Blood Oath | Blood Oath

[Pineapple]

this card as it is, would only work with http://elementscommunity.org/forum/card-ideas-and-art/biomass-recycler-biomass-refiner/

That's if you want to have a net increase in HP. Sometimes, you don't always want HP (if that were the case, everyone would run 6 heals!) and would much rather draw more cards, e.g. when you're hiding behind phase shield/bonewall, when you're out-healing them with SoGs/Bonds, or when you're out of creatures in your hand and your enemy has very little creatures in his hand.

Plus, I don't really see how the change would give the card more uses; in my opinion it'd give it less uses. With the change, the card would lose: synergy with Schrodinger's Cat, synergy with CC, CC mitigation effects, etc.

not a crappy hourglass, as glass requires  (or ) to activate and its more expensive. also, death benefits from killing creatures in other ways (wall, boneyard, vulture)

Creatures aren't free, though, and neither is HP. Are you saying 5 HP and a creature together worth less than 1 measly in-element quanta?

[iskelion]

Creatures aren't free, though, and neither is HP. Are you saying 5 HP and a creature together worth less than 1 measly in-element quanta?

aflotoxin?

[Pineapple]

Creatures aren't free, though, and neither is HP. Are you saying 5 HP and a creature together worth less than 1 measly in-element quanta?

aflotoxin?

6 and 1 creature for 2 creatures by the start of your 3rd turn?

[CuCN]

Creatures aren't free, though, and neither is HP. Are you saying 5 HP and a creature together worth less than 1 measly in-element quanta?

aflotoxin?

6 and 1 creature for 2 creatures by the start of your 3rd turn?

He's suggesting his version of the card+aflatoxin to provide sacrifice fodder.

[Pineapple]

Creatures aren't free, though, and neither is HP. Are you saying 5 HP and a creature together worth less than 1 measly in-element quanta?

aflotoxin?

6 and 1 creature for 2 creatures by the start of your 3rd turn?

He's suggesting his version of the card+aflatoxin to provide sacrifice fodder.

And I'm saying Hourglass > his version + Aflatoxin + a creature you control.

[iskelion]

Creatures aren't free, though, and neither is HP. Are you saying 5 HP and a creature together worth less than 1 measly in-element quanta?

aflotoxin?

6 and 1 creature for 2 creatures by the start of your 3rd turn?

He's suggesting his version of the card+aflatoxin to provide sacrifice fodder.

And I'm saying Hourglass > his version + Aflatoxin + a creature you control.

but you cant trigger hourglass more than once each turn, and doesn't combo with death effects

have in mind, the card as it is, could easily deck you and/or kill you in one blow (pandemonium or any other aoe)

[skyironsword]

Not a very good argument. Same logic as saying dim shield is UP because of PC counters.

[iskelion]

Not a very good argument. Same logic as saying dim shield is UP because of PC counters.

quoting would help to see which argument you think isn't good

[iskelion]

although, now that i think of it, SoS would make this card useful for a couple of turns, but it would require to much combo to be of any use, and when it is, it will flood your hand, not very efficient

[Pineapple]

@iskelion: Okay, wait, lemme try to recrystallize this debate we're having (lol, quote blocks getting too big).

My version:
"When a creature dies, draw a card to inflict 5 damage to yourself."

Your version:
"Sacrifice a creature, draw a card, and lose 5 hp. You can use this ability multiple times per turn."

Analysis:
1. My version is shorter and simpler.
2. My version is generally easier to use.
3. Both versions are equal in power, but yours has a higher cost.

Which of these do you disagree with, and why?

As for SoSac, it's fine that it "requires a combo."
For one, it isn't the only "combo" this card can have. As another, all the cards, aside from Blood Oath, that would be used in this "combo" are card-efficient and advantage-efficient, unlike say Blessing or Deja Vu.
For example, SoSac is efficient is efficient in and of itself because it has such a great ability.
As are the death effect generators, such as CC cards/Retrovirus, because most deck run at least a few of them anyways. Finally, even death effect generation combos, such as Gemfinder+Cremation+Lava Golem or Fractal+Ball of Lightning are effective in that they come out in top at the end.
These death effect generators, when combined with Blood Oath, should not be deemed inefficient just because "hurr durr you use 3 cards." You are doing what you usually do, but for the measly cost of 1 , 1 card, and 5 HP (per use), you get a free card each time you do it.
Now, add SoSac to that min. 2 card combo, and you get an extremely lucky but still highly effective turn of healing and drawing, not from crippling your deck with combo-oriented cards but because you put good cards into your deck.
And last but not least, I don't see the problem with "flood[ing] your hand." How is drawing 8 extra cards bad?

[iskelion]

@iskelion: Okay, wait, lemme try to recrystallize this debate we're having (lol, quote blocks getting too big).

My version:
"When a creature dies, draw a card to inflict 5 damage to yourself."

Your version:
"Sacrifice a creature, draw a card, and lose 5 hp. You can use this ability multiple times per turn."

Analysis:
1. My version is shorter and simpler.
2. My version is generally easier to use.
3. Both versions are equal in power, but yours has a higher cost.

Which of these do you disagree with, and why?

1. it's too general, so for example a pandemonium or other aoes can make of the drawback a 1 turn KO.
2. i think having control of what you sacrifice is more practical and helps preventing the drawback to become a losing condition. so i think that your is version extremely circumstantial. You would need SoE, some aoe, and even then, there is a limit of the amount of cards you can draw (hand limit), so, you would draw some cards, and then be crippled by the rest of the game
3. i disagree for what was explained in points 1 & 2, my version gives you higher control and restricts the wild drawback
4. besides, the concept of a "blood oath" implies there is consent between the parts, so limiting it to creatures you control would be the most "theme-wise" thing for the card

--------
the other version i mentioned would be:
-Target creature you own lose 5hp, draw a card, you lose 5hp

only to keep it "theme-wise" and increase the number of possible combos (high-hp creatures, angel, etc)

[Pineapple]

Hm, interesting. While I agree the draw-back is very dangerous, it may be less dangerous than you think. Pandemonium rarely kills more than 4 creatures when it's used, which is only -20 HP for +4 cards. I think it's fair; losing 20% of the HP you start with to go through 17% of the deck you start with. Plus, at the maximum, this card can only do 40 damage in one turn (definitely not enough for an OTK). But this only occurs when you have 0 cards in your hand, and most of the time if you have 0 cards in your hand it's because you're overproducing quanta and you'll have enough quanta to play the 8 cards you just drew from Blood Oath.

The base mechanic is to mitigate CC used by your opponent, this is non-negotiable. I don't know if the cost of HP is best for a Death card, so that can be changed. However, I refuse to remove the CC mitigation and then proceed to over-complicate secondary mechanic just to create a Death permanent that can only draw cards.

Your point on the theme is valid. Perhaps this card needs a theme rework.