[Official] Ash Eater | Brimstone Eater

[Mathematistic]

Since it's called ash eater, why not give it a gimmicky passive that is related to phoenix ash so that it doesn't get ignored too much?

[OldTrees]

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?

Its current niche is a small efficient cheap rush creature. Fire has use for efficient cheap rush creatures but makes optimal use of medium sized ones. As such the small efficient cheap rush creature niche is obsolete in Fire. Each card needs a niche that is not obsolete or it will not be used. Ash Eater needs to be changed to gain a niche that is new to Ash Eater. The new niche does not have to be new to Elements the Game. Nothing is gained if the new niche was also obsoleted by immolation.

Since it's called ash eater, why not give it a gimmicky passive that is related to phoenix ash so that it doesn't get ignored too much?

Typically we want to stay miles away from forced combos.

[Efreet]

So based on this, wouldn't making this creature a quanta converter be optimal, then? Think about it with a synergy with earth. If the player opted to have an immo/golem strategy, they could opt to have ash eaters for both immo fodder, but on the off hand, ash eaters could convert earth quanta to fire quanta, compounding on the increase in fire quanta. sure, there'd be competition for earth quanta that way, thus the beauty in finding a new balance in a well versed and explored strategy. And even then, it wouldn't have to convert earth to fire, it could convert death to fire (I'm trying to keep a them of 'ash' here, so if anything else makes sense, let me know), exploring a new path in death-fire synergy, combining the speed of fire with the creature control of death. I got tons of other ideas, though, so...

[OldTrees]

Quanta conversion is one way to go. We would see a Fire equivalent of Rustler decks.

[Efreet]

So uh...mind telling me how that change can happen, quickly? I'd like to discuss more options, but I'd also like to know how to make the change, whatever it may be, actually happen.

[majofa]

Ash Eater is only useful for damage, as there are better options for Immo fodder. 2 attack with nothing else added will never be used in any competitive environment, unless it is very, very restrictive. That doesn't just apply to Fire. I can't think of any element that would benefit from a 1 cost, 2 attack creature with no ability passive or active. It's just playabilty vs not. As it is right now, it is not.

[McSod]

You know, as far as card compatibility goes, an' not bein' able to make it ~too~ overpowered... Making the Ash Eater live up to it's name an' actually able to eat ASH... like the dead phoenix... for a small bonus would make a whole mess of sense.

[furballdn]

You know, as far as card compatibility goes, an' not bein' able to make it ~too~ overpowered... Making the Ash Eater live up to it's name an' actually able to eat ASH... like the dead phoenix... for a small bonus would make a whole mess of sense.

Small bonus? How small? Most people won't be willing to sacrifice ash as it'll turn into a 7|4 attacker unless it's been lobotomized.

[McSod]

Well, it'd be useful in situations like I see all the time. Although that's probably mostly my own deck. I farm bronze (where 90% of the decks I see are fire) with a monogravity. So when I see phoenix, my Oties eat 'em. Then they eat the ashes. :p

But if I think of it from the other side of the proverbial table, when something has eaten my phoenix, an' I'm about to lose the thing altogether... I'd be happy to deny that +1/+1 to those nasty Oties, and add it to my Ash Eater. Might give me a chance to get enough CC to be able to do somethin' about it.

Might not be feasible, but it makes sense to me. 

[Efreet]

That's a bit too situational, don't you think???

[McSod]

Of course it is! There's no denying that it's a very specific set of circumstance. But the thought is more in the vein of making the card make sense, an' be balanced, than it is of actually making the card 'be useful' absolutely randomly.

In this case, I personally just prefer thematics more than I like the idea of giving something a skill which, though would make it useful, would be a stretch to explain for the card.

If it doesn't work, or isn't viable, no offense will be taken.

[McSod]

Of course, at the same time, as much as I like the concept, I probably oughtt'a shut up about anything that will give it more effectiveness against my own deck.