Black Locust | Shadow Locust

[Rutarete]

NAME: Black Locust ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 4 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: N | 1 TEXT: Cloaks the area it's in.	NAME: Shadow Locust ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 3 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: N + 1 | 1 TEXT: Cloaks the area it's in.

ART: Emerald Tiger IDEA: Rutarete NOTES: Deck effects: Mindgate (and possibly SoB) is negated. Opponent can't see how many cards you have left. Hand effects: Precog still draws, but does not let you see their hand. Golden Nymph is affected similarly. Nightmare removes cloaking of the hand. Each one only cloaks its own spot, not the whole field. There might be some cards missing from the above lists. N functions like Scarabs. Thanks Drake for helping with the theme. SERIES:

[OdinVanguard]

Interesting. You may need to provide a little more info in the card itself to keep players from getting confused, but I like the idea...

I am a little worried it might step on sanctuary's toes a little bit, but its definitely quite distinct in its function.

I;m not sure on the balancing for an attack power version of swarm. I worry this may be a little too powerful in conjunction with mitosis or fractal...

Will this card be affected by its own cloak or the cloak of nearby locusts? If so, then I think it will be OP when combo'd with fractal since it would not only grow very high in attack power, but would also provide its own powerful anti-CC. If not, it should be ok.

Also, suppose someone casts, say, plague. What how will this interact with the field invisibility?
In the case of cloak, the cloak was destroyed. I would assume that wouldn't be the case here... If that is so, how will the field invisibility effect be handled?

[Rutarete]

Field cloaking is the same for this as Cloak is. Plague would remove it. I don't worry too much about the swarm because of the oh so frail 1 hp. And each one only cloaks its own spot, not the whole field.

[EmeraldTiger]

how is that

[Rutarete]

Updated with great art from ET! Thanks again

[moomoose]

seems a bit cheap, and i dont mean costwise.  i understand that theyre fragile to aoe or damage shields, but being able to fuel an otherwise untargetable N (or N+1) attack creature with mitosis/fractal isnt a desirable combo imo.  in the past, i have come up with N attack creatures and went out of my way to either make them immaterial or came up with a passive that would prevent the card from being copied.  my 2c.

edit- switched N=1 to N+1. laptop shift key issue

[EmeraldTiger]

how about not untargetable but hard to target?

[Joseph7]

I like this card and how it can throw a small wrench in some decks.
To deal with the fractal/mitosis issue that could come up, I think that the locusts should have the passive "togetherness" (or a word with similar meaning), which would entail that the locust cannot be targeted by any spell requiring targeting, but is still effected by the spells that remove invisibility, i.e. fire storm, plague, thunderstorm. The locusts act as a team and cloak as a team, so they should only go down as a team.

[Drake_XIV]

Hm, for some reason, when I was helping with this, I had the idea that it would be cloaked for both sides, but that was off the mark in hindsight.

Also, I was under the impression that the Cloaking was active, so Mitosis would remove Cloaking, and this making it targetable for CC.

But the cost should be able to counteract Fractal and Mitosis issues.  It shouldn't be easy to generate sufficient like that.

I like this card and how it can throw a small wrench in some decks.
To deal with the fractal/mitosis issue that could come up, I think that the locusts should have the passive "togetherness" (or a word with similar meaning), which would entail that the locust cannot be targeted by any spell requiring targeting, but is still effected by the spells that remove invisibility, i.e. fire storm, plague, thunderstorm. The locusts act as a team and cloak as a team, so they should only go down as a team.

For you ability, thematically, it would not work.  They'd cloak themselves with each other, so such a spell would still hit a target.

[moomoose]

a 3 cost is not prohibitive of a fractal deck, especially in darkness where pests would be a great compliment.

[Drake_XIV]

I was looking at unupped.

That being said, since it gets the attack boost, the upgraded doesn't need a cost drop...

[moomoose]

even at a cost of 4, replication cards are not hindered very much, and is utilized in other existing fractal decks.  if there is no mechanism or high cost set out to discourage or flat out prevent copying mechanics, i cannot support an N attack creature.