Fury | Wrath

[~Napalm]

That brings us to the next question: Is it wrong for the Fire element to have a defensive card?

Personally, I don't think so. I don't see why Fire has to be 100% offense, power, and destruction. The trick is getting the defensive abilities the RIGHT way. I felt this was a step in the right direction, but I  may be wrong.

P.S. With regards to doubling the damage the following turn... If you play this right. You should not be alive the following turn. It is meant to be played the turn before you would die to prevent death and instead get back at your enemy. If you do survive after playing this card but not killing the enemy, it's very likely that it either wasn't necessary or wasn't played at the right time. I don't then see why there should be a need to double the damage, though I wouldn't say that I'm opposed to the idea.

[ZephyrPhantom]

I concede- when I saw how much you wrote and your reputation I realised you know more than me- though I do agree with moomoose's idea of doubling damage

You made some pretty good points in your argument, too, and to be fair, I could know this much and type this up just as a new member recently on the forums that has played the game for a long time. While knowing the game is important, try not to concede future discussions just because of my shiny titles or how much rep I have and focus on the facts.

That brings us to the next question: Is it wrong for the Fire element to have a defensive card?

Personally, I don't think so. I don't see why Fire has to be 100% offense, power, and destruction. The trick is getting the defensive abilities the RIGHT way. I felt this was a step in the right direction, but I  may be wrong.

in that sense every defensive card is an offensive card, because they let you stay alive longer so you can deal damage. this is a defensive card, other cards you have are offensive.

While it's true that the card's role is defensive, you could also argue that Rage Potion and Fireshield have defensive uses for taking out dangerous creatures, just more offensively oriented than other counterparts (Normal shields use DR and most CC doesn't give a stat boost if the creature survives.) Likewise, Fury/Beserk negates damage because you're too busy attacking to feel pain and trying to hurt you further doesn't work because you're as almost dead as you can get. =P

[moomoose]

in that sense every defensive card is an offensive card, because they let you stay alive longer so you can deal damage. this is a defensive card, other cards you have are offensive.

While it's true that the card's role is defensive, you could also argue that Rage Potion and Fireshield have defensive uses for taking out dangerous creatures.

such an act is offensive for defensive purposes "i shot him before he shot me".

as far as fire not having any defensive cards, it does have a twisted sense of defense, i agree.  fire shield and cc/pc out the wazoo, defense through offense is certainly fire's forte.  if fire were to be given a card like this, i think there would have to be some self-hurting mechanic to it that would benefit you in the short term but hurt you in the long term, such as putting off the damage this turn but giving it to you and then some extra next turn, rather than flat out "when this card is in effect you cant die"

*edit short term not turn

[RRQJ]

This card is designed to give you one last chance (turn).  If you fail to win, you're almost guaranteed to lose right after.  So hurting you in the long term is completely irrelevant.

[moomoose]

i wouldnt agree, unless you consider spending any quanta as being painful in general.  there is no garauntee that you will lose next turn, with the potential to either heal up or find a means to play another anti-death card.  if nothing else, it may be beneficial to simply state that the damage dealt to you is postponed rather than simply preventing death (which sounds more like a thing than ), if the additional damage sustained mechanic is a no-go, but i still think it is a warranted mechanic.

[RRQJ]

You can always leave this as the absolute last resort, next-turn-win-or-lose card.  If you had enough healing to survive the next turn, then you could have healed instead of play this card (e.g. if you had miracle, you could have played the miracle first, then leave this until later, when you have no other options).

The only exception would be if you just happened to draw into miracle/anti-death card(s) after getting the extra turn.  If you feel this would happen often, then a long term consequence may have some effect.  Given the quanta costs and/or card combos as well as the luck required to result in such a situation, I think it's more likely that adding a long term consequence would be pointless since it will very rarely do anything in actual gameplay.

[moomoose]

even with the quanta drain, it is possible with a decent amount of quanta generation and an immolation to chain these twice, or more, in a row, which is why i suggested putting the damage off by a turn rather than 'no death this turn'. 

the best comparison for this card is probably sosac, which has a mass quanta drain, but technically no 'cost', and a hefty damage component, and almost entirely delays death for a few turns.  this card delays by at least one turn, currently has no damage component, a cost over 10 and a mono quanta drain in an element that has the potential to burst quanta gain.

[RRQJ]

where's the difference? while you're chaining these, 'no death this turn' is the same as 'putting off by a turn'.  And then once you stop chaining you're still in the same win-next-turn-or-lose position.

Edit: Or are you saying the damage that was put off already will go through even after chaining another one of these?

Btw, the wording of the card needs to be changed.  As it is, it would suggest that you can survive deckout, which doesn't seem to be the intention.  It also wouldn't make sense thematically, since deckout is more of a mechanical loss imo.

[~Napalm]

OH! I understand the misconception now. This does NOT prevent all damage. Nothing of the sort. It only prevents your hp from dropping below 1, as stated in the notes. This is why I didn't understand the need for a long-term detriment to using this. I definitely should have explained this better. It does absolutely NOTHING for you except defy death, allowing you one final chance to slay your enemy.

Now let's say you manage to draw into a game changing card as a result (I.e Miracle, certain shields, or in some cases Fire Storm). What has this card benefited you that Precognition wouldn't do better? Precognition is cheaper, allows you access to this game changing card sooner, AND lets you see your enemy's hand. Your argument is invalid?

Ah yes. I'd forgotten about decking out again. I suppose I should probably reword it slightly to account for that. Thematically, I don't think avoiding a deck out makes any sense. So yeah, unless you can convince me otherwise I'll probably add "by damage" between "defeated" and "this turn."

[OldTrees]

Something about this card seems off but I am not sure what.

The cost feels high even though it is protected from  CC, PC and Momentum.
The effect seems too sure even if it did not prevent deckout.
The only destruction is of your own  .

(I would like to note that destruction is both offense and defense hence Fire Stall)

[Zso_Zso]

How about changing it to set & keep your health at 1 for a turn, i.e. when you play the card your health drops to 1 and do not get any more damage for a turn. So it works almost as the mirror of miracle, except that it blocks further damage for 1 turn. This way you do have a self-damage component (just like SoSa) and also makes it impractical to use it early in the game to avoid being damaged for a turn. So it really becomes a last-resort type of card.

To balance the extra self-hurt, you could also add doubling of all fire-creature damage you deal for a turn. That way it is really beserk, you attack twice as strong and totally exhaust yourself to 1 HP but ignore any "pain" incoming.

[moomoose]

"OH! I understand the misconception now. This does NOT prevent all damage. Nothing of the sort. It only prevents your hp from dropping below 1, as stated in the notes. This is why I didn't understand the need for a long-term detriment to using this. I definitely should have explained this better. It does absolutely NOTHING for you except defy death, allowing you one final chance to slay your enemy."

there was a slight misunderstanding on my part, but i still think the mechanic can be improved.  rather than "not go under 1" that turn, the damage should still go through after the initial 'prevent death' turn is over, so damage that would have killed you will kill you, even if you play another card or cards which would either save you with healing or prevent death again