+- ADV, AFH, CMC, ETC (http://107.170.157.187:8000/forum)
+-- Forum: Cardmaster Conflict (/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Balance (/forumdisplay.php?fid=31)
+--- Thread: Bah, Sheena attachment issues (/showthread.php?tid=6628)
Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Kajamakuji - 02-01-2008 12:53 AM
Well, I searched... briefly but I did. As I didnt notice this issue Im putting it here.
Sheena + Instability = Brokeness fun*!
*By fun we mean only if you are using this combo. In which case chances are you are a jerk, at the very least have a disregard for fairness.
An nigh invulnerable monster with ever increasing attack. Golly gee how thats fun. And at A speed transformation you can just flip her to avoid nasty things like Dianne or other non specific targeting monster damages. Solution? Easy, have her NPC form with a constant attack of 0. It was never meant to be able to do damage. Even look at the source material. That way she can still flank, but without the frustrating unstoppable monster. For the record, shadowforce heart is nearly as bad.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Leander - 02-01-2008 01:32 AM
I was of the opinion that shadowforce heart was worse, but that's debatable. It's been known about for ages, and I think even discussed. And I believe decided that it was good, but not overpowered. I mean, you're paying more than War Wizard for something with less attack, along with the mod downside balanced by spell and ability immune.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Kajamakuji - 02-01-2008 01:55 AM
War wizard can be hit with open heart however or a stasis field, an already modded Sheena cannot. And while total mana is higher. Sheena costs 7L, Instability 3D 5G, which is playable much quicker.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Sol - 02-01-2008 03:20 PM
instability cost cards in hand or her to be dizzy and for her to be safe from snipe she has to be undizzied. So even if you get a strong monster out who has no garunteed growth rate protecting it is going to cost your hand and not attacking. Also its still vulnerable to things like wrath of heaven and the dark quandrant.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Blue_Elite - 02-01-2008 03:49 PM
Fury of Heaven and The Dark Quadrant tend to be niche rather than utility cards. You can't just tell people, "you should keep a Fury of Heaven in all your decks, just in case you run across Sheena + Instability/Shadowforce Heart."
Likewise, saying you can "hit" War Wizard with a mod but you can't put one on Sheena is also unfair. If it's the mod protection you don't like, someone can easily put a Personal Teleporter on War Wizard for no more than a 1/1 cost.
A more fair argument is that "death immune" cards like Sheena, Vendor NPC, etc. benefit exclusively from mods which can boost these cards despite their immunity to just about everything else (good and bad). Arm Cannon on Vendor NPC, for example, is very difficult to get past though notably hard to set up.
I recall that part of justifying Prince Far'thin's cost was that the spell/ability immune made him incredible with mods; especially Spacewarp Drive which would essencially give him the same immunity that is being complained about here (though notably Far'thin does actually take damage for directly attacking other monsters).
A counterpoint I can think of is Moral and like global boost spells. I don't recall anyone ever complaining (or using) Moral + Skeletal Abomination + Sheena. Using "tricks" to boost "death immune" monsters is nothing new.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Santa Squid - 02-01-2008 07:43 PM
It's a good combo, but not good enough to consider nerfing. Sheena's unique, so you can't swarm with her, and 7/5/5 and 2 cards for one near-unkillable 50/51 monster sounds about right, as does 7/5/3 for a difficult to kill monster that has to attack every turn and keeps getting attack boosts does too.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Kajamakuji - 02-01-2008 09:48 PM
To Blue: its somewhat fair, as to play the sheena combo requires a mod, and with the previously given example of war wizard hes deadly without one. And a teleporter can be countered with a counter spell. What counters shadowforce, or instabilty? Usually destroying the creature... And yeah, Farthin with spacewarp is pretty deadly, but Sheena is cheaper, her mod is cheaper and with shadowforce its like free creature d every round or every other round if its a particularly tough monster. The npc arm cannon is also annoying.
To Nacho: Its not good enough to nerf? Yet the balance issue of 1 cost creatures, giving a failure cost to a donation card (slime cannon), or any other of the extremely minor balance changes are worth while? Unless you happened to pack a kill all solution in your deck AND manage to draw it you get screwed. Your creatures are ravaged, and then your life points, its one creature but you cant do a damn thing to stop it. The only way to generally win if the combo is played is have had more momentum up to the point where the combo doesnt slow you down quick enough. Npc sheena was never meant to be able to damage. Giving it the ability to is broken.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - E-mouse - 02-01-2008 10:10 PM
Basically MC upped the ante for everything in the game, especially generators.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Sol - 02-01-2008 10:47 PM
MC WILL NEVER BE BALANCED
NOT UNTIL EVERY CARD HAS BEEN CHANGED
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - RazorD9 - 02-01-2008 11:30 PM
Hmmm, well can see the problem, its not too big, but can be. A nerf suggestion would be to give Sheena (Can't Attack), but that might be much even if it is the best I can think of at the moment. Mods Are interesting and still pretty strong. Wish that either effect Ds or entity Ds be able to destroy them.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Bubbleman - 02-01-2008 11:54 PM
Adding (Can't Attack) sounds good to me. I don't think NPC Sheena is really supposed to be able to do a bunch of damage by attacking anyways.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Kennisiou - 02-02-2008 12:00 AM
I'm for giving Sheena a constant attack of 0. This doesn't change how the card was meant to work, and gets rid of broken modifier combos.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Gary Oak - 02-02-2008 12:11 AM
Or we can leave it alone because it's not broken.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Ultros - 02-02-2008 12:11 AM
I think the combo is fine, but if it is decided to change it, I would be strongly against (Can't Attack), as this would prevent Sheena from being usable as a flanker.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - sXeAndriex - 02-02-2008 12:23 AM
Lesse-
1. D.Q. and FoH, as Blue remarked, isn't really a good argument for it being fine. My reasoning for such a stance is the exact same as those reasons that Blue so aptly stated.
2. The Sheena combo having mod protection IS valid however, as the argument was that War Wizard was basically the same (and one card.) For the same amount of protection, now you're using two cards which is equal to the cost for Sheena. Rather than being unfair, it actually makes the comparison much more accurate (though I'm not sure the reasons why were actually intended.)
3. MC totally did stuff, however we shouldn't nerf all of it. Just every part that people like.
Now then, my opinion:
Sheena should have either a constant attack of 0 or (can't attack) status (more later on that.)
Why? Simply for flavor concerns. Whether or not the combo is "broken" is of no concern to me. What does bother me is that a character that never attacks in it's source material (in this form), has abilities that are purely defensive, and cannot access offensive characteristics until mergin- well, spoilers, but suffice to say: she don't work that way. Having Sheena have the ability to attack in NPC form contradicts canon and, I presume based on the source material, the original concept for the card.
Now, as for which I prefer: Constant attack=0 would, in my opinion, be much more accurate to the comic. The NPC had attack for a reason, while possessing the same invunerable characteristics as Sheena. She did not, and really shouldn't be able to do damage on defense for that reason. (Trying to avoid actually saying why, but you can read it and see the reasoning for yourself. It's a good comic either way.)
If we go with (can't attack), it'll need to be listed though. For that, since I know at least M^3 will mention that there's no space, we can remove "into Maid Sheena" from the text thus changing the ability to "Transform, with life equal to no(.) of counters". This will free up 16 characters. The other form isn't called "Maid Sheena", so I'd say it's really just superfluous.
I'll leave my vote on Constant Attack=0, in part for flavor reasons and in part due to Ultros' comment. Flanking isn't against flavor but it's also not really important for it, so that part seems to just be a balance issue to me. No reason why she can't flank. *shrug*
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Sol - 02-02-2008 01:28 AM
If were voteing I say fine as is, if we're forceing a nerf I say constant attack = 0
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Santa Squid - 02-02-2008 02:04 AM
sXeAndriex Wrote:Now then, my opinion:
Sheena should have either a constant attack of 0 or (can't attack) status (more later on that.)
Why? Simply for flavor concerns. Whether or not the combo is "broken" is of no concern to me. What does bother me is that a character that never attacks in it's source material (in this form), has abilities that are purely defensive, and cannot access offensive characteristics until mergin- well, spoilers, but suffice to say: she don't work that way. Having Sheena have the ability to attack in NPC form contradicts canon and, I presume based on the source material, the original concept for the card.
Flavor and canon are fine when talking about single cards, and when arguing things like why Shena should have 0 attack, be invincible, and be able to transform. When you start talking about 2+ cards and how they interact though, flavor gets thrown out the window.
There are thousands of instances where 2+ cards work together in ways that contradict flavor or common scence. We get paladins that obviously have no ranged attacks not only attacking asteroids, but blowing them up in one hit, Exo-suits large enough to fit around asteroid belts (there are a whole bunch of flavor problems involving Asteroid Belt), spoony bards destroying the most powerful giant robot in the world right before they're killed by tiny fairys, etc... I'm not about to balance a card because it's unflavorful combined with another card.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - Bubbleman - 02-02-2008 02:11 AM
There is a slight difference though. The argument is that Sheena isn't meant to be offensive so Sheena should have a constant attack of zero; not Sheena was meant to be offensive so Shadowforce Heart shouldn't effect her. Notice how Sheena is being balanced in comparison to herself and not other cards.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - RazorD9 - 02-02-2008 03:17 AM
The constant attack of zero idea does sound good. (Const.Atk) or something like that. Sheena is indeed a unique card.
RE: Bah, Sheena attachment issues - sXeAndriex - 02-02-2008 06:02 AM
Honestly, bubbleman hit on every point I was going to use to justify the flavor thing further. I'll just really leave it at that as well one one succinct point: other cards may not make perfect sense when used in combos, but they rarely contradict the card/entity's purpose. That works both as far as comic flavor and original concept flavor (I forgot to mention that part in my first post.)