New Card Idea - Quell/Rescind

[akromat]

Quell
7
Spell
Destroy target creature and all creatures with the same name.

Rescind
7
Spell
Destroy target creature and all creatures with the same name. Gain 1 life for each creature destroyed this way.

Disclaimer: I know from reading the forums that instant kill cards are frowned upon but this card has a very specific purpose. The main and most obvious purpose for this card is to stall swarm decks. It stops aflatoxin, and stalls large armies created by boneyard, or firefly queen, or even beefed up Deja Vus. I'll probably get a lot of negative reaction for suggesting this but try not to just say "No instant kill cards." and give some constructive ideas. I'm aware this would a powerful combo well with scavenger, but you can already do that with aflatoxin and rain of fire/thunderstorm/fire shield.

[Kamietsu]

This isn't just an insta-kill card. This card is an "instant kill your and your family in one blow" card. And for it's effect, it should be death, not light. IMO, much too powerful. You should change the ability so it doesn't kill but stops them for a number of turns. Like make it freeze them, or places them in a time bubble like procrastination.

[icybraker]

Yesh. You could call it "Recessive Gene" or something, and make all creatures of that type be stuck in a time bubble for several turns. That would be a good idea. Here, however, the idea is DEVESTATINGLY powerful, especially combined with Death cards.

[Lanidrak]

As for instant kill cards:

Otyugh Devour and Maxwells' Paradox to name just two.

Rain of Fire can be considered a global 'instant kill all creatures' - seeing as a vast majority of creatures in the game are below 3hp.

I personally like this idea of 'kill creatures with same name' - a potential way of getting around Immortality? Eg. Your opponent has two Otyughs, one is Immortal and has 14/17 stats, the other is not immortal and has 2/5 stats... This ability, in my opinion, should effect creatures regardless of whether or not they are immortal, provided the same creature is in play to act as a target for this ability.

As for the cost, 7 quanta both upped and normal - and as akromat states: the main uses are for 'stalling' decks which use swarm and mob-rush tactics. Most notably Aflatoxin/Malignant Cells, Firefly Queen/Fireflies, and Boneyard/Skeletons. In the Firefly and Skeleton example, this ability does not go after the direct root cause of creating the creatures, but is a powerful way of getting rid of spawned creatures already in play. And as such, it is a lot weaker than Rain of Fire, to a certain extent.

If one was to use rain of fire to clear Fireflies, you lose 1 potential damage per firefly, if it was used to clear normal skeletons, then it is 2 damage wasted per skeleton. This amounts to a pretty ineffectual use of the Rain of Fire card - and who carries 6 thunderstorms?

I like it - but it is devastatingly powerful. I wish there was a mechanic for more dynamic ways to use quanta. Right now we have "Deal 3 damage + N damage; where N is your X Quanta divided by 5". Or more or less complexly, Dissipation Field which uses your quanta to negate damage.

If this card were to work like say, remove target creature for 7 and every additional creature with that name for per creature. Then it would be a lot better balanced.

Just my thoughts.

[akromat]

@kami While this card does directly relate to death, death has plenty of ways to deal with creatures. White has none. That's why I named them quell and rescind. Both mean to stop, negate, or remove something but for a positive reason. They have a different connotation than the theme of death.

@icy Combining it with death cards wouldn't be too powerful. Are you referring to combining it with condor? Because you can already aflatoxin your opponent and rain of fire to pump up a condor or bone wall really fast. The only difference between that and this is that this allows you to do is aflatoxin yourself and use the same combo.... but there isn't much difference between 12 1/1s and 1 12/12 damage-wise. Vulnerability is a different story.

@Lani "If this card were to work like say, remove target creature for 7 and every additional creature with that name for per creature. Then it would be a lot better balanced." I feel like this is a bit too much. Maybe a step in the right direction, just a bit too far. So maybe give some sort of cost to each but make it a lesser amount. I'll mull over some ideas to improve it.

I'd still say this card will often be less powerful than rain of fire.

[Kael Hate]

Simply a Card costing 7 that can remove a dragon costing 10+ is overpowered unless conditional.

The added fact that this may also strip more than 1 card makes it even more over powered.

[ftbhrygvn]

How about making the cost dependent on the total power of creatures killed, where how "power" is measured should be discused

And agreed that stopping them instead of killing is better. Sometimes, chain-killing like this can screw up decks completely.

[Glitch]

Hmm, here's a way to balance it.

Destroy all creatures with target creature's name, except for target creature.

Helps a wee bit I suppose...

[akromat]

Simply a Card costing 7 that can remove a dragon costing 10+ is overpowered unless conditional.

The added fact that this may also strip more than 1 card makes it even more over powered.

True. Maxwell's Demon can kill one dragon but the fact that this can kill more than one at a time is kind of beefy. What about making this work only on creatures with HP of 4 or less? This makes it functionally weaker than rain of fire but still carry out the original function.

How about making the cost dependent on the total power of creatures killed, where how "power" is measured should be discused

And agreed that stopping them instead of killing is better. Sometimes, chain-killing like this can screw up decks completely.

Or go with what I previously mentioned. Killing them all is a better option though because mostly it doesn't go after the source of the swarm generation and frozen creatures still count toward emphatic bond (I think).

[Purity_Riot]

What if you had to pay an amount of  equal to the total quanta paid for each card?

example, forest spirit.

cost 

now, say I've got three out, each costing  for a grand total of 

you'd have to pay  let's say to activate the card, and  per creature

if you had... say, 9 you could kill the first 2 forest spirits (4 for the card,  for one spirit,  for the second, and  would be left over)

[akromat]

The problem is that this card is designed to fight cards that are generated in a way other than paying their cost. :/

[Purity_Riot]

if the card is free, then it has no cost, thus you don't have to pay any