Chain of Death | Great Chain of Death

[odideph]

NAME: Chain of Death ELEMENT: Death COST: 3 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Inflict 1 poison damage to your enemy. Chain: playing this again in the same turn doubles the effect.	NAME: Great Chain of Death ELEMENT: Death COST: 2 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Inflict 1 poison damage to your enemy. Chain: playing this again in the same turn doubles the effect.

ART: odideph IDEA: odideph (inspired by this: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37282.0.html) NOTES: Example: 1) I cast Chain of Death. 1 poison stack is added on the enemy player's HP. 2) The turn after, i cast Chain of Death. He gets 1 additional poison stack. 3) This time i play 2 other Chains of Death in the same turn as the previous one. He gets 2 additional poison stacks + 4 additional poison stacks (total this turn: 7 poison stacks). 4) Next turn, i play Chain of Death again: the enemy player takes 1 additional poison stack. For reference, maximum poison stacks you can apply with this (all 6 Chains in the same turn) is : 1 +2 +4 +8 +16 +32 = 63 stacks. This is the second card of this series, if you like the concept please check out the other Chains. SERIES: Elemental Chains (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,42289.msg526204.html#msg526204)

[Drake_XIV]

Okay, this is different.  I'd at least start by cutting the costs in half.  Even if you're waiting for 4~6 of them, you might as well do Adrena Scorps for effectivity.

[buritosrfood]

again whats wrong with plagues 

[Drake_XIV]

again whats wrong with plagues 

You're on the wrong track.  This affects the player, not his field.  this treads on Poison and whatnot, not Plague.

[Absol]

Too expensive to be useful.

Comparison:
6 of these chained requires 72 in a turn, inflict 63 counter. It requires time to give damage.
With 6 Bone Dragons, requires 60 , deal 60 damage. Does not need to be chained.

[odideph]

Too expensive to be useful.

Comparison:
6 of these chained requires 72 in a turn, inflict 63 counter. It requires time to give damage.
With 6 Bone Dragons, requires 60 , deal 60 damage. Does not need to be chained.

That's true, but there are alot of counters to creature damage, like Sundials, shields and stuff. Poison is so strong because all you can do is outheal it, SoSac it, or Purify. Not even reflect. SInce it's gonna take at least 2 turns after the Chain to kill the enemy however, there may be margin for a cost reduction yeah. I could wait for OldTrees' epic balance post on this, or if he doesn't show up well i'll follow the general opinion.

But that's pure balance discussion, i don't know yet whether you like the Chain concept and its application to this case.

[Drake_XIV]

The chain application is good.  It's just that these spells are too expensive.  The costs just aren't worth it...

[Absol]

I like the chaining mechanics, but i think it could use cost reduction.
On average, you will most likely do a chain 1 (= cast 2 spells) casting. This is also the reason why Nova nerf is not that significant, since you'll see chain 2 much less.
If this is comparable to Poison, it could be made so chain 1 would break even while chain 2 would give more poison.

[odideph]

I like the chaining mechanics, but i think it could use cost reduction.
On average, you will most likely do a chain 1 (= cast 2 spells) casting. This is also the reason why Nova nerf is not that significant, since you'll see chain 2 much less.
If this is comparable to Poison, it could be made so chain 1 would break even while chain 2 would give more poison.

Okay, well this card is meant to be stacked in your hand, kind of like the components of an OTK. Nova is used usually as soon as possible because its purpose is to allow casting of other cards by giving quanta. So the former is a late-game card while the latter is early-game.

Looking at actual play more closely, i agree that the costs could be reduced at least a bit. Just because there is a quanta cap doesn't mean it has to be the basis for the cost of this card. Things like Fire Lance existed first, then the quanta cap was added, not the other way around.

So, since this card is one of the slower game-enders in the Elemental Chain series, what about a cost of 9|7 ?

[Anarook]

The issue is you're trying to force the idea into your exact picture of how it would be used instead of looking at other aplications. You don't build a card limited to one play style, it simply won't work. Think of this card in other applications, where it might otherwise be used.
And it needs an enormous cost reduction, even 6|5 may be too much.

[odideph]

The issue is you're trying to force the idea into your exact picture of how it would be used instead of looking at other aplications. You don't build a card limited to one play style, it simply won't work. Think of this card in other applications, where it might otherwise be used.
And it needs an enormous cost reduction, even 6|5 may be too much.

+rep for making me realize that fact in so few lines. I'm gonna operate a fundamental cost calculation change on this whole series (I'll start with the other elements since i'm kind of lazy about re-doing this page right now).

[Anarook]

No prob, building a good card takes experience.
Some of the best ideas are those that undergo a dozen changes before being submitted.

As a final piece of advice try not to juggle a full series until you're more familiar with the idea itself. You wouldv'e been better off making 1 of your chain cards and polishing it before introducing the others, possibly even started with this idea in the deisgn theory section.