Seraph | Seraph

[OldTrees]

Meh. I am not sold on this card for several reasons:

• Fire is already one of the strongest elements in the game. It didn't need another card.
• This card doesn't feel any specific purpose. I'm all for adding semi-vanillca cards, but what about adding mid-high attackers for elements that really need it, like Gravity and Light?
• It might buff Firestall. Ew.

Really... 1 is completely irrelevant to ANYTHING
2 is just 1 in different wording
3 is the only relatively relevant point, which doesn't have anything at this point to back it up yet.

2 was about Seraph being redundant with Phoenix and Crimson Dragon. This is a very important point and a criticism that Napalm and I also hold.

The reason why 2 is no different is because it starts off saying he is agrees with what seraph is trying to accomplish, but then downs it again because he would rather it be for another element, which is what 1 is about.

Dont get me wrong, seraph isnt needed. I agree. But Im not going to say dont add it or change it because of that reason.

xdude is in favor of semi vanilla cards (cards whose effects are not potent enough to warrant a casting cost increase). He has never said he supported redundant cards. A more accurate interpretation of his position on point 2 would be that he is happy it is a semivanilla card but disappointed that it is in a slot where it does not add anything. If Crimson Dragon did not exist then xdude would not have had a separate point 2.

Summary:
Semivanilla = good
Redundant slot = bad
Non redundant slots are available

edit: mostly ninja'd by xdude.

[BluePriest]

No, what I said is that I am all for vanilla cards, but they have to go to elements that need them. I am not delusionall, I know this card will get through, but it is just bad design to give a useless card to an element that needs no card rather than working on cards that can actually fill a purpose in the game.

Perhaps I use vanilla as a different definition than most...
When I say vanilla I mean a relatively normal (aka, no meta changing effects) card that is more or less just fluff. Aka, 2 cost  card that is 4/4 and is called Spider. Life doesnt need this card, in facts it mine as well be a frog, but I dont see that as a reason to hate on it. In fact, I would now be able to do a deck that consisted of just spiders between 3 different elements.

Meanwhile, not trying to be a pain, but whenever you say

they have to go to elements that need them

All I think of is your first point, which again, isnt a reason to hate on a card.

[xdude]

No, what I said is that I am all for vanilla cards, but they have to go to elements that need them. I am not delusionall, I know this card will get through, but it is just bad design to give a useless card to an element that needs no card rather than working on cards that can actually fill a purpose in the game.

Perhaps I use vanilla as a different definition than most...
When I say vanilla I mean a relatively normal (aka, no meta changing effects) card that is more or less just fluff. Aka, 2 cost  card that is 4/4 and is called Spider. Life doesnt need this card, in facts it mine as well be a frog, but I dont see that as a reason to hate on it. In fact, I would now be able to do a deck that consisted of just spiders between 3 different elements.

Meanwhile, not trying to be a pain, but whenever you say

they have to go to elements that need them

All I think of is your first point, which again, isnt a reason to hate on a card.

I don't 'hate' it. I haven't started hunting for zanz, tieing myself to trucks in order to protest or rage quitting the Forums. I just dislike it because it will accomplish nothing. In a vacuum it is a good card, but it simply does not have a place in the game. Will you jump on me if I say I don't like your spider either?

[BluePriest]

Let me start over.
Is the card balanced? If Yes, then whats the problem with it?
If no, then how can we balance it.

If the card is balanced, and we just dont want fire to have another mid-high range attacker because other elements need it more, then why make such a fuss about adding some variety to fires creature choices? I just dont get it.

Will you jump on me if I say I don't like your spider either?

No, but I would start hunting for you, tie myself to trucks in order to protest and rage quit the forums.

[Jenkar]

Common accepted definition of vanilla is without ability.

Game, in its current state, can do with non-metagame changing cards due to shards makin'  a boom. I rather dislike the fact that this card has nearly no use other than attack.

[xdude]

Let me start over.
Is the card balanced? If Yes, then whats the problem with it?
If no, then how can we balance it.

If the card is balanced, and we just dont want fire to have another mid-high range attacker because other elements need it more, then why make such a fuss about adding some variety to fires creature choices? I just dont get it.

I simply told my opinion about this card. I am sorry if this is somehow incorrect in your view, but I do not auto-like any balanced card.=

[mesaprotector]

I like this card, I just don't see why it has to be in , which is one of the few elements that doesn't need it. Which elements have mid-high (8+), cost-effective attackers?

Aether: none
Air: Sky Dragon (13|7 for 12 )
Darkness: none
Death: Ivory Dragon (11|5 for 10 )
Earth: Elite Shrieker (10|4 for 8 )
Entropy: Amethyst Dragon (12|6 for 11 )
Fire: Ruby Dragon (15|2 for 12 )
Gravity: none
Life: none
Light: none
Time: Ghost of the Past (9|4 for 7 ), Silurian Dragon (13|4 for 12 )
Water: Arctic Dragon (13|5 for 11 )

[OldTrees]

Standard Definitions imported a few years ago from mtg terminology.
Vanilla = No abilities
Semivanilla (mtg calls it french vanilla) = The abilities do not increase the casting cost above what the vanilla casting cost would be

Let me start over.
Is the card balanced? If Yes, then whats the problem with it?
If no, then how can we balance it.

If the card is balanced, and we just dont want fire to have another mid-high range attacker because other elements need it more, then why make such a fuss about adding some variety to fires creature choices? I just dont get it.

Let's discuss value, redundancy and design:
The value of a game is directly proportional to the total enjoyment it produces across its entire audience and its entire lifespan.
This value can be greatly increased by making gameplay more and more varied.
Each new card is a tool to increase this variety.
Opportunity costs exist. Adding one card takes time away from adding another card.
If Zanz added a Horned Toad | Giant Toad card that was identical to Horned Frog | Giant Frog, what would the impact on the gameplay be? Some decks would spring up using Toads as copies 7-12 of Frogs. However most decks would not change.
On the other hand what if the Horned Toad was 7|4 for 6 ? This would add new decks to the metagame. A card does not need to be ground shaking like Immolation but it should strive to add something new to the game even if it is just filling a (attack,cost) gap in the element.

So the criticism of Seraph I am leveling is that it does not add sufficient value to the game to be worth the extra wait for a different card. Fire is due for a new card and I would prefer if the card added was worth the wait that follows.

[Atico]

I also disagree with You. There is a lot of interesting cards when You can use PC like Steal EmpathicBond, destroy SoG, shield etc. Rember also that Fire and Darkness has got CC - so easy kill Your Life Dragon (RageElixir, FireBolt), or RoF against Frogs ouuuch Fire has got the same rush as Life or better because the best decks in TTW are often from Fire, not Life. So Your argument isn't so good. You said about healing - yes, but how much Heal You can use when I have deck with 4-5 turns to win? 1? 2 Heals? And You lose quantum which I can use for next creature... Situation when You use Heal and You gain +20HP, opponent -20HP is interesting concept here. Really, Fire, Darkness and maybe Entropy should have more negative effects in other cards. Water should laugh at Fire. Light should laugh at Darkness. There are a lot of possibilities to balance the game. And on the other hand - Air should have bonus (maybe airborne creatures shouldn't be target by few spells), Life too. Now in game we will have more tactics, more fun

I don't agree - Water shouldn't be an insta-win versus fire. Each element has an thematic opposite, just because they are opposite they don't counter each other, or even a game play opposite. Right now elemental opposites hardly even matter, as some of the best duos are opposites. (I.E: Water-Fire, Time-Aether, Entropy-Gravity.)

I didn't talk about "insta-win". But for me it will be better when Fire will have problems against Water. Today we have situation, when Water has got bigger problem against Fire, because Fire is the best element, Water is one of the worst. And once of my propositions is giving advantages for few elements in specific games (something like HolyLight). I never heard that HolyLight means "insta-win".

But ok, this topic is about Seraph, no balance game All we know that game will be still unbalanced and people accept this so discuss about this hasn't got sense.

[xdude]

I also disagree with You. There is a lot of interesting cards when You can use PC like Steal EmpathicBond, destroy SoG, shield etc. Rember also that Fire and Darkness has got CC - so easy kill Your Life Dragon (RageElixir, FireBolt), or RoF against Frogs ouuuch Fire has got the same rush as Life or better because the best decks in TTW are often from Fire, not Life. So Your argument isn't so good. You said about healing - yes, but how much Heal You can use when I have deck with 4-5 turns to win? 1? 2 Heals? And You lose quantum which I can use for next creature... Situation when You use Heal and You gain +20HP, opponent -20HP is interesting concept here. Really, Fire, Darkness and maybe Entropy should have more negative effects in other cards. Water should laugh at Fire. Light should laugh at Darkness. There are a lot of possibilities to balance the game. And on the other hand - Air should have bonus (maybe airborne creatures shouldn't be target by few spells), Life too. Now in game we will have more tactics, more fun

I don't agree - Water shouldn't be an insta-win versus fire. Each element has an thematic opposite, just because they are opposite they don't counter each other, or even a game play opposite. Right now elemental opposites hardly even matter, as some of the best duos are opposites. (I.E: Water-Fire, Time-Aether, Entropy-Gravity.)

I didn't talk about "insta-win". But for me it will be better when Fire will have problems against Water. Today we have situation, when Water has got bigger problem against Fire, because Fire is the best element, Water is one of the worst. And once of my propositions is giving advantages for few elements in specific games (something like HolyLight). I never heard that HolyLight means "insta-win".

But ok, this topic is about Seraph, no balance game All we know that game will be still unbalanced and people accept this so discuss about this hasn't got sense.

1. In a vacuum, Water vs Fire is not awfully Imbalanced.
2. Holy Light is insta-win vs Darkness. Here, now you heard it.

[rosutosefi]

At first: "Yay! A card with my name on it!"
Suddenly, phoenix. *okay*

[Seraph]

At first: "Yay! A card with my name on it!"
Suddenly, phoenix. *okay*

cough cough ahem. Whose name is on it?

In my opinion the key difference is that phoenix costs exactly right for use with "immolation", and can be easily immolated and reborn
I can only think of very situational advantages of using unupped Seraph to unupped phoenix

Pros of unupped Seraph:
   High damage (to cost ratio)
   untargetable to CC after turn 1
   Can be buffed again (after the waiting period) and then reimmortalized

Pros of unupped Phoenix
   High damage (to cost ratio)
   easily rezzed
   easily played with quanta from a single immolation
   useful to immolate
   can be buffed
   monocolor cost (vs duo with light

btw is Seraph airborne? assuming yes because of wings in the epic art.