Has anybody thought of making this card an attack item? Being able to cremate an opponents creature would be very useful. You could make the owner of the creature be the one to always receive the quanta, or you could make whoever used the card receive the quanta.Cards that do not take the creatures HP into account before killing them have already been said never to be put into the game by zanz.
I'm glad that doesn't apply to our own creatures at least. I've had to immolate my own golems when they get antimattered at high levels.
Cards that do not take the creatures HP into account before killing them have already been said never to be put into the game by zanz.
Exception: Shockwave on frozen creature.Has anybody thought of making this card an attack item? Being able to cremate an opponents creature would be very useful. You could make the owner of the creature be the one to always receive the quanta, or you could make whoever used the card receive the quanta.Cards that do not take the creatures HP into account before killing them have already been said never to be put into the game by zanz.
I also just saw a post from Scared Girl in the card creation area that mentioned how mutation can kill a creature regardless of HP/Damage. So the cards exist in game, I think it's all a question of power for the card. Where shockwave/freeze requires two cards and an existing condition. For cremation I think it would stay balanced so long as the quanta went to the owner of the creature, and not just the player of the card.For many decks you face, the quanta gain would be useless, so that is pretty far from balanced.
Cremation (not immolation) shud burn 1 of the opponent's quantums 4 each element other than fire and give them 9 fire quantum wen used on them exept wen they'r fire themselvs; then the thing they al ready do.That would be interesting. Not sure how the coding would work for that, though.
Cremation (not immolation) on opponet:
:aether, :air, :darkness, :death, :earth, :entropy, :gravity, :life, :light, :time, :water = lose one of each element, get 9 fire quantums
:fire = get one of each element, get 9 fire quantums
Can haz Ash Eater buff nao? ::)that would be awesome
Can haz Ash Eater buff nao? ::)Ash eater now generates 7 :fire per turn.
Could grabbix be saved?/end off-topic (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32117.msg434631#msg434631)
I reckon this could be tweaked to work.
Come help me tweak it!
... You know...everyone says fire should be about speed, but why? Fire's deal is destruction. This works 3 fold in this game and similar in other games as well...Please check out Red in MtG. Red is indeed about speed.
...None of those 3 ideas leads me to think of :fire as a speed element.
You know...everyone says fire should be about speed, but why? Fire's deal is destruction. This works 3 fold in this game and similar in other games as well. 1.) destroying creatures and permanents with recless abandon. 2.) Having high capibilities for large direct damage to the opponent. 3.) Have strong but slightly expensive creatures.Literally agree on every point here. Not just because I wanted to see fire a little less dominant, but because like other posts here he is backing it up with reasons.
None of those 3 ideas leads me to think of :fire as a speed element. Immolation adds speed to :fire, but control and direct damage really should be fire's big thing; the thing that sets it apart. The thing that made :fire so hard to counter was that it could both rush and stall with the best of other elements. Fire should not be the best at stalling, nor should it be the best at rushing, but it should have a fence around control and damage growth (be it direct or from big critters).
Elements like :light should always stall better and elements like :life should always rush better. :fire has been too good at too many things and spoiled people. I promise this change is best for the game.
You know...everyone says fire should be about speed, but why? Fire's deal is destruction. This works 3 fold in this game and similar in other games as well. 1.) destroying creatures and permanents with recless abandon. 2.) Having high capibilities for large direct damage to the opponent. 3.) Have strong but slightly expensive creatures.This largely depends on our interpretation of the game. While our single views may or may not be correct, as in they may or may not be shared by zanzarino, many people that loved Fire grew attached to its rush capacity. Stallier players normally do not like Fire (the element of reckless destruction) as much. Which of course leads to a good deal of whining towards this change, not just for the obvious reasons of "OMG y u nerfed my dek!!!!!" but also for flavor reasons.
None of those 3 ideas leads me to think of :fire as a speed element. Immolation adds speed to :fire, but control and direct damage really should be fire's big thing; the thing that sets it apart. The thing that made :fire so hard to counter was that it could both rush and stall with the best of other elements. Fire should not be the best at stalling, nor should it be the best at rushing, but it should have a fence around control and damage growth (be it direct or from big critters).
Elements like :light should always stall better and elements like :life should always rush better. :fire has been too good at too many things and spoiled people. I promise this change is best for the game.
Red is about Impulse and Chaos. This means Reactions (Instants), Haste (Haste), Energy (Bolt) and more. Red can do decent damage based stalling through reactions and energy (Fire Stall).... You know...everyone says fire should be about speed, but why? Fire's deal is destruction. This works 3 fold in this game and similar in other games as well...Please check out Red in MtG. Red is indeed about speed.
...None of those 3 ideas leads me to think of :fire as a speed element.
IMO :fire is the closest thing Elements should have to Red.
:fire should be about speed.
WTH, its been nerfed!Someone's late~
This screws over so many newer player rush decks!
Terrible decission!
yeah, been away a while, I hang out on forums instead of playing.It was nerfed because it really is quite powerful in an unupped environment. One photon, boom, suddenly a phoenix.
Went to play today and noticed something was very, very wrong...
still, Terrible idea!
What was this card before it got nerfed?Generate 7 :fire | 9 :fire along with 1 of each element.
This is a very useful card but they keep making it weaker.It has been nerfed because immophoenix was totally OP. You could make heavy damage by turn 1-2 with just photons, immos and phoenixes
Is it just me, or does the AI not understand the joy of using immo on a phoenix? I tested an arena deck using immo and phoenix as well as photon, and it never used immo on phoenix; always waited to get a photon.
if you have a bunch of low cost cards you use Immoliation to put a few ash eaters or something in playActually, the most common uses of immolation are with Photons/Gnome riders + Lava golems. Ash eaters use to be too expensive to immolate and too weak for main attackers.
They just sit around, eat ash, and generate quanta.if you have a bunch of low cost cards you use Immoliation to put a few ash eaters or something in playActually, the most common uses of immolation are with Photons/Gnome riders + Lava golems. Ash eaters use to be too expensive to immolate and too weak for main attackers.
Only if they are feeded with brimstones.They just sit around, eat ash, and generate quanta.if you have a bunch of low cost cards you use Immoliation to put a few ash eaters or something in playActually, the most common uses of immolation are with Photons/Gnome riders + Lava golems. Ash eaters use to be too expensive to immolate and too weak for main attackers.
EDIT: They generate quanta, right? ?_?