Duo vs Monoif we make it a duo via ability cost, we can lower its initial cost to enable a better synergy with mitosis
A mono card will create more decks despite the +1 casting cost relative to a duo card.
Activation CostBounce feels like an Air ability to me. That would make the activation cost X
.
Since bounce returns the card but not the quanta used to cast the creature, I think the activation cost should be low. 1
|1
Bounced creatures will be replayed many times. Only the first casting cost a draw. But the rest have the additional cost of the activation cost. Again a 1
|1
activation costs fits.
Casting CostThis card probably should hit the field quickly but not in the beginning of the game. A cost of 4
-6
would fit.
This card protects itself by bouncing. It should have a cost that is repeatable but not spammable. A cost of 5
|4
would fit.
HPAlright...So considering OldTrees' idea of this creature using it's ability to protect itself, as well as the swift mechanic, the HP of this creature should be low.
The second tier of hp is 1-5hp. (The first tier is 0hp and would restrict the ability usage)
1: one hit
2: infection takes 2 turns
3: 2 infections for 2 turns, 1 infection 3 turns, tier 2 lesser bolts (require stock quanta)
4: snipe takes 2, infection takes +1 turn, tier 2 fire bolt
5: shockwave takes 2, tier 3 lesser bolts
2|3 hp
AttackThe bouncing ability by itself makes this a moderate to high priority depending on the deck and the bounce tricks used.
A low attack would get a lower cost.
A very low attack would enable butterfly effect. [FlareGlutox]
BE bounce has a 1 turn advantage over BE cat and is more resilient but requires a duo.
(Cat's fragile nature encourages the use of CC indirectly reducing the resilience of BE on BE cat relative to BE bounce)
2 attack would ensure that BE cat remains a cheaper alternative to BE bounce.
That would be
Casting Cost: 5
|4
Swift
: Grant Bounce passive
Hp: 2|3
Attack: 2|2
However that would be UP by 1-2 q*.
*q is the unit for cost in casting cost quanta.
Minor mechanical compromises
Casting Cost: 4
|4
Swift
: Grant Bounce passive
Hp: 2|3
Attack: 2|4
This appears balanced to me considering the potential abnormally synergistic usages of BE, Mitosis, Spark, Fire Shield. (I may be underestimating the utility/strength one of those)
HoweverThe community had decided through a poll for this card to be an Air creature. I believe that details have surfaced that
might justify reconsideration and
perhaps a new poll.
I should note if the creature were a Time creature it would be possible to have a balanced upgraded BE synergy and would enable an interaction between Readiness and Swift that would have benefited the card's versatility.
So far the only thematic aspects involved in the selection of the creature's element are:
Low attack, Low hp and Swift.
Other design motives involved are:
BE balancing and Duo vs Mono.
Just to be clear: As an activated ability, Bounce is represented in the Activation cost. Its theme is not relevant to the casting cost.
More notes:
Bounce should not trigger death effects. If a creature is alive and dead it is a cat. No other creature should be given that (especially not Spark).
I think devour would force the creature to retreat but not feed the Oytugh. (Unless a leg is sufficient for the +1|+1
)
Mutation should have this creature as an option. It would be comparable in value with other mutation results through skill rather than strength.
Alfatoxin seems to trump Skull Shield and both trump Phoenix. To keep the creature in one place Bounce should trump all three. (no Ash, Cell or Skeleton)
If it remains Air it probably should remain airborne. However the bouncing nature leaves room for it not being airborne if a good mechanical reason is given for a non airborne Air creature.
RT clogs the draw, Bounce clogs the hand. The effects are different.
What should happens with a full hand? Failure to retreat?
