Spellbreaker

[Delreich]

Art by vrt.
Text version, should anything happen to the image:
Spellbreaker - 4 air - 2/4 - Spellbreaker: Spells cast by your opponent deal 3 damage to Spellbreaker instead of their normal effect

There's no way to have counterspells with the uninterrupted turns we have in Elements, so here's an alternative.
It's fairly easy to dispose of (third meal of an oty, snipe and rewind, rewind and paradox, etc), so it should be OK at 4 quanta.
Not sure exactly what the upgrade would be, but a 3/7 for 6q might be about right.

In case it isn't already clear, "spells" does not include critters and permanents, and "Spellbreaker" is an ability, just like "Vampire", and thus can be loboed away.

Firefox has now told me that the name should be Spell Breaker. I guess we'll have to live with that error, unless vrt feels like fixing the image.

Alternate art (by YoYoBro):

I think vrt's is more fitting though, this one looks more like it belongs in Entropy to me.

[stinky472]

To me that seems massively powerful given its cheap cost and the fact that it takes 3 damage for a spell used but has 4 health. I think it's a great idea basically but think it should be 1/1 to start and can only absorb more than one spell with boosts like blessing or plate armor or chaos power.

Either that or I think the spellbreaker should take the cumulative damage of the spell. For instance, if a firestorm is used and there are 10 creatures on the field, the spellbreaker should take 30 damage. That would certainly kill it in spite of numerous boosts but it just saved 9 other creatures from taking damage! And it only cost 4 air!

Spells like lightning, firebolt, fire storm, thunderstorm, drain life, chaos seed, plague, etc. are sometimes the only means (or only practical/quick means) for creature control in some decks. To be able to block just one of those is quite powerful but being able to block more than one is incredibly powerful imo and possibly imba as not all decks have a lobotomizer, eagle's eye, otyugh, etc. handy to take the spellbreaker out by non-spell means. Plus just one of these without any boosts will save you from two of the 6 possible deadly poisons in a speed poison deck. I think it's fine as being able to block one spell but 2 or more spells and I could easily nullify the deadliness of speed poison decks by playing these guys which is my main weakness with my rainbow deck. I only need 3 of them to block every deadly poison card in that deck and then I can block another 6 spells with my 3 remaining spellbreakers.

BTW - what happens when there are multiple spellbreakers? Do they all take damage, or just one?

[Tigerente]

Wasn't there a new card, that adds 20 HP to a creature but "freezes" it for a few rounds? Since Spell Breakers ability is passive, you would counter the next 8 spells?

[bobcamel]

I shall hereby file a lawsuit against you (http://"http://www.kongregate.com/forums/22/topics/50610?page=10")

Did this one or a similar one first, a few months ago, even.

[YoYoBro]

Maybe it's a stupid question, but if you QE this, what happens? The effect is removed? It still takes damage?

[Avenger]

If you qe it, it would remove the effect (auto lobo)

[YoYoBro]

Why? Isn't immortal a STATUS?

[Delreich]

To me that seems massively powerful given its cheap cost and the fact that it takes 3 damage for a spell used but has 4 health. I think it's a great idea basically but think it should be 1/1 to start and can only absorb more than one spell with boosts like blessing or plate armor or chaos power.

There's loads of critter control in this game that isn't spells, and you won't get a chance to heal it in between your opponent's actions.
All those buffs add one counter, for one card. A one to one card advantage ratio seems reasonable enough to me.

However...

Wasn't there a new card, that adds 20 HP to a creature but "freezes" it for a few rounds? Since Spell Breakers ability is passive, you would counter the next 8 spells?

...I hadn't thought of that. I suppose the Spell Breaker ability would have to be considered an active but automatic ability.
That would leave a six turn window of opportunity at least.

what happens when there are multiple spellbreakers? Do they all take damage, or just one?

All would perhaps be best from a balance point of view.

Maybe it's a stupid question, but if you QE this, what happens? The effect is removed? It still takes damage?

Still takes damage.

[YoYoBro]

So i guess it should be paired with multiple plate armors for the maximum effects... and maybe some angels too..

[vrt]

So i guess it should be paired with multiple plate armors for the maximum effects... and maybe some angels too..

Not really worth it for a 2ATT creature, I'd say. But hey, who am I! :p

[YoYoBro]

I mean, this card has HP it can "use" to negate spells' effects.. so it would be nice to buff her HP and heal it as soon as it takes dmg

[stinky472]

There's loads of critter control in this game that isn't spells, and you won't get a chance to heal it in between your opponent's actions.
All those buffs add one counter, for one card. A one to one card advantage ratio seems reasonable enough to me.

Yes, there are quite a few ways to take out the spell breaker, lobotomize it, mutate it, reverse it, etc. without using a spell. I can't help but wonder if it might be a tad overpowered though if I can block 2 miracles with a single spellbreaker, for instance, even without any boosts.

Going against obliterator, for instance, one of these would be highly preferable in many instances to quintessence on one of my creatures since his only means of destroying them is gravity pull. Same with fire queen and firebolt until she gets an eagle's eye out. By just having one spellbreaker out, even if I have 3 other creatures out, they're all protected against 2 gravity pulls or 2 firebolts from these gods. I would certainly love to incorporate it into my rainbow deck, but I can' help but wonder if it would make me a tad too strong against many decks? Anyway, I can't say with any certainty, but this would be my primary concern with what I think is a very cool idea. it does seem to strengthen rainbows quite a bit against a lot of mono/duo/trio decks which may not have that much in terms of creature control except for spells.