Flying Wall | Flying Wall

[Rutarete]

NAME: Flying Wall ELEMENT: Other COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: 0/3 when animated TEXT: Shield: Reduces damage taken by N+1. N = number of flying shields on your field.	NAME: Flying Wall ELEMENT: Other COST: 2 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: 0/4 when animated TEXT: Shield: Reduces damage taken by N+2. N = number of flying shields on your field.

ART: Rocky by EmeraldTiger IDEA: Rutarete NOTES: The shield would be animated by animate weapon (yes it is a bit weird.) Previous version: Cost: 8|5, upgraded was N+1; unupped was 1/3, upped was 0/3; cost was 7|4 Note: It starts out as a permanent; The card image is inaccurate for now; i'll change it soon. What do you all think of, as a passive ability called Shrapnel, which does: Deals damage = to atk when killed. This gives it more use, as well as requires a buff of some type like blessing, chaos power, etc. Or instead of attack it would be hp. Thoughts? SERIES:

[Genuinous]

Animated shields? Interesting....
Even if you get a whole bunch of them flying out, killing creatures with 3 HP is pretty easy... Also the cost seems to be pretty big.

[Rutarete]

Animated shields? Interesting....
Even if you get a whole bunch of them flying out, killing creatures with 3 HP is pretty easy... Also the cost seems to be pretty big.

If i made it have too much defense, i feel it's be somewhat OP. Notion to raise HP is noted.
Don't forget that the cost is random, not set to any element.

[Genuinous]

True, but now it feels a little UP.
*eh... didn't see the random quanta*
Card images would help

[Rutarete]

bump for feedback

[ninjamaster1991]

Um, why'd a flying shield have attack? Otherwise, it's a Shield, upped and unupped, for 8|5  , but for 9|6  and 2 cards, you'd give it 1 more damage blocking. Change it to block N+1|N+2 damage and reduce the cost to balance it a little.

Chart:
  DR  | quanta cost | cost in cards
1 DR | 8 (5)       | 1 card
2 DR | 17 (11)  | 3 cards
3 DR | 26 (17)  | 5 cards
4 DR | 35 (23)  | 7 cards
5 DR | 44 (29)   | 9 cards
6 DR| 53 (35)    | 11 cards.
My reasoning is that, for the first point of DR, you only need the shield. For the second DR, you need the Animate Weapon(for simplicity's sake) and the second shield. For the third, another Animate Weapon and shield. Only the non-animated shield would give DR, because no creature - so far - can create DR. That's my reasoning.

[Rutarete]

Um, why'd a flying shield have attack? So it's not completely invulnerable to shields. Otherwise, it's a Shield, upped and unupped, for 8|5  , but for 9|6  and 2 cards, you'd give it 1 more damage blocking. Change it to block N+1|N+2 damage and reduce the cost to balance it a little.

Chart:
  DR  | quanta cost | cost in cards
1 DR | 8 (5)       | 1 card
2 DR | 17 (11)  | 3 cards
3 DR | 26 (17)  | 5 cards
4 DR | 35 (23)  | 7 cards
5 DR | 44 (29)   | 9 cards
6 DR| 53 (35)    | 11 cards.
My reasoning is that, for the first point of DR, you only need the shield. For the second DR, you need the Animate Weapon(for simplicity's sake) and the second shield. For the third, another Animate Weapon and shield. Only the non-animated shield would give DR, because no creature - so far - can create DR. That's my reasoning.

This makes sense. N+1 and N+2 seems fine. I'll change it.

[ninjamaster1991]

Um, why'd a flying shield have attack? So it's not completely invulnerable to shields.It's a shield. It also has 3 hp. Otherwise, it's a Shield, upped and unupped, for 8|5  , but for 9|6  and 2 cards, you'd give it 1 more damage blocking. Change it to block N+1|N+2 damage and reduce the cost to balance it a little.

Chart:
  DR  | quanta cost | cost in cards
1 DR | 8 (5)       | 1 card
2 DR | 17 (11)  | 3 cards
3 DR | 26 (17)  | 5 cards
4 DR | 35 (23)  | 7 cards
5 DR | 44 (29)   | 9 cards
6 DR| 53 (35)    | 11 cards.
My reasoning is that, for the first point of DR, you only need the shield. For the second DR, you need the Animate Weapon(for simplicity's sake) and the second shield. For the third, another Animate Weapon and shield. Only the non-animated shield would give DR, because no creature - so far - can create DR. That's my reasoning.

This makes sense. N+1 and N+2 seems fine. I'll change it.

[Rutarete]

Um, why'd a flying shield have attack? So it's not completely invulnerable to shields.It's a shield. It also has 3 hp. Yes, it is a shield and has 3 hp; but after you've just received a somewhat painful shield bash, don't you think it deserves some attack?  Otherwise, it's a Shield, upped and unupped, for 8|5  , but for 9|6  and 2 cards, you'd give it 1 more damage blocking. Change it to block N+1|N+2 damage and reduce the cost to balance it a little.

Chart:
  DR  | quanta cost | cost in cards
1 DR | 8 (5)       | 1 card
2 DR | 17 (11)  | 3 cards
3 DR | 26 (17)  | 5 cards
4 DR | 35 (23)  | 7 cards
5 DR | 44 (29)   | 9 cards
6 DR| 53 (35)    | 11 cards.
My reasoning is that, for the first point of DR, you only need the shield. For the second DR, you need the Animate Weapon(for simplicity's sake) and the second shield. For the third, another Animate Weapon and shield. Only the non-animated shield would give DR, because no creature - so far - can create DR. That's my reasoning.

This makes sense. N+1 and N+2 seems fine. I'll change it.

If i made the unupped 0/3 what do you think about the upped being 0/4?

[ninjamaster1991]

Um, why'd a flying shield have attack? So it's not completely invulnerable to shields.It's a shield. It also has 3 hp. Yes, it is a shield and has 3 hp; but after you've just received a somewhat painful shield bash, don't you think it deserves some attack?  Otherwise, it's a Shield, upped and unupped, for 8|5  , but for 9|6  and 2 cards, you'd give it 1 more damage blocking. Change it to block N+1|N+2 damage and reduce the cost to balance it a little.

Chart:
  DR  | quanta cost | cost in cards
1 DR | 8 (5)       | 1 card
2 DR | 17 (11)  | 3 cards
3 DR | 26 (17)  | 5 cards
4 DR | 35 (23)  | 7 cards
5 DR | 44 (29)   | 9 cards
6 DR| 53 (35)    | 11 cards.
My reasoning is that, for the first point of DR, you only need the shield. For the second DR, you need the Animate Weapon(for simplicity's sake) and the second shield. For the third, another Animate Weapon and shield. Only the non-animated shield would give DR, because no creature - so far - can create DR. That's my reasoning.

This makes sense. N+1 and N+2 seems fine. I'll change it.

If i made the unupped 0/3 what do you think about the upped being 0/4?

Seems fair. Didn't make sense that only the unupped had attack.

[Smurrf]

The biggest problem I have with it is that it absolutely requires at least three cards to be of any real use. Otherwise, all it's doing is blocking 1 damage...and you're going to be paying 15 quanta to block 6 damage.  And that 6 damage is ONLY if the opponent doesn't Fire Bolt, Steal, Deflag, etc...seems very, very underpowered atm.

[Rutarete]

The biggest problem I have with it is that it absolutely requires at least three cards to be of any real use. Otherwise, all it's doing is blocking 1 damage...and you're going to be paying 15 quanta to block 6 damage.  And that 6 damage is ONLY if the opponent doesn't Fire Bolt, Steal, Deflag, etc...seems very, very underpowered atm.

It's no more UP than shield unupped and no more UP than tower shield upped. So when you have 1 flying and one in the shield slot, you've got the equivalent of a diamond shield. Do you still think it's UP? The more you have, the more like Hope shield it is.