| theFarWilds.com http://thefarwilds.com/forum/ | |
| Shoddy Worksmanship http://thefarwilds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1304 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Keyser [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Shoddy Worksmanship |
If Hill Giant Contractors costs 1 domain, shouldn't the reverse Hill Giant Contractors only cost 1 domain as well? Maybe even 2 domain because of how much it sets your opponent back... But 3 domains seems way too pricey. |
|
| Author: | headshot [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shoddy Worksmanship |
1 Domain for Shoddy Workmanships? And I trust keep the 2 flux as well? This would be fun with Trunk Hermit and a throne in starting hand. Jokes aside, the card is already very powerful played when the opponent casts a new base after you have removed the old one (e.g. fissure). |
|
| Author: | Keyser [ Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shoddy Worksmanship |
Hill giants is also extremely powerful. It seems that everyone wants to make this set into nothing but mediocre cards? There are always powerful cards and weak cards and cards in between. Just because a card is "good" doesn't mean you have to nerf it. It's about checks and balances, not about making everything "blah" |
|
| Author: | Uncas [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shoddy Worksmanship |
I think that Shoddy Workmanship can safely go down to 2 domain, and should do so. With options like Negate, Sinkhole, and Fissure around, I doubt that it would even be played very often. |
|
| Author: | jed [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shoddy Worksmanship |
I think we'll just drop this card for now. |
|
| Author: | doiron [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shoddy Worksmanship |
aww was one of my favs of the new set. granted 3 domain was a steep requirement, but I still packed one in my MF deck. |
|
| Author: | kash [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 4:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shoddy Worksmanship |
I think dropping it is a reasonable decision. The last thing MF really needs is more ways to take out domain. |
|
| Author: | headshot [ Thu Oct 08, 2009 7:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Shoddy Worksmanship |
Keyser wrote: t seems that everyone wants to make this set into nothing but mediocre cards? There are always powerful cards and weak cards and cards in between. Just because a card is "good" doesn't mean you have to nerf it. It's about checks and balances, not about making everything "blah" If balancing is done with that attitude, the game becomes pretty boring on top level constructed, as everyone is just going to play the same things. I know CCGs tend to be like that (remember Umezawa's Jitte in mtg?), but why make it some kind of rule? In addition, I don't think it helps if there is a single card that keeps another otherwise overpowered card in "check". That kind of balancing just makes the outcome of games depend more on matchups. The deck that doesn't have the "check" card (maybe it's in the wrong domain?) is still helpless. To me, ideal balance would mean that every balanced deck has a way to deal with pretty much anything, and that every card would be roughly equal in usefulness to the others. By roughly I mean here that it would be enough to get as close as possible with the amount of testing and evidence available. Of course some cards inevitably remain at least a bit better than some others. By a balanced deck I mean a deck that has a reasonable ratio of creatures, spells, enchantments and buildings each. A deck without creatures still would and should be very vulnerable to certain other deck designs. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |