Ogopogo | Ogopogo

[iloveashley3]

NAME: Ogopogo ELEMENT: Water COST: 5 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 5 | 3 TEXT:   : Submerge Ogopogo cannot be targeted for one turn.	NAME: Ogopogo ELEMENT: Water COST: 5 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 7 | 2 TEXT: : Submerge Ogopogo cannot be targeted for one turn.

ART: Google, the art could be similar though. (for any card designers reading this) IDEA: iloveashley3 NOTES: A plain and simple water creature thats abilty is similar (except the name) to  's "Seraph". Water needs in my opinion one creature that is a reliable hard hitting creature. (ogopogo is a 'canadian sea monster', i used its ability "submerge" because its sighting has never been confirmed.) - (submerge = dive under water) SERIES:

[skyironsword]

... This is actually really well balanced! I like the stats you chose.

[Vangelios]

interesting reminds me seraphim

[Rutarete]

I think Drake did a Levii or leviathan card of this before

Edit: found it http://elementscommunity.org/forum/crucible-archive/levii-levii/

[iloveashley3]

I think Drake did a Levii or leviathan card of this before

Edit: found it http://elementscommunity.org/forum/crucible-archive/levii-levii/

yes... its definitely similar in certain ways but this card is more... simpler and different in obvious ways. thanks for posting that.

... This is actually really well balanced! I like the stats you chose.

thank you, it was hard to balance it out with seraph..

interesting reminds me seraphim

so you dont suggest any changes?

[Zignaught]

Maybe consider upping cost slightly, on the upped By 1  at most. Overall I like this card and would use it if I ever made a deck around  .

[iloveashley3]

Maybe consider upping cost slightly, on the upped By 1  at most. Overall I like this card and would use it if I ever made a deck around  .

upping the cost is reasonable, if others think i should then i guess i will 

[skyironsword]

Maybe consider upping cost slightly, on the upped By 1  at most. Overall I like this card and would use it if I ever made a deck around  .

I see no reason to up cost.

[Zignaught]

Maybe consider upping cost slightly, on the upped By 1  at most. Overall I like this card and would use it if I ever made a deck around  .

I see no reason to up cost.

I said this because you can make it un targetable for a turn. Seraph costs 9 for a 12|1, figure dropping the attack to 7 and bumping the HP to 1 it should at least cost 5.

Also Phase Recluse has the web ability. Which has nothing to do with this kind of mechanic.

[rob77dp]

The summon and/or ability cost surely needs increased.  IN ELEMENT "Seraph-like ability" is abuse-able if not expensive enough.  I'd suggest something like 5 summon 2 ability unupgraded and 5 summon 1 ability upgraded with stats same as you have posted (5|3 and 7|2).  Seraph's 'higher attack than summon cost' fits fire very well and also owes a bit to the forced-duo nature of off-element ability cost.

[iloveashley3]

The summon and/or ability cost surely needs increased.  IN ELEMENT "Seraph-like ability" is abuse-able if not expensive enough.  I'd suggest something like 5 summon 2 ability unupgraded and 5 summon 1 ability upgraded with stats same as you have posted (5|3 and 7|2).  Seraph's 'higher attack than summon cost' fits fire very well and also owes a bit to the forced-duo nature of off-element ability cost.

if you get 2 other people to back you up, then i shall do what you suggested, sounds good to me, but the community votes for these cards.

[serprex]

Rob is correct. If not, needs cost increased even more