Animism | Animism

[rob77dp]

Do I get that right that it deals 12 dmg extra + the total quanta cost of your permanents?
Comparing it to unstable gas it should deal at least 25 dmg (maybe even 35) in order to be balanced, because it costs a few more quanta, has no synergy with the vast majority of dmg dealing cards and most likely requires permanents that are off element. Also it does not bypass shields and does not ofer cc.
Let me check that: Rainbow: 29 dmg: 12 +4 from pulverizer +3 from sanctuary+4 from Hourglas +6 from dimensional shield
It could work but does not necessarily do that.
Mono: 12 + 7 from jade shield +2 from jade staff +2x4 from 2 feral bonds=29dmg
This is even less likely since it requires 2copies of a card and has no synergy with draw power from hourglas
I would suggest giving it 1 bonus dmg for each liferelated permanent including pillars.
Edit: How does it interact with unstable gases generated by nymphs? Does it still gain 6 dmg from them?

Twelve was the damage total from the example given, not a base damage to which summon costs of permanents are added.

I am working up a deck example right now...  Example included now, below.

Spoiler for deck code:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

4t9 4t9 4t9 4t9 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c0 5c5 5c5 5c6 5c6 5c6 5c6 5c6 5lm 5lm 5lm 5lm 5lm 5lm 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 5mq 8pn

Spoiler for screenshot:

Exact damage win:

Would have been even sooner had AI not dropped early BE'd Cat .

What does this mean?  Well, really only means that it isn't so UP as to not be use-able in AI3 decks and not probably not OP.  Perhaps someone could work up a Time (good expensive shield, expensive stalling weapon, Hourglasses, Deja Vu synergy with Bond?) example...

[skyironsword]

^ Thank you for explaining that to him: He already thought it was underpowered.

So now it's even more underpowered!

To be honest, it should cost 3|2.

[jawdirk]

Try testing the deck above with dragons instead of Animism.

Consider Ghostal:

something like this, couldn't find the tuned deck:

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q8 7q8 7qe 7qe 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 80d 80d 80d 80d 80d 80d 80i 80i 8pu

It only uses 2 GotP + 2 Fractal for its damage. Would your card have a place in Ghostal if it was an aether card? I'm not suggesting that it should be an aether card, I'm just saying that it is a little underpowered compared to fractal. Even though Ghostal uses only permanents other than its killing combination, Animism would be too expensive and too weak to work with that deck.

I agree that it should be significantly cheaper.

[kaempfer13]

Hover over cards for details, click for permalink

Deck import code : [Select]

5cg 5cg 5cg 7ba 7ba 7ba 7ba 7ba 7ba 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q0 7q3 7q4 7q4 7q4 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q5 7q8 7q8 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 7ri 8pn

An eternal stall is quite fitting; replace the nymphes with animism. Well the combo would have worked if the nymphes where animism however it also worked with the actual nymphes . So I am not sure whether the stall itself is just that powerful or animism would actually be a good addition.
Also thanks for clarifying how the dmg is calculated.

[skyironsword]

... is it really worth building a deck around? I suppose it might work in an OTK, but this is a horrible rush card. Really, any deck that doesn't use a lot of permanents.

[Plastica]

Thank you, everyone above, for such an in-depth analysis.

Also, a poll has been added to decide how much the cost of the card should be reduced.

Pillars are FREE so you can only deal damage with catapults, graveyards and etc.

The idea was to include pillars dealing 1 point each in the card's description.
Would that be something that could merit a slightly higher cost than skyironsword's suggestion?
/even a good idea in the first place?

Does damage reduction apply to each permant's attack, or only the combined damage?

Damage reduction would be applied to each permanent.
However, if the card is already UP, should this be changed to direct spell damage?

[jawdirk]

The idea was to include pillars dealing 1 point each in the card's description.
Would that be something that could merit a slightly higher cost than skyironsword's suggestion?
/even a good idea in the first place?

I don't think it is a good idea. I think the casting cost of permanents is much more interesting than the number of pillars you can draw.

Damage reduction would be applied to each permanent.
However, if the card is already UP, should this be changed to direct spell damage?

The physical damage seems nicely thematic - the idea of the objects crashing into the enemy. I like DR per permanent. Most of the DR shields are rarely used anyway and could use a buff.

I could see buffing it by making it based on the combined cost of ALL permanents, not just your own.

[andretimpa]

You should include the 12 spell damage in the card description.

[CuCN]

You should include the 12 spell damage in the card description.

What 12 spell damage?

[Plastica]

The physical damage seems nicely thematic - the idea of the objects crashing into the enemy. I like DR per permanent. Most of the DR shields are rarely used anyway and could use a buff.

I could see buffing it by making it based on the combined cost of ALL permanents, not just your own.

I like the idea of using all permanents in play. Do you think, in that case, that 3 | 2 (or something within that general range) is still going to be a balanced cost?

[jawdirk]

The physical damage seems nicely thematic - the idea of the objects crashing into the enemy. I like DR per permanent. Most of the DR shields are rarely used anyway and could use a buff.

I could see buffing it by making it based on the combined cost of ALL permanents, not just your own.

I like the idea of using all permanents in play. Do you think, in that case, that 3 | 2 (or something within that general range) is still going to be a balanced cost?

My intuition is that it would still be balanced. Many decks use few or no permanents with cost, and many permanents give life every turn or protect against physical damage, and those abilities counter this spell anyway. I like this odd form of direct damage for life. I think it would be an interesting challenge to make a deck with this card, since most permanents are stalling, and direct damage is rushing.

[andretimpa]

You should include the 12 spell damage in the card description.

What 12 spell damage?

Do weapons also deal their regular damage?

I would assume so, since there is nothing about the permanents being delayed for 1 turn.

Anyways, this deals spell or physical damage? You contradict yourself in the description.

The spell is responsible for 12 damage; however, the damage dealt is physical.

The one Plastica is talking about. It's in the notes of the card, but not in the card text.