Honestly I have not seen any evidence that the Effect < Cost. What I have seen is evidence that the purpose (shield bypass) and the Attack are not in agreement.
Part of my issue here is that I personally disagree with how much value is currently put on Venom as a contributor to card cost for creatures. Assuming I'm understanding this correctly, the current cost calculation for Forest Scorpion is 1 attack (1 cost) - 1 (Life's element modifier bonus) + 0 (HP modifier) = 0. Because Forest Scorpion is placed at 3
, this would seem to indicate that Venom is worth 3
. However, Venom is listed as being worth 2 additional cost according to
your own Card Design guide assuming that it has no mono buffs (in which case I assume that this includes Adrenaline). This then causes an issue with how Pufferfish is balanced because 3 attack (3 cost) + 0 cost (HP modifier) + 2 cost (Venom, no mono buffs) = 5
but because Pufferfish is also an upgraded card this means that there should be at least 1 additional modifier factored in somewhere whether it be +1 attack, -1 cost, etc. Does this mean that Venom is placed at an ability value of 3 regardless of an element's access to in-element buffs? After reconsidering nensuru's comparison of Horned Frog to a 2 attack Scorpion I'm finding it harder to agree with the in-element buff clause applying to 1 attack creatures as well (in Adrenaline's case at least).
I would normally refrain from comparing creature cost calculation and weapon cost calculation since it seems that weapons are balanced on a completely different scale than creatures, but if we were to make Arsenic fit a similar role as Forest Scorpion then I would be interested in seeing how the community would react to reducing unupped Arsenic to both 1 cost and 1 attack and seeing the reaction. I'm fairly certain it would be considerably negative. While I have some reservations when it comes to giving both +1 cost and +1 attack to Forest Scorpion, I would favor it more than its current state at the moment.
His scorpion version (4 2/2) would be good to counter 1dr shields, but it would not be so effective against full blocking shields, where the rush, as ARTH mentioned, is most valuable
I'm not sure what kind of magical deck he's using to where he's able to defeat Mono
and Mono
by getting a great amount of Poison on the opponent before they're able to block off the Scorpions (or even if his opponent at the time was smart enough to consider this) consistently, but as someone who I should hope has had at the very least an equal amount of experience with these types of match-ups, my experience tells me that unless you have copious amounts of luck in your favor or your opponent hasn't even bothered putting more than 3 copies of Dims/Wings in their deck, your chances of being able to connect enough hits to where Poison ultimately finishes them off before they can hit you harder or destroy everything that you own is not likely at all. I mean just use common sense here: Unless the opponent's deck has a QI of 15, how likely do you think it is that they won't be able to start a Shield chain by turn...3?
Since 1dr shields have 1-2 copies on most decks, and fulldr shields are more likely to come im 5-6 i would opt for rushing the poison counters then trying to bypass the 1dr shields
I suppose this would be true in more randomized PvP, but there are plenty of cases in restrictive PvP (i.e you know your opponent is going to use mainly Life cards) where adding additional copies of a 1DR shield would be extremely useful just because it cuts down on Adrenaline's damage output considerably (not to mention Skull Shield and Ice Shield do even more damage to that card). You may also want to consider that smarter opponents won't start a chain of Wings/Dims until you've started to inflict damage on them (or if it's late into the game already), in which case a +1 cost/attack bonus will a) not interfere with your ability to play a Scorpion + Adrenaline combo much more than its current state and b) grant you an additional damage head start to deal to the opponent before they decide to start chaining shields. In fact, the threat of a creature dealing 8 damage + 2 Poison damage each turn may very well prompt the opponent to play Dim Shields earlier than they normally would, increasing the odds of a Dim Shield chain breaking earlier.
Adrena scorp vs Adrena horned frog
Spoiler for Hidden:
| Turns | Adrena scorp(un) | X | Adrena frog | X | Adrena scorp(up) |
| 1 | 4(2) | | 12 | | 8(2) |
| 2 | 10(4) | | 24 | | 18(4) |
| 3 | 18(6) | | 36 | | 30(6) |
| 4 | 28(8 ) | | 48 | | 44(8 ) |
| 5 | 40(10) | | 62 | | 60(10) |
| 6 | 54(12) | | 74 | | 78(12) |
| 7 | 70(14) | | 86 | | 98(14) |
| 8 | 88(16) | | 98 | | 120(16) |
| 9 | 108(18) | | 110 | | 144(18) |
So this indicates that AdrenaScorps unupped should surpass a single Frog's damage output by turn 6 with the proposed changes. What this doesn't factor in, however, is the fact that the Scorp's extra cost will make less Scorpions playable per Frog each turn. I can't do much more than speculate how that affect the difference in speed though, and I recognize that this change may actually make 3 cost, 2 attack unupped too fast. If that's the case then 2 attack for 4 cost would be more appropriate.
