[Official] Toadfish | Puffer Fish

[RootRanger]

The card needs a buff because it changes when it upgades? You have no evidence that the pufferfish is a poor card. It simply fills a different role.

Provide reasons for why the pufferfish is significantly worse than other cards. Your current reasons are not valid; they do not show why the card is not a good card.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Think of the Shards and Minor Phoenix when it comes to different versions of an upgraded card.

Also, puffer fish's high cost is justified:

Creature Cost= Attack + Ability Threat +Bonuses + HP
Attack : +3
Ability Threat :  + 3 (Poison on a stick in an element that already has sync with death)
Bonuses: -1 for upgrade
HP: + 0 (1-5)
Final Cost: 5

Your argument is invalid. Next time, when you want to buff/nerf a card, test it out in trainer before jumping to conclusions.

[willng3]

If Scorpions were buffed to these stats I think I would wet myself.  No buff needed.

[killybob]

i have tested it. alot. it's part of one of my main ai3/t50 grinding tactics. i have come to the conclusion that, even though it does drop the need to use air for it's ability i still find it insubstantial. it's attack goes down by half which means it takes 3 turns to add enough poison to put it's relative attack back up to what it was unupgraded. also it has lost that creature control factor it had previosly

[killybob]

If Scorpions were buffed to these stats I think I would wet myself.  No buff needed.

scorpions cost less and therefore do less.

[willng3]

If Scorpions were buffed to these stats I think I would wet myself.  No buff needed.

scorpions cost less and therefore do less.

Which is exactly my point.

[killybob]

i don't see your point. the puffer only has 1 more attack than the forest scorp upped and only 2 above the unupped. it costs 1 away from double the the scorps price.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Think of the Shards and Minor Phoenix when it comes to different versions of an upgraded card.

Also, puffer fish's high cost is justified:

Creature Cost= Attack + Ability Threat +Bonuses + HP
Attack : +3
Ability Threat :  + 3 (Poison on a stick in an element that already has sync with death)
Bonuses: -1 for upgrade
HP: + 0 (1-5)
Final Cost: 5

Your argument is invalid. Next time, when you want to buff/nerf a card, test it out in trainer before jumping to conclusions.

I quote this because you apparently have not seen it.  Please provide a valid arguement how this card is imbalanced when it is statistically balanced.

[killybob]

personally i'd rather it had lower health and lower cost to keep the balance than nothing at all. in fact the lower hp may be good as it induces poison when ingested. since it has 5 hp now it takes an upped oty with some kind of boost to eat it and get poisoned. so while the defence creature who is meant to protect sits calmly around doing nothing all the other creatures are being eaten. so lower the health and the cost and i'll be even happier. and you get to keep your balance. everyone wins (except the oty).

[willng3]

i don't see your point. the puffer only has 1 more attack than the forest scorp upped and only 2 above the unupped. it costs 1 away from double the the scorps price.

Okay, so you believe it's logical for the Scorpion to cost less and therefore do less, but it's illogical for a Pufferfish to cost more and therefore do more than a Scorpion?  I also noticed you left out the Pufferfish's increase in HP in comparison to the Scorpion completely, which is incomprehensible.  Pufferfish is practically immune to CC, which Scorpion is not; it's a perfect target for Adrenaline which Scorpion, despite it being capable of attacking four times with Adrenaline, is not; and Pufferfish cannot be stopped by nearly as many shields as Scorpion can.  So if Scorpion had the same stats then I would be ecstatic, because Pufferfish's stats are just THAT ideal.  To have it cost less or have better stats than this would just be absurd.

personally i'd rather it had lower health and lower cost to keep the balance than nothing at all. in fact the lower hp may be good as it induces poison when ingested. since it has 5 hp now it takes an upped oty with some kind of boost to eat it and get poisoned. so while the defence creature who is meant to protect sits calmly around doing nothing all the other creatures are being eaten. so lower the health and the cost and i'll be even happier. and you get to keep your balance. everyone wins (except the oty).

This is the first time I've ever heard someone complain that a creature not getting eaten would be a bad thing.  Also, the Pufferfish would be poisoning your opponent this entire time, so it's by no means just sitting around and doing nothing.  I stand by Zblader's explanation 100%.

[killybob]

sorry i meant doing nothing as in defence wise

[RootRanger]

it's attack goes down by half which means it takes 3 turns to add enough poison to put it's relative attack back up to what it was unupgraded. also it has lost that creature control factor it had previosly

Poison damage is far harder to remove. A toadfish can be killed and you will no longer do any damage. The damage done by a pufferfish is almost impossible to lose.

Pufferfish are useful in slow, defensive water decks. They will be on the field for much longer than 3 turns, racking up damage while other cards stall.