Gargoyle | Gargoyle

[Terroking]

New to the game, so I have nothing to contribute to the design/balance of the card. The art raised enough of a red flag that I wanted to comment on it.

http://magiccards.info/query?q=tower%20gargoyle

I don't see anything in the Art forum specifically forbidding imitating copyrighted artwork, but the fact that I was immediately able to identify the piece it was copied from doesn't seem right. Maybe it's an acceptable practice, I don't know, just wanted to point it out after seeing no mention of it in six pages of discussion.

Zanz has used mock art on several cards before they went live. I'd assume this is just another.

I'm sure I already said that...

Don't hold me to it though

Yes, like Blood said, the upgrade could very likely have 7 attack, since +3/+3 is around what vanilla creatures usually get for upgrades (Not dragons ofc)

[jmizzle7]

Yes, like Blood said, the upgrade could very likely have 7 attack, since +3/+3 is around what vanilla creatures usually get for upgrades (Not dragons ofc)

+3/+3, really? Horned Frog only gets +2/+0, Cockatrice gets +1/+1, Graviton Mercenary gets no bonus, Hematite Golem gets +2/+3, Flesh & Phase Spiders get +3/+0. The only creature in Elements that gets +3/+3 upon upgrade is Blue Crawler, from 3|3 to 6|6, and it used to not be that way (Abyss Crawler was 5|5 in all versions prior to 1.21). So I would hardly say that +3/+3 is a typical upgrade for a vanilla creature. I could see the upgrade with 7 attack, though. It seems reasonable.

[wassd13]

can anyone else see this fractal and fire nymphs?

[Belthazar666]

can anyone else see this fractal and fire nymphs?

No. Sounds too damn bulky of a deck, considering you would need at the very least earth mark, some aether towers, LOTS of dark towers to play these, and LOTS of fire towers to fuel your nymphs.

[wassd13]

can anyone else see this fractal and fire nymphs?

No. Sounds too damn bulky of a deck, considering you would need at the very least earth mark, some aether towers, LOTS of dark towers to play these, and LOTS of fire towers to fuel your nymphs.

no you see cremation on sparks both free and more fire quanta so you need less fire towers and and you wouldnt need that many dark towers

[Belthazar666]

can anyone else see this fractal and fire nymphs?

No. Sounds too damn bulky of a deck, considering you would need at the very least earth mark, some aether towers, LOTS of dark towers to play these, and LOTS of fire towers to fuel your nymphs.

no you see cremation on sparks both free and more fire quanta so you need less fire towers and and you wouldnt need that many dark towers

You'd need one cremation to put out one nymph, one nymph is really slow. Then, you need one more cremation just to pay for 3 boosts. Rage potions would end up being better.

[Xinef]

You'd need one cremation to put out one nymph, one nymph is really slow. Then, you need one more cremation just to pay for 3 boosts. Rage potions would end up being better.

Also, as much as adding aether is not at all recommended because you need and for this deck, if you really intend to do so PU would be much better than fractal. Boost one gargoyle and copy it for 6 and you gain much better results than having to pay 5 for each gargoyle.

Still deck with immolation to get and would be so much more consistent I guess
mark + quicksands could be also deadly

[wassd13]

You'd need one cremation to put out one nymph, one nymph is really slow. Then, you need one more cremation just to pay for 3 boosts. Rage potions would end up being better.

Also, as much as adding aether is not at all recommended because you need and for this deck, if you really intend to do so PU would be much better than fractal. Boost one gargoyle and copy it for 6 and you gain much better results than having to pay 5 for each gargoyle.

Still deck with immolation to get and would be so much more consistent I guess
mark + quicksands could be also deadly

i like your idea better but i like to try fractaling stuff so i would still use aether

[FallenSoul]

excuse me, i don't get it so much.. isn't gargoyle 5/3 with only 5 of quantum +0/+20 a little bit too powerful? (in the picture it isn't upgraded too..)
it's true that armagio is 2/30, but i usually don't take armagio down 'cause killing it tooks too much (when it's possibile..)..
(the same goes for colossal dragon.. )
but armagio has only 2 in attack.. (with the same quantum cost) and colossal dragon quantum cost is high.
i guess most of the player just "ignore" armagio when it comes into play (upgraded or not) instead of taking him down.. (and it's ability make it a target..)
but if it has more power attack than a burrowed shrieker is very annoying and too much powerful.. (and this thing is gargoyle)
i think that if it have 5 attack power it's better with an ability that grants him less hp, like +0/+13,..., +0/+15, ..., -1/+15, etc.. or something like that
i'm not interested so much in something like his type of quantum, but i think that the gameplay it would be better overpowering it a little, or adding quantum cost to it's ability (it cost as basilisk blood, but don't have it's negative effect.. and the only other bonus to creature's hp that cost 1 quantum is +0/+6...)

[Xinef]

excuse me, i don't get it so much.. isn't gargoyle 5/3 with only 5 of quantum +0/+20 a little bit too powerful? (in the picture it isn't upgraded too..)

The very fact that it starts as a 5/3 creature and you can only use his ability next turn makes it much more vulnerable than armagio. You can kill a gargoyle with a lightning, a shockwave, a firestorm, an eagle eye, you can eat it with an otyugh, you can lobotomize him to prevent him from using his ability. Gargoyles are much easier to kill than armagios as long as you have some early control.

I guess in most cases when a control deck fights a deck with gargoyles you might have problems killing the first few gargoyles (depending on your type of creature control), but later when you have your creature control arsenal set up you can simply kill gargoyles as they are played so you have to count their hp as 3, not 23.

On the other hand if you play no control so you don't care about hp, then gargoyle seems to be quite balanced in terms of attack/price, similar to other cards with an average attack.

[BluePriest]

As Ive already stated, I like the card, however, if the card was suppose to standout, then I think there wouldnt be any harm in making it a repeatable. I mean, there are only 6 rage potions you can have in a deck, so spamming it still wont be that good.

Gravity Pull wouldnt be any problem either. I mean, and at worst you could say that the ability cant be used over 50 HP, because I agree with everyone that this is just a mediocre card. (Which as I mentioned earlier, I see no problem with)

[MrBlonde]

excuse me, i don't get it so much.. isn't gargoyle 5/3 with only 5 of quantum +0/+20 a little bit too powerful? (in the picture it isn't upgraded too..)
it's true that armagio is 2/30, but i usually don't take armagio down 'cause killing it tooks too much (when it's possibile..)..
(the same goes for colossal dragon.. )
but armagio has only 2 in attack.. (with the same quantum cost) and colossal dragon quantum cost is high.

Honestly you can think of the gargoyle as death's 1 quanta more "mummy". They both are 5/3 unupped and both have other abilities that need different quanta. Like mentioned before this just increases the synergy with earth. With burrowed devourers and 5/23 gargoyles an unupped mono-darkness deck with earth mark doesn't seem so bad. I just wish mummy had this kind of synergy with death/time.