Entropy Construct | Gammatron Construct

[Shrink]

I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but what would happen if the creature you had turn into a monster had adrenaline? I know adrenaline can't be removed so would it just attack regularly or..?

By the way.. I enjoy this card immensely.. It's adding a terribly needed powerhouse to .

[Rutarete]

@srm: Well, the monster if just a mutation without abilities, so it should act like a regular in-game mutation - including adrenaline and momentum, I think.

Cool art, idea and ability! Looks great in a full mutation deck

[bogtro]

I do not like the passive Construct ability. Complicated is really not good, nor is adding RNG, when they can be avoided (at least IMO). That said, if we're setting the passive to be something involving RNG and complexity, then the passive is very good for what it is.

On the specific card: It seems significantly UP. We're talking about a 9 cost creature, with a 3-cost ability, to add 6 damage to your output (or rarely, CC) per turn. It's significantly more cost-effective to just put out a 6-attack creature than this.

The only difference between this card and something like Flesh recluse is
a) the higher HP - A fair point, but is it really worth 9+3x for this?
b) The Construct passive, which is detrimental to this creature
c) The instakill effect with 2 constructs  this is interesting but very expensive - a Purple nymph has a better effect for less cost than 2 constructs.

All in all, I feel like the card needs a serious cost reduction - probably 5-6/2-3 would make much more sense than 9/3.

[The_Mormegil]

I do not like the passive Construct ability. Complicated is really not good, nor is adding RNG, when they can be avoided (at least IMO). That said, if we're setting the passive to be something involving RNG and complexity, then the passive is very good for what it is.

On the specific card: It seems significantly UP. We're talking about a 9 cost creature, with a 3-cost ability, to add 6 damage to your output (or rarely, CC) per turn. It's significantly more cost-effective to just put out a 6-attack creature than this.

The only difference between this card and something like Flesh recluse is
a) the higher HP - A fair point, but is it really worth 9+3x for this?
b) The Construct passive, which is detrimental to this creature
c) The instakill effect with 2 constructs  this is interesting but very expensive - a Purple nymph has a better effect for less cost than 2 constructs.

All in all, I feel like the card needs a serious cost reduction - probably 5-6/2-3 would make much more sense than 9/3.

Well, you're forgetting the damage the construct itself deals. I think 7|7 with an ability cost of 3|2 is actually balanced:

Unupped: 5 (atk) + 3 (skill) + 1 (high hp) - 1 (construct) - 1 (high skill cost) = 7
Upped: 6 (atk) + 3 (skill) + 1 (high hp) - 1 (construct) - 2 (upgrade) = 7

[OldTrees]

Gamma Ray
Some questions first:
1) Does Gamma Ray change the target creature into a monster or is it replaced with a monster? (Do status effects carry)
2) When the monster state ends does that change the monster or replace it with the previous creature? (Do status effects carry)
3) EtG operates in the present. Currently the game has no clue as to what ability a lobotomized creature had before the lobotomy. The same holds true for name and image before mutation. Gamma Ray would require the game to be able to determine the ability a creature had before it was hit with Gamma Ray. If the answer to question 2 was that the monster is replaced with the previous creature then the stats of the previous creature would need to be determined. How would you suggest this be done?

Notes:
Monster could be
1) A temporary change to the card's variables
P: Name and Art can be changed
P: Avoids problems with RT
P: The skills would not need code checking for monster
C: The game needs reminders.
2) Another card (like malignant cell) that temporarily replaces the card
P: Name and Art can be different
P: The skills would not need code checking for monster
C: The game needs reminders.
C: What would Reverse Time do?
3) A temporary status effect
P: The game has reminders for status effects
P: Avoids problems with RT
C: The name and art of the card would be unchanged
C: All skills would need to check for the monster status
4) A temporary ability
P: The ability could be a reminder.
P: Avoids problems with RT
C: The game needs reminders.
C: The name and art of the card would be unchanged
C: All skills would need to check for the monster ability

Based on how I would evaluate these pros and cons I would rank the options from preferred to disliked as:
3------1--4------------2

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

Somehow I don't think 9 for a 5 attack creature is very strong. The ability is nice but pretty expensive also. It's HP is a nice bonus but doesn't make up for the high cost, does it? (Gamma Ray + Sparks would own though!)

I made it 9 because original plan was to make Gamma Ray so that it kills the target if the target is already a Monster. This would have fit the theme because too much Gamma Ray is very bad for you. However it would also mean that two Gammatron Constructs could take out one creature per round, one first transforming it to a Monster, and the other to kill it. While Constructs do break down etc. I still haven't decided if it's too powerful or not. It's so close to an instant kill that it definitely has the potential to be too powerful.

Personally, I think that 18 kill on a stick with a 4 per use isn't that terribly broken, along with the fact that, with only two, there is only a 64% chance that you can use it (20% chance to return/overheat each) and then an even further decreasing chance after they start dying.

For the "replacement" concept, why not just make the target creature immaterial and delayed for one turn, then create a Monster with the passive ability "Monster: If this card is in your hand, it is automatically discarded.  If this card is targeted with Gamma Ray, it and the original creature die.  Lasts one turn."  It would prevent RT and carry over status effects, but it could create a problem if you use it in a deck that may hit the maximum creature limit.  There can only be twelve Monsters maximum on your side of the field (if your opponent uses it offensively as well) at once, so you would still need quite a few creatures and tons of to burn for it to ever be a problem.

[OldTrees]

For the "replacement" concept, why not just make the target creature immaterial and delayed for one turn, then create a Monster with the passive ability "Monster: If this card is in your hand, it is automatically discarded.  If this card is targeted with Gamma Ray, it and the original creature die.  Lasts one turn."  It would prevent RT and carry over status effects, but it could create a problem if you use it in a deck that may hit the maximum creature limit.  There can only be twelve Monsters maximum on your side of the field (if your opponent uses it offensively as well) at once, so you would still need quite a few creatures and tons of to burn for it to ever be a problem.

1) Replacement means replacing the previous creature in its slot. Your alternative method is a combination of 2,3 and 4 which has more problems.
2) Status effects being carried or not is not a problem. It is a neutral aspect waiting for clarification.
3) What about the 13th monster? Or the 11 monster when 14 creatures are present...

[bogtro]

Well, you're forgetting the damage the construct itself deals. I think 7|7 with an ability cost of 3|2 is actually balanced:

Unupped: 5 (atk) + 3 (skill) + 1 (high hp) - 1 (construct) - 1 (high skill cost) = 7
Upped: 6 (atk) + 3 (skill) + 1 (high hp) - 1 (construct) - 2 (upgrade) = 7

I don't think I forgot - I was comparing the card to a card like Flesh Recluse that has the same attack. I would say that construct warrants at least a -2 due to all the negative effects.