Project: Protection (bring balance to the force)

[moomoose]

The game of elements is very much a series of balancing acts, deal damage and avoid damage, play your cards and remove your opponent's cards, etc.  Currently it appears as if the general "mess with your opponent" (PC , CC , QC , hand manipulation ) cards greatly outnumber "stop your opponent from messing with you" (quint  , PA , sanctuary , burrowable creatures ) cards.

My challenge is to encourage generation of balanced card ideas and mechanics which contribute to the "stop your opponent from messing with you" side, preferably without creating a card completely redundant to the established "make permanent untargetable" spell/ability, "make creature untargetable" spell/ability, or "Your quanta pool and your hand can not be altered during your opponent's turn." on a permanent.

NAME: Brambles ELEMENT: Life COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: The target creature gains the passive ability brambles : deals 10 damage when targeted by the opponent.	NAME: Brambles ELEMENT: Life COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: The target creature gains the passive ability brambles : deals 15 damage when targeted by the opponent.

ART: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/49628 IDEA: moomoose NOTES: something along these lines, for example. SERIES:

[OldTrees]

As always there are different genres
Negation (Santuary, Immaterial)
Mitigation (Damage reduction / Adrenaline)
Retribution (Brambles above)

Certain elements fit certain genres better than others.

[moomoose]

this is true, but many elements could very well have novel protection mechanics developed and fit thematically within the element.

negation can be hard or soft, immaterial is hard, once it is on, it is completely safe.  sanctuary and cloak potentially can be removed.
mitigation each element currently has in the form of shields, and protection from damage dealing is not a goal of this proposed project
retribution is intrinsically a soft protection, where it discourages the opponent from effecting the card to a customizable extent.

negation can be expanded upon, creatures that prevent your deck/hand from being altered (nightmare, silence, reverse time), for example.
retribution has been suggested in various forms, previously, but has gained very little traction overall.  i think this would be an opportunity to develop solid discouragement ideas to either apply to existing cards with a new permanent/creature/spell, or self contained in a few creature or permanent.

brainstorm fodder:
negation- protects either the hand, quanta, permanents or creatures from being targeted directly or indirectly
retribution- causes undesirable penalties should the user perform a distinct trigger.  an example in game is a self imposed limitation on nova/SN. 
potential trigger ideas to investigate for retribution:
should a creature/permanent be targeted/damaged/killed/destroyed
should multiples of a card be played in the same turn
should the hand/quanta pool be altered

if it were to be expanded to simply being triggered the next time a spell is cast or a creature/permanent be played, this would be more generally offensive in nature, and outside the scope of the project.

[OldTrees]

Mitigation in this case was referring to mitigating CC, PC, QC and Hand Manipulation. A creature having DR mitigates the effect of lethal CC. Adrenaline mitigates the effect of most non lethal CC.

One of the concerns to be wary of is how swingy situational benefit can be.
A card that stops your deck from being altered would be very situational since only Reverse Time and Shard of Bravery alter the opponent's deck.
On the other hand, we all know how common CC is. Anti-CC cards would usually be useful in a match.

It would be very difficult to balance an immaterial Sanctuary. The difference in value against QC and non QC decks would be too great. From this I would conclude a guideline that the more situational the anti control, the softer and cheaper it should be.

There are 3 forms of Retribution
1) Triggering the retribution is better than not using the control. (Cheap reliable retribution)
2) The opponent is ambivalent. (Able to influence the opponent's decision)
3) The retribution is worse than not using the control. (Acts like hard negation)

[moomoose]

"Mitigation in this case was referring to mitigating CC, PC, QC and Hand Manipulation. A creature having DR mitigates the effect of lethal CC. Adrenaline mitigates the effect of most non lethal CC."

ah, i see, but this isn't exactly the protection i had in mind, as adrenaline seems to mostly be an offensive ability that happens to help with delay mechanics.

"One of the concerns to be wary of is how swingy situational benefit can be.
A card that stops your deck from being altered would be very situational since only Reverse Time and Shard of Bravery alter the opponent's deck."

nightmare adds cards to the hand, and silence prevents using cards in the hand, i consider this to be hand altering as well.  and i agree, the minor bonuses would have to be on cards with other benefits as well, similar to sundial both preventing attacks and having a draw rate increase incorporated in it, or a creature like saraph that has a minor skill in addition to its good atk/cost ratio.
On the other hand, we all know how common CC is. Anti-CC cards would usually be useful in a match.

"It would be very difficult to balance an immaterial Sanctuary. The difference in value against QC and non QC decks would be too great."

an immaterial sanctuary is already possible with a 2 card combo- but you're right, i would not suggest a card that has a hard negation of itself and other cards or areas (hand, quanta, creatures,permanents,etc) simultaneously within the single card.

"From this I would conclude a guideline that the more situational the anti control, the softer and cheaper it should be."

i dont know if it has to be that linear, i think it could be more flexible, as you can provide other balancing mechanisms or add other incentives to use the card, which will impact the cost of the card.

[OldTrees]

"Mitigation in this case was referring to mitigating CC, PC, QC and Hand Manipulation. A creature having DR mitigates the effect of lethal CC. Adrenaline mitigates the effect of most non lethal CC."

ah, i see, but this isn't exactly the protection i had in mind, as adrenaline seems to mostly be an offensive ability that happens to help with delay mechanics.

Perhaps Phoenix/Ash would be a better example of mitigation.

Mitigation makes control more expensive by requiring more investment (cards, uses, turns, quanta) to achieve the same level of control.

[moomoose]

thats a good example, indeed.

also, brings to mind cards like treant, barkskin, turtle, thunderslug and the cards which have been posted where cards would ignore the first x number of spells or whatever that targeted it.