FIF: Adramelech's Touch Preview

[Laddinfance]

Our Forged in Fire previews began today! You can find the article for Adramelech's Touch right >>HERE<<. Thoughts on this new curse? Will you employ this portion of Adramelech's power?

[jacksmack]

Its very difficult to tell if this card has its place.

Rolling 0 with a burn condition is bad... with this card its still bad, but less so.
The times where your burns are on fire - so to speak - this card is wasted.

Also it has to be revealed before the upkeep, meaning you wont see the result of the burn roll.
I like the mana cost of it, but the spellpoint cost is probaly too steep for the priest who really could use such a card.

I doubt any other mages than the warlock will be able to use this card (successfully).

Also i would have loved this effect to be global through a conjuration.

[webcatcher]

Fire wizard could get good mileage out of it (reference previous discussions about how a wizard can use everything because they have no opposed school, lots of potential trained schools, and SP to burn).

[lettucemode]

The article on this preview says this:

The best aspect of Adramelech’s Touch is how it helps enable many of the other cards in Forged in Fire. Between cards that want curses on the target, to cards that want the target burning; the alternate Warlock will surely want a couple Adramelech’s Touch spells in his spellbook.

This card isn't very impressive in a vacuum, but it appears as though there will be other cards that only have an effect if there are burns/curses on the target, or increase in effect the more burns/curses there are. Adramelech's Touch will have great value when played with those cards.

Not sure if using a Mage's action to cast this is worth it, however it's a nice use of action for Syserix or whatever his name is. Then you can bring the Fireball pain on subsequent rounds.

[isel]

Good art, bad card, i believe it´s expensive in level (2), and it´s effect it´s very bad, i prefer put 2 spells of level one that this card, 2 flameblast and better burning.

[Sailor Vulcan]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad card. While just stacking more burns is more likely to deal more damage in general, this card should be great against extinguish.

And you think it's expensive? It looks rather inexpensive to me.

[silverclawgrizzly]

I can certainly see where it's got it's place. If you're playing a fire heavy Warlock this could be a useful little curse. Little dependent on the situation but that's ok.

[Wildhorn]

I think its time to bring back the burn damage chart back with this spell in the equation.

[Bluebaron]

Nice Card for the warlock. And very thematic. Like the flavour of it.

[kailas]

I think it's very nice card for Burn builds!
If i remember correctly, Bryan said that Burn does average 2 damage before dissapearing (or 1?).
Can someone calculate damage increase after few rounds with few Burns, when does it pay off? My head doesnt work today...

[Aylin]

Also it has to be revealed before the upkeep, meaning you wont see the result of the burn roll.
I like the mana cost of it, but the spellpoint cost is probaly too steep for the priest who really could use such a card.

What prevents this from being revealed after you roll the burns?

Not sure if using a Mage's action to cast this is worth it, however it's a nice use of action for Syserix or whatever his name is. Then you can bring the Fireball pain on subsequent rounds.

Sectarus is another option for using it, though the Familiar method might have more synergy because of leaving the hand free for LoH.


Also this is a seriously nasty card. Maybe even worth taking as as a Priest, since it unbounds the damage from burns!
Average damage before: 3/2 * Sum(n=1 to T) (2/3)^n
Average damage now: T [average mana cost = (9+T)/3]
With T = number of turns

I think it's very nice card for Burn builds!
If i remember correctly, Bryan said that Burn does average 2 damage before dissapearing (or 1?).
Can someone calculate damage increase after few rounds with few Burns, when does it pay off? My head doesnt work today...

It depends on how long a period you consider. If you say T=infinity it goes to 3.

If you expand the first several turns out from the series:
1 + 2/3 + 4/9 + 8/27 + 16/81 + 32/243 + 64/729 + 128/2187 + 256/6561 + 512/19683...
~= 1 + .67 + .44 + .30 + .20 + .13 + .09 + .06 + .04 + .03...

So: (approximately)
1: 1
2: 1.67
3: 2.11
4: 2.41
5: 2.61
6: 2.74
7: 2.83
8: 2.89
9: 2.93
10: 2.96

[jacksmack]

Also it has to be revealed before the upkeep, meaning you wont see the result of the burn roll.
I like the mana cost of it, but the spellpoint cost is probaly too steep for the priest who really could use such a card.

What prevents this from being revealed after you roll the burns?

Resolving a burn marker is a single step.
if the roll is a 0 then the burn is gone before this can be revealed.

[lettucemode]

Another way to say it: during the Ready Stage, you can only reveal enchantments in between phases. If you are rolling for Burns, you are in the middle of the Upkeep phase and don't get a chance to reveal until after the phase is over. Any burns that roll a 0 are removed before the Upkeep phase ends.

[Aylin]

Another way to say it: during the Ready Stage, you can only reveal enchantments in between phases. If you are rolling for Burns, you are in the middle of the Upkeep phase and don't get a chance to reveal until after the phase is over. Any burns that roll a 0 are removed before the Upkeep phase ends.

Ah, that makes sense.

[applepi]

It looks fun to play in a casual game, with lots of fire spells and lash.  Also, as lettucemode said, the imp will work well with it.  Looks fun!

Also, burns are great way to deal direct damage to the undead, so this could be a nice way to kill a shaggoth-zora that grew too large.