Guest posts by AeonSiege

1

Anvil Archive / Re: Sea Crab | Elite Crab

« on: February 11, 2012, 05:37:48 pm »

by how much does the max hp is reduced?

2

Anvil Archive / Re: Dragon Power | Dragon Power

« on: October 18, 2011, 12:33:05 am »

Can a time dragon's skill also take back things like unstable gas?

Yes, but in that case it should heal back whoever was damaged with unstable gas.

But do also the creatures return who died by that unstable gas?

Nope. Only returns the last card destroyed, so it depends on the order of destruction in the programing

3

Anvil Archive / Re: Dragon Power | Dragon Power

« on: October 17, 2011, 04:55:00 am »

Can a time dragon's skill also take back things like unstable gas?

Yes, but in that case it should heal back whoever was damaged with unstable gas.

4

Anvil Archive / Re: Dragon Power | Dragon Power

« on: August 28, 2011, 03:18:05 pm »

last i checked there was no way to make a phase dragon not immaterial? so... spell cannot be used ever? maybe have card do a full field effect, both for you and your opponents dragons.

Yes, there is a way. Mutating creature sometimes gets you mortal Phase Dragon

5

Forge Archive / Re: Paladin | Paragon

« on: August 02, 2011, 11:01:26 pm »

You're using 2 cards to deal 10 damage, and unless you're packing Aether, the paladin is vulnerable to CC. Not terribly OP.

This card would become more flexible if it also changed the target's skill's element cost. It would be sorta like a lobo for non-Darkness decks. Rainbows that rely on creatures' active abilities would be burning up all their quanta.

Thank you Gumbeh. I really like your idea.

6

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Treacherous gift| Treacherous gift

« on: July 30, 2011, 11:09:19 pm »

this idea has been done many times before

7

Anvil Archive / Re: Echo | Echo

« on: May 02, 2011, 04:41:31 pm »

Sorry, I didn't notice your card since you linked it. xD

My idea is quite similar but Echo doesn't recast the last spell (that could be OP in my opinion), it only add to your hand a copy of it.^^

The part of adding to the hand was my first idea and is part of the poll that is there, and the mechanic of resonance is exactly as if you had added to your hand and played it right after adding it to your hand (that includes paying the card spell cost). But anyway, you don't have to be sorry, your card is better worded than mine and I'm supporting your card, I want it to win. Great mind think alike.

8

Anvil Archive / Re: Echo | Echo

« on: May 02, 2011, 02:50:45 pm »

I did this idea before and was called Resonance | Improved Resonance (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,13177.0.html). This feels unjust and makes me feel like my card could have gotten elsewhere. Well, enough crying, here is a tip from my card. I think you should restrain the use of other spell because of shard of divinity or the increase of max HP or just the use of shard of divinity. Too much increase of max HP is OP with miracle.

Anyway, seems that yours has had a good acceptance and I'd be really happy to see this mechanic in the game (obviusly in entropy (I'm joking)). If it goes to elements then it means i had win too.

9

Anvil Archive / Re: Dragon Power | Dragon Power

« on: April 04, 2011, 04:07:39 am »

the thing i like the most its because its an "other" card

and why not make an "other" dragon to match perfectly ?

it would be a nice card for  and to make new kind of decks

I made dragon power other because I didn't want to make 1 card for each dragon. An "Other" Dragon could be done but thinking about that makes me wonder. IMO the thing about the "Other" cards is that they should cost 3 times their true cost because its pillar produces 3 quanta. Therefore we have a dragon with at least 30 quanta and maybe its cost should be increased because using the other quanta you don't use makes it OP. Another problem, for me, is that "Other" doesn't have a defined personality like the other elements which makes it a bit more complicated to come up with something that doesn't fit any element and fits "Other". Maybe the "Other" dragon could get a random dragon power, but randomness is from entropy. In conclusion, it could be done but it is hard to make it. Maybe later if I have an idea I may do it. But feel free to do it if you want.

10

Crucible Archive / Re: Soul | Soul

« on: March 24, 2011, 12:23:02 am »

I think people think this card is OP. At firs sight, does it sound OP? Should I change the wording? How should I change It?

11

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Meteoroid | Meteorite

« on: March 17, 2011, 09:40:52 pm »

That's ridiculous. If you want Flooding to be good standalone, then actually rework its mechanic. If the only way this card can be made better otherwise is to actually make a card that is countered by it, then that overcomplicates things. You don't make a card just because it was intended to be beaten.

True.

^What he means is: None of the cards should rely on the other. You have to be able to use this card without flooding and flooding without this card. The first part works fine. Even without flooding, this can still do decent damage.
But you need this card for flooding to become more powerful. However, you want to make flooding useful as a standalone. This could be achieved for example if flooding works as a counter to this card or decks this card could be used in. I'm afraid I don't have an idea in this case, though.
Nonetheless, I find this card to be very interesting. It enhanches the strengths of flooding and can make it useful even against decks without really excessive creature spam.

Flooding's mechanics is to depend on something always. Flooding's effectiveness depends on opponent's swarm, aflatoxin, and effects that delay creatures such as freeze and turtle shield. To include a weakness in a card is not an incentive to put flooding in your deck. If you want to make an incentive out of weaknesses to play Flooding then at least many cards should be reworked to make them vulnerable to Flooding.

12

Card Ideas and Art / Re: Meteoroid | Meteorite

« on: March 17, 2011, 05:47:24 pm »

Since you can have 6 of these in your deck, that means you can flood 6 of the 7 mid-row spaces. That's horrible!

By probabilities that won't happen so often unless you are stalling. The expectation is that when you have 15 cards left in the deck you should have drawn 3 Meteoroid more or less.

This card fails the second part of my challenge.
This card does not help Flooding be optimal without the player needing to use both Flooding and Meteoroid to improve Flooding.

Then I seriously can't understand what your challenge is about. Maybe I can't understand because I could have a language limitation since english is not my first language. But how can be Flooding optimal if both cards hasn't being played? What I can imply by this is that you are looking for a card that makes Flooding optimal simply by being in the deck. Please explain your challenge because I really can't understand.