[Official] Immortal | Elite Immortal

[Ant-n-ero]

also you can't adrenaline immortals but you can frogs
(someone said if immortals were 4|4 cost then it makes frogs UP as it is 3 4 (for quint) for less damage the obviously forgot that you can adrenaline the frogs then quint them, so making th cost upd and unupd for immortals both 4 is a good idea!!)

[Kurohami]

also you can't adrenaline immortals but you can frogs
(someone said if immortals were 4|4 cost then it makes frogs UP as it is 3 4 (for quint) for less damage the obviously forgot that you can adrenaline the frogs then quint them, so making th cost upd and unupd for immortals both 4 is a good idea!!)

Actually, frog costs 2 life, just pointing that out.

[Ant-n-ero]

also you can't adrenaline immortals but you can frogs
(someone said if immortals were 4|4 cost then it makes frogs UP as it is 3 4 (for quint) for less damage the obviously forgot that you can adrenaline the frogs then quint them, so making th cost upd and unupd for immortals both 4 is a good idea!!)

Actually, frog costs 2 life, just pointing that out.

okay, not used to creatures as I rarely use them o_O
is it cockatrice then that costs 3 ? either way doesn't matter tbh

[Higurashi]

Yep, that's Cockatrice.

[Avenger]

either lower its cost or add 1/2 damage to make it balanced

1/2? Zanz would have to recode the whole game, wouldn't he?

Just round it down. Shall be easy 

[ratcharmer]

So after some testing I've concluded that yes, you have point, most times an immortal would work well a phase dragon is better.

I think a cost reduction to 5 would be good. 4 I still think is going to far, since that gives them the same damage/cost ratio as non-immortal creatures.

[DesolateSoul14]

Two immortals is equal to a dragon, except it costs one 

[DrunkDestroyer]

Two immortals is equal to a dragon, except it costs one 

But since most shields (damage reducing ones) reduce damage from each creature, It is usually better to have a phase dragon rather than two immortals for a number of turns (the obvious exceptions being bonewall, and gravity shield. Thorn Carpace is debateable, and so is Permafrost)

However, I still don't see 'not being able to be buffed' as a downside equal to 'not being able to be hurt by spells/abilities'. Immortal is not that UP.

[Demut]

I think it is fine. It serves its function as a dealer of moderate damage for a moderate cost perfectly. It was completely thanks to this card I beat round 2 on underground. Without it I would have been CCed to death. And the dragon would have been far to expensive to effectively use in the duo.

[EvaRia]

I think the problem with this card is this:

The logic of it is that it needs a high cost, because it is a creature and Quint in one package.
However, the one flaw in this logic is that you would never quint an immortal if it wasn't already immortal.
You would use quints on creatures with valuable abilities. So the cost should definitely be lowered to at most 5/5, or even increase the damage by one and keeping it as 6/6.

[Catoman4001]

I would make them 1 or 2  cheaper.  But I do hate immortal creatures, they nerf my deck.

[geekz_always_win]

So basically, it's like this. Phase Recluse/Quintessence is equal to or better to Immortal.

Phase Spider is 4 and Quintessence is 3

I get a 7 attack immortal creature with a skill web for the same price as Elite Immortal. And I don't have to duo like the cockatrice debates above me.