Grindylow | Jengu

[Flayne]

The same applies to Inundation with Protect artifact, and if i remember correctly, it was buffed and now only requires 1  per turn.
basically, theres a good synergy now between Poseidon and inundation thanks to that buff.
 PA + Inundation + Poseidon = similar effect but cheaper on pillar destruction, essentially pillar drying up the player so they can't play anything at all.

Flooding still provides wiggle room to work around it since it only floods the front and back rows and certain creature types can survive it. Trident requires a duo and can only target pillars. Perhaps since you designed it to counter crucial weapons limit it's targeting to only the weapon and shield slots? This would prevent a possible complete lock down from lack of any permanents.

But isnt there already a dozen card ideas that specifically imply just that?

[OldTrees]

For 9 I can destroy all pillars and all future permanents? Really?

yeah but did you read notes?
the same thing applies to it as inundation, if you kill it, all the slots are released.
I was thinking of lowering its hp so its easier to kill, like squid.

Quint? Cloak? Even without those a targeted flooding slot is extremely powerful because it keeps on giving.

The same applies to Inundation with Protect artifact, and if i remember correctly, it was buffed and now only requires 1  per turn.
basically, theres a good synergy now between Poseidon and inundation thanks to that buff.
 PA + Inundation + Poseidon = similar effect but cheaper on pillar destruction, essentially pillar drying up the player so they can't play anything at all.

Flooding Floods the last slots. This Floods the First Slot. Huge difference because Flooding permits 7 creatures unaffected by the Flooded slots. This permits 0 permanents unaffected by the Flooded slot, unless multiple are played per turn and even then it kills 1 per blitz minimum.

[Flayne]

For 9 I can destroy all pillars and all future permanents? Really?

yeah but did you read notes?
the same thing applies to it as inundation, if you kill it, all the slots are released.
I was thinking of lowering its hp so its easier to kill, like squid.

Quint? Cloak? Even without those a targeted flooding slot is extremely powerful because it keeps on giving.

The same applies to Inundation with Protect artifact, and if i remember correctly, it was buffed and now only requires 1  per turn.
basically, theres a good synergy now between Poseidon and inundation thanks to that buff.
 PA + Inundation + Poseidon = similar effect but cheaper on pillar destruction, essentially pillar drying up the player so they can't play anything at all.

Flooding Floods the last slots. This Floods the First Slot. Huge difference because Flooding permits 7 creatures unaffected by the Flooded slots. This permits 0 permanents unaffected by the Flooded slot, unless multiple are played per turn and even then it kills 1 per blitz minimum.

So what do suggest then? random slots? or limited slots?
or
Lowering the hp of the creature so its far easier to counter with CC? (Like squid)

I Personally prefer lowering its hp as it is a strong effect, let it be more counterable like squids freeze on a stick.
Making it random slots will just render it useless unless I at least lower the cost significantly for upgraded version,
then again im lowering its stats too, so it would already have to be slightly cheaper.

[OldTrees]

For 9 I can destroy all pillars and all future permanents? Really?

yeah but did you read notes?
the same thing applies to it as inundation, if you kill it, all the slots are released.
I was thinking of lowering its hp so its easier to kill, like squid.

Quint? Cloak? Even without those a targeted flooding slot is extremely powerful because it keeps on giving.

The same applies to Inundation with Protect artifact, and if i remember correctly, it was buffed and now only requires 1  per turn.
basically, theres a good synergy now between Poseidon and inundation thanks to that buff.
 PA + Inundation + Poseidon = similar effect but cheaper on pillar destruction, essentially pillar drying up the player so they can't play anything at all.

Flooding Floods the last slots. This Floods the First Slot. Huge difference because Flooding permits 7 creatures unaffected by the Flooded slots. This permits 0 permanents unaffected by the Flooded slot, unless multiple are played per turn and even then it kills 1 per blitz minimum.

So what do suggest then? random slots? or limited slots?
or
Lowering the hp of the creature so its far easier to counter with CC? (Like squid)

I Personally prefer lowering its hp as it is a strong effect, let it be more counterable like squids freeze on a stick.
Making it random slots will just render it useless unless I at least lower the cost significantly for upgraded version,
then again im lowering its stats too, so it would already have to be slightly cheaper.

I think Flood slots are too hard to balance within ETG's range of power [Spark-Miracle]. Perhaps give Jengu a non Flood based effect?

[Flayne]

I actually was considering removing the flood effect and focusing more on the inundation sync, making it a conditionally strong mono  creature since  lacks some good mono  creatures. (as there are too many duos in )

I was considering giving it one or 2 of the following:

- giving it momentum when inundation is in play
- enhancing its stat buff when inundation is in play
- gaining +X where X= creatures underwater, though maybe a little OP with alfa toxin. (perhaps divide by 2?)

I was thinking along the lines of having a sync with Inundation.
what do you think of those 3 ideas mentioned above ^ ?

[OldTrees]

I actually was considering removing the flood effect and focusing more on the inundation sync, making it a conditionally strong mono  creature since  lacks some good mono  creatures. (as there are too many duos in )

I was considering giving it one or 2 of the following:

- giving it momentum when inundation is in play
- enhancing its stat buff when inundation is in play
- gaining +X where X= creatures underwater, though maybe a little OP with alfa toxin. (perhaps divide by 2?)

I was thinking along the lines of having a sync with Inundation.
what do you think of those 3 ideas mentioned above ^ ?

There are problems with giving a card a bonus that Only applies when a specific other card is around. It makes it too limited in usage.

[Flayne]

I actually was considering removing the flood effect and focusing more on the inundation sync, making it a conditionally strong mono  creature since  lacks some good mono  creatures. (as there are too many duos in )

I was considering giving it one or 2 of the following:

- giving it momentum when inundation is in play
- enhancing its stat buff when inundation is in play
- gaining +X where X= creatures underwater, though maybe a little OP with alfa toxin. (perhaps divide by 2?)

I was thinking along the lines of having a sync with Inundation.
what do you think of those 3 ideas mentioned above ^ ?

There are problems with giving a card a bonus that Only applies when a specific other card is around. It makes it too limited in usage.

Please specify the problems.

because imo, it would create a new diversity in card mechanics, for example, Grindylow relies on inundation, but if it is destroyed or leaves play (due to  absorbtion), Grindylow would lose the bonus, since it is easier demoting the creature first and making it weaker, rather than wasting a few cards in killing it directly. weaken first then kill, harder for CC, new diversity of cards.
an existing example is Mummy, Mummy has the condition where if a spell is cast from it (take note that rewind time is from another element, so its harder to actually benefit ones self, making it more of a defense mechanism) it turns into mummy.
Ive seen decks that base themselves on that strategy.
Placing a permanent-card reliant creature is no different, but instead is actually weaker and less permanent than mummy's effect which is permanent once its applied. and what about scarab? same thing applied to that.

examples:
Mummy
Scarab
Eclipse (essentially for death stalker)

Why not? it would create a different variation of card mechanics.
besides, Inundation is in the same element as Grindylow, the usage is not that limited imo.
And if you consider Schrodinger's cat, it's actually very useless in its own element and is specific for death related effects such as boneyard, condor and soul catcher.
in my opinion, schrodinger's cat was created basically for .
so thats an example of an existent limited use card.

[OldTrees]

I was pretty vague sorry.
I was referring to number of combos of a card.
Mummy and Skeleton interact with Reverse Time, Eternity, Chaos Seed and Pandamonium (4 cards)
Deathstalker and Dune Scorpion interact with Momentum, Blessing, Chaos Power, Heavy Armor/Basilisk Blood/Earth Nymph + Rage Poition/Red Nymph, Nightfall (Deathstalker)
Nightfall interacts with all Death and Darkness creatures.
Scarb interacts with Scarab, Pharaoh, Mitosis, Fractal and others
The Cat interacts with Boneyard, Bone Wall, Vulture, Soul Catcher

Note in each of the above the Card in question (left hand side) had at least 3 combos when introduced into the game. If you make a card that is significantly improved by Flooding to the point that if the interaction is balanced then the solo card is UP, then you should have it interact with at least 2 other cards options.

Card with significant synergy with Flooding does not add much to the game
Card with significant synergy with (Flooding and at least 2 other cards) adds a decent amount to the game.

[Flayne]

I was pretty vague sorry.
I was referring to number of combos of a card.
Mummy and Skeleton interact with Reverse Time, Eternity, Chaos Seed and Pandamonium (4 cards)
Deathstalker and Dune Scorpion interact with Momentum, Blessing, Chaos Power, Heavy Armor/Basilisk Blood/Earth Nymph + Rage Poition/Red Nymph, Nightfall (Deathstalker)
Nightfall interacts with all Death and Darkness creatures.
Scarb interacts with Scarab, Pharaoh, Mitosis, Fractal and others
The Cat interacts with Boneyard, Bone Wall, Vulture, Soul Catcher

Note in each of the above the Card in question (left hand side) had at least 3 combos when introduced into the game. If you make a card that is significantly improved by Flooding to the point that if the interaction is balanced then the solo card is UP, then you should have it interact with at least 2 other cards options.

Card with significant synergy with Flooding does not add much to the game
Card with significant synergy with (Flooding and at least 2 other cards) adds a decent amount to the game.

I see what you mean. I was only trying to create a card that would sync more with inundation, perhaps I could apply one of the following instead:

- Icy essence: gains X attack, where X= total amount of frozen creatures. (syncs with frost shield, freeze and squid)
-  Icicle cluster: Freeze a permanent for 2 turns. (soft temporary lobotomizer for CC cards such as weapons and shields) (A softer PC control)
-  Hyperthermia: Target creature gains -1/+0 (upped would be -1/-1) (a soft CC)

Personally I would prefer the softer PC option.

[OldTrees]

those 3 would be better effects. I think the soft PC would be closest to the original intent. How would it affect stacks?

[RagingAlien]

I like the idea of being able to freeze Permanents. finally a better way to destroy the enemie's weapon with water than keep on Ice Bolting him, hoping to get lucky. XD

[Flayne]

those 3 would be better effects. I think the soft PC would be closest to the original intent. How would it affect stacks?

I like the idea of being able to freeze Permanents. finally a better way to destroy the enemie's weapon with water than keep on Ice Bolting him, hoping to get lucky. XD

Stacks would be affected the same way Protect Artifact does, the entire stack, seems fair and makes sense. however, since it could potentially stop the opponent's pillar production, i'd have to make it one turn on unnupped and 2 turns on upped
 (same type of upgrade "freeze" has when it is upgraded to "Congeal", but lowered by 2 levels)

the ability cost will also have to be 3-4 , so then spamming it each turn on the same slot would waste quanta.