Fire Bug Queen - Idea for rare fire card

[Jyiber]

The Fire Bug Queen would be like the queen bug of Ash/Brimstone Eaters.
Stats are 2|8    and the play cost is  8
Mechanics I've thought of are:

1) Immolation/Cremation generates an extra quanta for each element as long as the queen is on the field. (Does not stack.)
So 2 of everything and 7 for  (9 for upped).
Always thought there should be a connection between those who eat ash and that which makes ash.

2) Generate a Ash/Brimstone Eater each turn for X amount of a quanta type I haven't decided. (Help me?)

3) Ash/Brimstone Eaters gain +1|+2 as long as the queen is on the field. (Does not stack.)

Obviously it wouldn't have all of these abilities, so which one would work best? Maybe two of them?
Feel free to call it stupid or tell me someone already came up with it. I haven't had my feelings crushed yet today...

[whatifidogetcaught?]

Interesting, but this kicks Upped Firefly Queen right in the face.

Plus 2 would be justifiable for making an ash eater.

Idea 3 is something i like, and matches up with Fireflies. Maybe just +1 | +1 though.

Make play cost of Queen just 7

Immolation is just no.

Idea 3 could be a Passive and Queen ability an activation ability.

[Jyiber]

I guess it'd be ok if it were slightly stronger than Firefly Queen, because I'd make it a rare card.

Yeah I was going to go along with something along the lines of life or earth. I picture the queen burning something to create a Ash Eater.

And I knew the immolation thing would receive poor reception.

[Sevs]

I guess it'd be ok if it were slightly stronger than Firefly Queen, because I'd make it a rare card.

Yeah I was going to go along with something along the lines of life or earth. I picture the queen burning something to create a Ash Eater.

And I knew the immolation thing would receive poor reception.

Rarity isnt the answer for balancing

[neuroleptics]

i personally think that the reason an ash eater when upgraded still cost 1 because fire has immolation already and undying phoenix. So if this card were to be in the list, i think it would be unfair to other elements. + the intro of seraph is already benefiting the  element user

[Captain Scibra]

I guess it'd be ok if it were slightly stronger than Firefly Queen, because I'd make it a rare card.

Yeah I was going to go along with something along the lines of life or earth. I picture the queen burning something to create a Ash Eater.

And I knew the immolation thing would receive poor reception.

Rarity isnt the answer for balancing

But it is, when the card is theoretically balanced, it may pose a strong relative balance.  Compare Pharaoh and Firefly.  Pharaoh is mono with a side of duo, while Firefly Queen is duo with a side of trio.  Also, mass-scarabs has more inner synergy than mass-fireflies.  Pharaoh gives the idea that it has more inner strength than Firefly Queen, therefore is plausible grounds for rarity.  Rarity is primarily a tag for cards that grant a greater card advantage than your typical card, and Pharaoh's inner synergy presents more card advantage, only needing the Pharaoh and quanta (mark usage is strong here), while Firefly needs two quanta sources (mark usage is weak here).

[Jyiber]

Rarity isnt the answer for balancing

But it is, when the card is theoretically balanced, it may pose a strong relative balance.  Compare Pharaoh and Firefly.  Pharaoh is mono with a side of duo, while Firefly Queen is duo with a side of trio.  Also, mass-scarabs has more inner synergy than mass-fireflies.  Pharaoh gives the idea that it has more inner strength than Firefly Queen, therefore is plausible grounds for rarity.  Rarity is primarily a tag for cards that grant a greater card advantage than your typical card, and Pharaoh's inner synergy presents more card advantage, only needing the Pharaoh and quanta (mark usage is strong here), while Firefly needs two quanta sources (mark usage is weak here).

Uhhh... what he said.

Remember this is the pre-smithy, and it's just rough outline of an idea. I know fire just got a new card, but even if this idea gets any momentum it might not be seen in game for months (or more likely, never).  Though this argument has inspired further changes to the original idea.

What if I changed the element of the queen? So I ask, what elements already have or need a direct synergy with fire? I mean a Brimstone Eater factory has some potential... forming a stronger duo or trio deck that involves fire.

[sunyata]

I guess it'd be ok if it were slightly stronger than Firefly Queen, because I'd make it a rare card.

Yeah I was going to go along with something along the lines of life or earth. I picture the queen burning something to create a Ash Eater.

And I knew the immolation thing would receive poor reception.

Rarity isnt the answer for balancing

But it is, when the card is theoretically balanced, it may pose a strong relative balance.  Compare Pharaoh and Firefly.  Pharaoh is mono with a side of duo, while Firefly Queen is duo with a side of trio.  Also, mass-scarabs has more inner synergy than mass-fireflies.  Pharaoh gives the idea that it has more inner strength than Firefly Queen, therefore is plausible grounds for rarity.  Rarity is primarily a tag for cards that grant a greater card advantage than your typical card, and Pharaoh's inner synergy presents more card advantage, only needing the Pharaoh and quanta (mark usage is strong here), while Firefly needs two quanta sources (mark usage is weak here).

No.  As Sevs said, rarity should have nothing to do with balancing.  If rare cards were overpowered, this would confer an unreasonable advantage on those who had managed to acquire them, making it very difficult for newbies to ever beat veterans even if they play a good deck well.

[Jyiber]

Well, the idea is to have a strong card that's an important piece of a deck. I love how balanced this game is and I wouldn't want to break it with an OP card. It's not like I'm trying to make a if-this-card-is-in-my-deck-you-lose thing.

The point I was attempting to make with rarity is that even long time players may only have a few of some of them. It kind of came out like that, but I wasn't trying to say rarity should be directly connected to balancing, it's just been observed that most of the stronger cards are rare.

Now are there any specific objections as to what's wrong with this idea before I try to post it? Would any of my suggested revisions help? Does anyone have any they would make?

.............(crickets)..............

[NonexistentFlower]

No.  As Sevs said, rarity should have nothing to do with balancing.  If rare cards were overpowered, this would confer an unreasonable advantage on those who had managed to acquire them, making it very difficult for newbies to ever beat veterans even if they play a good deck well.

Shards. That is all.

And also, Black lotus. ETG isn't the only one which has had this problem. (M:TG started off equating power and rarity, and came up with BL, AR, TW, and so on.)

wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr9

Honestly, though Elements has hardly any Johnny cards (This balances in Player's favour) a balance of good cards should be held within all rarities.

Just because rares are strong does not mean the converse should be true.

[NonexistentFlower]

Also it seems to be ripping off FFQ.