Chaos Lightning | Chaos Lightning

[furballdn]

Err, I don't really see how this card is better than lightning if you can't even aim it.

[OldTrees]

Err, I don't really see how this card is better than lightning if you can't even aim it.

It deals 5 damage to a random enemy creature without targeting the creature.
AKA it is Random but can bypass Immateriality.

[CCCombobreaker]

Maybe I misunderstand this card or the way immaterial works... But if spells that affect all creatures don't affect immaterial creatures, why would one that hits a random target affect them?

[furballdn]

Maybe I misunderstand this card or the way immaterial works... But if spells that affect all creatures don't affect immaterial creatures, why would one that hits a random target affect them?

This. Either way, the benefit of being able to hit immaterial stuff...Is it worth the risk of randomness and the extra quanta to cast?

[Xenocidius]

Indeed. Maybe it should deal damage to, say, 2 or 3 random enemy creatures?

[OldTrees]

Maybe I misunderstand this card or the way immaterial works... But if spells that affect all creatures don't affect immaterial creatures, why would one that hits a random target affect them?

Because it doesn't hit any targets. It affects 1 random creature.

[CCCombobreaker]

This is not sarcastic or belligerent.  I am trying to understand this mechanic and your last response didn't clarify the interaction so much as reiterate what I already knew.

Right now firestorm is the following: "Firestorm does 3 damage to all enemy creatures."
It does not target anything, but it still does not affect immaterial creatures. So my understanding was that immaterial is not just 'cannot be targeted by spells' but also 'is not affected by spells'.  They are still affected by shields, but that is a different interaction altogether.

But if firestorm instead said: "Firestorm does 3 damage to X creatures at random, where X is the number or creatures the enemy controls and no creature will be hit more than once"
Then it would hit immaterial creatures because it is affecting things at random?  In theory the two are the same... 3 damage to each creature.  But in practice you are saying that as is firstorm won't hit immaterial creatures but if rewritten to the second description it would?

[OldTrees]

This is not sarcastic or belligerent.  I am trying to understand this mechanic and your last response didn't clarify the interaction so much as reiterate what I already knew.

Right now firestorm is the following: "Firestorm does 3 damage to all enemy creatures."
It does not target anything, but it still does not affect immaterial creatures. So my understanding was that immaterial is not just 'cannot be targeted by spells' but also 'is not affected by spells'.  They are still affected by shields, but that is a different interaction altogether.

But if firestorm instead said: "Firestorm does 3 damage to X creatures at random, where X is the number or creatures the enemy controls and no creature will be hit more than once"
Then it would hit immaterial creatures because it is affecting things at random?  In theory the two are the same... 3 damage to each creature.  But in practice you are saying that as is firstorm won't hit immaterial creatures but if rewritten to the second description it would?

I am a MtG player as well.

By only looking at the effects and not directly at the code (if the code contradicts it has authority) Immaterial works identical to Shroud which prevents a creature from being targeted. (try using Devour on an Immortal Photon)
MtG added spells like Day of Judgement that affected creatures without targeting them while still having some spells that did mass targeting. There are even some random targeting cards and random non targeting cards.

Think of targeting as the effect originating at me and flowing to the creature. Nontargeting would be akin to the effect started at the creature.

The wording used to describe the intended effect could be improved. I only know it doesn't target because I was there when the author was making it. Perhaps "A random enemy creature takes 5 damage." That way active voice would denote targeting and passive voice would denote nontargeting.

[CCCombobreaker]

Gotcha.  Thanks for taking the time to explain it.  And yes, the active/passive wording makes a lot of sense.

[Time_lord_victorius]

i don't want to seem pesimistic but... wasn't duo quanta cards a no-no? wasn't it the reason you cancelled the duality series in the first place because Kael Hate had said so?

[EmeraldTiger]

To clarify I think this is actually a Diseric Idea. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=32706.0;attach=3186;image)

My question to Zblader is the cost only 2 or only 2 , or can it be 1 and 1 ?

[ZephyrPhantom]

i don't want to seem pesimistic but... wasn't duo quanta cards a no-no? wasn't it the reason you cancelled the duality series in the first place because Kael Hate had said so?

Well, the fact that Zanz accepts any New Cost mechanic ingame is still mostly unlikely, but the CI&A staff aren't the kind to discourage ideas in case things change in the future or Zanz wants to derive from a card idea. As a result, the PseudoElement section of the Crucible is for Alternate Cost, New Element, Duality, and PseudoElement cards.

My question to Zblader is the cost only 2 or only 2 , or can it be 1 and 1 ?

1  and 1  is a possible combination. Hybrids drain similar to random quanta (like the Shards), except they're limited to the two elements on the card. (So a 5 Diseric card could drain 5 Aether, 2 Entropy + 3 Aether, 5 Entropy, etc...)

This. Either way, the benefit of being able to hit immaterial stuff...Is it worth the risk of randomness and the extra quanta to cast?

Indeed. Maybe it should deal damage to, say, 2 or 3 random enemy creatures?

The wording used to describe the intended effect could be improved. I only know it doesn't target because I was there when the author was making it. Perhaps "A random enemy creature takes 5 damage." That way active voice would denote targeting and passive voice would denote nontargeting.

Hm, I never considered the fact that it bypassed Immaterial before, but that actually helps to balance it against standard Lightning.

Before I change the wording, I've started a poll to see what others think about the amount of creatures targeted as well as the Immaterial bypass. Once that's refined I'll rebalance and rewrite the card as needed.