Erosion | Erosion

[Celidion]

NAME: Erosion ELEMENT: Water COST: 6 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Opponent's permanents have a chance to be destroyed.   : Adds an erosion counter.	NAME: Erosion ELEMENT: Water COST: 6 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Opponent's permanents have a chance to be destroyed.  : Adds an erosion counter.

ART: Lynn Betts IDEA: Celidion NOTES: This is where I got my art: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Runoff_of_soil_%26_fertilizer.jpg I believe it should start at 2 counters(10%), and each counter would add 5%. This maxes at 30%. SERIES: N/A

[ZephyrPhantom]

So what is the starting chance for permanents to not work?

[Celidion]

So what is the starting chance for permanents to not work?

5% or 10%, not an expert on balance, so I don't want to make it OP.

[Essence]

Skip the flavor text and you'll be able to get all your mechanics on there:

Opponent's permanents may not work.  Drain per turn.  : further erode opponent's permanents.


Done.  Then just put a cute little counter on the permanent indicating what the current percentage is.  (It should start at 5% and go up 5% per activation.)

[Celidion]

Skip the flavor text and you'll be able to get all your mechanics on there:

Opponent's permanents may not work.  Drain per turn.  : further erode opponent's permanents.


Done.  Then just put a cute little counter on the permanent indicating what the current percentage is.  (It should start at 5% and go up 5% per activation.)

Done so, thanks for suggestion.

[Kuroaitou]

CURATOR COMMENT
-Leave the ATK|HP section of the table blank if the card is not a creature (i.e. - remove the 'N/A' part from the table)
-Fix the TEXT of both your tables so that it matches the card's wording within the image:
Instead of-

"Deteriorate your opponent's permanents, causing them to function improperly.  Uses 1 per turn."

...it should be:

"Opponent's permanents may not work. Drain per turn. : Further erode the opponent's permanents."


Slightly reminds me of this old Erosion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10096.0.html) idea, but the mechanic is different in that it disables, rather than destroys. Despite the expensive upkeep ( isn't known for quick quanta production of ), it's a decent idea, but one that might be ignored compared to some of the current permanents within the Crucible... 

[Celidion]

CURATOR COMMENT
-Leave the ATK|HP section of the table blank if the card is not a creature (i.e. - remove the 'N/A' part from the table)
-Fix the TEXT of both your tables so that it matches the card's wording within the image:
Instead of-

"Deteriorate your opponent's permanents, causing them to function improperly.  Uses 1 per turn."

...it should be:

"Opponent's permanents may not work. Drain per turn. : Further erode the opponent's permanents."


Slightly reminds me of this old Erosion (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10096.0.html) idea, but the mechanic is different in that it disables, rather than destroys. Despite the expensive upkeep ( isn't known for quick quanta production of ), it's a decent idea, but one that might be ignored compared to some of the current permanents within the Crucible... 

Okay thanks, I changed it a bit and found much better art, let me know what you think. 

[ZephyrPhantom]

The card says "Title". Please change that to "Erosion".

Also I think counters should just add 5%, 10% seems to build up too quickly. (it could start with 2 counters to give it a default starting rate or 10%)

[Celidion]

The card says "Title". Please change that to "Erosion".

Also I think counters should just add 5%, 10% seems to build up too quickly. (it could start with 2 counters to give it a default starting rate or 10%)

Ah thanks, totally missed that one.  And I'll change the charges, what they were originally.

[DoomedProphet]

Here's something with kind of the same idea..

Tidal Wave | Tsunami 6
At the end of each turn, wash away X permanents where X is the number of wave counters.
: Add a wave counter.

'Washing away' returns the permanent to its owners hand, so if you have 3 wave counters on Tidal Wave, it returns 3 permanents (at random) to its owners hand.

If you say this is OP, remember, pillars are permanents too, so sometimes it will wash those away instead of shields / swords / hourglasses.

What if their hand is full? Either the extra permanents could be topdecked (like a rewind for perms) or just destroyed/discarded.

Another suggestion was the cost for adding wave counters would be twice as many wave counters as is already on Tidal Wave, and Tidal Wave comes into play with a counter.. So to add a 7th counter, it would cost 12 quanta. If this were to be implemented, I would think the card should cost more like 2-3 .

[Celidion]

Here's something with kind of the same idea..

Tidal Wave | Tsunami 6
At the end of each turn, wash away X permanents where X is the number of wave counters.
: Add a wave counter.

'Washing away' returns the permanent to its owners hand, so if you have 3 wave counters on Tidal Wave, it returns 3 permanents (at random) to its owners hand.

If you say this is OP, remember, pillars are permanents too, so sometimes it will wash those away instead of shields / swords / hourglasses.

What if their hand is full? Either the extra permanents could be topdecked (like a rewind for perms) or just destroyed/discarded.

Another suggestion was the cost for adding wave counters would be twice as many wave counters as is already on Tidal Wave, and Tidal Wave comes into play with a counter.. So to add a 7th counter, it would cost 12 quanta. If this were to be implemented, I would think the card should cost more like 2-3 .

Sounds great, possibly synergy with Nightmare/GotP. Anyway, I believe this card is ready for the crucible, please let me know if you want me to do anything else, curators.

[OldTrees]

I have been summoned.

Unfortunately I have no real basis to judge this card balance wise. It is just that different from everything else even pulverizer.

I do like how simplistic it is set up. This kind of a card would also fit in Time with just quanta changes (if it turns out to be OP then a duo is an option). I think an activation cost of  | might be better.

As for casting cost I would suggest leave it for now until you get more comments from experienced players.