Death Tax | Death Toll

[OldTrees]

Death Toll does a 1 time burst of damage
Boneyard creates a creature that attacks every turn

N damage is worth 1 attack (until the board is full)

Boneyard = 1 attack per trigger for 3
Graveyard = 2 attack per trigger for 6

N damage is worth 1 attack is worth 3
Y damage is worth Y/N attack is worth 3Y/N
3 damage is worth 3/N attack is worth 9/N

This is all estimating for if every death trigger damages your opponent. This is currently not the case but has been suggested and would be easier to balance.

Recommendation:
Make every death trigger damage the opponent of the controller.
Assuming N=3, change cost to 3|2 this cost will probably have to be increased due to Death Tax continuing to work after the 23rd trigger. (I would guess 5|3 )

[bored_ninja777]

ok so a little lower cost from what i understand out of all this.. you guys seem to be misconstruing my idea though..
simply when a creature dies.. the owner takes 3 damage..

are you all suggesting that when a creature dies only the opponent takes damage?

also, the immaterial part.. that could be interesting.. but having it absorb wouldnt work so well due to the fact that soul catcher would just make plenty of .. i could have it absorb ? 

[OldTrees]

ok so a little lower cost from what i understand out of all this.. you guys seem to be misconstruing my idea though..
simply when a creature dies.. the owner takes 3 damage..
Correct
are you all suggesting that when a creature dies only the opponent takes damage?
Yes because that strengthens the effect and makes it easier to balance
also, the immaterial part.. that could be interesting.. but having it absorb wouldnt work so well due to the fact that soul catcher would just make plenty of .. i could have it absorb ?
I would recommend if using an absorb cost (silly IMO) then have it absorb for the effect is not that strong and there is no need to force a duo

[bored_ninja777]

ok so a little lower cost from what i understand out of all this.. you guys seem to be misconstruing my idea though..
simply when a creature dies.. the owner takes 3 damage..
Correct
are you all suggesting that when a creature dies only the opponent takes damage?
Yes because that strengthens the effect and makes it easier to balance
also, the immaterial part.. that could be interesting.. but having it absorb wouldnt work so well due to the fact that soul catcher would just make plenty of .. i could have it absorb ?
I would recommend if using an absorb cost (silly IMO) then have it absorb for the effect is not that strong and there is no need to force a duo

i see.. so you all prefer when a creature dies your opponent takes damage.  wouldnt that make lightning ball overpowered? 5 damage plus 3 from this.  using catapult would make it more deadly.

Ill lower the cost to 6 | 4 if that seems better?
as for absorbing.. im not sure.. if i do add that it wouldnt be till later. if it seems best to balance that way.

one other thought...

what if when played it goes to my opponents side taking up a permanent slot.. (owner of death toll takes damage when creatures die) forcing it to be just a one way.

[Flayne]

ok so a little lower cost from what i understand out of all this.. you guys seem to be misconstruing my idea though..
simply when a creature dies.. the owner takes 3 damage..

are you all suggesting that when a creature dies only the opponent takes damage?

also, the immaterial part.. that could be interesting.. but having it absorb wouldnt work so well due to the fact that soul catcher would just make plenty of .. i could have it absorb ?

thats the point of it, if i use this card (with the stuff i suggested), plus plague, poison etc. it could enable a new use for dream catcher,
im not sure  would work since it would be a totally different sync of elements, but interesting aswell.

[DrunkDestroyer]

To me this card seems very situational. Even with Aflatoxin + Plague (stick in a skull shield and this and you have a very interesting mono deck, I'd be pretty impressed) - you can't count on your opponent not being immortal/creatureless (You could argue that this is the same with many decks but this card seems like the central point around a strategy, and not having any alternate uses). And in other situations, this card may even put you at a slight disadvantage if I have interpreted it correctly by "inflict damage to the owner".
I would lower the cost because to me, the main mono-combo would be extremely expensive with aflatoxin and plague (the cool thing here is if you time it right, you will only have to play aflatoxin once), and the situational disadvantage should also keep the cost down. I think 5|4 or 5|3 Rather than the 6|4 you suggested.
If you are planning to keep an upkeep cost of aether (to keep it immortal) it would have to not destroy it if not paid (unlike Flooding), because I really like the idea of this working as a mono deck.

I suggest not making it appear on your opponents side, because I kind of like this balance, and this way it isn't abuseable with Schroedingers Cat. Makes it a more interesting card overall IMO.

[bored_ninja777]

To me this card seems very situational. Even with Aflatoxin + Plague (stick in a skull shield and this and you have a very interesting mono deck, I'd be pretty impressed) - you can't count on your opponent not being immortal/creatureless (You could argue that this is the same with many decks but this card seems like the central point around a strategy, and not having any alternate uses). And in other situations, this card may even put you at a slight disadvantage if I have interpreted it correctly by "inflict damage to the owner".
I would lower the cost because to me, the main mono-combo would be extremely expensive with aflatoxin and plague (the cool thing here is if you time it right, you will only have to play aflatoxin once), and the situational disadvantage should also keep the cost down. I think 5|4 or 5|3 Rather than the 6|4 you suggested.
If you are planning to keep an upkeep cost of aether (to keep it immortal) it would have to not destroy it if not paid (unlike Flooding), because I really like the idea of this working as a mono deck.

I suggest not making it appear on your opponents side, because I kind of like this balance, and this way it isn't abuseable with Schroedingers Cat. Makes it a more interesting card overall IMO.

first, thank you for the well thought out comment, i appreciate it.
I suppose it can be situational, but almost all decks have creatures that die. So losing health each time one dies can cost you. yes it is fairly geared toward use with malignant cell and manipulating it to an even greater advantage. the only problem i have with making this only hurt the opponent is if i get a lot of skeletons or fireflies or scarabs and i start using trebuchet not only is it one sided damage to the opponent but its a double hit. damage from trebuchet and death toll.. and death tolls wouldnt have a cost to activate it. 
i kind of like having it go to the opponents side taking up space and making it immaterial. it may be too strong then as well. i will work on fixing the cost when i have more free time. possibly choices so far are my earlier suggestion 6/4 or i may do 5/4. i think 3 would be too cheap for 3 damage.

[Drobbit]

How about: "Every time a creature dies, its owner must pay half its cost. If not, this deals 3 damage".

[bored_ninja777]

How about: "Every time a creature dies, its owner must pay half its cost. If not, this deals 3 damage".

that really doesnt qualify for a death toll.. you have something die, you pay for it with ur hp. most things creature wise if in abundance cost very little and then halving it would make it even less..so the 3 damage wouldnt be used much in ur way. i dont want to give the opponent something that drains quanta like dissapation shield.
this is meant to be used with a deck focused on CC. I think i will change the wording to say if my opponents creature dies the opponent takes 3 damage just to make sure that it isnt focusing on my creatures as people state is better.

[YoYoBro]

Not to mention how hard to codify that would be. Keep it simple.. simple = better.

[bored_ninja777]

Not to mention how hard to codify that would be. Keep it simple.. simple = better.

this is not that hard to code... all you have to do is when they try to discard it.. warn them no you cant.. and spells that destroy (fire storm, lightning etc.) cannot kill it. everything else can. 2 small things is not that hard to do.

[Krahhl]

Aflatoxin your opponent's field and fill it with malignant cells. Play this and blow up an unstable gas. 23 x 3 + 20 = 89 damage. Of course, that's a duo if you run fire quanta off fireflies or mark, at least trio otherwise. And a relatively large combo. But that is a lot of damage potential.

I agree that damage should only be dealt to your opponent. While it makes less sense this way, it is more practical in the game because death is about ...causing death, of your creatures or your opponent's. You wouldn't want viruses working against you. This also makes the effect less dependent on your opponent, and makes them think before killing your creatures.