Coalescence | Coalescence / Common Ancestor | Common Ancestor

[Drake_XIV]

And would that not be fair for the current, although leaning much to the cost inefficient side?

[OldTrees]

And would that not be fair for the current, although leaning much to the cost inefficient side?

No. A 2|2 is not worth 4 + 1 card. A cost of 1-2 would fit the current 2|2 version.

[Drake_XIV]

What of 4 ?  Would that be justifiable for a 2|2?

[OldTrees]

What of 4 ?  Would that be justifiable for a 2|2?

Yes.

[Werdbooty]

Food for thought, thanks guys. I think a quanta cost would be more in keeping with Ancestor as well.

Just so I'm reading you right, we're looking at Coalescence costing 3 & 4 , un-upped & upped respectively. The un-upped would generate a 1|1 Ancestor, the upped a 2|2 Ancestor. Common Ancestor itself would gain +1|+1 for every other creature with the same element when Coalescence is cast. It would also have a casting cost of...say, 3 quanta of its element for the un-upped, and 4 for the upped?

[esran]

if you use the idea that ancestor gains +1/+1 for every creauture of its elements, then i think ancestor should have a very high cost, becuase the fractal abuse could be insane. i say it should cost 5 of its element.

[Drake_XIV]

You know, before this is continued, it'd be best to see an updated version of the card...

[Werdbooty]

if you use the idea that ancestor gains +1/+1 for every creauture of its elements, then i think ancestor should have a very high cost, becuase the fractal abuse could be insane. i say it should cost 5 of its element.

My very thoughts

And yes, Drake is right. Before I go any further with this I'd like to update the card image to reflect the changes. I'll prolly get around to that later tonight. That being said, may as well address esran's point — Ancestor cost of 3 & 4 (+ 1 card), too low? Should the cost reflect the Ancestor's element, or is it cool as X ? It's been too long, I can't remember the rules for creatures with growth abilities.

On another note, are there any cards (other than the aforementioned Fractal) that could be put to abuse with Ancestor?

[esran]

to clarify my earliear point, i think coalescence should cost much less than common ancestor, in case i wasnt being clear. a good cost for coalescence would be 4/3 wile ancestor would be 5/5 of its element. note that i am not the best at balancing cards though. maybe you should make a poll?

[OldTrees]

to clarify my earliear point, i think coalescence should cost much less than common ancestor

Coalescence makes 1+ Common Ancestor
Common Ancestor makes 1 Common Ancestor
1+ => 1
Coalescence => Common Ancestor
Coalescence should cost equal or more than Common Ancestor costs

[esran]

i was saying for the version where common ancestor is more powerful based on how many creatures of that element. to clarify agian:
for the current version where ancestor is a 2/2, coalescense should cost more or equal.
for the discused version where ancestor is an x/x where x is equal to the number of creatures of its element in play when it is played, it should cos more because ones played with fractal or mitosis will be stronger than the first, and quickly generate huge ammounts of attack for cheap. the fact that coalescense generates multiple has nothing to do with it. in the proposed version, coalescense will always generate exactly as much attack power as the number of creatures in play. an ancestor will generate the number of attack power of the creatures of its element. this is technically not as much, but the fractal abuse is evident, as each ancestor will be stronger than the last.

[OldTrees]

i was saying for the version where common ancestor is more powerful based on how many creatures of that element. to clarify agian:
for the current version where ancestor is a 2/2, coalescense should cost more or equal.
for the discused version where ancestor is an x/x where x is equal to the number of creatures of its element in play when it is played, it should cos more because ones played with fractal or mitosis will be stronger than the first, and quickly generate huge ammounts of attack for cheap. the fact that coalescense generates multiple has nothing to do with it. in the proposed version, coalescense will always generate exactly as much attack power as the number of creatures in play. an ancestor will generate the number of attack power of the creatures of its element. this is technically not as much, but the fractal abuse is evident, as each ancestor will be stronger than the last.

Coalescense and Common Ancestor improve at the same rate (There is +1 creature and +1 creature of element X each time.)
Fractal use is evident but all 6 Coalescenses will still be used.

Are you suggesting that we assume that Common Ancestor will be played after the 5-6th Coalescence? Then you would be suggesting a 2 step cost system. The first 6 common ancestors would be cast using the lower price. The remaining common ancestors would be cast using Fractal + the higher cost. Fractal already uses a 2 step cost system for balance (Fractal's cost) so it is a useful model.