Why would you nerf the one mass creature kill in the game??

Haven't you ever played mtg? Day of Judgement? Damnation? Wrath of God? Etc...

These are very valid cards and playstyles.

Gamebreaking cards are only gamebreaking if they are easy to cast, dependable, and mean "if this card is in your deck, you win".

Soul Plague is extremely hard to cast at 6 flux and 3 domain buildings, two of which are DL.

If you want to stop your opponent from playing Soul Plague, then attack his domain buildings.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Keyser is right .. those cards have such high requirements for a reason ..

Earthquake has its place in the game - do CI buildings bother you? Earthquake them, disenchant Trade Routes and where is CI Monyx? ..
and it's the same with any card..

The fact that other card games uses them doesnt make them fun cards. Personally I think that mtg would me much more fun without these cards. And Im convinced that this game would be more fun without them also. When that is said these cards has been nerfed in MtG, so even they has realized that these cards was too strong.

I simply don't see any reason to nerf this card. Mass destruction is a strategy in just about all ccg's. It's purpose is to make players wary of overextending themselves - a problem that many "noobs" to games have.

*If you think your opponent is playing Soul Plague, don't overextend. Hold something back while forcing them into a position to Plague, then play your beastly creature that they have no answer to*

MTG nerfed Wrath of God because it was easy to cast by turn 4. They only nerfed it slightly, by removing the "creatures can't regenerate" bit. They continuously print other "wrath" effects in just about every set.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

TFWs strong point is the map, IMHO. Card play that is not connected to the map takes away from that, and turns TFW into something more like a MtG clone.

From a game design perspective, I can't see that there's a problem with people overextending themselves that we need to fix. Getting a lot of creatures out doesn't lead to boring games.

If that's your logic, then you also need to remove Culling of the Weak, Creeping Gloom, Lysis, Sunburst, Cloudburst, Flash Flood, Chambered Reef, Benefits of Spectacle, Knowing Despair, White Elephant, Volcanoe, The Hive, Astridian Forum, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...

Doing so would lead to a much different game that I, for one, do not envision enjoying.

All this discussion about a 6 mana, 3 domain card? ANY card that costs that much has every right to be game changing.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Keyser and Dublone, I think you are both making interesting points, although they seem to go almost in opposite directions. This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for when I created this posts (and other similar to it). It was never about crying that 'X is OP - X needs to nerfed!'.

Whether Soul Plague needs a change can only be established via a reasoned, hopefully unbiased, discussion. And it seems as if we are getting there now

As a sidenote, I think jed always wanted TFW bo be about, as Dublone puts it, 'the map' and about creatures. When people suggested cards to alter your own/opponent's decks along the lines of MTG, he always seemed a bit concerned, and when buliding decks were about to become far too strong (remember CI's crazy stuff in Beta?), he was quick to change stuff. But then again, Soul Plague has been around for a long time and this card is of his making.

Anyway, good stuff here now

Good points, Voices.

Playing "Soul Plague" doesn't take away the game being about the map. There are still extremely valid "map" strategies that can take advantage of this card.

Examples are

• building heavy decks
• decks that have reanimate/ragnarok type effects
• decks that need to limit map vision (The Hive)
• decks that need answers to creature swarm and Benefits of Numbers
• decks that focus on playing a few really good creature cards, and not having to worry about outnumbering their opponents by creature count
• decks that want variety in the game

This last point is especially important. If there were no cards like Soul Plague, there would only one type of deck -> creature heavy decks vs. creature heavy decks. Currently, the majority of decks are creature heavy decks, but the game would be --boring-- if ALL decks were of the same theme.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Actually, I do think several of those cards - Cull the Weak, Knowing Despair, White Elephant, Astridian Forum - make the game less rather than more interesting. I'd be happy to change them into something more connected to the map. Cards like Lysis at least require vision, but I think one reason sealed/draft is popular is that constructed is dominated a bit too much by spells/enchantments.

Variation comes from lots of cards, and balancing that makes all of them show up in competitive play. Making cards more connected to the map wouldn't lessen variation.

I'll submit my other post (see above) that basically asks the question: Why do you feel that only creature cards are "related to the map"? There are many valid strategies that do not need to have creature spam all over the map, and such strategies are still map related.

By definition of winning by controlling more flux wells than your opponent, the game is map based.

I say that any strategy that causes you to control more wells than your opponent in order to gain glory is valid. The only case I see where that isn't the case is the Benefits of Spectacle/White Elephant combo.



Here's a puzzle for you. One of the better TFW players created a deck that involved placing Owl Vision on Great Elm, then putting Mana Dome and (ack! I forgot the name... the CI guy that won't let you target anything next to him) near it, surrounded the hexes adjacent with creatures.

Do you consider that a valid "strategy"? There is just about no way to defeat that "map based strategy" without a mass destruction card.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|