Sphinx's Decree Shouldn't Exist
Comments
-
well maybe not storm, that's one of my least favorite mtg mechanics (up there with infect).Mburn7 said:
Sure, lets bring Storm into MTGPQ too while we're at it, or cascade lol.FindingHeart8 said:
that's a good point, though there would be 4 total if you include the masterpiece that counters the next anything (pact of negation), but I wouldn't really count that one as dependable.Mburn7 said:
Whats the difference between not being able to play it and not being able to use it? To me they're the same.babar3355 said:
...... I didn't think I had to clarify that "shuts down" means "prevents from playing" in my comment. And, yes... if it shut down 2-3 spells like jace's defeat it would be strong but not broken. This would make it like @FindingHeart8Mburn7 said:
That's not necessarily true, Jace's Defeat shuts down spells to (admittedly 1 at a time), there are a ton of supports that shut down creatures (Cast Out easily stops all creatures from doing anything), and a ton of stuff that destroys supports (although not stopping you from playing them).babar3355 said:I am frankly shocked that more people don't see how disruptive this card can be.
This is the only card in the entire game that shuts down an ENTIRE CLASS OF CARD!
And saying that a support is powerful with Starfield is not grounds for anything, just look at Insidious Will.
I agree that the card is powerful, and probably should be a rare, but lets not get crazy. It has 1 shield, after all, so barring incredibly bad luck you should be ok with some gem converters (which most decks run anyway)
solution which I think makes sense.
And then the rants about "just don't play spells and you dont have to worry about it start." Sigh... it's hard to even have a conversation with you guys sometimes.
And I agree the "don't play spells" argument is stupid, but as someone who usually doesn't run a ton of spells I am finding it hard to see the issue. Sure, its harder to use HUF, but that card needed an answer anyway.
There are a ton of things that disable and kill creatures, and even cards that can negate their ETB effects.
There are a ton of things that destroy supports, in addition to just matching the gems around them (which is admittedly luck based, but this is a match 3 game so whatever).
There are 2 cards that stop spells. Now there are 3. 3 cards, in the entire game. All of them supports, all of them with 2 or less shields.
I'm finding it hard to see the issue.
we do need more cards that interact with spells, I wouldn't be opposed to a support that has a 50% chance of redirecting negative spells to their caster...but that's me promoting the idea of a chaotic-style playstyle I've been pushing for for a while
Maybe some dice rollers or coin flippers?
Let Chaos Reign.
But dice roller and coin flip, heck yeah!!!
"Convert 10 gems to red, then if the remaining number of red gems on the board are an even number: you take 10 damage and each of your creatures get -3/-3; but if the remaining number of red gems on the board are an odd number: your opponent takes 20 damage and each of their creatures gets -5/-5."
on topic: spinx's decree is a fun card, it also has a pretty picture.
1 -
Hmm, spell reflection...nice call Mr. Wombat.
Something like a support with 2 shields that reflects targeted spell effects aimed your PW back on Greg and spells aimed at your targeted critter back on Greg's 1st critter (or fizzle if none).
Inferno Jet me? Nope, you take that 12.
Targeted kill my stompy stompy, ha! Redirect that to your stupid blocking zombie!
And of course this would be a support that loses a shield every time reflection is triggered.
Has nothing to do with Sphinx's Decree, but I love the idea nonetheless.
And it does have some nice card art
2 -
As stated above, I disagree with the premise that SD is overpowered/meta-warping. I hardly ever see it, and I know for certain that I've never lost - with any deck - to an opponent running it. I don't run it, even in my Starfield deck, because I can't justify using up a support slot on a card that doesn't advance my game plan.
THAT BEING SAID... the answer is not to change the card. In my opinion, this game needs MORE cards like this, which interfere with proven game plans - not less. No strategy should be favored in every situation, there needs to be a paper for every rock. Players shouldn't create decks that get pantsed by one card - or they should know that going into the matchup and be ok with the consequences. If the reason deck-builders aren't diversifying their decks is because there are no worthy alternatives, the answer is to print more alternatives. Thus, in my opinion if SD shows us anything, it's that we need more non-spell options to deal with supports... for the colors that should get them.
4 -
I have it and run it with Starfield all the time now. If only because at least 70-80% of every deck I face runs heavy support removal spells whenever I bring out a non-Samut deck and it drives me nuts. So I bring it with my Starfield/Gideon's Defeat combo and then... get mad anyway because the AI is insanely adept at breaking it's single gem, casting all of it's stored up support removal, and gleefully whooping me in the face.1
-
Gideon's Defeat has 2 gems. Just adding to the magnitude of your story hereBrakkis said:I have it and run it with Starfield all the time now. If only because at least 70-80% of every deck I face runs heavy support removal spells whenever I bring out a non-Samut deck and it drives me nuts. So I bring it with my Starfield/Gideon's Defeat combo and then... get mad anyway because the AI is insanely adept at breaking it's single gem, casting all of it's stored up support removal, and gleefully whooping me in the face.
1 -
Refuse//Cooperate kind of works like that.... probably as close as we're going to be able to get in the game. I imagine it might get too tricky to try and code an effect like Swerve.....Zzyzzx said:Hmm, spell reflection...nice call Mr. Wombat.
Something like a support with 2 shields that reflects targeted spell effects aimed your PW back on Greg and spells aimed at your targeted critter back on Greg's 1st critter (or fizzle if none).
Inferno Jet me? Nope, you take that 12.
Targeted kill my stompy stompy, ha! Redirect that to your stupid blocking zombie!
And of course this would be a support that loses a shield every time reflection is triggered.
Has nothing to do with Sphinx's Decree, but I love the idea nonetheless.
And it does have some nice card art
(for reference)
1 -
I really thought Sphinx's Decree would be a much worse card to deal with than it is in reality. It's weak at 1 shield, and you can still cast your spells if you break it on the right turn. It's also more expensive than Hixus so you can't usually stack it like when you play Hixus correctly. I only ever use it with Starfield, which is by definition a deck that is meant to shut your opponents offenses down, and is usually a small part of that overall strategy.3
-
A bit off topic, but I think it would be neat if they made a spell or creature that gave one shield to all of your supports.0
-
Well they have Tezz, but it would be cool to do something like that. Can't think of an appropriate paper card or mechanic that would work, though.Mainloop25 said:A bit off topic, but I think it would be neat if they made a spell or creature that gave one shield to all of your supports.
0 -
babar3355 said:
...... I didn't think I had to clarify that "shuts down" means "prevents from playing" in my comment. And, yes... if it shut down 2-3 spells like jace's defeat it would be strong but not broken. This would make it like @FindingHeart8Mburn7 said:
That's not necessarily true, Jace's Defeat shuts down spells to (admittedly 1 at a time), there are a ton of supports that shut down creatures (Cast Out easily stops all creatures from doing anything), and a ton of stuff that destroys supports (although not stopping you from playing them).babar3355 said:I am frankly shocked that more people don't see how disruptive this card can be.
This is the only card in the entire game that shuts down an ENTIRE CLASS OF CARD!
And saying that a support is powerful with Starfield is not grounds for anything, just look at Insidious Will.
I agree that the card is powerful, and probably should be a rare, but lets not get crazy. It has 1 shield, after all, so barring incredibly bad luck you should be ok with some gem converters (which most decks run anyway)
solution which I think makes sense.
And then the rants about "just don't play spells and you dont have to worry about it start." Sigh... it's hard to even have a conversation with you guys sometimes.
Am I allowed to say "Just don't play _just_ spells"?
Who are you running this 10 spell deck with anyway? (Amused smile)
0 -
Would just like to point out the irony in this statement. You can't really pop it with the most common form of gem converters: green spells. I am aware that there are supports that convert and some creatures but let's be real, the vast majority are spells (or a cycled quasi-dino).Mburn7 said:I agree that the card is powerful, and probably should be a rare, but lets not get crazy. It has 1 shield, after all, so barring incredibly bad luck you should be ok with some gem converters (which most decks run anyway)
I still disagree with the comparison to Hixus or Cast Out shutting down creature decks. Yes, those shut down decks piloted by Greg because he doesn't replace his creatures but humans can. Same with the support removal spells/Vraska argument. Yes, those destroy your supports. They also don't target specific supports (Vraska kind of sorta does but you can use this to your advantage by making less valuable supports have larger stacks.) Playing against Vraska or a deck with lots of support destruction? Hold a bunch of different supports in hand and try to flood the board all at once instead of casting one per turn and getting it nuked once per turn.
Point is, I don't have to destroy Hixus or Cast Out to still win with creatures. I don't have to prevent support destruction from happening to win with a support only deck (of which very few possible decks even exist: Ob, Angrath, and T2 ults mainly). I do have to deal with Sphinx's Decree to win with a spell deck. It is literally impossible to win with a spell deck against Sphinx's Decree without first destroying Sphinx's Decree.
That said, I'm not opposed to its existence. It's one of my favorite cards in the set. I look forward to finding new ways to continually abuse it. Babar isn't wrong about its power though. I think some are either being overprotective of it or willfully ignorant of its power just for the sake of argument.1 -
@ZW2007- Except growing up poor I never had a single green gem conversion spell and we're trying to destroy _white_ just like Hixus. So you play multiple "white and your colours" gem conversion lands, a strategy which exactly works for this too. Yes, it can take a few turns, but you can get mana on more things to unleash all at once.
That's why I keep going back to Hixus, the exact same solution I always had to use works for this too and you don't have to break a "creatureless" stance if you need one.
I'm not overprotective of it. I tried a Nyx loop with it and it helped, sure, but it was a slow awkward unfun deck and sure I could tweak it and maybe I will, but it wasn't broken like other things I see...
Question... Who resents SD who is trying to use ID and/or "HUF" versus people who don't use either but still have problems with the card? Because that's the main thing I can think of why people are soooo upset about it...
Cause green can do its thing with just creatures and supports, the spells are only a bonus.
Ok, so perhaps people need to think back to bronze/silver and go back to thinking "How would I deal with this if I only had the 5 basic planeswalkers?" and look through all their commons and uncommons and don't ignore the really simple basic stuff... Think back to the days when you expected to lose 50% of the time or more.
Those were BETTER days in terms of creativity and gameplay.
Playing B4T on my alt with very little was much more fun than playing on my main even though I didn't get as far.
Trying and trying things and failing and failing but then _eventually_ winning is much much more satisfying than automatically winning.
0 -
As to using white gem converters, that is counter-productive if you are playing the main strategy that this card hoses: Ob Nixilis. There are only four cards in standard that are both colorless (usable by any PW) and convert specifically to white. None of these cards should be run in Ob unless you know you are facing a deck with SD. In paper, you can risk not having an answer because after game 1, you get a game 2 and maybe a game 3 against the same opponent. Your sideboard can hold that answer and you can utilize it to win games 2 and 3 and thus win the match. In PQ, you can risk not having an answer and lose the "match". Or you can run strictly sideboard cards that weaken your deck as a whole. This is very similar to the complaints about pre-nerf Runaway Carriage. People could deal with runaway carriage, it just wasn't easy nor efficient for deck building. In the end, they did nerf Runaway Carriage.
Again, I'm neither for or against SD in this case. I agree it is probably too powerful in what it does but I don't think its a big problem. It could become one if there are more cards to enable it in DOM and people start trying to abuse it, time will tell.1 -
I have a hatred for this card similar to hixus. When I play it, it's worthless. Gets popped immediately. When Greg plays it, it lands in the bottom corner, surrounded by black and loyalty gems . If you're not playing green , you've got to get lucky to get rid of it. On its own, it's not the end of the world. However, I've never seen it in a deck without starfield . I actually think that all of this uproar makes it a great card for the game though . Strategy games need things to make people steategize . It just needs more answers in standard.2
-
Sirchombli said:I have a hatred for this card similar to hixus. When I play it, it's worthless. Gets popped immediately. When Greg plays it, it lands in the bottom corner, surrounded by black and loyalty gems . If you're not playing green , you've got to get lucky to get rid of it. On its own, it's not the end of the world. However, I've never seen it in a deck without starfield . I actually think that all of this uproar makes it a great card for the game though . Strategy games need things to make people steategize . It just needs more answers in standard.
Red and green have more creature based support destruction now than they have ever had. I'm curious as if it was deliberate or not based on this card, I should look at the original versions in paper perhaps...0 -
I like the card. I like using it (yesterday it made an omniscience deck useless.. Great!), and I have no problems facing it. Most decks I have that really depend on spells are red-something and include avarious dragon, even without : it's only a one shield support.
0 -
I dunno, Azor looks kinda naked to me in that one. Everytime I face it I feel like something should be censered.on topic: spinx's decree is a fun card, it also has a pretty picture.
Regarding the discussion on hand, Sphinx's decree is very powerful and it does affect the meta. The fact that some people might be playing decks that don't rely on strategies involving spells doesn't make it any less devastating to face for other players. Also, I dont think that enough people are abusing it for the majority to really see the consequences.
I personally don't have that much of an issue against it existing in the game even though I did face it a couple of times where it was an absolute horror. Its a new option and a new challenge.
It goes beyond a player not being able to cast a few utility spells. There just aren't a lot of ways where you can interact with opponent's board if you take spells out of the picture. So when decree is cast you can't use your spell based creature and support removals (yes, I know defeat, binding, farm etc exist and so do defender and berserker).
If they had to change it, @FindingHeart8's suggestion seems a good one.
1 -
Few red creatures have block destroyers so with luck could get destroyed that way to0
-
there's also sword of the animist
HH1 -
Do you run more than 3 creatures in a deck? I almost never do, and am thus usually unable to replace creatures. I just kill them if I can and move on (a move the AI does quite well), or ignore mana gains and just try to set up matches to pop the supports.ZW2007- said:
Would just like to point out the irony in this statement. You can't really pop it with the most common form of gem converters: green spells. I am aware that there are supports that convert and some creatures but let's be real, the vast majority are spells (or a cycled quasi-dino).Mburn7 said:I agree that the card is powerful, and probably should be a rare, but lets not get crazy. It has 1 shield, after all, so barring incredibly bad luck you should be ok with some gem converters (which most decks run anyway)
I still disagree with the comparison to Hixus or Cast Out shutting down creature decks. Yes, those shut down decks piloted by Greg because he doesn't replace his creatures but humans can. Same with the support removal spells/Vraska argument. Yes, those destroy your supports. They also don't target specific supports (Vraska kind of sorta does but you can use this to your advantage by making less valuable supports have larger stacks.) Playing against Vraska or a deck with lots of support destruction? Hold a bunch of different supports in hand and try to flood the board all at once instead of casting one per turn and getting it nuked once per turn.
Point is, I don't have to destroy Hixus or Cast Out to still win with creatures. I don't have to prevent support destruction from happening to win with a support only deck (of which very few possible decks even exist: Ob, Angrath, and T2 ults mainly). I do have to deal with Sphinx's Decree to win with a spell deck. It is literally impossible to win with a spell deck against Sphinx's Decree without first destroying Sphinx's Decree.
That said, I'm not opposed to its existence. It's one of my favorite cards in the set. I look forward to finding new ways to continually abuse it. Babar isn't wrong about its power though. I think some are either being overprotective of it or willfully ignorant of its power just for the sake of argument.
And I was referring to supports that convert gems, since almost every deck has at least 1 or 2 of them in anyway. Even if they aren't converting to white, you can try to match other gems to set up a pop. Its slow, but usually works0
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.8K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.3K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.6K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 503 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.4K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 421 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 298 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements