[Official] Spark | Ball Lightning

[Efreet]

Yeah...this thing is just unfair. No cost, but it has three damages?!? Really? I don't think that's fair, it's ability is basically death trigger effects because of its 0 life, so the synergy with vulture, bone wall is huge to begin with already. And you mean to tell me it costs nothing?! Bogus.

At the least, nerf it to 2/0, I wouldn't want to see perfectly good death-aether decks going down the toilet, hell maybe even 1/0 since I'd make the claim that dying is spark's special ability. As for Ball of Lightning, I don't really know, maybe have that be 4/0 to go with the other nerf. I can see this card being overpowered for upgraded strategies, but I haven't played with upgraded strategies yet, so I wouldn't really know, now would I?

So yeah, nerfing Spark seems like a fair thing to do. Comments?

[pikachufan2164]

No nerf needed.

Spark and Ball Lightning are balanced. When you say that it's OP with death triggers, you're pretty much making the same argument as the person who wanted to nerf Schrodinger's Cat.

The general consensus of the community is that the Cat is underpowered.  Did you come up against an opponent who beat you soundly using this strategy?  Being beaten by a perfect counter isn't an indication that a card is OP...

[dragonsdemesne]

I don't think it's needed.  Spark/Ball Lightning aren't used very often, and when they are, they seem fair to me.  The best uses I've seen for them are for cremation fodder, as targets for chaos power, and as fodder for soulcatcher/bone wall.  A card has to be frequently used in overpowered decks to be considered for nerfing, and spark/ball lightning don't fit in either category.

[Captain Scibra]

Technically speaking, its stats balance out with 0 cost.  3|5 cost for attack, -2 for 0 health, -1 for Aether bonus, and -2 for the upgrade, and these calculate to 0 cost.

[OldTrees]

Technically speaking, its stats balance out with 0 cost.  3|5 cost for attack, -2 for 0 health, -1 for Aether bonus, and -2 for the upgrade, and these calculate to 0 cost.

Updated calculation
3|5 cost for attack, -2 for 0 health and -2 for the upgrade = 1 cost = 0quanta + 1 card

[Cheesy111]

Yeah...this thing is just unfair. No cost, but it has three damages?!? Really? I don't think that's fair, it's ability is basically death trigger effects because of its 0 life, so the synergy with vulture, bone wall is huge to begin with already. And you mean to tell me it costs nothing?! Bogus.

At the least, nerf it to 2/0, I wouldn't want to see perfectly good death-aether decks going down the toilet, hell maybe even 1/0 since I'd make the claim that dying is spark's special ability. As for Ball of Lightning, I don't really know, maybe have that be 4/0 to go with the other nerf. I can see this card being overpowered for upgraded strategies, but I haven't played with upgraded strategies yet, so I wouldn't really know, now would I?

So yeah, nerfing Spark seems like a fair thing to do. Comments?

Consider the number of cards you need to get out for Spark to be worthwhile in death/aether decks.  Soul Catchers for quanta, Bone Walls for defense, Graveyards and Vultures for damage.  It's hard as heck to get that machine up and running simply because it requires so much to start.  Also, a comparison with Lightning here - 2 aether quanta for 5 damage to your opponent, any of their creatures, or yourself (SoSac).  Spark seems much less powerful than Lightning.

[whatifidogetcaught?]

No. just no. Yes, it has synergies with death, but so does everything with everything else! Should we nerf Horned Frog because it goes with Adrenaline? I understand your no cost argument, so what about Photon and Otyugh (though I'm sure that never happens) Upgraded Photon and Hope? Photon and Immolation? Heck, for me, I've had a Photon and Mutate deck (which is fun I might add). The point is, the Spark having one synergy, since it dies immediately and has a decent amount of attack, is a ridiculous argument.

[furballdn]

Having a 3|0 card for 0 cost is not OP at all. Next you'll be saying that Cat is OP since it can die multiple times.

Administrator Comment

Removed image. Please avoid flaming. Thanks!

[Efreet]

Having a 3|0 card for 0 cost is not OP at all. Next you'll be saying that Cat is OP since it can die multiple times.

You forget S. Cat requires quanta to trigger death effects, whereas Spark and Ball Lightning do not, their death is automatic. Compared to S. Cat, its ability to die is so cheap, costing no quanta to trigger its death, while S. Cat requires multiple uses of it's ability to even make a dent in the Entropy-Death strategy.

Updated calculation
3|5 cost for attack, -2 for 0 health and -2 for the upgrade = 1 cost = 0quanta + 1 card

Sure, it makes sense stat-wise, and the cost-to-stat is fair, but the fact simply remains that it dies upon use, that should be considered as an indirect ability of its own, an ability that has no cost, is automatic, and cannot be stopped by the opponent player. Schrodinger's Cat can die multiple times, sure, but dying requires Entropy quanta for triggering death effects, which doesn't make S. Cat overpowered at all. Combine Spark with a well-placed Fractal, you get insane Bone Wall boosts, Vulture boosts, insane waves of death quanta coming your way with soul catchers. Adding the fact that it behaves like a temporary army of 3/0 creatures, that just adds insult to injury. Yet, the card fills a unique niche. The fact that its a temporary card with 0 life is what makes the card so effing cool, which is why I don't ask for its life to go up, I just ask a simple decrease in attack to make up for the fact that it dies in a more convenient way that Schrodinger's Cat. I mean, would you rather have those death effects be compounded with a whopping 3x # of sparks amount of damage, or something a little less potent?

[OldTrees]

Updated calculation
3|5 cost for attack, -2 for 0 health and -2 for the upgrade = 1 cost = 0quanta + 1 card

Sure, it makes sense stat-wise, and the cost-to-stat is fair, but the fact simply remains that it dies upon use, that should be considered as an indirect ability of its own, an ability that has no cost, is automatic, and cannot be stopped by the opponent player. Schrodinger's Cat can die multiple times, sure, but dying requires Entropy quanta for triggering death effects, which doesn't make S. Cat overpowered at all. Combine Spark with a well-placed Fractal, you get insane Bone Wall boosts, Vulture boosts, insane waves of death quanta coming your way with soul catchers. Adding the fact that it behaves like a temporary army of 3/0 creatures, that just adds insult to injury. Yet, the card fills a unique niche. The fact that its a temporary card with 0 life is what makes the card so effing cool, which is why I don't ask for its life to go up, I just ask a simple decrease in attack to make up for the fact that it dies in a more convenient way that Schrodinger's Cat. I mean, would you rather have those death effects be compounded with a whopping 3x # of sparks amount of damage, or something a little less potent?

All creatures cause death triggers. The immediacy of the death trigger is why I estimate 0hp modifying X attack at -2 rather than -3. This is because the formula overestimates the value of attack when 0hp is present. Hence the adjustment in the 0hp modifier.

How much would you pay for a death trigger? Nothing else, just an instant speed death trigger. You can use fractional costs.
How much would you decrease the cost of Lightning if it could only target players? You can use fractional costs.

PS: Usually death triggers are more synergistic with the long term. 0hp creatures do not synergize with the long term.

[Marsu]

Not sure if troll...