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.