Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game

Elements the Game => Card Ideas and Art => Topic started by: EmeraldTiger on May 24, 2013, 12:43:11 pm

Title: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 24, 2013, 12:43:11 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/78w282O.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/yQvlh6H.png)
NAME:
Ageless
ELEMENT:
Time
COST:
0
TYPE:
Creature
ATK|HP:
1 | 1
TEXT:
Ageless gains +1|+1 and cost an additional :time for each turn it remains in your hand. (Up to 10 :time .)
NAME:
Ageless Ancient
ELEMENT:
Time
COST:
10 :time
TYPE:
Creature
ATK|HP:
11 | 11
TEXT:
Ageless Ancient gains -1|-1 and cost one :time less for each turn it remains in your hand. (Down to 1 :time .)

ART:
EmeraldTiger
IDEA:
EmeraldTiger
NOTES:

SERIES:

Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: OldTrees on May 24, 2013, 01:40:44 pm
How does fractal work?


If one is valuable, is the other valuable?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 24, 2013, 01:44:58 pm
Well I think it would create in hand the "just drawn from deck form".
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: skyironsword on May 24, 2013, 02:31:14 pm
A bit UP. X for X|X is bad (think of blue crawler) until it crosses a certain line. You would have to wait about 7-9 turns before it's worth it (light dragon costs 12, not 10, so this would be better)
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 24, 2013, 02:34:07 pm
Suggestions?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: jsrjohnny on May 24, 2013, 02:40:02 pm
The Ancient is fine, possibly change the Ageless' starting stats to 2 :time as a 3/3?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 02:57:56 pm
As was mentioned, X for X|X isn't the best. If you had the cost at one less though, it's suddenly much better. Also, few of these + PUs for late game crushing blow.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 24, 2013, 03:16:51 pm
Updated.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:22:51 pm
Better Photon, eh?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: skyironsword on May 24, 2013, 03:35:53 pm
Give me one reason I would use Photon over Ageless.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:36:29 pm
There is none. As soon as Ageless hits the field, it's better. Even cooler to use Luciferase on, I imagine.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: skyironsword on May 24, 2013, 03:38:12 pm
That's kind of sad... 0|1 maybe?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 24, 2013, 03:38:51 pm
Elemental loyalty, idk.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:39:30 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:36:29 pm
There is none. As soon as Ageless hits the field, it's better. Even cooler to use Luciferase on, I imagine.
As soon as it hits the field, it's the same as a photon.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:41:23 pm
Quote from: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:39:30 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:36:29 pm
There is none. As soon as Ageless hits the field, it's better. Even cooler to use Luciferase on, I imagine.
As soon as it hits the field, it's the same as a photon.

Unless you wait 1 turn. Then it's stronger, at the expense of 1 quanta.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: skyironsword on May 24, 2013, 03:42:00 pm
But the thing is that you have one more choice than you do with photon. If you want, you can let it grow, or you can play it immediately. Slight nerf to 0|1?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:44:05 pm
Simply raising the cost by 1 :time and stats by 1|1 is sufficient.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:44:57 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:41:23 pm
Quote from: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:39:30 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:36:29 pm
There is none. As soon as Ageless hits the field, it's better. Even cooler to use Luciferase on, I imagine.
As soon as it hits the field, it's the same as a photon.

Unless you wait 1 turn. Then it's stronger, at the expense of 1 quanta.
You wait a turn, and Micro Abomination is still better. Don't forget Deja Vu
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:45:28 pm
Comparing an upgraded card to an unupgraded card is apples to oranges.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:46:28 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:45:28 pm
Comparing an upgraded card to an unupgraded card is apples to oranges.
I'm not comparing the card so much as I'm comparing the stats.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:46:52 pm
Quote from: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:46:28 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:45:28 pm
Comparing an upgraded card to an unupgraded card is apples to oranges.
I'm not comparing the card so much as I'm comparing the stats.

And the stats of an upgraded card differ from unupgraded by up to 3 quanta. You could compare it to Abyss Crawler and it wouldn't matter.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:51:45 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:46:52 pm
Quote from: Rutarete on May 24, 2013, 03:46:28 pm
Quote from: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:45:28 pm
Comparing an upgraded card to an unupgraded card is apples to oranges.
I'm not comparing the card so much as I'm comparing the stats.

And the stats of an upgraded card differ from unupgraded by up to 3 quanta. You could compare it to Abyss Crawler and it wouldn't matter.
Fine then, we'll take it out of upped/unupped context

You have a 1/1 for 1, a 2/4 for 1, and a 1/1 for 1 that can copy itself. Which do you choose? Not the first one.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: Nepycros on May 24, 2013, 03:54:34 pm
I still state a 2/4 for 1 doesn't count. If it were unupped, it'd be 2/4 for 2, thanks to the cost calculator.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: skyironsword on May 24, 2013, 03:59:46 pm
Think of horned frog. That might be a fair comparison unupped.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 24, 2013, 04:08:58 pm
We can expect additional duration mechanics, weather be on the field or in hand.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: skyironsword on May 24, 2013, 06:11:40 pm
I don't think you mean weather. :-\
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 28, 2013, 01:41:18 am
So, What was decided here?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: artimies7 on May 28, 2013, 07:37:52 pm
Quote from: EmeraldTiger on May 28, 2013, 01:41:18 am
So, What was decided here?

That I'm bumping this thread because this is a nice mechanic.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: traceurling on May 28, 2013, 08:05:13 pm
interesting mechanic
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 29, 2013, 05:41:17 pm
So this is good the way it is?
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: artimies7 on May 29, 2013, 06:06:44 pm
Well, when the unupped text says "Ageless gains +1|+1, and cost an additional :time for *snip*" it shouldn't have the comma there, and in both versions 'cost' should be 'costs' for grammar.

Other than that, yeah it's good.
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: EmeraldTiger on May 29, 2013, 06:17:42 pm
fixed
Title: Re: Ageless | Ageless Ancient
Post by: OdinVanguard on May 29, 2013, 07:18:17 pm
Quote from: skyironsword on May 24, 2013, 03:35:53 pm
Give me one reason I would use Photon over Ageless.
Ageless will get more expensive than photon unless you use it the turn you draw it.

There are situations where it is better to wait to play a creature rather than just shotgun them as they come in.

These would generally involve waiting to play creatures until you draw a counter to a particular threat. E.g. SoP to avoid getting eaten by otyughs or shot down by owl's eye.
Waiting till you have a fractal to compensate for potential CC.

Also, if you put these in a non-time deck, silence would really suck!

In general though, I think you are right, this will probably overshadow photon pretty significantly
blarg: