Plague Marshes

[Daxx]

Plague Marshes has a chance (50%?) of randomly infecting an attacking creature.

EDIT: You guys were right, Aflatoxin was a bad idea. I've reverted back to my original idea of simply poisoning (the name probably gave that one away).

[bobcamel]

Still sounds better than Fire Shield. More damage, more luck involved.

[icybraker]

Write "Shield: attacking creatures may be infected."

It should still cost more, IMO. Upgraded version can have this cost; unupgraded should cost about 6.
Good card.

[YoYoBro]

I guess it depends on the player: if one is willing to gamble for a powerful effect, this may be the shield for him. After all, even dusk mantle could theorically make you invincible.

[Daxx]

Yeah. Personally I might prefer fire shield in some situations, because a) I prefer to reduce chance and b) this effect is both less reliable and slower than fire shield for smaller creatures (since the poison leads to a delay in damage).

Cost could be variable, of course.

[YoYoBro]

Prolly it would be the choice for stalling-slow decks.

[Elentier]

that pics from LOTR T_T

[Daxx]

that pics from LOTR T_T

Yes it is. Well recognised.

[tyranim]

i like this card. tho the cost could be a hazard to balance. maybe it could be a normal permanent but cost a LOT more than a normal permanent. that way people dont spam it too early and ruin the opponent. as a shield, maybe it could cost 3-5. as a perm it could cost around 7-9. if implemented into live elements, this could become a popular rainbow deck card. maybe it will even replace the bone yard. (aflatoxin is out now[it already replaced the boneyard]) this card can be DEVASTATING against swarm decks

[Terroking]

First time a read this I thought it was shield (Still not entirely sure, either me or unit is horribly confused)

If it is:
Way UP, Fire shield costs 4 upped and will always deal 1 damage, this will rarely be better as by the time it will statistically poison twice fire shield will already have gotten 4 damage done. This may be better in the long run though, if fire buckler is stolen/destroyed then this will have the creatures still taking damage.

If it's not:
Nice idea. (With a reduced chance)

[tyranim]

im not confused. just throwing out ideas i think would be pretty good for this card. ooh. another idea, other than the weapon, death has no rares. why not make this a rare too? that is if it does end up as a normal perm. if it ends up as a shield, bazaar it.

[Daxx]

Way UP, Fire shield costs 4 upped and will always deal 1 damage, this will rarely be better as by the time it will statistically poison twice fire shield will already have gotten 4 damage done. This may be better in the long run though, if fire buckler is stolen/destroyed then this will have the creatures still taking damage.

It is a shield (it could be a permanent, but I have no idea how it could be balanced and it isn't designed like that).

This isn't definitively "underpowered" compared to fire shield, as it is better in certain situations. Against larger creatures, this is more effective (poison damage is cumulative, so in theory this has a non-linear progression). In addition, creatures can be healed more easily against Fire Shield whilst eventually against this shield they will accumulate more poison than they have HP. As you noted, poison also sticks around after the shield is gone.