Caterpillar Wand | Moth wand

[OldTrees]

well i actually like immaterial to prevent crusader abuse.

Crusader abuse would be expensive enough not to be a problem.

[manaboy100]

Immaterial to prevent ADRENALINE abuse :\

[Drake_XIV]

Immaterial to prevent ADRENALINE abuse :\

Well, the flying prevention effectively stops that before immaterial...

[AnnaMall]

Quick calculations: lose immaterial, light life duo, light mark, unupped, 30 vs 30 cards decks, with 2 pend start

Turn 3 wand, turn 3 crusader, turn 4 endow. So in 12 turns assuming no CC and  PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant at 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 17 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 12-13 by deckout depending on coin toss.

A more PC proof play style: turn 7 2x crusaders, turn 8 wand and endow both . So in 13 turns assuming no CC and  PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 18 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 13-14 by deckout depending on coin toss.

If my calculations are correct this looks a bit on the OP zone. IMO imaterial has to stay for the above reasons. Even vs PC a deckout is possible in 15-ish rounds.

What do you think?

[OldTrees]

quick calculations: lose immaterial, light life duo, unupped, 30 vs 30 cards decks.

If my calculations are correct this looks a bit on the OP zone. What do you think?

How fast does Crusader + a damage focused 3 cost weapon win?

[eaglgenes101]

What about having 0 (or negative) flying HP? That would force another card into an adrenamoth combo, weakening it enough to make it balanced without the current restrictions.

[esran]

this card might actually be good for the meta, encouraging large decks that dont depend on singular cards. these days every deck is a 30 card deck.

[AnnaMall]

What about having 0 (or negative) flying HP? That would force another card into an adrenamoth combo, weakening it enough to make it balanced without the current restrictions.

Hmm good and simple idea for going around "can not be animated".

[OldTrees]

Quick calculations: lose immaterial, light life duo, light mark, unupped, 30 vs 30 cards decks, with 2 pend start

Turn 3 wand, turn 3 crusader, turn 4 endow. So in 12 turns assuming no CC and  PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant at 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 17 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 12-13 by deckout depending on coin toss.

A more PC proof play style: turn 7 2x crusaders, turn 8 wand and endow both . So in 13 turns assuming no CC and  PC (endowed crusader is prety CC resistant 5/6), wand and crusader would have destroyed 18 opponents cards and another 12 normally drawn. A win in round 13-14 by deckout depending on coin toss.

If my calculations are correct this looks a bit on the OP zone. IMO imaterial has to stay for the above reasons. Even vs PC a deckout is possible in 15-ish rounds.

What do you think?

Let's compare to a 3 cost Arsenic (aka +1 cost +1 attack)

Turn 3 Arsenic+, turn 3 Crusader, turn 4 endow
By turn 12/13 Arsenic will have dealt 30/33 damage + 45/55 damage from poison. Crusader will have dealt 47/52 damage + 36/45 from poison. Total: 158/185 damage

Turn 7 2 Crusaders, Turn 8 Arsenic+ and endow both
By turn 13/14 each Crusader will have dealt 32/37 damage + 15/21 damage from poison. Arsenic+ will have dealt 18/21 damage +15/21 from poison. Total: 127/158 damage

[esran]

given oldtrees calculations and me actually stopping to think about it, i see no reason why this should be immaterial, or why it shouldnt be flyable.

[OldTrees]

given oldtrees calculations and me actually stopping to think about it, i see no reason why this should be immaterial, or why it shouldnt be flyable.

I am still worried about adrenaline. (Even with the assumption that it would be like Venom)

[esran]

adrenaline seems problematic given that this weapon is life element. simple solution is to mill on first succesful attack each turn