I'm Very Tired of Storm the Vault
Comments
-
1. I've yet to see this support destruction priority business functioning properly so there's that. Also, if StV is manageable by removal, so are the other 3 supports that are problematic. (LM, Darigaaz's support, and Settle the Wreckage. Coincidentally, all those other supports also cost more to get into play than StV.)I'm listening to your observation, but I'd like to point out that (as mentioned by the developers in previous announcements) that priority for support destruction was shifted to prioritize actual supports over treasures. The argument that StV protects itself from support destruction is outdated.The "unhealthy for game balance" argument is a subjective method for analyzing card power. Yes Red/Blue has StV. But for other colors, white has (as stated above) Settle the Wreckage, Green has Vivian's Invocation, and (will always have) Gaea's Revenge, Black has Slimefoot, Plague Wind, and Lich's Mastery. These are all insanely powerful cards. We could purge all these cards from the game and there would still be a section of players calling for further nerfs, because, in their personal opinion, we haven't reached that "healthy game balance" yet.StV is great in a deck with creatures, StV is weak in a deck that's primarily spells or supports. It's not useful everywhere. This is not a black and white scenario.When actually I'm paying attention to the game I'm playing (sometimes I just randomly swipe gems in non-coalition events and let my decks play themselves as I'm doing something else lol), I win pretty much every game I play (this is an experience I'm sure you share with me). The difference between the two of us is that I don't run StV, and if I do it's probably one of the lowest priority cards in my hand. Why do I do that? Because throwing out fast-swinging creatures and beatfacing your opponent is as fast or faster than a StV setup. Yeah StV might give my opponent the game, when they can get it to activate on turn 7. But if I get my Captain Lannery Storm, Etali, and Skinshifter out by turn 3 or 4, they'll never get to see StV activate even if I let them have a creature on the board.
2. You say I am being subjective but is it not true that you need mana to cast cards? StV enables all of those other power cards that you listed, every turn, for the rest of the game, which isn't long.
3. Wrong. StV is not weak in a deck that's primarily spells or supports. Why would you say this? Is it because StV says on the card that it makes treasures when a creature you control attacks? There are plenty of planeswalkers that can play StV very effectively with only 1 or no creatures in the deck. Here's a sample Jace 1 deck that can be brutal to face:- Storm the Vault
- Kumena's Awakening
- Search for Azcanta
- Perilous Voyage
- Depth's of Desire
- Spell Swindle
- River's Rebuke
- Academy Journeymage
- Exclusion Mage
- Deadeye Rig-Hauler
4. You very clearly like to play beat down and have no interest in playing control and are only using a red deck as an example of why you don't play StV. Odds are a Koth deck no less. Koth himself is much like StV. If you have good cards to put in his deck, he is very good because his red mana gains allow you to cast your whole hand with ease. That is what StV does, for nearly any pw in the game. Just because StV doesn't suit your play style or your perception of what makes a card powerful or broken, doesn't mean it isn't viable in all decks and doesn't mean it isn't broken.0 -
ZW2007- said:
1. I've yet to see this support destruction priority business functioning properly so there's that. Also, if StV is manageable by removal, so are the other 3 supports that are problematic. (LM, Darigaaz's support, and Settle the Wreckage. Coincidentally, all those other supports also cost more to get into play than StV.)I'm listening to your observation, but I'd like to point out that (as mentioned by the developers in previous announcements) that priority for support destruction was shifted to prioritize actual supports over treasures. The argument that StV protects itself from support destruction is outdated.The "unhealthy for game balance" argument is a subjective method for analyzing card power. Yes Red/Blue has StV. But for other colors, white has (as stated above) Settle the Wreckage, Green has Vivian's Invocation, and (will always have) Gaea's Revenge, Black has Slimefoot, Plague Wind, and Lich's Mastery. These are all insanely powerful cards. We could purge all these cards from the game and there would still be a section of players calling for further nerfs, because, in their personal opinion, we haven't reached that "healthy game balance" yet.StV is great in a deck with creatures, StV is weak in a deck that's primarily spells or supports. It's not useful everywhere. This is not a black and white scenario.When actually I'm paying attention to the game I'm playing (sometimes I just randomly swipe gems in non-coalition events and let my decks play themselves as I'm doing something else lol), I win pretty much every game I play (this is an experience I'm sure you share with me). The difference between the two of us is that I don't run StV, and if I do it's probably one of the lowest priority cards in my hand. Why do I do that? Because throwing out fast-swinging creatures and beatfacing your opponent is as fast or faster than a StV setup. Yeah StV might give my opponent the game, when they can get it to activate on turn 7. But if I get my Captain Lannery Storm, Etali, and Skinshifter out by turn 3 or 4, they'll never get to see StV activate even if I let them have a creature on the board.
2. You say I am being subjective but is it not true that you need mana to cast cards? StV enables all of those other power cards that you listed, every turn, for the rest of the game, which isn't long.
3. Wrong. StV is not weak in a deck that's primarily spells or supports. Why would you say this? Is it because StV says on the card that it makes treasures when a creature you control attacks? There are plenty of planeswalkers that can play StV very effectively with only 1 or no creatures in the deck. Here's a sample Jace 1 deck that can be brutal to face:- Storm the Vault
- Kumena's Awakening
- Search for Azcanta
- Perilous Voyage
- Depth's of Desire
- Spell Swindle
- River's Rebuke
- Academy Journeymage
- Exclusion Mage
- Deadeye Rig-Hauler
4. You very clearly like to play beat down and have no interest in playing control and are only using a red deck as an example of why you don't play StV. Odds are a Koth deck no less. Koth himself is much like StV. If you have good cards to put in his deck, he is very good because his red mana gains allow you to cast your whole hand with ease. That is what StV does, for nearly any pw in the game. Just because StV doesn't suit your play style or your perception of what makes a card powerful or broken, doesn't mean it isn't viable in all decks and doesn't mean it isn't broken.1. I'm sorry to hear you haven't had much luck removing StV. In my experience, my support removal has hit StV. Of the ~60 matches I've played in the last couple days, I've only had once where StV was able to activate and become a problem. Of course, with random match ups I acknowledge that our experiences can be widely different.2. I'm not saying that you don't need mana to cast cards. Your claim from your previous post was that if you don't play StV you're doing it at your own detriment. All I'm saying is what while StV is a powerful card yes, there are plenty of situations where other cards are more useful.3. Okay, when I said it's weak in a deck with primarily spells or supports, I didn't mean that there weren't ever ways to make it work. I probably should have added a generally before that claim.4. I do enjoy beat down yes, because grinding is boring and beat down is one of the quicker routes to victory. But no, I don't play red "just as an example of why I don't play StV." For beat down Nahiri is my planeswalker of choice. I play control a lot, though admittedly it's much more fun in paper mtg than mtgpq, and I do see what you're saying with Koth being comparable to StV.I have already stated multiple times in this thread that I do agree that this is a powerful card, but that doesn't mean it should be an indisputable shoe-in for every red/blue deck ever.0 -
So. Just a thought here. While blue should be denied ramp, blue, in paper magic, does have the ability to cast cards without paying for them. So in this game that could be mechanically shown by doing as they have, giving blue free one-time mana, or reducing the cost of a spell to 0.Mburn7 said:
Well said. I would use the same argument for Blue Sun's Zenith.ZW2007- said:To reiterate once again, I don't want StV nerfed. I also don't want the devs to think I'm okay with its design. I'm not. This card is too good. It is the best mana engine this game has ever seen, hands down. It made me forget Rishkar's Expertise existed and that card was bonkers. It completely covered the loss of Hour of Promise by just playing blue on every node. It is okay to have broken cards, just not broken cards that enable you to endlessly cast all your other broken cards. Cards like this are unhealthy for game balance. Blue is the strongest color in the game by a vast majority. Why even continue making non-blue cards or planeswalkers? The reason to keep making non-blue cards and planeswalkers is because the game needs balance.
I don't mind having powerful cards in the game. I don't think they should all be nerfed.
That being said, I do feel like the dev team needs to be aware of how their powerful cards will effect the game. Giving absurd mana gains to blue is definitely a mistake, and one that would not have happened if they had put some thought into it (or had a concrete color pie definition that they adhered to)
While I prefer the second option, the game doesn’t do well with it. Think about Teferi returning all our creatures or Angrath stealing and killing them because the game thinks they cost 0 even on the field. It seems it’s just easier to give blue free mana.
Also I’m fully aware Blue Sun’s Zenith doesn’t let you cast free cards in paper magic. Just seems if they made a simple draw spell, people would say “why you make such weak masterpiece!?” So I blame the choice of card as the problem over the way it was implemented. I think Reef Wurm or Ghost Ship would have made more interesting choices.2 -
Had to go google that one. That would have been interesting.wereotter said:
...I think Reef Wurm ...Mburn7 said:
Well said. I would use the same argument for Blue Sun's Zenith.ZW2007- said:To reiterate once again, I don't want StV nerfed. I also don't want the devs to think I'm okay with its design. I'm not. This card is too good. It is the best mana engine this game has ever seen, hands down. It made me forget Rishkar's Expertise existed and that card was bonkers. It completely covered the loss of Hour of Promise by just playing blue on every node. It is okay to have broken cards, just not broken cards that enable you to endlessly cast all your other broken cards. Cards like this are unhealthy for game balance. Blue is the strongest color in the game by a vast majority. Why even continue making non-blue cards or planeswalkers? The reason to keep making non-blue cards and planeswalkers is because the game needs balance.
I don't mind having powerful cards in the game. I don't think they should all be nerfed.
That being said, I do feel like the dev team needs to be aware of how their powerful cards will effect the game. Giving absurd mana gains to blue is definitely a mistake, and one that would not have happened if they had put some thought into it (or had a concrete color pie definition that they adhered to)1 -
[MOD MIC ON] There seem to be some strong opinions about StV, however, please keep in mind you can express those opinions without insulting other players. Please take it down a notch or warnings will be given. [MOD MIC OFF]1
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
So much hate for stv yet etali is the one card that makes me want to rage throw my phone into a wall for fastest way to quit the game. Nothing like every turn having your own deck come back at you. Stv is a double edge sword for supports on the board and has to work with a creature attacking if enough supports are not out.2
-
This content has been removed.
-
Stalker said:So much hate for stv yet etali is the one card that makes me want to rage throw my phone into a wall for fastest way to quit the game. Nothing like every turn having your own deck come back at you. Stv is a double edge sword for supports on the board and has to work with a creature attacking if enough supports are not out.Yeaaah, I have lost a fair share of games to the AI snatching my deck with Etali.*imagine the whiniest voice ever* "Hey remember that awesome card that you were going to play to beat your opponent? Well guess who is going to play it befooooore youuuuuu??"As ridiculous as that card is though, that card is a lot of fun to play. Grinding in mtgpq gets old fast, but playing different cards every game makes it less dull (for me at least). I'm always wondering what the next card I'm going to steal is; it's exciting to see what cards your opponent has in their deck.For people who don't have Etali though and just have to face her, my sympathies. I'll do backflips to find a destroy spell if I see my opponent play her.0
-
There’s a reason the paper version of Etali doesn’t have haste. You should be able to respond to it hitting the field before it takes your things.Stalker said:So much hate for stv yet etali is the one card that makes me want to rage throw my phone into a wall for fastest way to quit the game. Nothing like every turn having your own deck come back at you. Stv is a double edge sword for supports on the board and has to work with a creature attacking if enough supports are not out.
I will 100% not miss that card once it rotates.2 -
I made a deck with Etali, Chaos Wand, and all the other card-stealing options we currently have. It is by far my favorite deck to play right now. Mainly because it plays like a totally different deck every single time.FindingHeart8 said:Stalker said:So much hate for stv yet etali is the one card that makes me want to rage throw my phone into a wall for fastest way to quit the game. Nothing like every turn having your own deck come back at you. Stv is a double edge sword for supports on the board and has to work with a creature attacking if enough supports are not out.Yeaaah, I have lost a fair share of games to the AI snatching my deck with Etali.*imagine the whiniest voice ever* "Hey remember that awesome card that you were going to play to beat your opponent? Well guess who is going to play it befooooore youuuuuu??"As ridiculous as that card is though, that card is a lot of fun to play. Grinding in mtgpq gets old fast, but playing different cards every game makes it less dull (for me at least). I'm always wondering what the next card I'm going to steal is; it's exciting to see what cards your opponent has in their deck.For people who don't have Etali though and just have to face her, my sympathies. I'll do backflips to find a destroy spell if I see my opponent play her.
Its even more fun in Trials, since it lets me abuse all those fun mythics I never got4 -
I haven't lost to a non etali/stv deck since the first couple days of the block. In context, they are just as dumb as pig/olivia.0
-
Does or did anyone read my post back in page 4? I felt i did a good job being objective about StV and pointed out this card is actually not as high priority as some other beast of cards.1
-
If it makes you feel better, I did. I brushed through most of the other comments as this thread has gone out of hand. I’d think it was a presidential debate in full swing.jimpark said:Does or did anyone read my post back in page 4? I felt i did a good job being objective about StV and pointed out this card is actually not as high priority as some other beast of cards.1 -
I did as well, but I went back and reviewed it again after you posted (coffee kicking in full swing so I have the extra energy wooo!)jimpark said:Does or did anyone read my post back in page 4? I felt i did a good job being objective about StV and pointed out this card is actually not as high priority as some other beast of cards.I thought it was a pretty thoughtful response. Overall I agree with your end-conclusion. A minor nerf at best, if there is to be a nerf at all.I'm with what you said as well that this game thrives on powerful cards. Taking away the best cards of your deck might make it more balanced, but it'll definitely also make it less fun.Nerfing/Anti-nerfing has become a political aspect in these forums, as I see a lot of reoccuring faces jump into the fray with similar arguments for different cards (there's nothing wrong with that, just an observation). I do acknowledge that I am probably one of the *louder* anti-nerf voices on this forum, but I try to be impartial as much as possible.When I analyze whether or not a card should be nerfed, I try to follow this criteria:
1) Can the card single-handedly turn the tables of a battle? if yes, then +1 to nerf.2) If yes, is the card temporary? (1-turn spells, or self-destructive supports apply here). if no, +1 to nerf.3) Do you get 1 turn or more to respond to the card before it turns the tables? if no, +1 to nerf.4) Can the card create an infinite (or basically infinite) same-turn loop? if yes, +1 to nerf.5) (Subjective) Is the card fun to play against? if no, +1 to nerf.If the total for the card is 3 or more, discussion of slight-to-moderate nerfing is warranted. If it's 4 or more, then moderate-to-heavy. Though the only card that I've seen get more than 4 would be Omniscience, though in the spirit of the card, I'd only argue for moderate nerfing so no infinite combos (ex: Omniscience's 0 cost ability doesn't work on itself, and can't fetch an Omniscience)1 -
By this criteria (which seems pretty good after a quick read), Storm the Vault is a 2 or a 3, depending on how you answer 5, which would explain the varying responses. I agree it needs some sort of nerf, but probably not a drastic one. Making it X instead of 2X would probably be fine.FindingHeart8 said:
I did as well, but I went back and reviewed it again after you posted (coffee kicking in full swing so I have the extra energy wooo!)jimpark said:Does or did anyone read my post back in page 4? I felt i did a good job being objective about StV and pointed out this card is actually not as high priority as some other beast of cards.I thought it was a pretty thoughtful response. Overall I agree with your end-conclusion. A minor nerf at best, if there is to be a nerf at all.I'm with what you said as well that this game thrives on powerful cards. Taking away the best cards of your deck might make it more balanced, but it'll definitely also make it less fun.Nerfing/Anti-nerfing has become a political aspect in these forums, as I see a lot of reoccuring faces jump into the fray with similar arguments for different cards (there's nothing wrong with that, just an observation). I do acknowledge that I am probably one of the *louder* anti-nerf voices on this forum, but I try to be impartial as much as possible.When I analyze whether or not a card should be nerfed, I try to follow this criteria:
1) Can the card single-handedly turn the tables of a battle? if yes, then +1 to nerf.2) If yes, is the card temporary? (1-turn spells, or self-destructive supports apply here). if no, +1 to nerf.3) Do you get 1 turn or more to respond to the card before it turns the tables? if no, +1 to nerf.4) Can the card create an infinite (or basically infinite) same-turn loop? if yes, +1 to nerf.5) (Subjective) Is the card fun to play against? if no, +1 to nerf.If the total for the card is 3 or more, discussion of slight-to-moderate nerfing is warranted. If it's 4 or more, then moderate-to-heavy. Though the only card that I've seen get more than 4 would be Omniscience.0 -
Mburn7 said:
By this criteria (which seems pretty good after a quick read), Storm the Vault is a 2 or a 3, depending on how you answer 5, which would explain the varying responses. I agree it needs some sort of nerf, but probably not a drastic one. Making it X instead of 2X would probably be fine.FindingHeart8 said:
I did as well, but I went back and reviewed it again after you posted (coffee kicking in full swing so I have the extra energy wooo!)jimpark said:Does or did anyone read my post back in page 4? I felt i did a good job being objective about StV and pointed out this card is actually not as high priority as some other beast of cards.I thought it was a pretty thoughtful response. Overall I agree with your end-conclusion. A minor nerf at best, if there is to be a nerf at all.I'm with what you said as well that this game thrives on powerful cards. Taking away the best cards of your deck might make it more balanced, but it'll definitely also make it less fun.Nerfing/Anti-nerfing has become a political aspect in these forums, as I see a lot of reoccuring faces jump into the fray with similar arguments for different cards (there's nothing wrong with that, just an observation). I do acknowledge that I am probably one of the *louder* anti-nerf voices on this forum, but I try to be impartial as much as possible.When I analyze whether or not a card should be nerfed, I try to follow this criteria:
1) Can the card single-handedly turn the tables of a battle? if yes, then +1 to nerf.2) If yes, is the card temporary? (1-turn spells, or self-destructive supports apply here). if no, +1 to nerf.3) Do you get 1 turn or more to respond to the card before it turns the tables? if no, +1 to nerf.4) Can the card create an infinite (or basically infinite) same-turn loop? if yes, +1 to nerf.5) (Subjective) Is the card fun to play against? if no, +1 to nerf.If the total for the card is 3 or more, discussion of slight-to-moderate nerfing is warranted. If it's 4 or more, then moderate-to-heavy. Though the only card that I've seen get more than 4 would be Omniscience.Thank you
Yeah I had the same score result, which is why I didn't think it was ridiculous to discuss the topic and also thought a slight nerf would be okay (my original recommendation was making it vulnerable to cards like River's Rebuke, though I do admit that would mean altering either River's Rebuke to hit lands too or making StV's flipside a nonland, either would take mtgpq's card version further from mirroring the paper mtg version.)fyi: I added a slight bit to my talk on Omniscience. Your reply to my original post was quicker than my editing skills
0 -
That's not...look I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that I have a problem facing StV. That's not the issue. What I am saying is that StV is no more difficult to remove than Lich's Mastery and vice versa. (On a side note, I faced a LM in HoR and had no support removal in my deck. I did, however, have StV in my deck. Guess who won? StV blew up the board 5 turns in a row and destroyed LM.)1. I'm sorry to hear you haven't had much luck removing StV. In my experience, my support removal has hit StV. Of the ~60 matches I've played in the last couple days, I've only had once where StV was able to activate and become a problem. Of course, with random match ups I acknowledge that our experiences can be widely different.
Thing is, StV makes those cards even more useful because it casts them faster.2. I'm not saying that you don't need mana to cast cards. Your claim from your previous post was that if you don't play StV you're doing it at your own detriment. All I'm saying is what while StV is a powerful card yes, there are plenty of situations where other cards are more useful.
I purposely chose one of the weakest planeswalkers in the game to illustrate my point. Here is a list of planeswalkers that can abuse StV with no creatures in their deck: Angrath, Chandra (both varieties), Karn (as mono blue even), Kiora, Spike (Bolas 2.0), Saheeli, T2. Every single one of them can use loyalty to win the fight will using mana to cast cards that prevent the AI from winning. StV will generate copious amounts of both. Any other blue walker and even some red ones will benefit from the same strategy by just adding a creature to buff and/or beat down with.3. Okay, when I said it's weak in a deck with primarily spells or supports, I didn't mean that there weren't ever ways to make it work. I probably should have added a generally before that claim.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think StV is a shoe-in for every blue deck ever (unless the objectives are pauper or cards that cost 10 or less). Ironically, I think it's a great fit for Nahiri for a few reasons: it generates a ton of loyalty, she has an amazing 1st ability, and her blue gains are neutral so it provides decent mana and can end up leaving more white and red matches by popping lots of blue gems.4. I do enjoy beat down yes, because grinding is boring and beat down is one of the quicker routes to victory. But no, I don't play red "just as an example of why I don't play StV." For beat down Nahiri is my planeswalker of choice. I play control a lot, though admittedly it's much more fun in paper mtg than mtgpq, and I do see what you're saying with Koth being comparable to StV.I have already stated multiple times in this thread that I do agree that this is a powerful card, but that doesn't mean it should be an indisputable shoe-in for every red/blue deck ever.
Again, I like StV, it's a fun card to abuse. I just don't want to see the game continuing in this direction with future cards, especially not in blue.0 -
ZW2007- said:
That's not...look I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that I have a problem facing StV. That's not the issue. What I am saying is that StV is no more difficult to remove than Lich's Mastery and vice versa. (On a side note, I faced a LM in HoR and had no support removal in my deck. I did, however, have StV in my deck. Guess who won? StV blew up the board 5 turns in a row and destroyed LM.)1. I'm sorry to hear you haven't had much luck removing StV. In my experience, my support removal has hit StV. Of the ~60 matches I've played in the last couple days, I've only had once where StV was able to activate and become a problem. Of course, with random match ups I acknowledge that our experiences can be widely different.
Thing is, StV makes those cards even more useful because it casts them faster.2. I'm not saying that you don't need mana to cast cards. Your claim from your previous post was that if you don't play StV you're doing it at your own detriment. All I'm saying is what while StV is a powerful card yes, there are plenty of situations where other cards are more useful.
I purposely chose one of the weakest planeswalkers in the game to illustrate my point. Here is a list of planeswalkers that can abuse StV with no creatures in their deck: Angrath, Chandra (both varieties), Karn (as mono blue even), Kiora, Spike (Bolas 2.0), Saheeli, T2. Every single one of them can use loyalty to win the fight will using mana to cast cards that prevent the AI from winning. StV will generate copious amounts of both. Any other blue walker and even some red ones will benefit from the same strategy by just adding a creature to buff and/or beat down with.3. Okay, when I said it's weak in a deck with primarily spells or supports, I didn't mean that there weren't ever ways to make it work. I probably should have added a generally before that claim.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. I think StV is a shoe-in for every blue deck ever (unless the objectives are pauper or cards that cost 10 or less). Ironically, I think it's a great fit for Nahiri for a few reasons: it generates a ton of loyalty, she has an amazing 1st ability, and her blue gains are neutral so it provides decent mana and can end up leaving more white and red matches by popping lots of blue gems.4. I do enjoy beat down yes, because grinding is boring and beat down is one of the quicker routes to victory. But no, I don't play red "just as an example of why I don't play StV." For beat down Nahiri is my planeswalker of choice. I play control a lot, though admittedly it's much more fun in paper mtg than mtgpq, and I do see what you're saying with Koth being comparable to StV.I have already stated multiple times in this thread that I do agree that this is a powerful card, but that doesn't mean it should be an indisputable shoe-in for every red/blue deck ever.
Again, I like StV, it's a fun card to abuse. I just don't want to see the game continuing in this direction with future cards, especially not in blue.Yeah I don't think a StV repeat is likely, though that's pending on what material WotC brings out. With the risk of power creep I guess it's plausible but I don't think (gem-conversion wise) blue is becoming the next green.A part of me is still thankful they didn't bring back Omniscience. What a nightmare that would've been.0
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