[Official] Immortal | Elite Immortal

[DrunkDestroyer]

TU definitely should be on the list. I'd TU Immortals to hell and back if I could. 12 Immaterial creatures for that cost would be really nice. Not OP, but really nice.

And why would they TU an immortal rather than a Phase Dragon? The whole point of TU is to copy creatures that require MORE quanta than used by the spell TU, or a creature with many buffs/growth. (That is if it is used non-situationally)

[Higurashi]

Uh... they wouldn't. Were we talking about Phase Dragons? No.
Now, in practise, if I did not have access to dragons, I would still use TU on Immortals. It's not off the list because there are better choices when you have them. :p

[ratcharmer]

TU definitely should be on the list. I'd TU Immortals to hell and back if I could. 12 Immaterial creatures for that cost would be really nice. Not OP, but really nice.

Doesn't TU cost about the same as the immortal does? maybe 1 less? Wouldn't it be better to TU a dragon or something else expensive/buffed?

As to the main topic, giving immortal creatures the same damage/cost ratio as other creatures would be, in my opinion, really unbalancing. The main counters to mid-hitter rushes is early creature control or a strong shield early on, since immortals hit hard enough to get through any shield save RoL/hope this would effectively give a mid-hitter rush that was immune to all of it's normal counters, without being significantly slower than most element's rush decks.

The only counter would be an even faster rush.

[Kurohami]

Nah, there are many other counters now. Quanta denial, spine carapace, fire buckler, permafrost and the list goes on. Also, we don't need to make it the same damage to cost ratio as other elements, we just need to make it a little bit cheaper and it'll be a lot more balanced. Right now, it's way too expensive.

[Higurashi]

TU definitely should be on the list. I'd TU Immortals to hell and back if I could. 12 Immaterial creatures for that cost would be really nice. Not OP, but really nice.

Doesn't TU cost about the same as the immortal does? maybe 1 less? Wouldn't it be better to TU a dragon or something else expensive/buffed?

Yes, Parallel Universe/Elite Immortal = 7 cost. Twin Universe/Immortal = 6 cost. Like I said, this is only about the use of PU/TU on these creatures, and thus presumably in monoaether. Although if I wanted a faster deck focused on getting (almost) unkillable offence out, I'd still go with Elite Immortals over dragons. The point is that it would still be a viable target in any case.

[Ant-n-ero]

reading only page one here, sorry if repeting info/missed some stuff

quote someone - " 2 immortals > 1 dragon"
maybe but the single itself doesn't actually make a difference tbh
also if there is a shield (e.g. titatnium/diamond w/e) that blocks 2, 1 dragon beats the 2 immortals as it hits 6 instead of 4, similarly the one that blocks 3, 1 dragon hits 5 but the 2 immortals hit 2 >_<

therefore always play 1 dragon over 2 immortals in any scenario where you have a choice.


on the buffing side of things, make them cost less either 4|5  or maybe even as low as 4|4  as any lower and the immortal staus OPs it but the cost is good for that

atm Immortals suck soo much just to be plain honest


another person said, AI3 and AI5 use them, gemini the FG also packs 1 or 2 immortals too

[PlayerOa]

But if we compare the unupped version to.. Let's say a Cockatrice, that cost 3 and Quintessence, with 4 , for same attack. Then the Cockatrice will become "underpowered."
But card needs a small buff. Upped version can cost 1 less , and unupped is fine.

[918273645]

Gimme a lower cost!

[Higurashi]

therefore always play 1 dragon over 2 immortals in any scenario where you have a choice.

Nah. The most important factor if I wanted to play as fast a deck as possibly with immaterial creatures is speed, and Immortals are a lot faster. Thus, I get more turns of attacking with them, which ultimately lets me speed the deck up by a couple turns. 12 Elite Immortals could kill pretty quickly, actually. Then again, I would probably pack 3-4 dragons even in a deck like that. But still, the discussion was whether Immortals would be viable targets for TU if it was possible, and they would.

[Ant-n-ero]

therefore always play 1 dragon over 2 immortals in any scenario where you have a choice.

Nah. The most important factor if I wanted to play as fast a deck as possibly with immaterial creatures is speed, and Immortals are a lot faster. Thus, I get more turns of attacking with them, which ultimately lets me speed the deck up by a couple turns. 12 Elite Immortals could kill pretty quickly, actually. Then again, I would probably pack 3-4 dragons even in a deck like that. But still, the discussion was whether Immortals would be viable targets for TU if it was possible, and they would.

that's what I'm saying >_<
if you have 7 quanta and you will earn 6, you hold a dragon and an immortal then I will play immortal, then dragon afterwards when possible
if I continue to draw immortals I play them
but in the instance I have 13+ quanta I would play the 1 dragon over 2 immortals due to the shield thing I said before.

and yes, they'd be TU most likely

[TheonlyrealBeef]

IMO they cost way too much, if you really want to rush with aether there's phase recluses with 7/4 for just 4
And comparing them with unupped entropy creatures for attack/quanta ratio isn't exactly fair, since these same phase recluses have a much better ratio not to start mentioning a lot of other creatures.
I'd say lower the cost by 1 or 2 , both upped and unupped.
Adding damage makes it too similar to Phase Dragons (as if it weren't already).

[MrBlonde]

IMO they cost way too much, if you really want to rush with aether there's phase recluses with 7/4 for just 4

Not to be nitpicky but recluses are 7/2. Which really has nothing to do with your point but just to show how frail they are. And i agree rushing with immortals aren't very good.