Flying Fish | Flying Fish (Elite)

[Essence]

Check.  Approval remains.

[ratcharmer]

I like it

I do think the ability should cost  though, otherwise the upgraded guys would be really easy to rush.

It's  for a 4 damage a turn creature otherwise

[tyranim]

i dont know. it seems a little powerful, but ive been wrong before. all you need to do is make a water/light deck and you have an extremely powerful rush deck. hell, you dont even need to include water quanta, you can just splash it (pun intended).

[unionruler]

I think if you wanted to make a flying fish card, you ought to make it airborne half the time and not airborne half the time. And probably the dive should only be applicable to the turn that it's not airborne ie dives back into the water. Would be a waste of the unique concept of flying fish if you left it as a small creature to be buffed and dived, and also unrealistic if it's always airborne.

[Schattenfresser]

I changed the card again to a suggestion from Puppy:
* increased the attack of both version by 1
* increased the ability cost back 1 

[tyranim]

hmm... now its a little op.... its really hard making such small costing cards. you have to hit it on the EXACT spot in order for it to be good, and ive gatta say, that is extremely hard

[Essence]

I no longer approve.  2|1 Dive for 1 is straight up OP, even if it is . 

My suggestion: make it 2|1  with : This creature gains "airborne" and it's attack power doubles.  Both effects end at the end of the turn.  That's about the upper limit of what a 1cc creature should be capable of, IMHO.

[crimsonflippa]

I no longer approve.  2|1 Dive for 1 is straight up OP, even if it is . 

My suggestion: make it 2|1  with : This creature gains "airborne" and it's attack power doubles.  Both effects end at the end of the turn.  That's about the upper limit of what a 1cc creature should be capable of, IMHO.

Don't you think that with the current stats, making the cost  and ability  is enough?

[Snopel]

Maybe if you reverted it back to a weakling with 1 to dive, you could have made a production card! =P

Just a little idea. You don't have to take it, and maybe this is a little OP anyway. =\

[Essence]

Yes, a cost of and an activation cost of is perfect.

[PuppyChow]

It isn't OP.

Let's compare it to giant frog, a 5/3 creature for 2  . Flying fish is effectively a 6/1 for 1  + a 1  upkeep each turn (this is assuming you dive every turn).

So which is more powerful? The one that costs 2 quanta for 5 attack and 3 defense, or the one that costs 1 quanta + 1 quanta of a different element every turn for 6 attack and 1 defense?

To me, giant frog is stronger. Flying fish has synergy with blessing however, which evens it out (and you're looking at a water/air/light trio).

[Schattenfresser]

@unit: Yes, making a creature with low cost isn't easy. That's why I try different version of the card and look what the people think about it.

@essence: Why is it op right now? The upped version of the previous version was stronger (2|1 with 0 cost Dive) and you had no problem with it. Yes, it is stronger as the other 1 quantum cost creatures like Ash Eater as it has an additional offensive ability. But it's when you want to use it, it isn't stronger as the older version as you can't easily boost it while using only a 2 element deck.
And the cost of 3 would make the card useless. Nobody would pay it only to get a 4|1 for 1 turn.

@crimsonflippa (and Essence): When I would increase the cost to  , then I need to increase the stats, too. As puppy said, the Frog is stronger.  can even boost the attack of the frog, while you need a 3rd element to boost the attack of the Flying Fish.

@Snopel: The production card wouldn't change, that the ability of the fish would be useless as nobody would use it. And 25hp for 7 and creature generating ability is op.