Seraph | Seraph

[Poker Alho]

don't have much to say about card.  i'm not that good for normal game play or card tester.   

but if you try to look at armory(lvl3 card idea),  it's only 1 fire card surviving (don't count forge(lvl2) cuz it's 100% to get some fire card every mounth)

so for me.  fire card is a bit harder and hard for an interesting idea.   

---

just idea for card ability.   what about  creature with  skill that make anything that target targeted creature get dmg?   

that ability has nothing to do with  theme at all

[karis]

what is the  theme you're talking about?   

is  is a thing you use to draw a card (or anything fantasy themed that you should use instead of "draw a card" word) for sundial?  no  it's not.    right?   

what should i try to say is.  it's not only  but  theme.  just like  theme.  so maybe protecting your creature with a holy magic flame barier should be in theme?   

[Atico]

I think fire needs something off-the-norm. Something unique.
An easily displaced creature is def not the way to go.

Fire (and Darkness) has got the best unique thing in game - it is "All in One Element". You have got the best PC, the best CC etc. Life or Light hasn't got PC and CC. Huge difference. It isn't good for game, when some elements can do all.
If Fire needs something it should be as Permament. It isn't fair that the best element for PC hasn't got Permaments other than shield or weapon. It is like situation "I can kill You, but You can't kill me"...

We have got very stupid situation in game. When You play Fire/Darkness and opponent play Life or Light then we have situation when You can do all against him (kill creature, heal from vampire, destroy or steal permament, put big damage etc) and You know that he can do nothing for You... I always thought that this game needs to be rebalanced. I can accept that Fire or Darkness are very powerful Elements, but having Fire/Darkness cards should also have negative effects (for example when You use Heal and Your opponent has got Fire/Darkness Mark then deal 20 damage) or other situation - when You have Life/Air/Light mark You give positive effects (like gain automatically (no by card) 5HP for each destroy creature or something else). Today there is no risk to play Fire and there is a lot of advantages. It should be changed, playing Fire/Darkness should be very powerful but with a lot of risk.

i disagree with you,  cannot easily beat 

  has only immaterial shields and swords, wich makes the PC useless on those permanents
 sanctuary renders pest useless, holy light kills  in general
although fire has great CC options and great rushing ability, life can end up outhealing it and can even be resistant to CC when paired up with  using the angel. besides the fact that  cant do anything against  permanents too, there's not much left to say

I also disagree with You. There is a lot of interesting cards when You can use PC like Steal EmpathicBond, destroy SoG, shield etc. Rember also that Fire and Darkness has got CC - so easy kill Your Life Dragon (RageElixir, FireBolt), or RoF against Frogs ouuuch Fire has got the same rush as Life or better because the best decks in TTW are often from Fire, not Life. So Your argument isn't so good. You said about healing - yes, but how much Heal You can use when I have deck with 4-5 turns to win? 1? 2 Heals? And You lose quantum which I can use for next creature... Situation when You use Heal and You gain +20HP, opponent -20HP is interesting concept here. Really, Fire, Darkness and maybe Entropy should have more negative effects in other cards. Water should laugh at Fire. Light should laugh at Darkness. There are a lot of possibilities to balance the game. And on the other hand - Air should have bonus (maybe airborne creatures shouldn't be target by few spells), Life too. Now in game we will have more tactics, more fun

[Cel]

I also disagree with You. There is a lot of interesting cards when You can use PC like Steal EmpathicBond, destroy SoG, shield etc. Rember also that Fire and Darkness has got CC - so easy kill Your Life Dragon (RageElixir, FireBolt), or RoF against Frogs ouuuch Fire has got the same rush as Life or better because the best decks in TTW are often from Fire, not Life. So Your argument isn't so good. You said about healing - yes, but how much Heal You can use when I have deck with 4-5 turns to win? 1? 2 Heals? And You lose quantum which I can use for next creature... Situation when You use Heal and You gain +20HP, opponent -20HP is interesting concept here. Really, Fire, Darkness and maybe Entropy should have more negative effects in other cards. Water should laugh at Fire. Light should laugh at Darkness. There are a lot of possibilities to balance the game. And on the other hand - Air should have bonus (maybe airborne creatures shouldn't be target by few spells), Life too. Now in game we will have more tactics, more fun

I don't agree - Water shouldn't be an insta-win versus fire. Each element has an thematic opposite, just because they are opposite they don't counter each other, or even a game play opposite. Right now elemental opposites hardly even matter, as some of the best duos are opposites. (I.E: Water-Fire, Time-Aether, Entropy-Gravity.)

[Poker Alho]

I think fire needs something off-the-norm. Something unique.
An easily displaced creature is def not the way to go.

Fire (and Darkness) has got the best unique thing in game - it is "All in One Element". You have got the best PC, the best CC etc. Life or Light hasn't got PC and CC. Huge difference. It isn't good for game, when some elements can do all.
If Fire needs something it should be as Permament. It isn't fair that the best element for PC hasn't got Permaments other than shield or weapon. It is like situation "I can kill You, but You can't kill me"...

We have got very stupid situation in game. When You play Fire/Darkness and opponent play Life or Light then we have situation when You can do all against him (kill creature, heal from vampire, destroy or steal permament, put big damage etc) and You know that he can do nothing for You... I always thought that this game needs to be rebalanced. I can accept that Fire or Darkness are very powerful Elements, but having Fire/Darkness cards should also have negative effects (for example when You use Heal and Your opponent has got Fire/Darkness Mark then deal 20 damage) or other situation - when You have Life/Air/Light mark You give positive effects (like gain automatically (no by card) 5HP for each destroy creature or something else). Today there is no risk to play Fire and there is a lot of advantages. It should be changed, playing Fire/Darkness should be very powerful but with a lot of risk.

i disagree with you,  cannot easily beat 

  has only immaterial shields and swords, wich makes the PC useless on those permanents
 sanctuary renders pest useless, holy light kills  in general
although fire has great CC options and great rushing ability, life can end up outhealing it and can even be resistant to CC when paired up with  using the angel. besides the fact that  cant do anything against  permanents too, there's not much left to say

I also disagree with You. There is a lot of interesting cards when You can use PC like Steal EmpathicBond, destroy SoG, shield etc. Rember also that Fire and Darkness has got CC - so easy kill Your Life Dragon (RageElixir, FireBolt), or RoF against Frogs ouuuch Fire has got the same rush as Life or better because the best decks in TTW are often from Fire, not Life. So Your argument isn't so good. You said about healing - yes, but how much Heal You can use when I have deck with 4-5 turns to win? 1? 2 Heals? And You lose quantum which I can use for next creature... Situation when You use Heal and You gain +20HP, opponent -20HP is interesting concept here. Really, Fire, Darkness and maybe Entropy should have more negative effects in other cards. Water should laugh at Fire. Light should laugh at Darkness. There are a lot of possibilities to balance the game. And on the other hand - Air should have bonus (maybe airborne creatures shouldn't be target by few spells), Life too. Now in game we will have more tactics, more fun

did you even read what i wrote? the fact that the ttw from a  rush is better than a  rush means nothing when you put one against another

you say  cant outheal... i think you forget that while i use heal to stall your rush, you are losing life as well from  critters, that have a quanta discount for being 

about CC i already said what i had to say

[xdude]

Meh. I am not sold on this card for several reasons:

• Fire is already one of the strongest elements in the game. It didn't need another card.
• This card doesn't feel any specific purpose. I'm all for adding semi-vanillca cards, but what about adding mid-high attackers for elements that really need it, like Gravity and Light?
• It might buff Firestall. Ew.

[BluePriest]

Meh. I am not sold on this card for several reasons:

• Fire is already one of the strongest elements in the game. It didn't need another card.
• This card doesn't feel any specific purpose. I'm all for adding semi-vanillca cards, but what about adding mid-high attackers for elements that really need it, like Gravity and Light?
• It might buff Firestall. Ew.

Really... 1 is completely irrelevant to ANYTHING
2 is just 1 in different wording
3 is the only relatively relevant point, which doesn't have anything at this point to back it up yet. 

[moomoose]

i disagree with your retorts- with new cards being so few and far between, the selection of which element gets them and how much they impact the game is amplified.  in this case, the element doesnt need the card nor does it have seem to have much of a niche, outside of potentially being used in stall decks, which dont need a boost.

[OldTrees]

Meh. I am not sold on this card for several reasons:

• Fire is already one of the strongest elements in the game. It didn't need another card.
• This card doesn't feel any specific purpose. I'm all for adding semi-vanillca cards, but what about adding mid-high attackers for elements that really need it, like Gravity and Light?
• It might buff Firestall. Ew.

Really... 1 is completely irrelevant to ANYTHING
2 is just 1 in different wording
3 is the only relatively relevant point, which doesn't have anything at this point to back it up yet.

2 was about Seraph being redundant with Phoenix and Crimson Dragon. This is a very important point and a criticism that Napalm and I also hold.

[BluePriest]

Meh. I am not sold on this card for several reasons:

• Fire is already one of the strongest elements in the game. It didn't need another card.
• This card doesn't feel any specific purpose. I'm all for adding semi-vanillca cards, but what about adding mid-high attackers for elements that really need it, like Gravity and Light?
• It might buff Firestall. Ew.

Really... 1 is completely irrelevant to ANYTHING
2 is just 1 in different wording
3 is the only relatively relevant point, which doesn't have anything at this point to back it up yet.

2 was about Seraph being redundant with Phoenix and Crimson Dragon. This is a very important point and a criticism that Napalm and I also hold.

The reason why 2 is no different is because it starts off saying he is agrees with what seraph is trying to accomplish, but then downs it again because he would rather it be for another element, which is what 1 is about.

Dont get me wrong, seraph isnt needed. I agree. But Im not going to say dont add it or change it because of that reason.

[xdude]

Meh. I am not sold on this card for several reasons:

• Fire is already one of the strongest elements in the game. It didn't need another card.
• This card doesn't feel any specific purpose. I'm all for adding semi-vanillca cards, but what about adding mid-high attackers for elements that really need it, like Gravity and Light?
• It might buff Firestall. Ew.

Really... 1 is completely irrelevant to ANYTHING
2 is just 1 in different wording
3 is the only relatively relevant point, which doesn't have anything at this point to back it up yet.

2 was about Seraph being redundant with Phoenix and Crimson Dragon. This is a very important point and a criticism that Napalm and I also hold.

The reason why 2 is no different is because it starts off saying he is agrees with what seraph is trying to accomplish, but then downs it again because he would rather it be for another element, which is what 1 is about.

Dont get me wrong, seraph isnt needed. I agree. But Im not going to say dont add it or change it because of that reason.

No, what I said is that I am all for vanilla cards, but they have to go to elements that need them. I am not delusionall, I know this card will get through, but it is just bad design to give a useless card to an element that needs no card rather than working on cards that can actually fill a purpose in the game.

[Max Fire]

I find this creature very good and with enough light mana, we can protect this creature only when we want.
So it's like the player can target his own creature and not the opponent
but we musn't forget that this creature can be killed by a simple fire shield or a spine carapace.