PDA

View Full Version : Ruby Gem Major - Hex Site



AbandonAllHope
08-13-2013, 05:06 AM
Wasn't sure if this question belonged in General or in Strategy, but figured it was more posing a question than building a strategy.

On the hextcg.com website, the sampled ruby gems, the 3rd Ruby gem caught my attention and I was uncertain to its precise effect.

The major ruby gem's effect states:
"When this troop deals damage to a champion, that champion loses a resource point"

Now I was contemplating which effect it has on the resource. Does it permanently remove a resource [0/-1], or does it only remove one resource available to the player [-1/0]. Somehow I can't really picture [-1/0] being very valuable after attack phase has already been completed since usually instances will be cast during the attack phase. As for [0/-1], this seemed more logical, but at the same time very strong, and something I definitely would like to use.

Personally I believe it to be [0/-1], but wording is always easy to misinterpret.

RobHaven
08-13-2013, 05:47 AM
I figured it the same way you did. If it was only a temp resource point, it'd be barely worth of a minor gem status.

Shadowelf
08-13-2013, 05:51 AM
[0/0] represents your available resources for the turn, and [0/0] your maximum resources so far in the game. So it seems more reasonable to me that this power reduces your available resources (thus making the creature a nice anti-control tool), rather than your maximum. Why? becasue your available resources pool fills up at the beginning of your turn, while to increase the other you have to lay a resource, thus making this power a resource destruction, which is too powerfull imho

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 05:52 AM
I think it is a permanent resource loss as well.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. What similar mechanic is red known for in Magic? Land destruction.

AbandonAllHope
08-13-2013, 06:00 AM
[0/0] represents your available resources for the turn, and [0/0] your maximum resources so far in the game. So it seems more reasonable to me that this power reduces your available resources (thus making the creature a nice anti-control tool), rather than your maximum. Why? becasue your available resources pool fills up at the beginning of your turn, while to increase the other you have to lay a resource, thus making this power a resource destruction, which is too powerfull imho

Only problem is nobody will actually use that gem if it only removes temporary resource, since you would have had to do combat damage to champion, and nobody with control decks really skip the attack phase before casting spells, unless they want to counter in the second main phase. And as a major gem, only a temporary resource would make it a horrible gem, like robhaven said, worse than a minor gem.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 06:22 AM
As has been stated, it seems like it's a permanent resource point. The gem is very potent, but fortunately the one PvP troop that can deal a sort of evasive damage with a major socket - Master Theorycrafter - is 7 mana. And you'd have to go 3 color to give one of the other 2 PvP troops with a major socket (Master Beast Rider and Warlock Inquisitor) the gem plus use the flight champion.

Though Blood Aura and Warlock Inquisitor presents an interesting possibility - but I wonder, is the major ruby gem good enough to warrant the use of Blood Aura?

AbandonAllHope
08-13-2013, 06:32 AM
Unfortunately I also didn't see any direct viable PvP option where this gem can be used except having multiple strategies built around having one creature get through with this (Like you said, Theorycrafter is too expensive, to a point where resource destruct isn't as effective anymore). But, I did see nice potential for this in PvE though, with theorycrafter and ebonroc. The first instance why I started looking at this gem was actually the equipment for Infusion of Ruby, giving your troop a choice of Major Ruby Gem, which really appealed to me. And the equipment of making a new copy of Infusion when the troop dies, makes it quite a powerful card able to boost any orc to devastating proportions. Of course, the +1/+0 swiftstrike seemed much better in a raging orc deck, but if done properly resource destruct can be very effective in dungeons where perhaps each creature can do max 1 damage.

As for PvP, I would have preferred using it on Warlock Inquisitor in a Sapphire Blood deck, but the ruby gem will require a Ruby threshold as I've understood from reading elsewhere.

RobHaven
08-13-2013, 07:16 AM
We're still missing a fair amount of cards for PvP, and I'm willing to bet that a bunch of them will have sockets. I wouldn't rule this gem out just yet. A ruby/wild deck that gems a crushing troop might do pretty well (assuming it can be cost effective to execute).

ossuary
08-13-2013, 07:26 AM
Yes, I'm also expecting at least a few of the common, non-sexy cards that are yet to be revealed to turn out to be socketable cards, so that they are more customizable and therefore more diverse / surprising / viable.

Crush / resource denial sounds pretty fun. Sign me up. :)

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 09:12 AM
The warlock inquisitor is a good candidate for the resource destroying ruby gem because of its ability to do it multiple times in the right situation. Having five resources while your opponent only has three will significantly impact their board development. But that puts you solidly in blood/ruby and you would need to have exactly two blood one ruby resource on turn three to start it off right away. Whether or not this is better than slotting it with a black gem and just doing 3 damage to the opponent's face every time he lands is debatable though. I think I would prefer the direct damage.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-13-2013, 09:18 AM
The issue with Inquisitor (and also Master Beast Rider) is a lack of evasion - they both get stopped by very small ground troops. Other gems that are available to them give them strong benefits that aren't so conditional.

If they were to release a 4-or-less cost sapphire troop with a major socket though, I think that would be a great candidate as you'd then be on color to give it flight via the saph champ, and that would give it a strong chance of connecting.

KiraForce
08-13-2013, 09:42 AM
Quick clarification: They said that we were allowed 4 of a gem just like cards in a deck. So, there are 16 gems, right? Each different Major/minor is completely separate? Like, if you had enough socketable creatures, you could have 4 of Ruby Major 1, Ruby Major 2, Ruby Minor 1, and Ruby Minor 2?

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 09:43 AM
There are actually 20 gems. And yes, you have it right Kira. You can have up to 4 of each individual gem. If you had enough major socket creatures you could have 4 copies of both ruby major gems in your deck.

KiraForce
08-13-2013, 09:52 AM
Oh, yeah, duh XD. I'm working on like 5 hours sleep lol. Thanks for the clarification though. On the titular topic though, I originally thought it was a permanent resource, but a temp resource could make sense too...

Punk
08-13-2013, 03:54 PM
I think it is a permanent resource loss as well.

And if you think about it, it makes sense. What similar mechanic is red known for in Magic? Land destruction.

I initially thought this same thing. What also supported this train of thought was that they did say that we would see cards from every archetype in the first set, and I haven't seen anything related to "Land Destruction."

This was one of those things I was kinda holding off on until they release the Comprehensive Rules.

Aradon
08-13-2013, 03:59 PM
I seem to recall a very brief mention about the major gem from the devs when they were talking about land destruction, and how they were being careful with it (though, making it a gem seems like the exact opposite, honestly :P). If this is true, it's a safe bet that it's a permanent resource.

ossuary
08-13-2013, 04:18 PM
Well it's also the only real resource denial we've seen so far. While it's true that it's a gem, you can still only have 4 of them in your deck, and you have to either use a ruby troop, or splash ruby to use it. Troops are generally easier to stop than quick actions or basic actions, so that makes sense too. If you don't want to lose your resources, just block it. If your opponent maneuvers you into a position where you CAN'T block it, then they've earned the resource denial.

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 05:28 PM
You know, for some reason I was thinking that gem was an effect that happened when the troop entered play instead of whenever it damaged the opponent.

In that case, I think it is probably more likely to be a temporary resource point. A permanent resource loss each time the troop deals damage to an opponent seems kind of overpowered.

Aradon
08-13-2013, 06:14 PM
Honestly, it's way more powerful on enters-the-battlefield. If I could slot that into various other creatures, it doesn't enable mana-locks sure, but it's instant and unconditional value, which I'd take any day. The Beast Master destroying a resource for just 3 mana automatically becomes way too strong. For the record, Magic considers unconditional land destruction too powerful at 3 mana.

Xenavire
08-13-2013, 06:29 PM
Honestly, it's way more powerful on enters-the-battlefield. If I could slot that into various other creatures, it doesn't enable mana-locks sure, but it's instant and unconditional value, which I'd take any day. The Beast Master destroying a resource for just 3 mana automatically becomes way too strong. For the record, Magic considers unconditional land destruction too powerful at 3 mana.

Pretty sure there are some old ones sitting at 3 mana - somewhere around ice age or something though. One even deals 1 damage as an extra if it destroys a snow land - so don't completely discount the possibility of this being powerful. As for the beast master, it would need a ruby threshold to activate, which limits it - you would probably need to mulligan to 5 fairly often to consistantly get use out of it, meaning you would be better off just curving out normally.

Aradon
08-13-2013, 07:57 PM
Yeah, they tried it out at lower mana costs, but have basically avoided it ever since. Mudhole, then Stone Rain, and now the best we can get is Demolish at 4 mana. As for hitting the red threshold by turn 3, I think you're far exaggerating the odds. I played a red-green aggro deck for the last game day that hit double-red AND double-green mostly consistently, without mulligans. I had a lot more duals to work with, but they said they were going to implement non-basic resources for Hex, and hitting 1RG by turn 3 is pretty easy with basics, too.

Punk
08-13-2013, 09:52 PM
In that case, I think it is probably more likely to be a temporary resource point. A permanent resource loss each time the troop deals damage to an opponent seems kind of overpowered.

I think this isn't over powered at all. First off, you can only use this major on a very small handful of troops. Then this troop needs to deal damage to your opponent. Now, if your deck isn't playing troops to block this attack, or any creature removal spells to destroy the troop, then I think you're doing something wrong. Your deck really should have one, if not both, of these things.

Also, the troops revealed this far with Major Sockets aren't very exciting. It's only the potential gems you use that even make them decent.

Maphalux
08-13-2013, 10:06 PM
True. You do actually have to get it through which may not always be easy. Maybe it is permanent resources. Removing temp points probably would be a waste of a gem slot since the opponent can just use up all their resources on their turn.

jaxsonbatemanhex
08-14-2013, 12:11 AM
These days though Magic considers it too strong (they haven't reprinted Stone Rain which is destroy target land for 3 since around 9th edition), and most land destruction either costs 4+, or costs less with a drawback (for example, a card like Ghost Quarter will destroy a land, but they'll get to replace the land and you'll lose the Quarter permanently, so you only ever want to use it for important non-basics).

The gem's certainly quite potent, but whether it will be overpowered or not will depend on the troops with major sockets that come out. Right now, it surely isn't; no troop can greatly utilize it just yet (Warlock Inquisitor with Blood Aura could do alright, but it forces you to go into blood/ruby and requires you to draw both cards to be effective).