Purity | Purity [Help Wanted][Competition Encourager!]

[CleanOnion]

NAME: Purity ELEMENT: Life COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: While Purity is in play, each player's most abundant creature gains -1|+2.	NAME: Purity ELEMENT: Life COST: 7 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: While Purity is in play, each player's most abundant creature gains +2|-1. Does not stack.

ART: IDEA: CleanOnion NOTES: Hoo boy Alright so. Like Eclipse, Purity just kinda sits around in the permanent section happily providing its passive effect constantly. Unlike Eclipse, the target of the effect can change. Also unlike Eclipse, the unupped Purity can stack with itself. When Purity says "each player's most abundant creature", it means that. For each player, whatever creature they have the most of gets the buff. If you have 2 Antlions and 24 Malignant Cells, the cells get the buff. If your opponent has 12 Malignant Cells and 13 Light Dragons, the dragons get the buff - both fields are evaluated individually. If two creatures are tied for abundancy, neither gets the buff. Unupped Purity stacks with itself up to 6 times, excluding shenanigans which would let you bypass that (stealing maybe?). Upped does not stack. The only reason for this is that if you have 6 upped Purities, you can pretty much deny any creature-based deck by killing off every creature in order of abundancy. Purity updates at the end of every turn. If the most abundant creature changes, the buff moves to the new creature. If this results in deaths, so be it. If those deaths result in skeletons becoming your new most abundant because of Graveyard, you'll have to wait until next turn. Unupped and upped can be active at the same time. SERIES: Help Wanted [Competition Encourager!]

[Aves]

That might cause a bit of confusion...

Do the negative attack bonuses continue below zero?

[CleanOnion]

That might cause a bit of confusion...

Do the negative attack bonuses continue below zero?

t and f look nothing like each other

Yeah, I don't see any reason that they shouldn't

[Linkcat]

It's interesting to note that while Antimatter and Purple Nymph invert a creature's attack, there are no cards in the game that decrease attack. There's no way to know for sure whether or not Zanz would allow attack decreases to go into the negatives, though I'd bet most of us would lean towards yes.

[Monox D. I-Fly]

That might cause a bit of confusion...

Do the negative attack bonuses continue below zero?

t and f look nothing like each other

Yeah, I don't see any reason that they shouldn't

Curiously, t looks a bit like a reflection of f, like a meme I once saw about Facebook's and tumblr's logo.

[CleanOnion]

It's interesting to note that while Antimatter and Purple Nymph invert a creature's attack, there are no cards in the game that decrease attack. There's no way to know for sure whether or not Zanz would allow attack decreases to go into the negatives, though I'd bet most of us would lean towards yes.

Huh, that is interesting. I wonder why

[Espithel]

It's interesting to note that while Antimatter and Purple Nymph invert a creature's attack, there are no cards in the game that decrease attack. There's no way to know for sure whether or not Zanz would allow attack decreases to go into the negatives, though I'd bet most of us would lean towards yes.

Huh, that is interesting. I wonder why

There's a sort of unspoken rule that you have to follow the rules of the game unless you're intentionally and clearly breaking them.
So if there's no way to decrease attack, there's no rule that says you can't make them go into the negatives.

It's like how CSGO gambling is legal because the lawmakers haven't outlawed it - no rule to punish them, so they go free.

It's worth noting that every single attack reduction idea I've seen states you can't go into negatives, because going into the negatives is stupid.

[CleanOnion]

It's interesting to note that while Antimatter and Purple Nymph invert a creature's attack, there are no cards in the game that decrease attack. There's no way to know for sure whether or not Zanz would allow attack decreases to go into the negatives, though I'd bet most of us would lean towards yes.

Huh, that is interesting. I wonder why

There's a sort of unspoken rule that you have to follow the rules of the game unless you're intentionally and clearly breaking them.
So if there's no way to decrease attack, there's no rule that says you can't make them go into the negatives.

It's like how CSGO gambling is legal because the lawmakers haven't outlawed it - no rule to punish them, so they go free.

It's worth noting that every single attack reduction idea I've seen states you can't go into negatives, because going into the negatives is stupid.

What if your opponent is addicted to SoSac

[Espithel]

SoSac isn't a good enough reason - having negative attack isn't really going to save your hide there.

[CleanOnion]

SoSac isn't a good enough reason - having negative attack isn't really going to save your hide there.

What about in a deck with some high-attack, low-HP cards and a bunch of Fire Nymphs?

EDIT: Where the high-attack low-HP card is more abundant than the nymphs