cane thoughts

I\'d be okay with that actually offhand. Not that I\'ve ever seen it played.

Eh, no offense taken. We all have our pet peeves.

Xypherous-Oxide Wrote:Just one page of posts ago, MooNFisH was saying that I seemed to be the only one in favor of changing it.

Heh. I was always in favor of changing it. I thought that was well known, so you are surely not the only one. i just stopped posting to this forum for a while since it seems so futile.

I even stopped fueling the discussion on the burrower since I heard the current batch of changes would be implemented when things quieted down.

At least cane seems to have a fairly common consensus to try simply reducing its damage a couple points. I doubt it\'ll make a difference, but I\'ll stop complaining.

(Personally, I\'d say, give it 3/3/3 sac, (not 4/4/4 because of sac site), 20 damage per activation and leave it at that, but nobody listens to me anyway)

Xypherous-Oxide Wrote:You preety much should be more screwed when a sword comes out, it\'s a significantly bigger cost on their part. being monocolor and costing more. (If you accept the 2:3 conversion ratio) If there was the same level of \"screwedness\" between cane and sword, that would mean that cane would need a significant cost increase. It also costs their deck a lot, forcing them to be dual or monocolor.

I place the Swords at ~11 mana monocolor effectively, with Cane at ~8 or so (I\'m slightly less convinced of the accuracy of the conversion formula for effects than with creatures, since there\'s usually somewhat less incentive to \"rush\" an effect). But the Swords also have a decent sac value. When you factor that in, I think it\'s fairly close, with the Swords still costing a bit more, but having a stronger ability to make up for it.

Xypherous-Oxide Wrote:\"Harder to be more vocal about keeping it the same than changing it?\" Just one page of posts ago, MooNFisH was saying that I seemed to be the only one in favor of changing it. And now? So before, when I was \"alone\" I had no point because I was alone. And now, when other people agree with me, I have no point because it\'s all because other people agree with me. I can\'t win. ><\"\"

Er... I\'m not sure what your point is here. :)

Xypherous-Oxide Wrote:On Null sacrifice then, If you suggest that Cane\'s null sacrifice balances it for versatility, then I have a hard time justifying why crossover or swimsuit shouldn\'t have positive sacrifices. They\'re preety powerful cards, (nowhere near cane, but they cost less as well.) If Cane\'s null sacrifice does cost it *that much* to make up for it\'s increased versatility, then I\'m going to have to say that crossover and swimsuit be buffed if Cane doesn\'t get nerfed.

I think Swimsuit is almost as powerful as the Cane, personally. Certainly at least 3/4 as much. And we\'re talking about the relative power of three effects (Cane, Swimsuit, Crossover) whose costs would map to something like Tough Dragon, Melrak Soldier, and Melrak Axeman, respectively. I think those fairly accurately represent the relative power levels of the three effects you mention, as they currently stand.

And I think MooNFisH has already addressed the \'personal experiences\' thing. I think both it and objective analysis have their place.

The cane\'s lack of sac keeps coming up, and it really looks like a red herring, since you so rarely need to sac it. Only when beacon comes out, and then you\'re just lucky they didn\'t use a shooting star.

I propose its sac cost be raised to 3/3/3 before continuing the discussion. This way you can better argue about relative merits without being distracted by its sac.

I disagree zaen, I\'m sure anyone tha has ever played a deck with a cane in it has felt the frustration of having a cane that has no targets and 2 (or more ) cards tha tcould be played with that extra 3/3/3.

The loss of sac may not seem like a problem but, at least in my cane using deck, it is almost as bad as giving the card draw. Giving cane a sac value would be oo much in my opinion. As I\'ve said it does not need a change but the only change that seems even remotely logical is to lower damage to around 30-34.

I think if the damage gets lowered to anything above 30 it\'s not really worth lowering... 2 or 3 damage points less won\'t make much of a differance. I\'d rather it be 30 or just leave it at 35 so things stay \"even\".

I disagree amped, lowering cane to even 34 remove about 20 monsters (actual number may vary) from being one shot killed.

Regardless, it still makes them next to dead.. a gloop could take them down, or a kelar tower.

I am one of the people of the opinoin that the cane is a bit on the strong side of were it should be. Now I run a \'Kuga Cannon deck, my entire deck is desighned to take maximum advantage of the Canon, the creatures are eather imune (microslime, ooze, red goop) or desighned to be replaceable (goop, agent of mantis, elementals via elementalist) so I understand the pros and cons and power of effect based sniping, especialy for big hits. and the Cane is a big hit, now its true the other sniper effects have a higher potential damage than the cane, they are also much more dificult to feild effectively. The swords are signigantly more expensive, \'kuga cannon needs creature suport or it is useless.

The thing to me is cane is SOOO cheap to play (yeah 12 mana sounds impresive, but when its split like that, it realy is very cheap), and for 35 damage (which is a major break point). Now making the oponent draw a card is not good, its not signifigantly worse than losing 45 damage worth of atack, or an activation cost (which adds up suprisingly). In short I actualy love the theory, an effect sniper whose penalty is that it helps your enemy some, its great. I would be cool with either a drop in damage so its not at the 35 breakpoint, or an increase in cost (either 1 or 2 across the board).

and Amp, next to dead, is not dead, a next to dead 45/1 can still be used to kill an agent of mantis or skell bird or (insert critter here), next to dead is an extra atack, which is good.