"Win the match"

[Dr. Atrocious]

I could understand if it was "deal 15 damage to an opponents leader" or something, but straight up "win the match" is ridiculous.

[Awesome!]

calling out whiners who dont know what they are talking about isnt trolling but whatever helps you sleep at night dude

[thebluejace]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Firecam:

I can't take your answer seriously, mostly because you can't be certain of the number of "veterans" in shadowverse. For begginers it's balanced because they are using this card and wins a large amount of games in low ranks due to the lacks of odin. It's less powerful in higher rank, but can still cost you the game if you're unlucky. I think the hatred for this card came from here, relying on rng to save you when the opponent just play it.

The "fair" deal would be having class cards with "banish" amulets effects instead of destroying.
Changing Orb Dragon to "banish" instead of "destroy" would be a great idea. It's 9 instead of 8 but you can get it early with pp boost while puting a strong body in play. Shadowcraft with 4 or 6 "shadow usage" banish an amulet could be nice too.

Of course if you play braindead aggro then you don't need Odin. Devs does not care about steam, so having better ideas here is pointless. Offering something better won't change anything.

That is actually a very good suggestion. "banishing" amulets instead of "destroying" to stop triggering the "last word" effect. This is the direction i hope this thread would go, instead of lame whining, a big thank you for the input.

The problem with the deck is not Seraph, but because the deck is simply too good. Cos it actually has 2 win-cons, the other being Elana. The deck can play 2/3 followers and buff them into 5/6 later just by playing healing cards, which are followers with bad stats. Once you destroy the minions, or you put too many minions on the battlefield, you get "Themis Decreed", and you are left with no cards in hand.

Thats why players feel "helpless" and need "rng" to beat them when your opponent plays Seraph. Thats because after you have dealt with their Elana win-con, you lose to Seraph win-con. Its is not because Seraph is good, it is because Elana wasted your resource so much that you cant deal with Seraph. Elana Seraph deck has a strong early game and an unbeatable late game. The problem is with the deck, not the card Seraph.

So how to beat Seraph? Deck like D-shift rekt Seraph, because it totally ignores the Elana-win con, by making all the followers in the Haven deck redundant (as long as you dont have a "Ward" follower), all the amulets useless, all the removal useless, and Seraph is too slow since i kill you with D-shifts after you play your 8 mana do-not-win-game card. Most removals Haven play are those that banish followers with 3 or less health, why not play more followers that are above 3 health?

So you gotta have a strategy to beat the deck itself, and it has nothing to do with beginners or veteran of the game, you just need to know what is the plan, and how you can do it.

[thebluejace]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von NeloDante:

I'm going to explain it for everyone since noone cares or people are not even trying to inb4 I'm wrong:

OP, even if he whines a lot, is just trying to say "A literal win condition is stupid" he is not saying, it's OP or it's UP, he's saying it's just stupid to have a card that has "win" the match.

Second, what most people go is "you're just whinning lol / it's balanced / git gud" (in a card game, the "git gud" is not so much, let's be honest here, it has skill ofcourse but you cannot compare it to many other competitive games) while ignoring OP's main point and/or what fresh meat are saying.

Third, one of the main problems that I see from this card is not the wind condition or that it is OP or UP. The main problem I see with this card is that sadly enough, we have little options to answer this card with. And I repeat, ANSWER this card with, not everyone plays aggro or pulled good cards to steamroll before Seraph appears. So, with that said, we only have one or two answers to Seraph: Odin.
This is where the fun part begins:
-Odin is not a card that everyone has (hence the answer to Seraph becomes "quit the match if you dont have lethal next turn"). This is the main problem of Seraph and why so many new people whine about it.
-Odin's not a card on everyone's decks neither people want to spend 1-3 card slots on it since you should not be forced to carry A or B card as a MUST that means that Odin is then imbalanced or Seraph is (same answer as before, Odin luckily is not a must but people are talking like it is).
-Even if you have Odin, and you have him on your deck, you have three options regarding Seraph: You used Odin previously to eliminate a threat to survive so you will lose against Seraph ("outplayed"), Odin is hiding on your deck and does not want to come out so Seraph wins even if you had the "counter" and finally the proper answer "I had Odin all time along hoping for a Seraph to counter it or Odin just appeared on the last second thus I stopped Seraph".

tl;dr: Not everyone has Odin. We have little to no answers to Seraph. Card is not OP when you have the tools, card is broken as ♥♥♥♥ when you don't have the tools (which are RNG from packs or vial crafted which is quite expensive).

My question is, why should you be able to answer a "Win-con" of a deck?

Why would I be playing a 8 mana card if it doesnt win me games? Seraph is not even a "good" win-con, compared to better game-winning cards like Dshift and PtP.

The problem with Haven is they have TWO win cons in Elana AND Seraph. They can kill you with big buffed followers OR kill you with a 8-mana amulet. Thats why the "veterans" are asking people to "stop whining" because a 8 mana card that does not even win the game on the spot is a an ok card to have.

Look at Dshift, the game literally ends once the first Win-con is cast, since you are goin to get killed by two 7/7 followers, or by a single 7/7 follower in two turns. That is a true "win-con", because you win on the spot when you cast the card.

Look at PtP, the game actually ends once he has 30 shadows and PtP onboard, since followers you play wont be able to attack the Shadow player anymore (unless they got Storm), so effectively you are "locked out" of the game, despite you being able to play a few more turns before the game truly ends.

Look at Face Dragon decks, their "win-con" is actually Dark Dragoon Forte, since you can only kill it with a big follower past turn 7, and you are screwed if you dont have a removal spell, since 7/3 followers tend to end the game quick. However, it is NOT a win-con, it is simply a threat that can be dealt with.

Look at Sword decks, their "win-con" is probably Royal Banner/Sea Queen Otohime/Alwida's Command. But you realize casting those cards actually dont win you games, because those followers that can be dealt with easily. So they are simply "threats" in a card game not win-cons.

So you can see that in card-games, creatures/followers are rarely win cons, since removals can deal with them. Non-creature cards like Seraph, Dshift, PtP can truly be considered be win-cons, thats why decks are named after them. While people simply call aggro decks filled with followers by their class, eg. Face Sword, Face Forest, Face Dragoon, because the is no single win-con in the decks.

You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of a "win-condition" in a card game.

[Dr. Atrocious]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Awesome!:

calling out whiners who dont know what they are talking about isnt trolling but whatever helps you sleep at night dude

Whining about a topic that you don't have to participate in is either being an asshat, dumbass, troll, or all three. You're not smart enough to hold a discussion without being a condescending sociopath (which seems to be a disease among the nerds and neckbeards of card games) and that's fine, but your pitiful interjections are unnecessary. Just stay out of the forums and your problem is solved (and remain locked up in your parent's basement together with the others, where you belong).

Ursprünglich geschrieben von guins00:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Firecam:

I can't take your answer seriously, mostly because you can't be certain of the number of "veterans" in shadowverse. For begginers it's balanced because they are using this card and wins a large amount of games in low ranks due to the lacks of odin. It's less powerful in higher rank, but can still cost you the game if you're unlucky. I think the hatred for this card came from here, relying on rng to save you when the opponent just play it.

The "fair" deal would be having class cards with "banish" amulets effects instead of destroying.
Changing Orb Dragon to "banish" instead of "destroy" would be a great idea. It's 9 instead of 8 but you can get it early with pp boost while puting a strong body in play. Shadowcraft with 4 or 6 "shadow usage" banish an amulet could be nice too.

Of course if you play braindead aggro then you don't need Odin. Devs does not care about steam, so having better ideas here is pointless. Offering something better won't change anything.

That is actually a very good suggestion. "banishing" amulets instead of "destroying" to stop triggering the "last word" effect. This is the direction i hope this thread would go, instead of lame whining, a big thank you for the input.

The problem with the deck is not Seraph, but because the deck is simply too good. Cos it actually has 2 win-cons, the other being Elana. The deck can play 2/3 followers and buff them into 5/6 later just by playing healing cards, which are followers with bad stats. Once you destroy the minions, or you put too many minions on the battlefield, you get "Themis Decreed", and you are left with no cards in hand.

Thats why players feel "helpless" and need "rng" to beat them when your opponent plays Seraph. Thats because after you have dealt with their Elana win-con, you lose to Seraph win-con. Its is not because Seraph is good, it is because Elana wasted your resource so much that you cant deal with Seraph. Elana Seraph deck has a strong early game and an unbeatable late game. The problem is with the deck, not the card Seraph.

So how to beat Seraph? Deck like D-shift rekt Seraph, because it totally ignores the Elana-win con, by making all the followers in the Haven deck redundant (as long as you dont have a "Ward" follower), all the amulets useless, all the removal useless, and Seraph is too slow since i kill you with D-shifts after you play your 8 mana do-not-win-game card. Most removals Haven play are those that banish followers with 3 or less health, why not play more followers that are above 3 health?

So you gotta have a strategy to beat the deck itself, and it has nothing to do with beginners or veteran of the game, you just need to know what is the plan, and how you can do it.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von guins00:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von NeloDante:

I'm going to explain it for everyone since noone cares or people are not even trying to inb4 I'm wrong:

OP, even if he whines a lot, is just trying to say "A literal win condition is stupid" he is not saying, it's OP or it's UP, he's saying it's just stupid to have a card that has "win" the match.

Second, what most people go is "you're just whinning lol / it's balanced / git gud" (in a card game, the "git gud" is not so much, let's be honest here, it has skill ofcourse but you cannot compare it to many other competitive games) while ignoring OP's main point and/or what fresh meat are saying.

Third, one of the main problems that I see from this card is not the wind condition or that it is OP or UP. The main problem I see with this card is that sadly enough, we have little options to answer this card with. And I repeat, ANSWER this card with, not everyone plays aggro or pulled good cards to steamroll before Seraph appears. So, with that said, we only have one or two answers to Seraph: Odin.
This is where the fun part begins:
-Odin is not a card that everyone has (hence the answer to Seraph becomes "quit the match if you dont have lethal next turn"). This is the main problem of Seraph and why so many new people whine about it.
-Odin's not a card on everyone's decks neither people want to spend 1-3 card slots on it since you should not be forced to carry A or B card as a MUST that means that Odin is then imbalanced or Seraph is (same answer as before, Odin luckily is not a must but people are talking like it is).
-Even if you have Odin, and you have him on your deck, you have three options regarding Seraph: You used Odin previously to eliminate a threat to survive so you will lose against Seraph ("outplayed"), Odin is hiding on your deck and does not want to come out so Seraph wins even if you had the "counter" and finally the proper answer "I had Odin all time along hoping for a Seraph to counter it or Odin just appeared on the last second thus I stopped Seraph".

tl;dr: Not everyone has Odin. We have little to no answers to Seraph. Card is not OP when you have the tools, card is broken as ♥♥♥♥ when you don't have the tools (which are RNG from packs or vial crafted which is quite expensive).

My question is, why should you be able to answer a "Win-con" of a deck?

Why would I be playing a 8 mana card if it doesnt win me games? Seraph is not even a "good" win-con, compared to better game-winning cards like Dshift and PtP.

The problem with Haven is they have TWO win cons in Elana AND Seraph. They can kill you with big buffed followers OR kill you with a 8-mana amulet. Thats why the "veterans" are asking people to "stop whining" because a 8 mana card that does not even win the game on the spot is a an ok card to have.

Look at Dshift, the game literally ends once the first Win-con is cast, since you are goin to get killed by two 7/7 followers, or by a single 7/7 follower in two turns. That is a true "win-con", because you win on the spot when you cast the card.

Look at PtP, the game actually ends once he has 30 shadows and PtP onboard, since followers you play wont be able to attack the Shadow player anymore (unless they got Storm), so effectively you are "locked out" of the game, despite you being able to play a few more turns before the game truly ends.

Look at Face Dragon decks, their "win-con" is actually Dark Dragoon Forte, since you can only kill it with a big follower past turn 7, and you are screwed if you dont have a removal spell, since 7/3 followers tend to end the game quick. However, it is NOT a win-con, it is simply a threat that can be dealt with.

Look at Sword decks, their "win-con" is probably Royal Banner/Sea Queen Otohime/Alwida's Command. But you realize casting those cards actually dont win you games, because those followers that can be dealt with easily. So they are simply "threats" in a card game not win-cons.

So you can see that in card-games, creatures/followers are rarely win cons, since removals can deal with them. Non-creature cards like Seraph, Dshift, PtP can truly be considered be win-cons, thats why decks are named after them. While people simply call aggro decks filled with followers by their class, eg. Face Sword, Face Forest, Face Dragoon, because the is no single win-con in the decks.

You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of a "win-condition" in a card game.

Guy, that is truly impressive. You just pointed out the heart of the problem and somehow still missed the point completely while also whining about Elana and D-shift.

As you pointed out in your book, most "win conditions" are achieved by having a very specific deck or being done through specific actions or conditions. However, Seraph truly relies on rng and as such may or may not be countered when put into play. It's neither balanced nor OP, it is random. It has an true, absolute, "win condition". Whereas others do not. Therefore; it doesn't match the rest of the game and until ways to actually make it into a win condition that fits and/or is properly balanced, it's safe to at least say "there's a problem with this card".

[thebluejace]

I just said Seraph is not a good win con because you dont win on the spot. Did u read?

Dshift "takes an extra turn" = instant win.
PtP "deals 6 dmg per turn" = most probably win.
Seraph "you may win on the next turn if opponent doesnt find an answer, and you need to have 3 cards that reduce amulet count" = theres a problem with this card
what?

Why should Seraph "be countered"? Have you played card games that doest win after doing their combo? This combo is Seraph + 3 cards, and it takes 2 turn to win. How is it not properly balanced? Can you pls explain?

[Mithrahn]

I'm laughing here.
Guys, trolls are happy when you feed them. Do not feed them.
This message was brought to you by a fellow troll.

Sees you.

[76561198305728792]

the most op card is roach no cool down just bounce once and boom 20 face damages

[Awesome!]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ℛaveDZ:

Whining about a topic that you don't have to participate in is either being an asshat, dumbass, troll, or all three. You're not smart enough to hold a discussion without being a condescending sociopath (which seems to be a disease among the nerds and neckbeards of card games) and that's fine, but your pitiful interjections are unnecessary. Just stay out of the forums and your problem is solved (and remain locked up in your parent's basement together with the others, where you belong).

lol no need to be mad about being terrible at this game dude

[Dr. Atrocious]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Awesome!:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ℛaveDZ:

Whining about a topic that you don't have to participate in is either being an asshat, dumbass, troll, or all three. You're not smart enough to hold a discussion without being a condescending sociopath (which seems to be a disease among the nerds and neckbeards of card games) and that's fine, but your pitiful interjections are unnecessary. Just stay out of the forums and your problem is solved (and remain locked up in your parent's basement together with the others, where you belong).

lol no need to be mad about being terrible at this game dude

No need to project, I'm not even mad. Thanks though, bud. "lol"

[Dr. Atrocious]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von guins00:

I just said Seraph is not a good win con because you dont win on the spot. Did u read?

Dshift "takes an extra turn" = instant win.
PtP "deals 6 dmg per turn" = most probably win.
Seraph "you may win on the next turn if opponent doesnt find an answer, and you need to have 3 cards that reduce amulet count" = theres a problem with this card
what?

Why should Seraph "be countered"? Have you played card games that doest win after doing their combo? This combo is Seraph + 3 cards, and it takes 2 turn to win. How is it not properly balanced? Can you pls explain?

Now you're crying about PtP? Dude, what is wrong with you?

[Dr. Atrocious]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von nothing:

the most op card is roach no cool down just bounce once and boom 20 face damages

[thebluejace]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mithrahn:

I'm laughing here.
Guys, trolls are happy when you feed them. Do not feed them.
This message was brought to you by a fellow troll.

Sees you.

Thanks for your advice. He simply avoids my questions and attacks those who dont agree with him. Cool.

[Dr. Atrocious]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von guins00:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mithrahn:

I'm laughing here.
Guys, trolls are happy when you feed them. Do not feed them.
This message was brought to you by a fellow troll.

Sees you.

Thanks for your advice. He simply avoids my questions and attacks those who dont agree with him. Cool.

When you start crying about irrelevant things and I just point it out, it's not an attack. But, go ahead and cry about that too. Seems the only thing you're capable of, baby. xD

[thebluejace]

Why should Seraph "be countered"? Have you played card games that doest win after doing their combo? This combo is Seraph + 3 cards, and it takes 2 turn to win. How is it not properly balanced? Can you pls explain?

[Dr. Atrocious]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von guins00:

Why should Seraph "be countered"? Have you played card games that doest win after doing their combo? This combo is Seraph + 3 cards, and it takes 2 turn to win. How is it not properly balanced? Can you pls explain?

Pretty sure that's been explained already.

Go back and read. And please stop being such an inquisitive idiot.