Concerning the topic about what makes a combo a "forced combo" (in a negative sense, as it has been brought up this way in this thread) though, I do no fully understand (or if I do, not fully agree to) what you wrote - at least given the unupgraded metas circumstance, a Lava Golem without Earth is an underpowered card definetly, for example in the comparison to Phoenix.
And while one could probably still argue about that, about 80% of all cards from the type "Costs Element A to play, Element B to activate skill" are "forced combos" by that definition, am I wrong?
(Cards like Lycantrophe, Forest Spirit, Graboid, ...)
If I'm correct so far, I'd say that "forced combo" cards are in no way bad/worse than "optional combo" cards (like maybe Flash Reculse + Wings).
Would be glad to receiver another helpful comment on that small excursus.
/e: Ah, just read your edit concerning the card itself. Mh, that'd be possible... It would definetly make this bonuses unavailable for rainbow decks that only splash in some alibi-pends to activate Burning Treants ability.
1) Lava Golem (without
) is a 5|1 for 5
. This is barely weaker than a 7|1 Rebirth for 7
.
2) There are few forced duo creatures (Parasite unupped, Firefly Queen, Graviton Fire Eater, Lycanthrope, Fallen Druid upped, Schrödinger's Cat, Chrysaora, Steam Machine, Forest Spirit, Phase Salvager). However that brings us to the next point.
3) A forced combo is not a problem unless there are very few variations in creating the combo. Off element quanta can be obtained by Quantum Pillars, Nova, both Pendulums, a Pillar or a Mark. While a forced duo design increases the game variety less than an optional duo, it is not restrained to the point of being a problematic forced combo. If Burning Treant is a forced combo rather than an optional combo it will have only 2 options (Pendulum and Pillar). This is ignoring the detail that Burning Treant is not very usable with only 2 elements.
That was the explanation about what people mean when they say "forced combo" however I feel it is more beneficial to teach the reason behind the concept as well.
Increasing game variety tends to result in a more valuable game that is played longer. Thus cards are judged on their ability to improve the game by this metric. Imbalance either decreases(OP) or does not increase(UP) game variety. Cards with more options have an advantage when measuring by this metric. Cards that require specific other cards in order to function fit into fewer decks and thus are at a disadvantage when measuring by this metric. The more restrictive the required combo, the greater the relative variety disadvantage. A novel resulting effect can partially overcome this disadvantage (animate weapon). However the more restrictive the combo the more novel the effect has to be to overcome the disadvantage.
Nope. But this + Emerald Pillar + Fractal, so basically a 
trio (even though it would only have 4 or 5 Emerald Pillars to trigger the ability, no other Life cards) - would still be quite easy to build and you basically had 12/0 Sparks for 6 .
While this is interesting I do not find it a frightening example. It would take 54
for the 9 creature OTK. That is well within the norm.
Based on the amount of space we have for text, I think it should be limited to 2 optional effects.
