Queeshai, you misunderstand how Taken works. If a Draft Roc takes a creature, the creature is not in play. You cannot move it, cannot use any special ability it may have, it will not untap when the round ends, etc. It is not gone... because the Roc can replace it in exactly the same condition it was when the Roc Took it. But the creature is not in play. It is Taken.
Same thing with Globe and enchantments. But Attrition and Flash Flood are fundamentally different. Attrition does nothing when first played. It's effect happens when it is present and in play at the end of a round. If Attrition is Taken, it cannot affect the board because it is not present on the board at the end of the round.
But Flash Flood's effect stems from the act of playing it. When you first play it, it turns all unoccupied land to water. It's effect ends when it is removed. But Taking is different than removal. If you Take Flash Flood, it's not removed... it's Taken. But... once played, Flash Flood is not supposed to do anything but lose tokens and go away when out of tokens.
However, if it's Taken, it can't be Disenchanted, it can't lose tokens, it can't do anything. If the Globe is eventually destroyed, Flash Flood will reappear among the world enchantments and continue losing tokens and then go away when out of tokens.

please refer me to the in-game (or otherwise) documentation on Attrition or Taken which supports this statement. I know of none. rather, I suspect that you are making an assumption about the intent of the developers. which is fine ... I agree that a taken attrition should not leave the world in a state that deals attrition damage. however, by the same logic, a taken flash flood should not leave the world in a state of flood. again, because the definitions we are provided with are incomplete, we can only make assumptions about developer intent.

for reference:

Attrition: Enchant World. Any enemy Creature in area you control takes 1 damage at the end of round.

Flash flood: Lifespan(2). Enchant World. All land spaces without a Figure become ocean. When Flash Flood is removed all these spaces are returned to their previous terrain.

Taken: Entity and anything enchanting it is taken out of play. It isn't affected by any other Entity. No events such as end or start or round affect the Entity. When Entity is replaced in play it comes back with any tokens enchantments or damage it had when it was taken.

my assumption is that the extra wording on flash flood is there for cases where, for example, the special ability of Surk's Groundbreaker is invoked during the flood. noob_mexican seems to be assuming that the wording is there to support the offensive use of loxlorn globe. as far as I can tell, both interpretations could be possible, given the incomplete framework we are working with. I'll leave it to you to decide which interpretation the developers intended (or will intend, if this was never considered).

There is no interpretation needed. Attrition's description states it acts at the end of the round. If it is Taken, it is "out of play" at the end of the round and cannot have an effect.
When Flash Flood is played, all unoccupied spaces become ocean. If it is Taken (NOT removed), it will continue to have an effect because the card text states the terrain will stay ocean until Flash Flood is removed.
The basic point is that "taken" and "removed" are two different things in the context of TFW. "Taken" can be undone. The Roc or Fluyt can replace the creature it took and the Globe will return the enchantments if destroyed. "Removed" is dead, gone. If something is removed, it cannot come back.
IMO, Loxlorn Globe was intended to be a defensive mechanism. I suspect the developer's had no intention for this particular combo. That's one of the fun things about this game; unexpected things can happen.
As I said earlier, IF the developer's decide this combo is OP the easiest solution is to make Globe unable to take enchantments cast by it's controller.

I don't think this should be a discussion about the combo being OP or not. I think it should be about if the combo is bad for the game or not. Since so many decks will be unplayable in a competitive environment if this exist, I think it is bad.

Consider the following three (hypothetical) enchantments:

Enchantment A:

This enchantment has an ongoing effect that makes oceans of all unoccupied spaces. The effect is purely temporary, and contingent on the enchantment's continued existence. If the enchantment ever stops existing (destroyed, sacrificed, removed, taken, morphed into something else, whatever), it will no longer have its effect, and all spaces will revert to their original terrain. If the enchantment is neutralized (think Silver Stag, but affecting world enchantments), it will stop having an effect, and all spaces will revert for as long as the stag is there.

Note 1: this is how most enchantments work.
Note 2: this enchantment would not work the same as Flash Flood. For example, when a creature moves, the space it vacated would immediately become an ocean, and the space it entered would immediately revert to its original terrain. This is because the effect is an ongoing one - at any given moment, if the enchantment is in play and active, it checks which spaces are unoccupied, and overlays these spaces with a (temporary) ocean.


Enchantment B:

This enchantment is a completely different animal. It has no ongoing effect whatsoever. It only does one thing: when it is played, it changes all spaces that are unoccupied (at that moment) to oceans. This is a one-shot effect. The enchantment will not continue to monitor the board and alter terrain (as opposed to Enchantment A). Also, after the initial change, the terrain of the affected spaces no longer depends on the enchantment. It's been changed to ocean permanently - just like a spell makes changes that are permanent (e.g., Cloudburst). Destroying, removing, morphing, taking, neutralizing, or otherwise affecting the enchantment will have no effect on terrain. The only way to remove those oceans is by invoking an additional, separate effect (say, Naturescaping).

Note 1: The Lifespan on this enchantment is completely irrelevant, because being destroyed is not going to reverse the one shot effect. This enchantment turns spaces into oceans permanently.
Note 2: Of course, such one shot effects are usually designed as spells, not enchantments. But the enchantment could be made, and it would work as described.


Enchantment C:

Now we're getting closer.
The first clause of this enchantment is a one shot effect. It is word for word identical to that of Enchantment B. Any spaces which are unoccupied when the enchantment is played will permanently become oceans, and that's that. Taking, morphing or neutralizing the enchantment will not change that. Moving creatures around will not change anything, either - the spaces affected were set when the one-shot effect happened.

What about removing the enchantment (or sacrificing/destroying it, which count as removing)? This will have no effect on the first clause, and will not reverse it. However, it will trigger the effect from the second clause, which just happens to reverse the first one. If the enchantment is never removed, the second effect will never trigger, and the affected spaces will remain oceans until another effect changes them again.

Note: Cold Snap is an example of a real enchantment that works this way. It removes the opponents hand when it is played, and as a separate event, returns them when it is removed. If it is taken, morphed or neutralized, those cards are not coming back.

Enchantment D:

OK, this is Flash Flood.
It has Enchantment C's 2nd clause, and a 1st clause that's missing the "When this enchantment is played" part. Does the missing part mean that it actually works like enchantment A?

I could argue no based on semantics: it uses the word "become", implying a one shot effect, and why would it even need the 2nd clause if the effect is going to end anyway when it's gone?

But I don't need to argue semantics. I know it works like enchantments B+C. I know because of the way it reacts (or rather, doesn't react) to creature movement: vacated spaces are still land, and newly occupied spaces remain water.
This means that we don't have an ongoing effect of "all unoccupied spaces are water", as in Enchantment A. Rather, we have a one shot effect of "turn all spaces that are unoccupied now to water", as in B+C. This effect is permanent, and is only reversed if specifically told to do so, e.g. by the 2nd clause, in the event of the enchantment being removed (but not taken, morphed or neutralized).

Hence, not a bug.

Note: emancipate mentioned that the combo also works with Turmoil. If this is true, I would say that it is a bug. This is because Turmoil, like most enchantments, is phrased as an ongoing effect that is true as long as the enchantment is in play. For the combo to work, it needs to be phrased like Flash Flood: a 1-shot effect that triggers on arrival, and another 1-shot that triggers on removal.

OK, now that I got that off my chest, here are some other thoughts:

Is this combo overpowered enough to warrant nerfing?

My gut feeling is yes. But I don't know for certain. And neither does anyone else. So far, to the best of my knowledge, it has not done exceedingly well on EC's. Some people are claiming that this is due to bad execution. Perhaps, but there's only one way to prove that. Show us how it should be done. Have us all screaming for mercy, begging for a nerf (and earn lots of Power while doing it). The core cards are easy enough to obtain, and at least some people have the rarer supplementary cards.

Can't? Won't? It's too boring? You're above stooping to such cowardly tactics?

Fair enough, but until someone actually does it, we won't know.

Should the combo be nerfed because it distorts and limits the competitive environment?

I agree with CaveTroll that this is crux of the issue. I also share his belief that it does.
But again, I don't know.
Last EC I was in, I tweaked a deck specifically to beat Flood. I ended up losing to a completely different deck on the first round, and so did the Flood deck, so I wouldn't have met it anyway. It seems that at this stage, the fear of Flood is greater than Flood itself.

Yes, it's just an anecdote. But that's all we have right now - anecdotes and gut feelings. Many questions are still unanswered at this point: How powerful can the combo be made? How many people are going to pick it up? How many decks have natural answers? How many can easily work such answers in?

A week and 20 EC's from now, we'll all be a lot wiser.

If a nerf is eventually deemed necessary, which nerf is best?

This combo, and similar potential combos, have two parts:
1. A powerful enchantment that is limited in lifespan, but needs to be technically "removed" in order to reverse itself.
2. Some way of circumventing the enchantment without technically "removing" it - be it taking, morphing or neutralizing ("stagging") it.

Examples of (1) are Flash Flood and Cold Snap. I don't think there are others (Turmoil is a bug). Most enchantments have an ongoing effect, rather than a "begin" event and an "end" event, so they naturally stop working when tampered with.

Loxlorn Globe is the only example of (2) that works with world enchantments. Silver Stag works with local enchantments, and we've seen some combos based on that - but local enchantments are usually not as game-breaking.

So one of these two groups gets the axe.

Personally, I believe the fundamental problem is group 1 - the enchantments. If these enchantments keep their functionality, the designers will need to be very careful about anything that messes with enchantments in interesting ways (taking, morphing or neutralizing). For example, a Silver Stag that works on global enchantments. This is a shame, because those cards are interesting and reasonable with all other enchantments - which actually stop working when they're gone.

So, how to fix the enchantments?

Flash Flood can be changed to Enchantment A in my previous post: "Lifespan (2). All spaces without a figure are oceans". This will make it work like other enchantments, and solve the problem. It will change some of the normal functionality of the enchantment, though.

Cold Snap is harder, because it is fundamentally made up of two events, with no ongoing effect in between. On the other hand, it's probably less powerful, so it might not need any nerfing. If it does end up needing a nerf, the best I can think of is changing it into a spell (not an enchantment) that says:

"Remove all cards in target player's hand. Returns those cards in 3 turns."

That way, the countdown and return will happen regardless of anything else that happens - there would be no enchantment to tamper with.

Well put yaron. Just wanted to add that emancipate is inaccurate, it does not work with turmoil. I have also tested light of day with it. It also does not work. Which adds even more to the point that it is because of the wording of flash flood and is not a bug (but possibly bad for TFW).

Yaron, you spent about 20 paragraphs completely ignoring the point. You are totally right in the way Enchantment D is resolved. The problem is that if Taken "removes" that enchantment, then the second effect should resolve. Taken appears to "remove" some enchantments and not others.

So the definition of "Taken" needs to be defined one way or the other, and then whichever way is decided, applied uniformly to all cards.

It is a bug. I made a point to fix it when I made the loxlorn globe actually looks like it slipped through though.

Should be fixed today.

Hmm, posted and it disappeared. Let's try again...



If "taken" does count as "removed" (as Jed seems to imply), then taking a Flash Flood triggers its second effect, and the rest of my discussion is irrelevant.

However, I don't understand why you say that it's applied inconsistently. If "taken" did not count as being "removed", then normal enchantments would still stop working when they were taken by Loxlorn Globe, because they need to be in the game to have any effect. A "taken" enchantment is not in play, even if it wasn't technically "removed" (just like a Fissured creature is not in play, even though it wasn't technically "destroyed").

However...



Jed, does that mean that "taking" does count as "removing"?

If that is the case, it might cause problems with future cards that provide some benefit when removed. For example, you could take and replace them repeatedly with Cargo Fluyt, and keep gaining the benefit each turn.

I guess you could just avoid such cards, and limit beneficial triggers to the more specific "destroyed".