[Official] Ash Eater | Brimstone Eater

[Efreet]

I wouldn't jump the gun and say it needs immediate buffing, because I'll admit there are a few things to consider. At the very least, hear me out. On the topic of its 'synergy' with Immolation/Cremation, I'd use photons instead as sacrifice, its just an extra fire quanta I could save by not playing this card. As for cost itself, it's fair stat-wise IMO, but compared to Gnome Rider/Gemfinder and Dragonfly, it's unfair that ash eater has no ability, and compared to Photon it costs something for one extra damage that realistically doesn't matter (although I could be wrong there ). Understandably, Fire is already a powerful Element, so buffing another creature in that element is just another reason to chose this as a first Element if any new player did their homework, which seems unfair to me. Buffing Ash Eater could potentially make  an overpowered Element, if that's possible. So if buffing ash eater were an option, I wonder if there's a way to buff it by giving it an ability that has a synergy with another element (maybe as the name of the creature suggests, it could literally eat ash " " to produce something). So, uh, any suggestions would help. I personally don't know about buffing ash eater because of these reasons, so a discussion, I think, is in order.

[dragonsdemesne]

I agree ash eater sucks, but I can't think of a good way to buff it without either making it better than the upgraded version or requiring a buff to the upgraded version as well. (and the upped one is fine as is)  Perhaps it could do something like generate a one-time quanta bonus in an off-element, thereby making it somewhat useful but not better than the upped version.  (something like 1  , 2/1, when ash eater comes into play, generate 1 )

[omegareaper7]

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10223.0.html
Why do people always ignore the big "Read before posting" signs?

[furballdn]

I'll assume you mean the unupped one, so I'll talk about the unupped one. How is it UP at all? It's a very cheap and effective critter (2:1 attack to cost ratio), and it can be used as very cheap immolation fuel. Obviously photons are better as fodder, but you are also forgetting that ash eater can be a very fast and short range hitter as well.

[Efreet]

Obviously photons are better as fodder, but you are also forgetting that ash eater can be a very fast and short range hitter as well.

Eh...I guess it's a little more potent...but...can I just say 'nothing special' is ash eater's basic impression? Aside from immo/crema fodder, I don't see it...anywhere! Compared to photon, it's not as cost effective, so why use it? What, because of just that extra damage? Really? C'mon, one extra damage...if that makes sense in the cost-to-damage calculation, great, I won't use it regardless, its a waste of quanta, and as much as I'd like to see it combined with a fractal to get a nice army of critters going, a thunderstorm would put it in place...wow...a whole thunderstorm...

Ash eater is uneventful, and I'd compare it to Dragonfly and Gnome Rider for a reason! they have decent abilities for low cost, Ash eater does not...not cool...>.>

[majofa]

I suggested something like this:

Spoiler for Hidden:

[OldTrees]

Unupped
1|1 for 0
2|1 for 1
1|1 Generate for 1
1|2 Generate for 1
3|3 for 2

Upgraded
1|1 Generate for 0
2|1 Generate for 1
2|1 Generate for 0
1|2 Generate for 0
5|3 for 2

@majofa
Your unupped ash eater is strictly superior to Dragonfly in a significant manner.
Your upgraded brimstone eater is on par with Damselfly.

Ash eater is uneventful, and I'd compare it to Dragonfly and Gnome Rider for a reason! they have decent abilities for low cost, Ash eater does not...not cool...>.>

Some players prefer better stats over abilities. Some prefer abilities over better stats. Horned Frog is used. Ash Eater probably would be used more if Fire rushes did not all use immolation to bring out bigger Fire creatures.

[Efreet]

Some players prefer better stats over abilities. Some prefer abilities over better stats. Horned Frog is used. Ash Eater probably would be used more if Fire rushes did not all use immolation to bring out bigger Fire creatures.

Yeah...that is true, which is why I'm unsure about it being buffed because its a fire creature. You'd think adding a creature with an added synergy to a different element would improve the complexity of the game...but I don't really know about that then. So then I'd be the type to enjoy abilities over better stats, and yet, those who enjoy better stats, is adding an extra damage point really worth 1  quanta?

[majofa]

The fact is... Ash Eater isn't used. Wars teams will never use the unupped version. The last time I can ever remember using it was in a really, really limited weekly tournament and the starter deck tournament.

Comparing it to Damselfly doesn't do much either. It needs to be compared to other Fire creatures. If you look at it that way, my suggested changes make sense.

[OldTrees]

Some players prefer better stats over abilities. Some prefer abilities over better stats. Horned Frog is used. Ash Eater probably would be used more if Fire rushes did not all use immolation to bring out bigger Fire creatures.

Yeah...that is true, which is why I'm unsure about it being buffed because its a fire creature. You'd think adding a creature with an added synergy to a different element would improve the complexity of the game...but I don't really know about that then. So then I'd be the type to enjoy abilities over better stats, and yet, those who enjoy better stats, is adding an extra damage point really worth 1  quanta?

You misunderstood. Immolation gives Fire the option to sacrifice card advantage (an additional cost) to use more powerful creatures in its rushes. Immolation effectively obsoleted Ash Eater as a rusher. The question is not about buffing but rather about berfing (changing it without making it OP or UP)

Is adding 1 damage per turn worth +1 cost? Usually. That is the basic principle (100 / quanta ~= turns) that the game seems to balance creatures on.

@majofa
I compared it to Dragonfly because Air and Fire should be balanced relative to each other and your version had an easy comparison. I agree that Ash Eater is not going to be used. I will not go so far as to say it is UP but it has been obsoleted. It needs a new niche that is not obsoleted by the influence of immolation rushed fire staples.

[majofa]

Well, I also suggested that Dragonfly get a +1 attack boost. They would essentially be the exact same card, but would be used in different ways.

[Efreet]

The question is not about buffing but rather about berfing (changing it without making it OP or UP)

Can I be forgiven for poor choice of words then? 
I'd say it is in my interest to make this card used more often, and while I misunderstand the inherent rules behind balancing a card (apparently  ), from a practical viewpoint, I see this card as useless, because photon is just a better option, since that one extra damage for 1, maybe 2 turns ash eater lives for, means nothing to me for my big picture of a fire rush strategy.

The fact is... Ash Eater isn't used.

This is the line of thinking I like, the practical sense of things. I don't like the idea of changing both Dragonfly and Ash Eater, though. It seems redundant having four upped quanta producing creatures, and just slapping on ash eater to an already existent niche seems like a half-baked attempt at 'berfing' this card, IMO 

I said before that, as the name of the card implies, maybe this card can act as a quanta converter like rustler/leaf dragon. At this point, I sound like a hypocrite, since I just said that slapping this creature to an existent niche is redundant. In this sense, I'm only looking at it's name.

On another note, I guess I could brainstorm a new idea? But the main question I'd have at this point is, well, is this a healthy standpoint on changing the nature of this creature?

It needs a new niche that is not obsoleted by the influence of immolation rushed fire staples.

You say this, and I highly emphasize and empathize with the first part of that statement. But is this fixation on giving it a new niche a healthy standpoint? Am I misinterpreting the nature of the game in any way? Is so, how?