Life Protector | Life Guardian

[eljoemo]

NAME: Life Protector ELEMENT: Life COST: 2 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 2 | 2 TEXT: Protector: Gain +1|+1 every time a creature enters play and lose -1|-1 every time a creature dies.	NAME: Life Guardian ELEMENT: Life COST: 2 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 3 | 3 TEXT: Protector: Gain +1|+1 every time a creature enters play and lose -1|-1 every time a creature dies.

ART: IDEA: eljoemo NOTES: I feel like this should have been done before. "A creature enters play" includes: playing from the hand, Mitosis, PU, Boneyard, Flying Weapon, Deja vu or any other time when a new creature appears on an unoccupied creature slot. "A creature enters play" does not include: Mutation, hatch (ability), Skull Shield, Chimera, evolve (ability) or any other time when a creature is "turned into" another creature. The creature death simply triggers every death effect (including Schrodinger's Cat). The stats might be too similar to other life creatures (Forest Spirit/frog) but I don't think this card is too unbalanced or situational. Might be a tad on the OP side but nothing too major, right? Any questions and constructive criticism welcome. SERIES:

[Chapuz]

I like it, specially for Life's RoL-Hope in War 

[Nepycros]

Assume a Fractal scenario.
1 on the field, 8 in the hand.

You essentially need 18 to have a field that has an 11/11, a 10/10, a 9/9, an 8/8, a 7/7, a 6/6, a 5/5, a 4/4, and a 3/3. That's 63 cumulative damage for essentially a 2 card combo, 9 , 18 , and an otherwise empty hand.

[dragtom]

active or passive?

[eljoemo]

Assume a Fractal scenario.
1 on the field, 8 in the hand.

You essentially need 18 to have a field that has an 11/11, a 10/10, a 9/9, an 8/8, a 7/7, a 6/6, a 5/5, a 4/4, and a 3/3. That's 63 cumulative damage for essentially a 2 card combo, 9 , 18 , and an otherwise empty hand.

I see your point. If we compare this situation to a FrogTal, then it's 45 damage for the same cost, a rate of 2.5 damage per . Working on this, bumping the price up to 3 might be a suitable solution, having a rate of 2.33, or maybe higher. This is still pretty powerful but it only becomes powerful if you have a whole bunch out. I suppose it's do-able but a slight cost bump might fix it, no?

active or passive?

I'm on the fence but favouring passive, because of the way it works. I, personally, say it's active if it has to be manually triggered or triggers on every attack, and passive if it only "activates" in certain situations, when it needs to become relevant. For example, Venom triggers on attack but Poisonous only becomes relevant once the creature gets devoured. Devourer messes this up by having two active (by my system) abilities but one of them as a passive, but that's only one little hole. Anyway, this ability only becomes relevant once you play a creature, so passive. I'm still open to changing this, though.

[montrossen]

Does this include mitosis?

[eljoemo]

Does this include mitosis?

"A creature enters play" includes: playing from the hand, Mitosis, PU, Boneyard, Flying Weapon, Deja vu or any other time when a new creature appears on an unoccupied creature slot. "A creature enters play" does not include: Mutation, hatch (ability), Skull Shield, Chimera, evolve (ability) or any other time when a creature is "turned into" another creature.

It does indeed.

[Chapuz]

Assume a Fractal scenario.
1 on the field, 8 in the hand.

You essentially need 18 to have a field that has an 11/11, a 10/10, a 9/9, an 8/8, a 7/7, a 6/6, a 5/5, a 4/4, and a 3/3. That's 63 cumulative damage for essentially a 2 card combo, 9 , 18 , and an otherwise empty hand.

Oh true. Then it can be restricted to "non-life protector creatures"

[Glitch]

Assume a Fractal scenario.
1 on the field, 8 in the hand.

You essentially need 18 to have a field that has an 11/11, a 10/10, a 9/9, an 8/8, a 7/7, a 6/6, a 5/5, a 4/4, and a 3/3. That's 63 cumulative damage for essentially a 2 card combo, 9 , 18 , and an otherwise empty hand.

Still dies to rain of fire.

[Nepycros]

Assume a Fractal scenario.
1 on the field, 8 in the hand.

You essentially need 18 to have a field that has an 11/11, a 10/10, a 9/9, an 8/8, a 7/7, a 6/6, a 5/5, a 4/4, and a 3/3. That's 63 cumulative damage for essentially a 2 card combo, 9 , 18 , and an otherwise empty hand.

Still dies to rain of fire.

That's hilariously true, but in that case you're saying that the hardest AoE spell is the most efficient hard counter. Still a hefty price to pay if you're letting 63 cumulative damage stock up for so little. It's a cost-efficient combo, no doubt about it.