Mburn7 said: FindingHeart8 said: Mburn7 said: babar3355 said: Mburn7 said: 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! 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).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) ...... 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 @FindingHeart8 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. Whats the difference between not being able to play it and not being able to use it? To me they're the same.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. 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.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 Sure, lets bring Storm into MTGPQ too while we're at it, or cascade lol.Maybe some dice rollers or coin flippers?Let Chaos Reign.
FindingHeart8 said: Mburn7 said: babar3355 said: Mburn7 said: 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! 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).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) ...... 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 @FindingHeart8 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. Whats the difference between not being able to play it and not being able to use it? To me they're the same.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. 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.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
Mburn7 said: babar3355 said: Mburn7 said: 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! 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).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) ...... 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 @FindingHeart8 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. Whats the difference between not being able to play it and not being able to use it? To me they're the same.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.
babar3355 said: Mburn7 said: 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! 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).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) ...... 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 @FindingHeart8 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.
Mburn7 said: 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! 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).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)
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!
Brakkis 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.
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
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.
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)
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.
on topic: spinx's decree is a fun card, it also has a pretty picture.
ZW2007- said: 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) 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).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.