Infinity | Infinity

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

NAME: Infinity ELEMENT: Time COST: 6 TYPE: Permanent TEXT: Shield: reduce damage by the number of immaterial cards in your possession.  Immaterial.	NAME: Infinity ELEMENT: Time COST: 4 TYPE: Permanent TEXT: Shield: reduce damage by the number of immaterial cards in your possession.  Immaterial.

ART: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1005409 IDEA: MildlyFrightenedBoy NOTES: It's like Hope, but more stable (seeing as immaterial cards don't easily go away), yet more difficult to build up quickly.  (You can't fractal or TU anything immaterial, duh...) Most of my cards are cards that are specifically made to support a pre-existing deck.  This one could work easily in I GotP Time or a deck similar to RoL/Hope, but with Anubises instead of RoL's. Note: It counts immaterial permanents and creatures in your possession, so it counts towards itself.  Immaterial permanent stacks (Multiple Bone Wall stacks, pillar stacks, etc.) only count as one immaterial card.

[furballdn]

Do things like morning star and enchanted permanents count toward the immaterial count?

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

Do things like morning star and enchanted permanents count toward the immaterial count?

"Note: It counts immaterial permanents and creatures in your possession, so it counts towards itself."

Yes.

[furballdn]

Do things like morning star and enchanted permanents count toward the immaterial count?

"Note: It counts immaterial permanents and creatures in your possession, so it counts towards itself."

Yes.

Excellent. A deck using this and plenty of enchant artifacts could have quite a bit of success.

[Rutarete]

Quint/Infinity vs. RoL/Hope: Which wins?

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

Quint/Infinity vs. RoL/Hope: Which wins?

That's the thing: Infinity/Quint (although it would probably be Infinity/Anubis/Fractal) takes a bit longer, seeing as an immaterial creature is not as easy to spam as a 0-cost 1 | 1 creature.  However, Anubinfinity (That is what I have named it) is more stable because an immaterial creature is not as easy to kill as a 0-cost 1 | 1 creature.

It would probably be evenly matched, but it would depend how fast RoL/Hope could set up it's defense.  It would most likely be a lockdown resulting in a deckout once both sides hit a DR higher than the opposition's highest ATK power.

On the other hand, Fire would have the upper hand on both of these (Fire Buckler and RoF = Trollface)

[moomoose]

so its sort of like lovechild between hope and http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26638.0.html , but much more powerful than either because in a deck with anubis/mitosis and SoRs it will be an ever-growing immaterial shield with no means of CC/PC?

[furballdn]

Quint/Infinity vs. RoL/Hope: Which wins?

That's the thing: Infinity/Quint (although it would probably be Infinity/Anubis/Fractal) takes a bit longer, seeing as an immaterial creature is not as easy to spam as a 0-cost 1 | 1 creature.  However, Anubinfinity (That is what I have named it) is more stable because an immaterial creature is not as easy to kill as a 0-cost 1 | 1 creature.

It would probably be evenly matched, but it would depend how fast RoL/Hope could set up it's defense.  It would most likely be a lockdown resulting in a deckout once both sides hit a DR higher than the opposition's highest ATK power.

On the other hand, Fire would have the upper hand on both of these (Fire Buckler and RoF = Trollface)

You could also have pendulums and pillars and cheap permanents to enchant, and that could give you a good shield as well.

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

so its sort of like lovechild between hope and http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,26638.0.html , but much more powerful than either because in a deck with anubis/mitosis and SoRs it will be an ever-growing immaterial shield with no means of CC/PC?

Not exactly, but pretty close.
You can use Fire Shield, and you can take out and Anubises or permanents that are not made immaterial the turn that they are played.
However, I have never seen your creature, and it doesn't seem to share much of a relation other than using the number of immaterial creatures as a base value.

[Naesala]

I think this is a great idea, and would make immortals and EA more worth playing

[moomoose]

Not exactly, but pretty close.
-"sort of like"

"You can use Fire Shield, and you can take out and Anubises or permanents that are not made immaterial the turn that they are played."
-they have decent hp, and SoR removes the one turn wait.

"However, I have never seen your creature, and it doesn't seem to share much of a relation other than using the number of immaterial creatures as a base value."
- that's pretty much the key feature of each card.

[mildlyfrightenedboy]

"You can use Fire Shield, and you can take out and Anubises or permanents that are not made immaterial the turn that they are played."
-they have decent hp, and SoR removes the one turn wait.
MFB:  Your other option: Deal damage faster than the user can put up their defenses.  The highest possible creature attack is 300 (if I am not mistaken), but the highest possible defense for this shield is 23 immortal creatures + this (1) + an immortal weapon (or Morning Glory - 1) + 6 immortal permanents (you can only have 6 Protect Artifacts) = 31 total defense (unless the opponent uses Protect Artifact on YOUR permanents, making the highest possible defense 36).  It isn't absolute immortality; a good Chimera or Acceleration deck could kill it with ease.  I don't know if immaterial creatures can drown or not.  It also wouldn't be fast at all, so, if you can get damage in fast enough, you can kill it.
You don't really have to kill the Anubises the first turn that they are played; chances are that you wouldn't bother with sniping individual ones. 

"However, I have never seen your creature, and it doesn't seem to share much of a relation other than using the number of immaterial creatures as a base value."
- that's pretty much the key feature of each card.
MFB:  They are drastically different.  Your card is a creature that gains ATK and HP every time that a creature becomes immaterial.  It is used to deal damage that gradually increases.  Its key feature is that it would be played in a deck where granting it immortality is easy and that it can continue to become stronger while immaterial, eventually becoming a powerful offensive creature.  My card uses a defensive mechanic that builds up a strong and sturdy defense that will last the entire game and hopefully create a lockdown and deck the opponent or kill them.  Its key feature is that it is a very stable defense.  Arsenic and Forest Spirit both become more powerful each turn, provided that you continue to use Forest Spirit's skill (as our cards both become stronger every time that a card becomes immortal), yet no one claims that they are too similar to each other.  I personally do not think that the cards are similar enough to even be taken into consideration, and that any further conversation should relate to the card (singular).