Despair | Despair

[EmeraldTiger]

NAME: Despair ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 5 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: creatures have a 5N% chance to gain -1|-1. N = number of generating creatures you posses.	NAME: Despair ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 4 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: creatures have a 5N% chance to gain -1|-1. N = number of generating creatures you posses.

ART: Kamietsu IDEA: EmeraldTiger NOTES: SERIES:

Spoiler for Previous:

NAME: Despair ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 5 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: creatures have a 3N% chance to have 1 hp drained. N = number of generating creatures you posses.	NAME: Despair ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 4 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: creatures have a 3N% chance to have 1 hp drained. N = number of generating creatures you posses.

ART: Art like hope but in a despairing pose would be good. IDEA: EmeraldTiger, Rutarete NOTES: This is made to tie in with Shadone | Fragment of Darkness. Includes Devourer. 23 creature spots, 3% per generating creature 23*3=69 Player is healed any hp drained.(This seemed more of a Darkness thing to do.) SERIES:

NAME: Despair ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 7 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: creatures have a 3N% chance to lose 1 hp.  N = number of generating creatures you posses.	NAME: Despair ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 6 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: creatures have a 3N% chance to lose 1 hp.  N = number of generating creatures you posses.

ART: Art like hope but in a despairing pose would be good. IDEA: EmeraldTiger, Rutarete NOTES: This is made to tie in with Shadone | Fragment of Darkness. Includes Devourer. 23 creature spots, 3% per generating creature 23*3=69 SERIES:

[Joseph7]

Interesting idea, I'm just not sure that it is worth the cost. Fire buckler hurts each attacking creature by 1 too, and costs much less, as well as not being dependent upon creatures. I would suggest raising the 3N to at least 5N, so as to balance this card out some. I also think that the cost could be lowered to 4 or 5  (unless it's switched to become immaterial, which I think may be another way to go with this card). I do, however, absolutely love this idea with your other darkness card.

[EmeraldTiger]

23 creature spots, 3% per  generating creature 23*3= 69
23 creature spots, 4% per  generating creature 23*4= 92
23 creature spots, 5% per  generating creature 23*5= 115

I think a cost reduction would be better than % increase.

[Joseph7]

23 creature spots, 3% per  generating creature 23*3= 69
23 creature spots, 4% per  generating creature 23*4= 92
23 creature spots, 5% per  generating creature 23*5= 115

I think a cost reduction would be better than % increase.

Now that you list the percentages, I completely agree with you. A suggestion: perhaps the upped card could have a 4N chance, since it would get closer to always decreasing creature HP.

[Pineapple]

Competes with Fire Shield (only difference is it requires more set-up for an equal effect); Joseph7 has already outlined the three ways to balance this effect with respect to Fire Shield (increase potential effect, decrease cost, add secondary effect).

May I suggest a change in the effect of decreasing HP? Since the trigger cannot be easily changed (without losing synergy with Shadone), perhaps you could change the primary effect to decreasing ATK for example.

[EmeraldTiger]

just a thought.
How about this loss of hp is not damage, but like SoV does to players this will do to creatures?

[Pineapple]

I was thinking that too, but really decreasing creatures' max HP isn't that awesome unless its owner is using angels/lights. Most HP increases come in the form of buffs.

[EmeraldTiger]

It Atk is affected would negative Atk increase, decrease or stay the same?

[Pineapple]

As it is a shield, negative-ATK attacks would not be treated as a successful attack. Thus, by default, negative attack will not change.

[Rutarete]

Keep in mind this.

[Pineapple]

Keep in mind this.

Darn, I thought you had found the shield (or perhaps it was a weapon) based on dark-generating creatures.

[EmeraldTiger]

would an alternating -1|-0 <-> -0|-1 work?