[Official] Immortal | Elite Immortal

[RootRanger]

In mono aether Phase Dragons are almost always better. A phase dragon + pillar instead of 2 immortals usually lowers QI and does more damage against a fire shield. In a rainbow no one would use immortals when they have phase spiders, dimensional shields, silences, mindgates, quints, and lobotomizers to fill aether's space. Immortals are only really useful if you know you will face a gravity shield, but you can almost never count on that. Many people have suggested a lower cost or increased stats. Perhaps a poll could be made?

[Ryli]

an immortal is a phase spider and uint in one. Phase spider (4/3 for 3) + uintessence (immortality for 4) = immortal (4/3 and immortality for 6) It reduces the cost and fits the 2 cards nicely into one space.

[lihai]

I think:it should be buffed like this:

immortal: 5      4|5
elite imm:6      6|5

[RootRanger]

an immortal is a phase spider and uint in one. Phase spider (4/3 for 3) + uintessence (immortality for 4) = immortal (4/3 and immortality for 6) It reduces the cost and fits the 2 cards nicely into one space.

The cost of quintessence may be 4, but its value depends on the card. For example, using quintessence on a spark would be worthless, but using a quintessence on a plate armored otyugh would be very valuable. For a spark, immortality would have a value of 0. For a photon, immortality would have a value of roughly 1 because it is not very important that the photon is immaterial. For a creature with just 4 damage, immortality is not very useful. It would probably be worth 2 quantum, even though it costs four. Have you ever seen someone use quitessence on a 4-damage creature? No, because the immortality of the creature is not as important of having that extra 4 quantum and extra card. Thus, the value of immortality for a 4-damage creature is significantly less than the cost of quintessence. Basically, you wouldn't waste a quintessence on such a weak and unimportant creature.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I agree that Immortal is slightly UP. Lowering it's cost by 1  makes sense.

[Ryli]

an immortal is a phase spider and uint in one. Phase spider (4/3 for 3) + uintessence (immortality for 4) = immortal (4/3 and immortality for 6) It reduces the cost and fits the 2 cards nicely into one space.

The cost of quintessence may be 4, but its value depends on the card. For example, using quintessence on a spark would be worthless, but using a quintessence on a plate armored otyugh would be very valuable. For a spark, immortality would have a value of 0. For a photon, immortality would have a value of roughly 1 because it is not very important that the photon is immaterial. For a creature with just 4 damage, immortality is not very useful. It would probably be worth 2 quantum, even though it costs four. Have you ever seen someone use quitessence on a 4-damage creature? No, because the immortality of the creature is not as important of having that extra 4 quantum and extra card. Thus, the value of immortality for a 4-damage creature is significantly less than the cost of quintessence. Basically, you wouldn't waste a quintessence on such a weak and unimportant creature.

hmmm...

I see your point.
Well I suppose 1-2 lower cost or 1-2 more attack would be appropriate then.

[OldTrees]

Based upon theory both Phase Dragon and Immortal are balanced relative to each other. If one deserves a decrease in cost then the other also deserves a decrease in cost. Consider then if they [2cards] are (as the claim is) less powerful than the Spider [1card] maybe the spider is OP?

All in all
Either
All 3 are balanced
Immortal and Phase Dragon deserve a minor [1] casting cost reduction
or
Phase Spider deserves a minor [1] casting cost increase

The theory does not dictate which is correct so neither do I.

[EvaRia]

Based upon theory both Phase Dragon and Immortal are balanced relative to each other. If one deserves a decrease in cost then the other also deserves a decrease in cost. Consider then if they [2cards] are (as the claim is) less powerful than the Spider [1card] maybe the spider is OP?

All in all
Either
All 3 are balanced
Immortal and Phase Dragon deserve a minor [1] casting cost reduction
or
Phase Spider deserves a minor [1] casting cost increase

The theory does not dictate which is correct so neither do I.

Some of the parts of your theory involve variable costs based on different situations.

For example, Devour [3 HP] his worth much less than Devour [5 HP].

I believe immortality behaves the same way.

Immaterial [4 Atk] < Immaterial [8 Atk]
Immaterial [4 Atk] < Immaterial [Valuable Ability]

This means that Immortal could deserve a buff while Phase Dragon does not, as It is worth more to have immortality on a higher Atk creature than a lower Atk creature.

[OldTrees]

You understood the Immortal section.

It is based off the intuition that more valuable creatures are more prone to CC therefore CC immunity is more valuable.

It is true that it is possible that the factor (1+1:2) is off. However if the factor 1:2 part is off that would be indicated by a larger imbalanced.

Immaterial [4] = 2-3 (3 if Phase spider is balanced)
Immaterial [8] = 4-5 (5 if Phase spider is balanced)

imagine if it were supposed to be 3:4

Immaterial [4] = 3-4 (3 if Phase spider is balanced)
Immaterial [8] = 6-7 (5 if Phase spider is balanced)

That adjustment would indicate that Immortal is UP compared to Phase Dragon but has the implausible conclusion that Phase Dragon is OP compared to Phase Spider?

So that would require -1+3:4 which is not any less intuitive than 1+1:2.

Also for the Phase Spider + Quint Comparision
Cost: 7quanta +2 cards vs 6quanta
Effect: 4|2 Immaterial vs 4|3 Immaterial

Cards worth 3 are not worth the 4quanta + 1card cost of the quint card but are worth the 3quanta of an inborn Immaterial ability.

As one final reason to consider
2 Immortals vs 1 Phase Dragon
Cost: 12quanta +2cards vs 13quanta +1card
Effect: 8Immortal Damage vs 8Immortal Damage
Looks balanced if played in a deck that does not run short of cards to play (note Aether's high cost, high effect Dim Shield)

[RootRanger]

As one final reason to consider
2 Immortals vs 1 Phase Dragon
Cost: 12quanta +2cards vs 13quanta +1card
Effect: 8Immortal Damage vs 8Immortal Damage
Looks balanced if played in a deck that does not run short of cards to play (note Aether's high cost, high effect Dim Shield)

12 quanta + 2 cards is more expensive than 13 quanta + 1 card. And why?
Electrum Hourglass.
It costs 1 quanta to gain a card, however, the hourglass originally costed 4 quanta and a card. For example, if you draw 4 cards with the hourglass, you will have spent 1 card and 8 quanta. The average cost of each card would be 2 quanta and 0.25 cards. Say you draw 10 cards. The average cost of each card would be 1.4 quanta and 0.1 cards. No matter how many cards you draw, the average cost of a card is greater than 1 quanta. With the Golden Hourglass the average cost of each card is greater than 2 quanta. Thus, the value of 12 quanta + 2 cards > 13 quanta + 1 card, but 8 Immortal Damage = 8 Immortal Damage. The cost of two immortals exceeds the cost of a phase dragon, but the value of two immortals is equal to the value of the phase dragon. Thus, the Immortal is weaker than the Phase Dragon.

[ZephyrPhantom]

You have to keep in mind that both of you are looking at it different ways. Root, yes it's quite possible  that you drew that extra immortal through an hourglass, but Oldtrees is looking through the sitiuation as if you drew it normally or there were two in your starting hand.

Nevertheless, I still think Immortal should have it's cost lowered by 1  .

[ratcharmer]

You have to keep in mind that both of you are looking at it different ways. Root, yes it's quite possible  that you drew that extra immortal through an hourglass, but Oldtrees is looking through the sitiuation as if you drew it normally or there were two in your starting hand.

Nevertheless, I still think Immortal should have it's cost lowered by 1  .

I think you misunderstood root. He/she wasn't giving a hypothetical situation where hourglass was in play, but using hourglass as a way to demonstrate that 1 card > 1 quantum.