.png)
-------------

Refactorization / Refactorization
Cost: 18  :entropy / 15  :entropy
Ability:

Description / clarification

An expensive spell for  :entropy . Transforms in deck and in hand too. Can be used on your opponent's field (a CC with a chance of draw denial) or on your side. Interesting rushes with Pack wolves or Malignant Cell, where your deck is safe from randomness.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: serprex on June 20, 2015, 12:29:14 pm
Combo wouldn't be a rush, mass hatch is stallbreak. Removing all of target creature from deck is too strong, encourages speedbow
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: Zaranir on June 20, 2015, 01:08:57 pm
Combo wouldn't be a rush, mass hatch is stallbreak. Removing all of target creature from deck is too strong, encourages speedbow

If the deck built on it is strong enough to dominate the meta. But if so, the deck could be excluded from the effect.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: OdinVanguard on June 20, 2015, 07:06:47 pm
Combo wouldn't be a rush, mass hatch is stallbreak. Removing all of target creature from deck is too strong, encourages speedbow

If the deck built on it is strong enough to dominate the meta. But if so, the deck could be excluded from the effect.
^Hard to exclude a specific deck code wise. How would you define it? If it is defined as a specific exact set of cards then only a single deck is excluded. If you define it as a pattern of cards then players will start including that pattern just to get around this effect / encourage this effect.

Mass transforming all copies of a creature in a deck seems a little to strong in most cases. It will end up overly favoring rainbow decks which can cope with having random creatures in their deck. I don't really think that is a good idea...
If the effect could somehow ensure that the creatures that get created will be potentially castable then the effect would be less one sided toward rainbow quanta bases and this might be a little more viable.

I do think something along these lines could be interesting though. We now have enough different creatures available to each element that removing a single type can be imposed without crippling certain elements outright. However, it does need to be done carefully.

Unlike games like hearthstone or even MtG we have a very large number of base resource types and decks generally only have access to less than a third of them. This makes effects like this, which are typically quite doable in games like Hearthstone and MtG, much more complicated to balance here.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: serprex on June 20, 2015, 07:22:00 pm
He meant "the deck" to be that the spell wouldn't affect decks, not that it'd skip a specific archetype of decks

I'm rolling around the idea of transforming all copies of a creature into their in element dragon. Or nymph. Or a random creature of the same element
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: OdinVanguard on June 20, 2015, 07:59:19 pm
He meant "the deck" to be that the spell wouldn't affect decks, not that it'd skip a specific archetype of decks

I'm rolling around the idea of transforming all copies of a creature into their in element dragon. Or nymph. Or a random creature of the same element
Random creature of same element would be good.
It could certainly extend to the deck itself at that point as well.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: Zaranir on June 21, 2015, 01:24:44 am
OP changed. Malignant Cell would make random creatures or every copy of it is destroyed (like, there's 0 Other creature what is not a token)?
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: timpa on June 21, 2015, 02:48:17 pm
The only thing I can think for this is micro abom + fractal. Not sure if worth it.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: OdinVanguard on June 21, 2015, 08:28:28 pm
The only thing I can think for this is micro abom + fractal. Not sure if worth it.
Boneyards + kitties would be better I think.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: Chapuz on June 22, 2015, 01:33:07 am
So expensive, considering you can have bad luck and turn your creatures into low att ones.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: OdinVanguard on June 22, 2015, 01:41:29 am
So expensive, considering you can have bad luck and turn your creatures into low att ones.
True... but it just about anything is better than a skeleton.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: Zaranir on June 22, 2015, 01:54:06 am
Cost could be reduced to 15|12, like it's not that worthy to use on opponent with the changes.
Title: Re: Refactorization
Post by: serprex on June 22, 2015, 02:03:14 am
Assuming a token is worth a card, fate egg implies that a random creature is worth 3 quanta & a card. So at 18 quanta this is efficient if it targets 6 tokens

Honestly tho I don't like these "lol spam rng" :entropy cards. Went through this when cg proposed a balanced "discard hand, refill with completely random cards"