Frost Shatter | Frost Shatter

[Pineapple]

NAME: Frost Shatter ELEMENT: Water COST: 1 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: If target permanent slot is "touched" by anything, up to 1 permanent in it is destroyed. Lasts 3 turns.	NAME: Frost Shatter ELEMENT: Water COST: 1 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: If target permanent slot is "touched" by anything, up to 1 permanent in it is destroyed. Lasts 4 turns.

ART: IDEA: pineapple NOTES: V2: targets slot, status persists V1: Spoiler for Hidden: "touched" is a really weird mechanic, i know The permanent is destroyed after the "touching" effect/event resolves completely. "...up to 1 permanent will be destroyed" means that if it is a non-stacking permanent, it will be destroyed, and if it is a stacking permanent, the stack will be reduced by 1. Touched by player: When it is targeted by a spell. When a player activates its ability. When it (a weapon) comes into contact with a player. Touched by creature: When a creature targets it with an ability. When it (a shield) blocks a creature's attack. Touched by a permanent: When a permanent targets it with an ability. When it (a weapon) is blocked by a shield. When it (a shield) blocks a weapon's attack. SERIES:

[Marsu]

This is one of the best new submissions I've seen since I spectate this part of the forum. Simple, many many possible combinations, balanced.

[Pineapple]

Thanks!

One of the pros is that it opens lots of new synergies with cheap (non-destruction) permanent-targeting.
However, consequently, one of the cons is that until such mechanics enter the game, this card is just a situational Deflagration.

Also, I was thinking of interactions with permanent stacks (like frosted pillars + earthquake).
Right now, as I interpret it, no additional permanents would be destroyed.
Now that I think of it, perhaps I should allow the "frosted" status to stay on the stack even if one permanent is destroyed?
This would grant in-game uses against pillars, bonewall, and shards.

The thing is, I don't know if it overcomplicates the card, and/or if it necessitates I change the card text to "If target permanent stack is 'touched' by anything, one permanent is destroyed."

[krackocloud]

Maybe you could rephrase into "When target permanent interacts with any other card, it is destroyed"?

I'm wondering, though, how many things can target permanents in the first place? And don't a good amount of them already destroy the permanent?

[Pineapple]

The thing is, that edit would make the card text longer and more wordy while losing most of the player interactions.

I'm wondering, though, how many things can target permanents in the first place? And don't a good amount of them already destroy the permanent?

Yeah, that's one of the first things I mentioned in my previous post. ^^

[Anarook]

It's a delayed off-element deflag...
Not a bad idea but it loses the whole advantage of PC, a quick way to react to the opponent's permanents.
For instance, Unstable Gas:
It comes out, I deflag it, threat averted
It comes out, I play this on it, still screwed: Unstable gas self destroys when it's effect is activated anyways- effect still occurs.
Catapult, play this, it got destroyed, but I still took damage from that armagio+2BB he threw at me.
Can you see where I'm going with this?
Even permanent freezing as has been suggested many times is more effective than this because it doesn't lose that ability to react quickly.
Neat idea, just not effective.

[Marsu]

^
Mh, nope. The fact that it's weaker than deflag doesn't make it weak. UG and Catapult are two extreme examples. It's almost as good as Deflag, which is something most Elements would kill for.

[Anarook]

They're not extreme examples, I can list plenty of others.
The other issue is that a majority of cards that would target the permanent would've destroyed it anyways, this is offset by the fact that this can activate based on the player using the permanent, but that's not hindering them as much as you think, particularly if the permanent is passive.
This is also essentially a forced combo, not quite in the usual sense but in the sense that his card does nothing without another effect taking place, whether it be you targeting the perm afterwards or the opp doing something to trigger the effect.
On another note: is a possible 1 turn delay only worth -1 cost?
I could see this being cheaper but a 0 cost for the upgraded is too much...
This card simply doesn't seem strong enough in its current form, there are plenty of other options that would prove more effective.
Frankly given the choice between delayed PC and instant PC, people are typically going to choose instant PC because it's more effective.

[CuCN]

A pair of these would work as instant PC, right?

[Marsu]

Yes. It says so in the describtion.

@Anarook: Please name 5 more permanents that this card would be as useless against as against UG.

[nensuru]

Now that I think of it, perhaps I should allow the "frosted" status to stay on the stack even if one permanent is destroyed?

That would be cool, this would make this card strong against everything that deflag is weak (bone wall, pillar) and weak against everything that deflag is strong (UG, catapult)

[Pineapple]

Now that I think of it, perhaps I should allow the "frosted" status to stay on the stack even if one permanent is destroyed?

That would be cool, this would make this card strong against everything that deflag is weak (bone wall, pillar) and weak against everything that deflag is strong (UG, catapult)

Exactly what I was thinking.