Warthog | Warthog

[Jappert]

Very interesting mechanic I must say, good thinking.

Adding a negetive effect to unsuccessful attacks is a great idea, I feel like destroying a permanent is to harsh though (and OP). It's a complete and hard counter to a huge ammount of cards (all those shields mentioned earlier).

It's a great idea but not yet worked out well enough in my opinion. It needs balancing.

[moomoose]

eh, its balanced.  the attack isnt too low to always be blocked and cause destruction, the destruction is random so it isnt a reliable means to remove shields or specific permanents of value, it has fairly low health and can be removed from play rather quickly through virtually all means of cc, and antimatter effectively removes the skill from consideration.

[gumbeh]

I like it. intended to trigger on sundial, I'd hope? Also, what do you mean by "hax shield"?

[oblivion1212]

to those who say it's OP, i think it removes pillars/pends too...
they are permanents, aren't they?
so, the more pillars/pends you have, the less chance it breaks something important? yes?
 

i like the art.. cartoon-ey 

[moomoose]

"so, the more pillars/pends you have, the less chance it breaks something important? yes?"

depends on what you mean by that, it should count them by stack, not so much it can choose to target pillar #1 through pillar #10 in the same stack.  but if you have several stacks of pillars/pends, yes, that would lessen the chance of something else being destroyed

"intended to trigger on sundial"?

could go either way, i was leaning towards "no" because it stops creatures from attacking in the first place, rather than causing attacks to attempted but be unsuccessful.

[Jappert]

"intended to trigger on sundial"?

could go either way, i was leaning towards "no" because it stops creatures from attacking in the first place, rather than causing attacks to attempted but be unsuccessful.

Agreed, creatures don't attack vs sundial at all so they can't miss either

[Toxx]

I would love to see it's attack be 1 but that might make it OP lol

[EvaRia]

"so, the more pillars/pends you have, the less chance it breaks something important? yes?"

depends on what you mean by that, it should count them by stack, not so much it can choose to target pillar #1 through pillar #10 in the same stack.  but if you have several stacks of pillars/pends, yes, that would lessen the chance of something else being destroyed

"intended to trigger on sundial"?

could go either way, i was leaning towards "no" because it stops creatures from attacking in the first place, rather than causing attacks to attempted but be unsuccessful.

Actually, Sundial sets all creature's attack values to 0. So they still attack, they just do no damage.

[moomoose]

good enough for me, still not an unsuccessful attack, so pretty much just semantics i suppose.

[oblivion1212]

Wild oblivion1212's idea appeared!
 

by unsuccessful, does it mean that it failed to do damage?
if so, then through anti-matter-ing it, you not only protect it from AI's targeted CCs,
but also make it a random PC-er...
or negative attack is still considered a successful attack?

[moomoose]

negative still considered successful, i believe that was already covered in the notes section of the card.

[sharkweekk]

If sundial could trigger the effect, I think it would make the card too strong because you could play your own sundial to make sure they don't have a successful attack. Just think, play three or four warthogs, then play sundial a few turns in a row to completely wipe out your opponent's permanents.