Guard Tower | Deadeye Tower

[bored_ninja777]

NAME: Guard Tower ELEMENT: Fire COST: 5 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: : Fire The next creature that attacks you is now on fire. Fire stacks.	NAME: Deadeye Tower ELEMENT: Fire COST: 4 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: : Fire The next 2 creatures that attack you are now on fire. Fire stacks.

ART: bored_ninja777 IDEA: bored_ninja777 NOTES: Fire adds 1 Fire counter (red circle with number in it) showing how many fire counters are on the target. At the end of each turn, creatures with fire counters on them take damage equal to the number of counters on them. SERIES:

[EvaRia]

So, like, infection.

[bored_ninja777]

i suppose yes it works like infection. hmm... kinda blanked on that part... ill change it quick.

[Nepycros]

It doesn't make a difference to infection ATM. After all, there's no counter to infection, so there's no counter to this. You've made something that pretty much does what any Parasite could do, for a much higher cost.

[bored_ninja777]

there we go.. that is more the idea i wanted anyway.

[Nepycros]

Now it suits the idea of a tower defending someone. I assume it isn't a shield? If that is so, that makes things all the more interesting. This, stacked with Fire Shield, makes an immensely powerful defensive CC. I suggest reducing the ability cost by 1, while increasing the summoning cost by 1 as well. In the long run, the amount of quanta spent will make a difference.

[bored_ninja777]

Now it suits the idea of a tower defending someone. I assume it isn't a shield? If that is so, that makes things all the more interesting. This, stacked with Fire Shield, makes an immensely powerful defensive CC. I suggest reducing the ability cost by 1, while increasing the summoning cost by 1 as well. In the long run, the amount of quanta spent will make a difference.

correct it is not a shield. so yes that would make for a good combo. that or bonewall because they would die after the attack refueling the wall. I will wait a little bit to see what ppl thing about it before adjusting costs.

[Nepycros]

I mean, I wouldn't want to waste 2 just to infect a single attacking creature.

[bored_ninja777]

I mean, I wouldn't want to waste 2 just to infect a single attacking creature.

i agree. im just debating how i want to go about it..

what about making it useable up to X times? or as many as they want? for 1 to use. then up the cost to play it up to 7 ?

[EmeraldTiger]

would the cost be an absorb affect since you can't target attacking creatures, when they are attacking?

[Nepycros]

The effect would be similar to a shield. It would work like this. In the same way an attacking creature would trigger the effect of a shield, a creature would throw a switch in the programming, and the first creature to attack would gain a "burn" counter.

[bored_ninja777]

The effect would be similar to a shield. It would work like this. In the same way an attacking creature would trigger the effect of a shield, a creature would throw a switch in the programming, and the first creature to attack would gain a "burn" counter.

no emeraldtiger it is not like absorb... it is how nypycros stated. it triggers how  a shield would. the only difference is you have to activate it and target a creature for it to add the burn counter when it attacks you.
the attack does not have to hit your health.. it merely has to attack that turn.