Decaying Dragon | Dragonic Horror

[Camoninja]

I agree with Nik_V in that it should be an Other card because one thing I noticed about the Other costing cards, besides Spark, (which by some of these arguments belongs in Death because of the Death effects) all of the ones not in Other either cost or produce quanta that is not Other in either the unupped or upped forms. Luciferin and Photon make Light so they belong in Light.
This should go in Other because it works extremely well in immolation rushes by sucking up the extra quanta that cremation makes. We don't want to limit strategies by predisposing players do we?
This might not be clear at the moment because I just typed it on the spot on a kindle. So if I remember I will reread and edit later for clarity.

And BloodShadow, I think he only meant that it didn't work in convincing him.

[OldTrees]

I have been summoned.

There are 2 debates:
Is this an other or a Death card?
What is a balanced cost?

Is this an other or a Death card?
If a card is cast using a lot of non then its Cost is thematically non Death.
If a card is powered using decay or something that is decaying then it's thematically Death. (uh oh)
If a card is added to a series it should maintain the symmetry of the series. (More support for Other)
If a card is designed with the purpose to create Death Triggers then that aspect is thematically Death. (2v2?)
Verdict: It is conflicted. This is a problem and it is the reason both sides are sure they are right on this issue. I ordered these reasons from most to least important in my opinion. The result is that while conflicted to a fault, it fits best as an other card.

What is a balanced cost?
Nova + Decaying Dragon | Dragonic Horror = 27|40 damage
Cost for OTK: 3 Novas, 4 Decaying Dragons | 3 Dragonic Horrors = 7|6 cards for a 3|4 turn win. (Wow expensive but very powerful)

What can Immolation do with 7 cards?
2x Immolation, 2x Sacrifice, 1 Crimson Dragon, 1 Grabiod [Earth Mark], 1 Lycanthrope = 12+1/12+2+6/12+8+6 = 13+20+26 = 59 damage in 3 turns
(Results in a turn 5 overkill win but is more likely to occur)

By theory:
See ZBlader's post about my theory. I would have assign the ability a +0 not a -2 since the game is over so fast. This results in final costs of 13 |13 which would reduce the god hand (unlikely to occur best hand) to a turn 4 victory and increase a similar cost Immolation hand to a similar victory.

Final Conclusions: Changing it to Other due to high (6+) non investment and perhaps increasing the cost to 13 |13 .

[Bloodshadow]

I don't understand. Why are you still debating on whether this card is Other or Death? It hardly matters, except Death cards are buffed by Nightfall and killed by Holy Light. Flavor-wise this card is Death, and Zblader wants it to be Death, so it is Death.

And BloodShadow, I think he only meant that it didn't work in convincing him.

He declared that this card is objectively OP, without giving any valid reason or counter-argument. That's one of the best ways to kill yourself in a debate.

[Tiko]

For you and part of the community, maybe. However a good part of the community seems to think it is balanced as well/would probably require actual playtesting.

I suggest going back and looking at the quantum formula/equation I posted earlier - if you can find anything wrong with this I will be willing to discuss with you about this card. If not, then please do not keep saying "OP" until you give me a counter to my arguments (you failed to respond to my Void Dragon argument as well - I had to bump that for a response from different users). I have stated an argument with facts and even the math to show that is balance - all you have said is that it's OP because of Nova.

For anyone that comes here : please read the thread before posting something. The things people are pointing out are beginning to get repetitive or ignorant-sounding, and I appreciate constructive criticism from users aware of what has already been discussed much more than destructive criticism.

I apologize if it sounded 'ignorant', that wasn't the goal.

I clearly see that it's another take on Bloodshadow's other dragon (which has it's own flaws in the current Elements mechanics, but still, it benefits your opponent in some way), and I've read all the responses and the math even - but that doesn't change anything with the possibility of the fact I pointed out. I have stated my opinion, and found no answer yet, why is it balanced to put out multiple of these dragons on the turn before your opponent joins the play.

EDIT:

Excuse me, but are you so presumptuous to think that you are some sort of authority figure? You are not Zanzarino. You do not hold the right to declare "this card is OP", or "your arguments at balancing do not work". Either you counter every single one of Zblader's argument while bringing new arguments of your own, or do not say anything at all. A single post claiming "nope, it didn't work" accomplishes absolutely nothing constructive whatsoever.

As I said before, I pointed out a possibility in current gameplay mechanics. And no, I hold no authority, or whatsoever, though I still hold some common sense. And no need for making it this personal, Bloodshadow.

Here's the constructive criticism, the same as my previous statements, without the need for imagination:

• One single nova gives you 12 quanta total; for free.
  
  
• One single cremation (which is free) on a photon (which is also free) gives you 18 quanta total (though you need 2 cards for this).
  

Provided you have a great starting hand, it's not much of an effort to play 2-3 of these dargons, and even more on a perfect. All this happening right after the coin toss.

Anyway, as I see it, Oldtrees made a more clear explanation, so there's no need for further arguments with me.

[Nepycros]

For you and part of the community, maybe. However a good part of the community seems to think it is balanced as well/would probably require actual playtesting.

I suggest going back and looking at the quantum formula/equation I posted earlier - if you can find anything wrong with this I will be willing to discuss with you about this card. If not, then please do not keep saying "OP" until you give me a counter to my arguments (you failed to respond to my Void Dragon argument as well - I had to bump that for a response from different users). I have stated an argument with facts and even the math to show that is balance - all you have said is that it's OP because of Nova.

For anyone that comes here : please read the thread before posting something. The things people are pointing out are beginning to get repetitive or ignorant-sounding, and I appreciate constructive criticism from users aware of what has already been discussed much more than destructive criticism.

I apologize if it sounded 'ignorant', that wasn't the goal.

I clearly see that it's another take on Bloodshadow's other dragon (which has it's own flaws in the current Elements mechanics, but still, it benefits your opponent in some way), and I've read all the responses and the math even - but that doesn't change anything with the possibility of the fact I pointed out. I have stated my opinion, and found no answer yet, why is it balanced to put out multiple of these dragons on the turn before your opponent joins the play.

EDIT:

Excuse me, but are you so presumptuous to think that you are some sort of authority figure? You are not Zanzarino. You do not hold the right to declare "this card is OP", or "your arguments at balancing do not work". Either you counter every single one of Zblader's argument while bringing new arguments of your own, or do not say anything at all. A single post claiming "nope, it didn't work" accomplishes absolutely nothing constructive whatsoever.

As I said before, I pointed out a possibility in current gameplay mechanics. And no, I hold no authority, or whatsoever, though I still hold some common sense. And no need for making it this personal, Bloodshadow.

Here's the constructive criticism, the same as my previous statements, without the need for imagination:

• One single nova gives you 12 quanta total; for free.
  
  
• One single cremation (which is free) on a photon (which is also free) gives you 18 quanta total (though you need 2 cards for this).
  

Provided you have a great starting hand, it's not much of an effort to play 2-3 of these dargons, and even more on a perfect. All this happening right after the coin toss.

Anyway, as I see it, Oldtrees made a more clear explanation, so there's no need for further arguments with me.

Couldn't I say the exact same thing about an immophoenix, or an immolation-dragon deck? Do not forget that this card is only as good a rush as any other card. If you get a lucky starting hand in ANY good deck, you'll likely pull off an amazing strategy.

[ZephyrPhantom]

@tiko, your possibilty is the "God Hand" possibility that Oldtrees states is unlikely to occur. I would not balance it based on that.

@Oldtrees
2vs2. A tie, but:

Is this an other or a Death card?
If a card is cast using a lot of non then its Cost is thematically non Death.
If a card is powered using decay or something that is decaying then it's thematically Death. (uh oh)
About this - it is possible to be a necromancer not affiliated with Death. You may not be liked for it, but it's possible to resurrect Zombies and be affiliated with non-Darkness or death-type factions. I based it on the theory that if a non-death elemental was doing this it would like a spell in an RPG that implies strong traits of a certain faction but is widely accesible to all factions due to the manufacturing
If a card is added to a series it should maintain the symmetry of the series. (More support for Other)
This a very weak argument. I in no way plan to add this a series.
If a card is designed with the purpose to create Death Triggers then that aspect is thematically Death. (2v2?)
Verdict: It is conflicted. This is a problem and it is the reason both sides are sure they are right on this issue. I ordered these reasons from most to least important in my opinion. The result is that while conflicted to a fault, it fits best as an other card.

I would conclude it is more 2vs1.5. The card should be in Death then.

Elements games do proceed very quickly, but a stall has the potential to outheal a Decayed Dragon's damage and make the game last longer. In the stall scenario with cards like SoG, Miracle, Phase Shield and Fire Shield, Decayed Dragon would be outhealed and die it's lifespan, leaving a still-standing opponent - chaining Phase Shield especially hurt this card.

My lower cost apparently results from taking consideration of how this card doesn't go so well in stalls. The "God Hand" three turn kill mentioned itself is stopped by the interference of any DR or haxx shield(in addition to Phase Shield), CC, or regeneration (SoG, Sanctuary, drain life, etc.). As Nepycros has stated, other rushes do exist, and probably much better ones than just a deck with Nova and Decayed Dragon (6 precogs can speed up the deck, but you can't play them all at once. The other 18 cards in the deck are very likely to slow down the rush as well).

I think the cost differentiation of -0-2 is debatable, considering the wide variety of deck types in elements.

[OldTrees]

Is this an other or a Death card?
If a card is cast using a lot of non then its Cost is thematically non Death.
If a card is powered using decay or something that is decaying then it's thematically Death. (uh oh)
About this - it is possible to be a necromancer not affiliated with Death. You may not be liked for it, but it's possible to resurrect Zombies and be affiliated with non-Darkness or death-type factions. I based it on the theory that if a non-death elemental was doing this it would like a spell in an RPG that implies strong traits of a certain faction but is widely accesible to all factions due to the manufacturing
If a card is added to a series it should maintain the symmetry of the series. (More support for Other)
This a very weak argument. I in no way plan to add this a series.
If a card is designed with the purpose to create Death Triggers then that aspect is thematically Death. (2v2?)
Verdict: It is conflicted. This is a problem and it is the reason both sides are sure they are right on this issue. I ordered these reasons from most to least important in my opinion. The result is that while conflicted to a fault, it fits best as an other card.

I would conclude it is more 2vs1.5. The card should be in Death then.

A non-death elemental (the necromancer) can use bone pillars to power Necrotic spells. However necrotic spells would belong in the school of Necromancy even though Conjurers can cast them using a necrotic energy source.

This is a dragon and thus is part of the dragon series. You could change it so it is not part of that series which would tip the balance back to 2v1 in favor of death.

I agree that there is not much difference between 10 and 13 random quanta. 10 should be close enough until playtesting. I will point out I was comparing rushing god hand to rushing god hand and thus the effect of stalls weakening the result is paralleled.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I don't know about changing the dragon... there's just something thematically intimidating about it as a dragon, I suppose. A Zombification of another creature just doesn't seem as well fit as the current incarnation.

[OldTrees]

I don't know about changing the dragon... there's just something thematically intimidating about it as a dragon, I suppose. A Zombification of another creature just doesn't seem as well fit as the current incarnation.

Try a colossus? Giant? Worm?

[Flayne]

I dont like the change in the card, it seems too much of waste even with rainbow decks for it to die in 3-4 turns,  when the opponent can just easily recuperate the damage.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I don't know about changing the dragon... there's just something thematically intimidating about it as a dragon, I suppose. A Zombification of another creature just doesn't seem as well fit as the current incarnation.

Try a colossus? Giant? Worm?

Colossus and giant imply high stamina, so I'd imagine it would cause higher HP which in turn might imbalance the card.
Worm sounds a bit more midhitterish.

I dont like the change in the card, it seems too much of waste even with rainbow decks for it to die in 3-4 turns,  when the opponent can just easily recuperate the damage.

It's needed as a balancing factor - high-cost creatures in Other tend to be frowned upon unless given something powerful enough to compensate. Self-destruction appears to be that effect.

[Nepycros]

Doomed Golem | Cursed Golem?