Elemental Spear | Elemental Spear

[Drake_XIV]

From the site:

Notes Regarding This Stock Illustration

This image is protected by copyright law and may not be used without buying a license.

It is licensed. There is no infinity CO symbol.

I see.

I assume when this is flown, it keeps the ability?

[Arum]

This completely dumps cards like eternity, druidic staff, owl's eye, and others in the dust. Not only does it act as a very cheap substitute for an elemental weapon, but it can also be brought out with 4 quanta and used by literally any element. This allows a weapon splash of any element into every deck.

*MARK!
It's still 4-5 quanta, WITH the ability.
You'll need the mark, and the quanta to use it. So it cannot just be dumped into any random deck. I'll make it 4-5. Fair enough?

>implying 4-5 quanta is a big deal. Hello quantum pillars and nova!
Most weapons are used almost solely because they have some neat ability. Using this just blows it all away. If we wanted fast damage, we'd all be using longswords.

I meant the card cost. Right now, this is 4 total, 5 upped.
if i make it 4-5, then it's 6-7 total.

[Arum]

From the site:

Notes Regarding This Stock Illustration

This image is protected by copyright law and may not be used without buying a license.

It is licensed. There is no infinity CO symbol.

I see.

I assume when this is flown, it keeps the ability?

Depends. Before it imbues, yes. After it imbues, yes.

[furballdn]

This completely dumps cards like eternity, druidic staff, owl's eye, and others in the dust. Not only does it act as a very cheap substitute for an elemental weapon, but it can also be brought out with 4 quanta and used by literally any element. This allows a weapon splash of any element into every deck.

*MARK!
It's still 4-5 quanta, WITH the ability.
You'll need the mark, and the quanta to use it. So it cannot just be dumped into any random deck. I'll make it 4-5. Fair enough?

>implying 4-5 quanta is a big deal. Hello quantum pillars and nova!
Most weapons are used almost solely because they have some neat ability. Using this just blows it all away. If we wanted fast damage, we'd all be using longswords.

I meant the card cost. Right now, this is 4 total, 5 upped.
if i make it 4-5, then it's 6-7 total.

That's another thing I need to point out. You get +1 price for +1 damage. Seriously? Long sword gets +3 atk +0 price when upped. Upping it is pointless. Secondly, creating a card like this is just a way to devalue rare weapons even more.

[Arum]

This completely dumps cards like eternity, druidic staff, owl's eye, and others in the dust. Not only does it act as a very cheap substitute for an elemental weapon, but it can also be brought out with 4 quanta and used by literally any element. This allows a weapon splash of any element into every deck.

*MARK!
It's still 4-5 quanta, WITH the ability.
You'll need the mark, and the quanta to use it. So it cannot just be dumped into any random deck. I'll make it 4-5. Fair enough?

>implying 4-5 quanta is a big deal. Hello quantum pillars and nova!
Most weapons are used almost solely because they have some neat ability. Using this just blows it all away. If we wanted fast damage, we'd all be using longswords.

I meant the card cost. Right now, this is 4 total, 5 upped.
if i make it 4-5, then it's 6-7 total.

That's another thing I need to point out. You get +1 price for +1 damage. Seriously? Long sword gets +3 atk +0 price when upped. Upping it is pointless. Secondly, creating a card like this is just a way to devalue rare weapons even more.

Alright, if you say so. . .



Why is this world going crazy?

[Captain Scibra]

I like the idea.  It loses some versatility should the mark not match the skill that is gained from the weapon of the element, like Pulverizer and Trident.  Also, it does appear to be too easily placed into a Nova deck for speedy play and simply running the skill on normal quanta means, but perhaps some testing in the Card Idea Battlefield will show it's potential and balance.

Thanks. Should I raise the cost by 1?

Probably best to judge it by the averages of all weapons since this is a relative effect.  Average cost is 3.5 (both grades).  Average attack is about 4.41, or 4.5 rounded, non-upgraded, and 5.5 upgraded.  Now, for cost, 3.5 is elemental, which here for an Other card is 10.5.  Lack of initiative with an extra turn needed to activate ability would be -1 element quanta, making it 7.5 cost.  With the attack here being .5 under the average for each grade as you have it now, it would mean the cost would be 7 total for both grades.  Decent number to make it a good bit slower than using the weapon itself, but also so it is tough for rainbows to get this out fast and efficiently.  So, with the current idea of the skill costing 2, I'd give both card grades a casting cost of 5.

[Arum]

I like the idea.  It loses some versatility should the mark not match the skill that is gained from the weapon of the element, like Pulverizer and Trident.  Also, it does appear to be too easily placed into a Nova deck for speedy play and simply running the skill on normal quanta means, but perhaps some testing in the Card Idea Battlefield will show it's potential and balance.

Thanks. Should I raise the cost by 1?

Probably best to judge it by the averages of all weapons since this is a relative effect.  Average cost is 3.5 (both grades).  Average attack is about 4.41, or 4.5 rounded, non-upgraded, and 5.5 upgraded.  Now, for cost, 3.5 is elemental, which here for an Other card is 10.5.  Lack of initiative with an extra turn needed to activate ability would be -1 element quanta, making it 7.5 cost.  With the attack here being .5 under the average for each grade as you have it now, it would mean the cost would be 7 total for both grades.  Decent number to make it a good bit slower than using the weapon itself, but also so it is tough for rainbows to get this out fast and efficiently.  So, with the current idea of the skill costing 2, I'd give both card grades a casting cost of 5.

Perfect analysis. Thank you.

[OldTrees]

This opening post has been reported to contain Copyrighted material. Either prove you have permission to use the image or remove the image ASAP.

1) We do not accept Google Images as an appropriate link to art. The correct link is http://www.illustrationsof.com/14181-royalty-free-spear-clipart-illustration.

2) While the image is on a Royalty free site, this particular image is still copyrighted by Rasmussen Images. Rasmussen Images require people buy the image prior to being able to use it as royalty free art. You have made no effort to prove you have a transferable ownership over the image.

3) You claim the art was licensed to you only. You make no effort to prove this claim.

[Arum]

This opening post has been reported to contain Copyrighted material. Either prove you have permission to use the image or remove the image ASAP.

1) We do not accept Google Images as an appropriate link to art. The correct link is http://www.illustrationsof.com/14181-royalty-free-spear-clipart-illustration.

2) While the image is on a Royalty free site, this particular image is still copyrighted by Rasmussen Images. Rasmussen Images require people buy the image prior to being able to use it as royalty free art. You have made no effort to prove you have a transferable ownership over the image.

3) You claim the art was licensed to you only. You make no effort to prove this claim.

Here is the email, stripped of all links that contain the image.


Hello,

Thank you for purchasing an image license from clipartof.com

You may download your image(s) from here
http://www.ClipartOf.com

Your Download

We have detailed downloading instructions for MAC and PC here:
http://www.ClipartOf.com/

If you have any difficulties with downloads, please do let me know.

Please note that your purchase will appear as 'Clipart Of LLC' on your statement.

We do not send out license agreements, however you can print it up from here.
http://www.ClipartOf.com

Please print it and archive it with your receipt.

If you purchased on behalf of a client, it is required that you provide them with the receipt, license agreement, and notify us of their name/business name in case a copyright infringment case should arise with their use.

If you feel like sharing, we always enjoy hearing about how our images will be used.


Item(s) purchased:


Image1: 14181
Amount1: 10
Description1: IllustrationsOf.com - Sharp Spear With a Carved Rock - Small JPG File
---------------------------------------------



Thank You,

Jamie Voetsch
www.ClipartOf.com
Clipart Of LLC
Toll Free: 877-245-8566
Outside USA and Canada: 541-245-8566

Become a fan, join us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/clipartofllc

[OldTrees]

Thank you for your quick reply.
Please change the card art to the downloaded, non watermarked version.

If you purchased on behalf of a client, it is required that you provide them with the receipt, license agreement, and notify us of their name/business name in case a copyright infringment case should arise with their use.

These will need to be made available to Zanz if Zanz decides to use this art. However I do not think you need to take action at this time.

PS: Averaging the weapons is a poor way of balancing. A more accurate, though still problematic, way of balancing would be to use the most expensive weapon. (It would be the most often copied)
5|5 (Common high weapon cost. Only unupped Eternity is higher.) -1 (Extra turn) +0 (activation cost of 2 is normal for weapons) = 4|4 elemental

PPS: 1 Elemental > 3 Other
X Elemental = 1.5 * (X+1) Other

[Arum]

No problem.

[moomoose]

wow, you *actually* paid for that image to be used? waste of 10 bucks, should have bought a steak instead and then used ms paint to draw a line with a pointy end.