Cinderling | Cinderling

[EmeraldTiger]

NAME: Cinderling ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 4 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 3|5 TEXT: Destroy 1 quantum from your opponent per turn.  Ember: This creature gains +3|+0 until end of turn.	NAME: Cinderling ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 4 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 5|5 TEXT: Destroy 1 quantum from your opponent per turn.  Ember: This creature gains +3|+0 until end of turn.

ART: EmeraldTiger, Zblader IDEA: EmeraldTiger NOTES: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26257.msg358238#msg358238 SERIES:

[ZephyrPhantom]

How about Ember as an ability name?
Unupgraded seems a little weak with the constant maintainence for damage, even when taking Eclipse into consideration I'd suggest a + 1 attack for the unupped.

[EmeraldTiger]

OK, that sounds good, I was wondering why people in chat said it was UP.

[OldTrees]

OK, that sounds good, I was wondering why people in chat said it was UP.

It is UP. Ember is a +0quanta skill.
The base attack should be increased to 3|4 and the base hp to 6|7

[EmeraldTiger]

before changing it here, please look at the one in my workshop and tell me if that what you meant.

[ZephyrPhantom]

before changing it here, please look at the one in my workshop and tell me if that what you meant.

I suggest linking the workshop version within the NOTES section, similar to how you've linked the actual thread in your workshop. It makes navigation easier.

[Minor Vampire]

looks good, hope it sticks

[EmeraldTiger]

this needs a passive ability to better balance it.

[ninjamaster1991]

Maybe ember is +2, wears off 1/turn or summin. Or is that too much like steam engine?

[EmeraldTiger]

I would like a passive that fits Cinderling's Darkness side.

Think of it this way Cinderling has a Darkness shell with a Fire core. If some were to meet with one of these at first they would think they have come upon a minor shade. That would until it revealed the fire inside.

[Seraph]

I think it is a little bit OP statwise, am I just completely wrong?
Lets see 2 for 5 = giant frog (vanilla)
giant frog 5|3
cinderling 5|5 + ability

also a possible passive is just the one skeleton (undead?) has.
On RT they become the creature it was before being burned...

[OldTrees]

I think it is a little bit OP statwise, am I just completely wrong?
Lets see 2 for 5 = giant frog (vanilla)
giant frog 5|3
cinderling 5|5 + ability

also a possible passive is just the one skeleton (undead?) has.
On RT they become the creature it was before being burned...

Currently it needs a valuable passive ability to become balanceable.

3 = 3 [Attack] -1 ([Ember]-[Duo]) +1 (Passive ability) -1 (Draw Cost)
3 = 5 [Attack] -1 ([Ember]-[Duo]) +1 (Passive ability) -1 (Draw Cost) -2 (upgraded)
Note: The Passive must be worth +1 casting cost.