Are the Gods Godlike?

wereotter

MtGMoxJet said:

If gods werent indestructible.. why make them mythics?? Why still give them the draw backs that they have ( cannot block or attack unless a condition is met )?? Why sell them inthe elite pack for 400 unobtanium when they are completely useless?? Sacred cat now feels like it deserves to be a mythic compared to these 5 useless "gods".

The gods are incredibly cheap to cast for their stats. That's the benefit. Bontu is a 8 mana 8/8 with menace. The closest comparable creature to that is Mindwrack Demon that comes with the downside of making you discard 4 cards when it enters and deals you damage every turn if there are too many black gems on the board.

As far as being in the purple packs, if you noticed, every mythic from Aether Revolt rotated through those packs. So the gods are a natural first pick. 

MtGMoxJet

Atleast the demon can attack every turn. Try getting bontu to attack every turn. Killing one of your creatures just so he can attack and only to be killed by a common destroy spell.

MtGMoxJet

@wereotter you completely missed my point when i am trying to say given how the "gods" are right now, they do not deserve to be considered mythics. Rare at best. But not mythic.
Prevent damage is not even remotely close to indestructible. Take away the drawbacks or give them hexproof and now we are talking. Then they would be considered being mythics.

Ohboy

In every set, in every rarity level, there are cards that are very good, average and outright bad. 

This should really not come as news to anyone who has ever played a tcg, or variant such as mtgpq. This is literally by design, not an oversight. 

MtGMoxJet

But in paper, they were given the mythic status due to the fact that they were indestructible. Take that away and there is no way you could give that status to a card.

Ohboy

That's...just not true.

Not all mythic creatures are given indestructible(hence mythic). And not all indestructible creatures are mythic.

That logic just fails out of the gate.

MtGMoxJet

We are talking about the gods here. So dont include all creatures. Take out indestructible in the paper version, would you honestly think that you could consider them as mythic status?

julianus

I'd like to agree that they "should" be better than they are, but @Ohboy has a point. Here are just a few examples of other mythic cards in the game. I think it would be challenging to make a case that any of these cards are clearly and objectively better than the gods, taking power and cost into account.




 

MtGMoxJet

Considering the colors of the cards, mana cost is not a problem for those cards. Abilities on those cards really arent that bad, they just happened to show up when olivia and the pig were dominating ALL the decks that were being used with those colors. 

Ohboy

MtGMoxJet said:

We are talking about the gods here. So dont include all creatures. Take out indestructible in the paper version, would you honestly think that you could consider them as mythic status?

That has no basis in reality. In fact, as I understand it the design team in Mtg debated over giving Gods indestructible 

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/amonkhet-down-business-part-1-2017-04-03

Along the same line, you cannot stand there and claim Gods don't count as creatures. They're literally creatures in the game. Any claim of indestructible = mythic has to include all creatures if you want that logic to pass muster. You're skirting dangerously close to saying only the gods are true Scotsmen. 

wereotter

MtGMoxJet said:

But in paper, they were given the mythic status due to the fact that they were indestructible. Take that away and there is no way you could give that status to a card.

Incorrect. They have mythic status because they are key characters in the story of the plane. Sammut also is given mythic stats as was Rashmi in her block.

In paper magic they're worse than a lot of rare cards and here that's the same.

Also I feel like I shouldn't have to keep saying this, but INDESTRUCTIBLE IS NOT A MECHANIC IN PUZZLE QUEST. You're all whining that they were denied a status that does not and has never existed in this game despite other cards previously released having indestructible on their paper counterparts.

The very mechanics of this game where all creatures attack every turn, and one creature can block any number of attackers makes indestructible something that can not exist here, even if they give multiple ways to exile, disable, or weaken it, because the decision not to attack if your opponent has an indestructible blocker does not exist. 

MtGMoxJet

Debated, yes. Bottom line, it made sense to make them indestructible because they are in fact "gods". Never had i said that they are not creatures, it is a creature type. And for you to say that all mythic creatures have to be indestructible, thats what doesnt make sense. For this specific creature type, the mythic status was given due to the fact that they are indestructible despite having drawbacks to them. Take out that specific ability to them and they would only be of rare status at best. 

MtGMoxJet

Samut is a mythic because.. have you seen her abilities on paper? If thats not a mythic then i dont know what is. If indestructible was never a mechanic in mtgpq, then adjust the rarity of the card accordingly. All downside and no upside should not warrant a mythic status in any game. 

Ohboy

Your logic : 
Gods are mythic because they are indestructible. 

Clear violation of that logic:
Not all indestructible creatures are mythics. 



Here's the thing about mythics. While there is a positive correlation between the average card's rarity and it's power level, it is by no means true across the board. 

Dologan

A middle ground to deal with this without needing to introduce new mechanics into the game engine would be for any destroy effects on them to simply return them to hand/library. This way you could more easily remove them and avoid potentially impossible walls, while they remain, in a way, indestructible. 

It's taking a bit of a liberty compared to the paper version, but not any more egregious than other card adaptations.

MtGMoxJet

Or just remove the text that states they cannot attack or block unless a certain condition is met.

babar3355

Ohboy said:

A) Huh? I never mentioned UC

If you want to make the argument that all Mtgpq cards that don't mirror their paper counterparts are mistakes... That's a really deep rabbit hole to go to. Mtgpq isn't Mtg. 

C) There was nothing misleading. The facts were laid out bare on the table in that same post. They told you about the reduction in packs. They told you in no uncertain terms literally what was going to happen, with exact numbers(14 to 5, 600 to 300).  What was misleading was the community coming to a wrong conclusion and pushing that narrative. Much like what you're doing now. The gods have never had indestructible in their skillset as of this writing. The devs have never talked about indestructible. This is not bait and switch. It's a lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking. 

A) I don't care what you mentioned... they used to have prevent damage cause immunity to destroy spells.  They subsequently fixed that "bug".  Then when they launch AMK the "bug" is back and the gods conveniently show up as the first item in the elite pack.  As soon as they rotate back out the "bug" is removed again.  Again, you think D3 is utterly incompetent, I believe they were being willfully deceitful.

B ) Why introduce indestructible gods, make them act just like the paper version, then remove the indestructible feature once they siphon off the currency? Why introduce the exile method of removal?  If they had been launched with prevent damage that was not immune to destroy spells then I wouldn't be complaining (or spending my jewels).

C) This is an outright lie. https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/61276/cthulhu-please-explain/p1

I will highlight a few of the lies...

Lie 1: "Not only will the Masterpiece cards be purchaseable with the new currency, but they are also rewards in events" Since you are such a fan of definitions are masterpeice cards purchasable? "capable of being bought?" Not unless lottery prizes are purchasable. Have you seen one as a reward in an event?  Cthulu himself even admitted this isn't going to happen in his response to my post above.

Lie 2: "Second we have made improvements to events to the rewards" - This lie has been broken down many times by many people and no matter how you parse it out the community as a whole are receiving less reward value than before.

These are just a few of the many outright lies they have told, however, they are even more prone to using deceptive language to sugar coat a turd.

Example: "Third the card packs we have done some balance tweaking to help reduce the amount of duplicates and give the player a higher chance at obtaining rare cards"  Reducing the amount of duplicates in this case referred to the fact that the same amount of crystals buys you less total cards, thus.. you get less duplicates.  Deceitful? I would say so. 

"higher chance at obtaining rare cards" So using Volrak's spreadsheet the rare drop rate or better is roughly 5%.  So if you spend 600 crystals to get a big box you would average ((14x5) = 70, 70 *.05 = 3.5 rares or better + 1 guaranteed rare or better = 4.5.  Now if you buy 2 premium packs you get (10x5)  = 50, 50*.05 = 2.5 rares or better + 2 guaranteed rares = 4.5.  Tell me how this got me a "higher chance at obtaining rare cards"   Oh, I get it... your guaranteed rares CAN'T be upgraded to mythics so the chances of getting rares is technically higher.  Deceitful?  Tinykitty YES!

But fine @Ohboy and @wereotter you can continue to believe that D3 is just a bunch of incompetent ninnies who struggle to communicate in an accurate and straightforward manner. You can choose to believe they "accidentally" reinsert bugged features after a patch and just "happen" to offer the benefitted cards for "purchase" up until the date they just "happen" to be leaving the vault.  I would have a hard time defending such incompetence, but I suppose you can do as you please.

And @wereotter, don't question my "reading comprehension and critical thinking"  skills.  It's an insulting thing to say and obviously not based in reality.

wereotter

MtGMoxJet said:

Or just remove the text that states they cannot attack or block unless a certain condition is met.

And increase their casting cost 5x

but seriously. These are not the first gods in Magic history, and all 20 now have hoops you have to jump through before they can attack or block. The Theros gods' use of devotion was considered too powerful, so they made the Amonkhet gods weaker by design.

The developers at Wizards stated point blank that their stats are very pushed for their mana costs, and that follows here. So D3 got that right. Additionally they all have some requirement to wake them up. Again D3 interpreted that correctly.

I'm sorry you don't like them, but you're not convincing me, at least, that the design of these gods is a mistake.

Corn_Noodles

I'd like to see the gods, and other creatures rated as "Legendary" in paper, not be reinforceable.

hawkyh1

the gods are inflexible due to their enable requirements.
if they die just as easily as everything else then there's
little reason to play them over creatures such as solemn
recruit or prowling serpopard. it's not that easy to give
the gods permanent reach and then there are cards
that have unblockable, menace or disable block until the
end of turn. colours that can already deal with the gods
have little to gain from being able to destroy gods and
colours who have difficulty are not much better off. all it
means is that I won't likely win with rhonas on toz node
3.x anymore.

HH