[Official] Holy Light | Holy Flash

[ARTHANASIOS]

Holy Light must remain a healing spell (light needs it for EM).

You must have heard of White Nymph or Miracle + Luciferin.

I have, but even so, Luciferin is used only in Hope decks, but a Holy Light can fit into any  deck.

[Atico]

Holy Light must remain a healing spell (light needs it for EM). I am against any idea of increasing its healing powers to 15 or 20, because the Heal/Improved Heal of Life element costs 3 /2 and heals 20 hp, so it would be totally unfair for  .
 If you wish to be changed as a negative status remover, that's nice, however its power should be limited. I personally suggest to be able to remove only Delay & Frozen effects, since it would be a little OP to restore lobotomised abilities or to remove poison; poison removal can be achieved through Purify of the  element for just a 2 /1 cost and lobotomise should only be countered by reverse time or by putting a new ability over the old one (Mitosis, Butterfy Effect).

I didn't see any problem with balance HolyFlash which delete all negative effects (also Lobo). Poison = poisoned creature, not HP status.
When Lighting (which destroy 80% creatures) can cost 1 then anti-cc + 1 turn protect (like Seraph ability) can also cost 1 . Lobotomize cost 1 , so counter for this + 1 turn safety (as counter bonus) is pretty balanced. We need counters against cards like Antimatter, Congeal, Lobo etc. HolyFlash as Light card can be perfect for this.

[OldTrees]

Holy Light must remain a healing spell (light needs it for EM).

You must have heard of White Nymph or Miracle + Luciferin.

I have, but even so, Luciferin is used only in Hope decks, but a Holy Light can fit into any  deck.

I would disagree. I use Luciferin over Holy Light even in non Hope decks.
2|1 is better than 1 |0

[xdude]

Holy Light must remain a healing spell (light needs it for EM).

You must have heard of White Nymph or Miracle + Luciferin.

I have, but even so, Luciferin is used only in Hope decks, but a Holy Light can fit into any  deck.

I would disagree. I use Luciferin over Holy Light even in non Hope decks.
2|1 is better than 1 |0

Gonna respectfully disagree with that. In a Light deck you will always have the Pillars not to rely on Mulligan.

However, when playing Light (quite often I might say) I generally use none, because Sanctuary, but I have a deck based on Dragons and Luci as well. No use for Holy Light... ever.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I always use one or two holy lights when playing with mono- decks. For me, 1 /0 is better than 2/1 since it is a mono-deck and not a rainbow one. Luciferin is good by its own way, however Holy Light can be useful in many different situations:
1) Heal yourself up to 10 hp.
2) Heal a damaged creature up to 10 hp.
3) Deal 10 damage to a  or  creature.
4) Punish a SoSac user with 10 damage.
Luciferin does always two certain things:
1) Use Bioluminessence skill to vanilla creatures.
2) Heal yourself up to 10 hp.

For me, Holy Light > Luciferin , but Luciferin & Hope = Win! 

[OldTrees]

Holy Light must remain a healing spell (light needs it for EM).

You must have heard of White Nymph or Miracle + Luciferin.

I have, but even so, Luciferin is used only in Hope decks, but a Holy Light can fit into any  deck.

I would disagree. I use Luciferin over Holy Light even in non Hope decks.
2|1 is better than 1 |0

Gonna respectfully disagree with that. In a Light deck you will always have the Pillars not to rely on Mulligan.

Even Light duos? I guess I have been worried for nothing. Thanks for the heads up.

[xdude]

Holy Light must remain a healing spell (light needs it for EM).

You must have heard of White Nymph or Miracle + Luciferin.

I have, but even so, Luciferin is used only in Hope decks, but a Holy Light can fit into any  deck.

I would disagree. I use Luciferin over Holy Light even in non Hope decks.
2|1 is better than 1 |0

Gonna respectfully disagree with that. In a Light deck you will always have the Pillars not to rely on Mulligan.

Even Light duos? I guess I have been worried for nothing. Thanks for the heads up.

Hmm, Light duo's might or might not be a little bit hairy, because with Light as a 2nd element you won't always need so much quanta as you would with it as your main element. But generally - if you have 9 or more Pillars you are going to have at least 1 in your starting hand (no mulligan) for the vast majority of the time.


Slightly more on topic, OldTrees, how do you feel the card should be buffed?

[Aneninen]

Perhaps it should work as an inverted Fire Bolt, I mean, heals 5HP/10  - mono/duo  decks can easily accumulate many  quanta.

Alternatively - modified the idea of others - it removes everything from a creature (poison, congeal, etc. BUT all beneficial effects, like blessing, momentum etc. too) and only your own creatures can be targetted with it. (Technically you'll get your original creature back on the field but it can't be used instead of Reverse Time since you can't restore eg. an 5|10 Otyugh of the opponent)

[Alchemist]

I know that I have already mentioned it, and it's in the poll options. Also, maybe this topic isn't the best place for it, but I'm talking about Sanctuary effect. It counters Nightmare, BH, and Silence. And, it's also only card that does it. Since Sanctuary is a permanent, and PC is now available to any Element, alternative ways of accomplishing Sanctuary effects are more than needed. I'm not saying that it MUST be Holy Light, but since it's already UP, and that effect is needed - I thought of HL as a  good target for it.

[OldTrees]

Holy Light must remain a healing spell (light needs it for EM).

You must have heard of White Nymph or Miracle + Luciferin.

I have, but even so, Luciferin is used only in Hope decks, but a Holy Light can fit into any  deck.

I would disagree. I use Luciferin over Holy Light even in non Hope decks.
2|1 is better than 1 |0

Gonna respectfully disagree with that. In a Light deck you will always have the Pillars not to rely on Mulligan.

Even Light duos? I guess I have been worried for nothing. Thanks for the heads up.

Hmm, Light duo's might or might not be a little bit hairy, because with Light as a 2nd element you won't always need so much quanta as you would with it as your main element. But generally - if you have 9 or more Pillars you are going to have at least 1 in your starting hand (no mulligan) for the vast majority of the time.


Slightly more on topic, OldTrees, how do you feel the card should be buffed?

The purposes of this card are Creature Healing, Player Healing with an Elemental Hate clause.

I think the elemental hate clause should be removed for 3 reasons:
1) It is inherently situational causing either the primary usage to be UP, the situational usage to be OP or both.
2) It prevents Light Elemental from healing certain creatures. Light should be competent enough to heal any creature.
3) Elemental hate punishes players for a decision (elemental loyalty) that is unfair to punish.

The remaining 2 factors are Creature Healing and Player Healing.

Creature healing needs to evolve to match its opposition (lethal CC).
Creature healing is rarely useful. It only works against damage over time and new players that have not figured out that they can wait and unload a lethal blow. So simple hp healing is not sufficient.

Light has lots of Player Healing. I would suggest giving it more variety in how it protects itself within that theme.

Solution:
Target is immune to the next targeted effect or attack.

This is a simple version of an idea that has bounced around the forums. It provides practical anti-CC and gives light more versatile defenses. In addition it can target the opposite field for some interesting anti-buff and anti-healing uses.

[ARTHANASIOS]

I think the elemental hate clause should be removed for 3 reasons:
1) It is inherently situational causing either the primary usage to be UP, the situational usage to be OP or both.

"Elements: the Game" is full of situational cards which are UP in certain usages as well as OP in other usages. Dim Shields ruin any deck without PC so badly (OP usage), but they do almost nothing against decks with PC (UP usage). Maxwell's Deamon eliminates almost any agressive creature, especially most of the dragons (OP usage), however in defensive creatures with more hp than atk is pretty useless (UP usage). And the list of these examples is still going on... Because of that, I don't think this is a good reason to remove elemental hate. However, the other two reasons mentioned by OldTrees are good ones and I also want to mention another one "4) Holy Light is the only card with pure elemental hate on it. There are no other cards with 'destroy an  , , , , , , , , or  creature' so I think that either new elemental hate cards should be introduced, one for each single element or one for two elements, or it should be removed because it is a little unfair for  and  elements".
 But if we ever remove the elemental hate from Holy Light, we have to also stop complaining about how OP are mono- , mono- or  - duo (which are quite common complains in the community, directly or indirectly).

Solution:
Target is immune to the next targeted effect or attack.

Too UP in my opinion. I suggest changing the name of "Holy Light" to "Divine Shield" and the effect would be identical with Seraph's ability:
 Divine Shield, cost 1 |0, type: spell, effect: Target creature gains immortality for 1 turn. Heal yourself up to 10 hp.

[Atico]

Solution:
Target is immune to the next targeted effect or attack.

Too UP in my opinion. I suggest changing the name of "Holy Light" to "Divine Shield" and the effect would be identical with Seraph's ability:
 Divine Shield, cost 1 |0, type: spell, effect: Target creature gains immortality for 1 turn. Heal yourself up to 10 hp.

I create yesterday card like this and I don't think that it is UP.
Incipient|Incipient

Light didn't need next 10-20 healing. Light (and Life, Air etc.) needs more defending against other mechanism - like Sanctuary.