[Official] Quintessence | Quintessence

[coinich]

Slightly surprised no-one has brought this up yet.  Basically, Immortality is one of the strongest "modifiers" of the game, making a creature nearly perfect.  Now I understand the major nerf that allows shields through Immortality, and I'm not proposing a major nerf, simply a cost increase of 1 for both cards.  I think something of this value should cost a slight bit more to play.  Same with PA but thats another thread.  Of course, most other suggestions will be included.

EDIT: If I can figure out how to add a poll...

[Malduk]

Well, I'd rather see real counter to Quint than nerf of the spell card. Shields are terribly passive and slow way of dealing with quinted creatures, or are useless against creatures with 0-2 attack (depending on the shield) and momentumed creatures.

[Mastermind79]

^What he said. We need a way to remove immortality.

To add a Poll, look above your post, on the same line as Pages: [1] Go Down (nothing) Reply | Add Poll | Notify

[ratchetspyro94]

No cost increase. We do need a card to counter quintessence. > die MA. 

[Dark.Gr]

Hi, Im new to the forums but i like the game and try to help as i can.

Quint: Target creature with HP less than (X)  or Cost more than (Y) Becomes immortal. Or something like that.
,
From my point of view The best way to Prevent immortallity being imba is adding restrictions to is use.

[Retribution]

Title should be Quintessence, not Quintessense.

As for this card, if more people brought along fire shield and thorn carapace, it could be easily countered. It's only well utilized in rainbows, and you have to splash duo/trio to get this card into a non-rainbow. I think it's fine. It's cost has already been increased before.

[JoelAdams]

I'm definitely in the camp that immortality should be removable.  I would feel better about immortality as a protective layer rather than its current iteration.

[Mastermind79]

I'm definitely in the camp that immortality should be removable.  I would feel better about immortality as a protective layer rather than its current iteration.

Hmm, that makes me think. What if, instead of giving complete immortality, it gives "barriers", that stop all damage and status (Momentum, Poison, etc)? One damage event could break one layer, statuses cannot.

[ddevans96]

...that is a brilliant idea. Maybe if you play quintessence, it gets 2 barriers, and you can play it again on that creature, and it get 2 more barriers.

This could also be a balance between Aether Nymph and Anubis. We could make Anubis only give 1 barrier and lower it's cost, while the nymph gives 2.  Immortal and Phase Dragon could come out with 3 shields to keep it balanced.

Just an idea

[Legit]

I think we should change the name "Immortality" because immortal creatures can be killed/wounded by shields.

On topic: This card doesn't need a nerf. I don't think we should change the game mechanic of immortality with the barrier idea

[TheonlyrealBeef]

(Elite) Anubis can give immortality each turn for only ( ) and you think Quint - which is a one use card for  ( ) - is OP?
No, I do know Anubis takes long to send out and requires a second element, but the low ability cost perfectly makes up for it.

But the point is: if you have a problem with the immortality status, nerfing just quint isn't fair.

[Kael Hate]

(Elite) Anubis can give immortality each turn for only ( ) and you think Quint - which is a one use card for  ( ) - is OP?
No, I do know Anubis takes long to send out and requires a second element, but the low ability cost perfectly makes up for it.

But the point is: if you have a problem with the immortality status, nerfing just quint isn't fair.

Yet how often is Anubis used?

I'm against a change at this stage due to its requirement in protecting keys but as new draw and solutions develop I can see it being limited.

Added Poll for Coinich