Hunter | Slayer

[The_Mormegil]

Well, the problem with adding control to is that it already has awesome stalling capacities and good rushing capacities inside a mono environment. Adding a heavy CC card would be too much IMO. It's like trying to add a healing card to fire.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Light is meant (as far as now) to be as empty of C as possible. The reason for this is that every element has its thematic, its specialty. Light gaining CC would make it more towards a norm.

CC fails against creatureless decks and Quints. (Actually, that's something I haven't noticed in this discussion. Does this card ignore Immaterial?)

Light was supposed to have Holy Flash as sort of CC, but that did not do so well.

The aim in creating cards (in my opinion) is not to give every element a bit of every mecanism. If you do that, why would there be different elements? The aim, when creating a card, is much more to strengthen an element in what it's supposed to be good at. Sanctuary is the perfect example for .
The problem at the moment is that control is very important. In my view, a mono-light should be able to have a fair chance to win without even seeing the ennemy's field, and currently that is not truly possible.

So CC should be limited to certain elements? Considering Holy Flash, even Light has CC right now. 12 elements are sharing the concepts usually held by onl 4-7 classes, and it's not as hard for abilities and concepts to spill over and share elements.

I could thematically also justify Light's reason to directly attack creatures - what if they thought the enemies were herectics or agents of Darkness or whatsoever? They'd smite without hesitation, of course. (Flayne provides a more detailed explanation on the first page)

(For those who get the reference, it's like balancing classes in an RPG = A healer should barely be able to fight, a warrior, barely able to heal. Giving regeneration to a warrior is very unwise, giving a very powerful weapon to a healer too.)

I thought Zanz wanted Elements to be different from the generic RPG classes.

Well, the problem with adding control to is that it already has awesome stalling capacities and good rushing capacities inside a mono environment. Adding a heavy CC card would be too much IMO. It's like trying to add a healing card to fire.

What about SoG? In a sense, I could say from your argument that this creature should  be in other instead of Light (Which can thematically justify the card), which really doesn't help. Sancs are counterable by early Steal and denial, and rush capabilities can be outstalled or beaten by a Gravity Shield with a Dragon spam deck (aren't Fire, Earth, and Life better rushers, on that note?).

[Jenkar]

Light is meant (as far as now) to be as empty of C as possible. The reason for this is that every element has its thematic, its specialty. Light gaining CC would make it more towards a norm.

CC fails against creatureless decks and Quints. (Actually, that's something I haven't noticed in this discussion. Does this card ignore Immaterial?)

Light was supposed to have Holy Flash as sort of CC, but that did not do so well.

I do not see how CC being counterable is relevant to this particular quote?

The aim in creating cards (in my opinion) is not to give every element a bit of every mecanism. If you do that, why would there be different elements? The aim, when creating a card, is much more to strengthen an element in what it's supposed to be good at. Sanctuary is the perfect example for .
The problem at the moment is that control is very important. In my view, a mono-light should be able to have a fair chance to win without even seeing the ennemy's field, and currently that is not truly possible.

So CC should be limited to certain elements? Considering Holy Flash, even Light has CC right now. 12 elements are sharing the concepts usually held by only 4-7 classes, and it's not as hard for abilities and concepts to spill over and share elements.

What i meant, is that it specializes. CC, in small quantities, is something that can be shared, because it makes an element more viable (which in my opinion is wrong, but that's taste more than actual metagame). However, as Mormy said, this is heavy CC. Imagine giving a regenerating card to fire, or a glass canon card to gravity? It's defeating the purpose of separating elements.

I could thematically also justify Light's reason to directly attack creatures - what if they thought the enemies were herectics or agents of Darkness or whatsoever? They'd smite without hesitation, of course. (Flayne provides a more detailed explanation on the first page)

This is very, very, very contradictory with your next statement.

(For those who get the reference, it's like balancing classes in an RPG = A healer should barely be able to fight, a warrior, barely able to heal. Giving regeneration to a warrior is very unwise, giving a very powerful weapon to a healer too.)

I thought Zanz wanted Elements to be different from the generic RPG classes.

This was just an example. There's a good reason that RPGs have different classes : it creates versatility. This applies in ALL good games i have seen : you choose a path to go into. Without versatility, PvP becomes nothing : there will be ONE powerful deck. Monos becomes the rule, because there's no reason to use rainbows or duos or trios since all elements would be the same. In short, Tactics becomes a meagre aspect of the game, which makes it boring.

Well, the problem with adding control to is that it already has awesome stalling capacities and good rushing capacities inside a mono environment. Adding a heavy CC card would be too much IMO. It's like trying to add a healing card to fire.

What about SoG? In a sense, I could say from your argument that this creature should  be in other instead of Light (Which can thematically justify the card), which really doesn't help. Sancs are counterable by early Steal and denial, and rush capabilities can be outstalled or beaten by a Gravity Shield with a Dragon spam deck (aren't Fire, Earth, and Life better rushers, on that note?).

In my opinion, SoG is one of the cards that make light and life fall down from powerful Monos, it's the very example of a card giving EVERY element the same advantage, nullifying those who already had it. Making this card :other would be even worse than giving it to light only.

[OldTrees]

Sorry I missed my opportunity earlier,

Hunter|Slayer would fit Earth as well.

Light, CC
Light does not care what the enemy does nor how the enemy does it. Hence Light should have passive CC, preferably with an indirect or positive effect like Hope or Solar Shield. (yeah Hope and Solar Shield can both be used as CC see my quote in ZBlader's sig)

[Flayne]

this is an added note for all those mechanic questions. (also added on Opening Page notes):

Edit: Only Unnupped version, hunter: you play 2 hunters, and then you bless one of the hunters twice (+6, because 6 + 3 = 9 and its only for "over 9 attack" on unnupped) and it has 12, suddenly the hunter next to it kills the one with 12 attack.
this is because it attacks "any" creature that has over 9 attack, a mutual balancing.
This does NOT apply for the upgraded version "Slayer" since its "enemy" creatures.

If a sole Hunter in game (unnupped version) is blessed twice, having over 9 atk, it does NOT kill itself.

Another note: Immaterial Creatures should not be affected because of the same principle as "plague".
Plague does not require a target, it automatically poisons all creatures, yet immaterial creatures don't get poisoned.
I believe it should be the same for this card as it contains the same "non-target needed, auto" principle as plague.
This could be countered by the "fire Shield" principle where it also does not require a target, yet attacking creatures get damage, even immaterials.
In this case, with Slayer, It is the absolute reverse, basically being a Fire shield that damages creatures on its own, Slayer is as Fire shield is CC and doesn't need to target creatures individually, it's automatic.
But for the sake of not being OP and not being Anti - , I think it is best that it does not affect Immaterial creatures


Now, for my opinion:

I think it is true that It needs an element change, why? as it is in mono , Its too easy with "Blessing", it might as well be a damaging hope or a slightly weaker Maxwell's demon.
With blessing, this could be instant kill for creatures such as dragons.
What is the main issue with blessing? too easy mono ?
Or the same thing with any duo deck?

[ZephyrPhantom]

Light, CC
Light does not care what the enemy does nor how the enemy does it. Hence Light should have passive CC, preferably with an indirect or positive effect like Hope or Solar Shield. (yeah Hope and Solar Shield can both be used as CC see my quote in ZBlader's sig)

^Just curious, do you have something in one of your guides regarding some of these types of concepts?

[Jenkar]

Light, CC
Light does not care what the enemy does nor how the enemy does it. Hence Light should have passive CC, preferably with an indirect or positive effect like Hope or Solar Shield. (yeah Hope and Solar Shield can both be used as CC see my quote in ZBlader's sig)

^Just curious, do you have something in one of your guides regarding some of these types of concepts?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16655.0.html

[ZephyrPhantom]

Light, CC
Light does not care what the enemy does nor how the enemy does it. Hence Light should have passive CC, preferably with an indirect or positive effect like Hope or Solar Shield. (yeah Hope and Solar Shield can both be used as CC see my quote in ZBlader's sig)

^Just curious, do you have something in one of your guides regarding some of these types of concepts?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16655.0.html

I can't find a section titled "Light, CC". Could you please quote it? That'd be helpful.

(I was asking for the specific section in one of those threads as I am aware that the thread already exists.)

[Jenkar]

Light, CC
Light does not care what the enemy does nor how the enemy does it. Hence Light should have passive CC, preferably with an indirect or positive effect like Hope or Solar Shield. (yeah Hope and Solar Shield can both be used as CC see my quote in ZBlader's sig)

^Just curious, do you have something in one of your guides regarding some of these types of concepts?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,16655.0.html

I can't find a section titled "Light, CC". Could you please quote it? That'd be helpful.

My. Sorry, i thought you meant in general. Precisely, no, i do not know his guides good enough.

[ZephyrPhantom]

No problem. I'd like an answer to my question from Oldtrees though, if possible.

[OldTrees]

Light, CC
Light does not care what the enemy does nor how the enemy does it. Hence Light should have passive CC, preferably with an indirect or positive effect like Hope or Solar Shield. (yeah Hope and Solar Shield can both be used as CC see my quote in ZBlader's sig)

^Just curious, do you have something in one of your guides regarding some of these types of concepts?

No. However a short description for Control would be an Answer to a Threat. Solar Shield + [expensive large healing] is a very powerful answer to the common threat of damage. The more powerful answer to the same threat is Hope + Bioluminesence.
Removal is the most common answer but Negation is a potent answer too. Also just like mechanics threats and sources have a similar rider and vehicle chain relationship.

My Elemental Loyalty section of my guide has, for the most part, been outdone by the Threads ET prompted in the design theory section and by the few articles in the wiki by masters.
http://elementscommunity.org/wiki/articles/light-the-element-of-quality/

[Flayne]

I still need an answer to this:

I think it is true that It needs an element change, why? as it is in mono , Its too easy with "Blessing", it might as well be a damaging hope or a slightly weaker Maxwell's demon.
With blessing, this could be instant kill for creatures such as dragons.
What is the main issue with blessing? too easy mono ?
Or the same thing with any duo deck?