Zomblob lives!!

If you’re worried about monuments on turns 2-3... your opponent doesn’t have strong zombies yet, anyway. One strategy might just be to ignore it.

And some of these are great options! Chomper/Toadstool for instance are straight card advantage. You don’t even have to “trade.”

Briar Rose can easily be played turn 2-3 if you’re using sunflower, and doesn’t have to be placed in the same lane as monument to kill it.

Eyespore is frailer than monument b/c it’s affect is overall better (at same cost...)... and don’t try to tell me that bonus attacks have higher average utility than death to opposition. Still, you can plant i.e. a little buddy on it as early as turn 2 to kill and heal, if you’re into that sort of thing.

Some of the other cards are expensive, but they are still options if you see monument and start wetting your pants. They all represent 1 for 1 card trades, so you don’t lose in the card advantage equation.

Annnd you ignored all of the “prevent damage” options. When I see monument personally (b/c I do play plants about 30% of the time...) my first reaction is usually 1) ignore (if dropped on turn 2) or 2) plant a nut/Pear Cub or Hybernating Berry. Sure, they might come up with deadly or something. If they do, they have at best traded their two-cost card (Monument) with my three-cost card (Berry). That’s a very minimal advantage.

Your suggestion does not work. E.g: if you put brian rose in turn 3, she can easily be eliminated using final mission.

Moreover, since monument costs 2, it is played only when the deadly card is played never before.

To me, in order to balance, either the monument cost is increased by 2 or its additional bonud attack is struck in the trick phase.

Dude... final mission is not even a brainy card. It’s a crazy card. The only character that can play both is the professor.

You’re still talking about one deck. And one card, in one deck. And yes, in your “e.g.” Briar Rose STILL works. Final Mission itself is a 2 for 1 (for you... two cards to destroy your one) and requires leaving up brains (if you recall, my suggestion was to play Rose in response to a Monument that hasn’t been fused yet).

The only situation in which .... presumably using a non-Monument zombie to Final Mission your Rose is really a valuable play for the zombie side in is if your opponent is willing to give up that massive card advantage b/c (s)he is already holding on to a low-cost beater that grows through death. Does that sound familiar? And as far as I understand, Valkyrie and Monument are usually played in the same phase.... so your opponent with the Monument in play is probably not running a Valk deck... so your example does not make sense.

Monument + Deadly is not possible with the professor; this is an entirely different deck/situation. And here, if we want your plant dead, we have to play both zombies on the same turn, turning Monument into a functional Eyespore (except plants can still play in the lane before combat happens, unlike when Eyespore is played on us).

I know you run multiple Eyespore in your deck (assuming your in game name is the same as your name here - I’ve played you), so presumably you think it’s a fair card/fairly costed. Q.E.D. so is Monument used for the same purpose at the same cost.

Playing around a fusion card in play is a guessing game, but it’s the same for the zombie side (when should you oppose a pumpkin shell? what power zombie should you risk putting there? who knows!), and it isn’t much different from deciding how to play around a gravestone. I say if you’re the sort of player who opposes gravestones, oppose an in-play monument with a throw-away high toughness plant. If you’re not, you can ignore it in the early game (i.e. Valk costs 3, but he does come out turn 3... keep track of those zombie deaths).

If you have any more beef yet to spill, it might be wise if we moved this conversation to a different thread. This user was talking about zombies played in the trick phase, which is almost the polar opposite of how Monument is deployed. I misread part of the post at first and collectively we’ve hijacked and muddled the original argument. I don’t think that’s fair...