Living Weapon | Biological Weapon

[phaedrus]

Not sure I like this.
1. I would want actual creature themed weapons. Creatures in weapon slots just seems lame.
2. And making a whole host of creature themed weapons and the art for them would be a huge undertaking.
3. Also, I think it may be OP as CC. 4 life quanta could make 3 creature just disappear, with one remaining in the creature slot. Unless I'm mistaken.
4. Also a potentially OP buff-on crimson dragons for example.

1. And weapons in creature slots isn't how?
2. Compare to Animate Weapon. They wouldn't be new cards, and wouldn't have new art.
3. Note that I had some doubts about making it targetable on enemy creatures. If that is deemed OP, then I'll change it.
4. Compare to Plate Armor | Heavy Armor. It's still destroyable by PC.

I see your points Xeno, and will respond with the following.

For a creature to be a weapon it seems like it must evolve in certain ways (towards certain strengths and away from others), and I would like it if that evolution were reflected in the art/card's nature more rather than less. When a weapon is animated it feels to me like it actually becomes a creature (that it gains X HPs helps). I just think it is harder to make that evolution feel right when making creatures into weapons, because there are so many creatures and because the evolution is actually quite different from animate weapon in my mind.

To balance it as CC, all we would have to do is make it so that you can't stack creature-weapons on top of each other. Once you've used it as CC once, you can't again unless the opponent replaces it with an actual weapon or destroys it.
The plate armor argument is valid, and on reflecting agree it isn't OP in most creature HP buff scenarios.

A weakness though is that instead of contributing to fixing the relative lack of PC options in the game, I think it may do the opposite. Creature weapons with powerful skills scream "OP unless you're carrying PC". Ya, the opponent may also be carrying this card, but it relies on your playing a weaker creature than your current creature-weapon in order to be useful.

Just not sure if it is valid.

Phaedrus.

[Nepycros]

And what exactly and how are you contributing by arguments?

I at least put up a list. Thats contributing some amount.

Anybody else thought of what happens when you weaponize a Nymph Queen?

Same thing that happens when you do it to Pharoah. This isn't a puzzle game.

[Arum]

The EXACT same THING?

I think not

I mean that would you be able to use nymphs tears?

Probably but i'm thinking thats OP

Pharaoh Weapon would be epic in the fractarab devour deck

[Xenocidius]

Weapon Pharaoh generates creature Scarabs. Weapon Nymph Queen can cast Nymph's Tears.

Since there's so much debate regarding whether it should be able to target enemy creatures, I've put up a poll.

[CPU24/7]

Great art but I don't think that anybody would use this.

[DantesAtropos]

Great art but I don't think that anybody would use this.

I disagree with you this card has an amazing amount of synergy with many currently popular deck builds.  That aside this card is likely to be a game breaker. Unless better regulated than right now the effects of this card can create weapons that are extremely over powered. Any fire creature other than  ash eater targeted by this card would create a over powered weapon. For example if this card was to target an enraged Fire Nymph a player would have a 7 attack weapon and creature control over anything that has less than 6 life. I suggest the card create new generic weapons for each element this way no extremes would be reached when using this card.

[RRQJ]

base stats, so no, using this on fire nymph would give you a 1 atk weapon.  And for your example, you're better off using owl's eye.  yes, it doesn't do as much cc damage, but it's way less quanta expenditure.

[Xenocidius]

To clarify, this is how it would look in the game: