Trojan Horse l Trojan Horse

[darkrobe]

3 of those require a trio (for the unupped/ 2 for the upped). without any mention of a buff to attack of any kind. meaning it will poison at 2 a turn. same as a buffed death stalker.

edit: including a buff like blessing would make it a require 4 elements. or at least 3.

[OldTrees]

3 of those require a trio (for the unupped/ 2 for the upped). without any mention of a buff to attack of any kind. meaning it will poison at 2 a turn. same as a buffed death stalker.

edit: including a buff like blessing would make it a require 4 elements. or at least 3.

I do not believe the addition of 1 element to block (usually calculated as +1cost unit) is a significant increase in cost to offset not needing to let the opponent attack you.
You may disagree and my estimation for quad being +1 cost over trio may be inaccurate.

[darkrobe]

My personal opinion is that most decks come equipped with ways to avoid shields and or overcome some CC. Most decks dont usually come with ways to prevent their own creatures from attacking. (if they did, SoSa wouldnt have been such an issue). So while in theory it may be that my version is more OP because you dont take damage as a price for poisoning them. in practice, it is my belief that my version would has more counters and is more manageable to the opponent.

p.s. On a side note. my orignal suggestion was not to switch the card to posioning only when it doesnt attack. my suggestion was to make the poisoning a seperate ability from the skill "invade". i thought it might be easier to balance that way.

[OldTrees]

My personal opinion is that most decks come equipped with ways to avoid shields and or overcome some CC. Most decks dont usually come with ways to prevent their own creatures from attacking. (if they did, SoSa wouldnt have been such an issue). So while in theory it may be that my version is more OP because you dont take damage as a price for poisoning them. in practice, it is my belief that my version would has more counters and is more manageable to the opponent.

p.s. On a side note. my orignal suggestion was not to switch the card to posioning only when it doesnt attack. my suggestion was to make the poisoning a seperate ability from the skill "invade". i thought it might be easier to balance that way.

I am now unsure about which version would be more OP.
(Thanks for defending your position, and with good reasoning too. Too often people do what I say without listening to it to see if it has merit on its own. +69rep)

The invade ability is active meaning any additional ability would be passive and thus immune to lobotomy. Having the poison as part of the same ability renders it vulnerable to more forms (5 more cards, 1 more element) of CC.

[darkrobe]

The reason I suggested seperate abilities, is that it adds an element of uncertainty to playing this card. there is a turn delay between playing the card and being able to transfer it to the opponent through "invade". if the abilities are seperate, playing of TH followed by the opponent lobotomizing it, TH will have backfired. You will now be being poisoned instead of your opponent. with no way to transfer it over.

Under the current version, lobotomizing removes the poisoning effect, so it would be better to wait till your opponent transfers it to you side before you lobo it. Because you gain a weak attaker.

It is a matter of preference I think. My version gives more reward for quick control, but punishes you for not reacting fast enough. The current version gives you more leeway, but you wont be able to make TH backfire, other that gaining a little bit of damage from having the TH on your side as an attacker.

[OldTrees]

True. I prefer the assumption that each tactic initiated in Elements will have a 2 turn head start before their opposition mobilizes. This leads to an offense/defense ratio that favors building position over a war of attrition. The benefit in this case is more decks would have answers to the current type of Trojan Horse. I consider this significant to the point of being more valuable than the possibility of it backfiring.

[tsing520]

i've changed the mechanic and the card design now so it's less op and it's counterable whilst it still holds the concept of a trojan horse.