Guest posts by sandspider

1

Tournament Archive / Re: Western tournament - 25 July 2010 - The new, unupgraded

« on: July 25, 2010, 07:11:24 pm »

sandspider - edunavas

2 - 1 to sandspider

2

Tournament Archive / Re: Western tournament - 25 July 2010 - The new, unupgraded

« on: July 25, 2010, 06:40:18 pm »

sandspider vs VampiriII

2 -1 to sandspider

3

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Minor Phoenix

« on: June 03, 2010, 06:21:22 pm »

phoenix is fine, as he is, eternal phoenix would be too easy with 0/3 or even 0/4, 0/7 seens just right, phoenix shouldnt be easy to get off the board, there are many other solutions, freeze it, basilisk blood, reverse it, etc.

I can freeze, basilisk blood and reverse 90% of all other creatures too. I'm not worried about the power of the phoenix as it is-

I'm worried that its powers are too high in relation to its cost.

4

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Minor Phoenix

« on: June 03, 2010, 06:11:10 pm »

You lose 4 damage minimum, not 8 and pay an awful lot less than you would for golems or dragons. A creature that takes 2 spells minimum to kill is good whether it has 8 HP or 5.
Once again, the problem is not with an 8 HP phoenix for 7, that's fine, but with a 5 HP minor phoenix for 2.

2 mana for four damage a turn unless your opponent has 2 cards to deal with it is hugely powerful already. Making it almost totally immune to the second card just makes that all the worse. If you really want your minor phoenix as is, would you pay 3 for it?

very well put. My sentiments exactly.

5

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Minor Phoenix

« on: June 01, 2010, 11:01:45 pm »

Phoenix is fine as it is, its powers reflect its cost. I am suggesting that upgraded phoenix should be 0/4 ash. for 2 fire I can get a 4/1 which, when it dies becomes a 0/7. and can become a 4/1 again, if I dont do 7 damage to it the next turn, all 2 fire. This is too powerful in relation to its cost, which is why I suggest the card be changed.

6

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Minor Phoenix

« on: May 31, 2010, 01:23:55 pm »

Thanks for the reply.

     I'm glad you see merit in making the ash 0/4. The main reason I want this to happen is because at the moment, once a phoenix gets out, it is VERY hard to take it off of the board, and it is such a cheap creature! I believe this would affect the potency of the card, whatever the strategy being used was. 
Perhaps this can change in the next update?
*crosses fingers*

7

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Minor Phoenix

« on: May 31, 2010, 11:28:02 am »

I think 0/4 would be more appropriate too...0/7 for the cost is ridiculous.

8

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Cards that Only Jmizzle Upgrades

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:59:30 pm »

Lots of people use upgraded Hopes (like yours truly).

Anyways, I support this motion, too, but with a slight change. 1 quanta less, not two. Both of these shields are very powerful - some even regard them as overpowerful - and I don't want them to be a whopping 2 quanta less. 1 is fine with me.

I agree...but there are already a bunch of other overpowered cards...*cough* minor phoenix *cough* excuse me, I think I had something in my throat there....

9

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Cards that Only Jmizzle Upgrades

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:57:43 pm »

I use non upgraded hope, because I rely on creatures to generate quanta. for me normal hope is much BETTER than hope+

10

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Re: Minor Phoenix

« on: May 30, 2010, 08:51:39 pm »

might those players all have minor phoenix rush decks? The card is overpowered, at least the ash should be 0/4 if not 0/3

11

Game Suggestions and Feedback / Minor Phoenix

« on: May 25, 2010, 03:11:03 pm »

Great card, great ability. It's cost is very low and comes out fast. However, I think its ash should reflect the cost, and be a 0/4 ash. I believe this change, whilst not having that much of an effect upon the way its played for the user, would allow opponents to kill off the ash with greater ease. Having 4 hp would still not make it brittle at all, but perhaps more vulnerable to direct damage. This would make the undoubtedly popular fire decks more vulnerable to people playing with wind, or other fire dd decks.


Any thoughts?