Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Zygmunt's Game

  1. #11
    That is a incredibly powerful card in an action based deck. It will see play for a LONG time as long as a action deck is viable. It would be one of the strongest cards in the game if it was quick.

  2. #12
    Thank you for the meaty and well thought out post Varranis we may disagree on some points but its very helpful to see such a broad view of the card.
    Member of The Unnamed Council - the Hex TCG PvE Guild
    Twice as nice as i seem and ten times as friendly.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Varranis View Post
    As someone who also despises random effects, I think this card is the right kind of random at the right cost. The random nature is very controllable by BOTH you and your opponent. You can run/play fewer troops while your opponent can play around the card in how they order or choose not to play their troops (somewhat similar to playing around Extinction). This creates additional decision trees for both players - something I wish every card in a TCG did.

    The counter argument is that the card is far too powerful for 1 resource. However, while the upside of this card is incredible (essentially "target opponent sacrifices a troop of your choice"), the downside is real (and somewhat masked). This card is not good in every deck. The ability to hit your own troops means that decks which play a reasonable number of troops cannot safely play the card or can only consider it as a reserves option. The card has what is essentially a hidden deck building restriction: you cannot be a troop based deck. Destroying your own troop is a big deal too. Even losing a one drop is huge as you've invested two resources (troop + Zygmunt's Game) and lost a card (the troop). That is a huge blow to both tempo and card advantage.

    We must then consider what decks want to play the card. While I wouldn't be too shocked if this card spawns a S/R control deck after Set 4, the only current decks which might consider it are Azurecannon and Savvas Tempo. Now let's consider the best case scenarios for the card in these decks. There are really two:

    1. You play Zygmunt's Game turn 1 on the draw against Ruby Aggro to remove their one drop. No variance, just cheap removal - perfect for the match up.

    2. You play Zygmunt's Game in the mid to late game to remove something beefy like a Vampire King, Crocosaur or Rootfather.

    Both Azurecannon and Savvas Tempo run enough troops that enabling the second play will likely require a conscious loss of tempo by choosing not to play a troop the turn(s) before you play the removal. It's also unlikely the play will enable a lethal strike with either deck as that requires troops on board, leading to a dangerous 50/50 (except possibly in Savvas Tempo if you have a couple Phoenix in the crypt).

    The truth of the mater is that both these plays are already better enabled by other cards. Burn achieves the same result as scenario one with far more versatility moving into future turns. Time Ripple is better in the second scenario against everything except Spellshielded troops.

    Is the card worth main deck space to combat Spellshield? Probably not. How about Reserve space? I'm not convinced it is. While I'm sure the card will see play, I think it is deceptively balanced and will be much more of a roleplayer in reserves than a main deck removal staple.
    I could not have explained it this well.

  4. #14
    i don't think it's the best option, but it's better than not having answers to spellshield

    if untargeted single removal is stronger than targeted single removal (i'm not saying it is), something probably already went wrong in the balancing

    kill: 3 cost
    quick: destroy random enemy troop: 2 cost
    quick: destroy random troop or artifact: 1 cost

    it's basic speed (negative) with an upside that may not be relevant in the decks it's played in (positive). seems fine.

    there just needs to be counterplay to the decks that play nothing but removal and 1 win condition, which there probably will be

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Biz View Post

    there just needs to be counterplay to the decks that play nothing but removal and 1 win condition, which there probably will be
    No there doesn't :P

  6. #16
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    125
    I generally dislike this card for what it may mean in the future of formats it's legal in. It has a fair significance in countering decks that would rely on a single troop win condition, a strategy that has been seen multiple times in recent MTG standard, for example...

    Delver of Secrets.
    Aetherling Control
    Pearl Lake Ancient Control

    Of these, the latter two are of particular significance as they aim to wipe the board then follow up with one troop that effectively dodges most to all removal to win the game later on, something that this card - ignoring spellshield and not giving a priority step after the card has been chosen to respond to - shuts down before it even exists, which I find sad.

    There has been the argument made on this forum that you can play around it by playing more troops or artifacts, which is partially true, but that's where I dislike the random aspect to it. Having more (non-constant) cards in play doesn't actually prevent it from working (like, for example, you could 'counter' Inflict Doubt), simply pushes the game's result somewhat more into die roll or coin-flip territory. "You killed my Spellshielded Ozawa" vs "You killed my howling brave".

    In truth, I doubt it will have a significant impact in the set 4 metagame, or maybe for some time, but I rather dislike the principle behind what I see as a counter-strategy with randomness used as a justification for power. A 3 cost card that kills a troop without targeting (say, destroy the troop with the highest power - note that this could be responded to by a troop able to return itself to hand, mind) - seems to fit the same niche as this as a card, but without adding a needless layer of randomness that can cause the game to swing from one player to another based on chance. In addition, it IS able to be Interrupted, but a 1 cost card being interrupted barely effects the remaining turn of the person who played this in the first place.

    I dislike its design intensely, though I think any consequences of its existence will be in warping future formats, not the set 4 format, if at all. I'm not up in arms about it (yet)*.

    *At least, no more so than the untargeted triggered abilities not using the stack and bloatcap interaction.

    P.S. With all that said, Varranis has made an excellent write-up on it, though I'm still concerned that future metagames are effectively restricted a bit more because of this cards' design.
    Last edited by Yewstance; 04-05-2016 at 07:19 PM.
    TL;DR: Man criticizes things. Rambling ensues.

    http://sigs.enjin.com/sig/enjin-4368...tance-gray.png

  7. #17
    That flavor text just made me have a flash-back to the last episode of the walking dead..

  8. #18
    Master Theorycrafter
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    567
    Yewstance 2 of the examples you listed are only affected if you choose to roll the dice and hope for the.best itherwise it dodges it aswell as any other removal, delver is a little different as it doesnt have protection from removal it is just very efficient and sure this would be a great answer to delver but so is burn.

    We needed more edict type efects and this is a pretty cool card in my opinion, it is quite powerful and could even become an engine card but i dont think it will be too big a provlem.
    Hi, my name is Malicus and my will to resist Hex is weak.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Yewstance View Post
    I generally dislike this card for what it may mean in the future of formats it's legal in. It has a fair significance in countering decks that would rely on a single troop win condition, a strategy that has been seen multiple times in recent MTG standard, for example...

    Delver of Secrets.
    Aetherling Control
    Pearl Lake Ancient Control

    Of these, the latter two are of particular significance as they aim to wipe the board then follow up with one troop that effectively dodges most to all removal to win the game later on, something that this card - ignoring spellshield and not giving a priority step after the card has been chosen to respond to - shuts down before it even exists, which I find sad.

    There has been the argument made on this forum that you can play around it by playing more troops or artifacts, which is partially true, but that's where I dislike the random aspect to it. Having more (non-constant) cards in play doesn't actually prevent it from working (like, for example, you could 'counter' Inflict Doubt), simply pushes the game's result somewhat more into die roll or coin-flip territory. "You killed my Spellshielded Ozawa" vs "You killed my howling brave".

    In truth, I doubt it will have a significant impact in the set 4 metagame, or maybe for some time, but I rather dislike the principle behind what I see as a counter-strategy with randomness used as a justification for power. A 3 cost card that kills a troop without targeting (say, destroy the troop with the highest power - note that this could be responded to by a troop able to return itself to hand, mind) - seems to fit the same niche as this as a card, but without adding a needless layer of randomness that can cause the game to swing from one player to another based on chance. In addition, it IS able to be Interrupted, but a 1 cost card being interrupted barely effects the remaining turn of the person who played this in the first place.

    I dislike its design intensely, though I think any consequences of its existence will be in warping future formats, not the set 4 format, if at all. I'm not up in arms about it (yet)*.

    *At least, no more so than the untargeted triggered abilities not using the stack and bloatcap interaction.

    P.S. With all that said, Varranis has made an excellent write-up on it, though I'm still concerned that future metagames are effectively restricted a bit more because of this cards' design.
    I don't see the concern. If you are playing a deck that wins with just one troop then you should have ways to save that troop or bring it back.

    The examples you have given are pretty bad. Delver decks don't just rely on delver to win and have lots of protection and Aetherling you could blink to protect it, so neither of those decks would be shut down by this card.

    I feel like people are overly worried about the word random when it is on cards. There are good ways to do random and bad ways, this way is the good way.

  10. #20
    My first thought upon seeing the card is that it joins Electrofry in the Ruby control deck that is starting to look like a thing. Heat Wave, Electrofry, Zygmunt's Game, Burn, Ragefire, Cerebral Fulmination, Mindpyre... you get the idea. I'm excited for it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •