Minor Grue | Major Grue

[OdinVanguard]

NAME: Minor Grue ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 4 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 3|3 TEXT: Stalk: Move to an open slot. Devour opposing enemy if it has less hp. Usage requires nightfall or invisibility.	NAME: Major Grue ELEMENT: Darkness COST: 5 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 4|5 TEXT: Stalk: Move to an open slot. Devour opposing enemy if it has less hp. Usage requires nightfall or invisibility.

ART: OdinVanguard IDEA: OdinVanguard -Inspired by the infamous "Grue" from "Zork" NOTES: "Misdirection and secrets rule the day today." "And the Grue shall rule the night. Don't be afraid of the dark. Rather, fear what lurks within. Use it." For those who have played "Zork" the theme needs no explanation… For those who haven't, just visit the wiki page above for some background… This is my homage to it as a cross-game adaptation. The ability is essentially a more restrictive version of the devour ability used by otyughs and scarabs. This is balanced by higher stats (particularly when nightfall or eclipse is in play) This card will be part of the "Field Slot" based combat mechanics series that is in progress. SERIES: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,48038.0.html

Lore: (Taken from "Zork", see the wikipedia link)
"The grue is a sinister, lurking presence in the dark places of the earth. Its favorite diet is adventurers, but its insatiable appetite is tempered by its fear of light. No grue has ever been seen by the light of day, and few have survived its fearsome jaws to tell the tale."

[Absol]

Dat art
At first i thought there were no art. Suddenly, evil grin.

This feels somewhat forced, needing Nightfall or Cloak (specific cards) to even work (as forced as SoPa bonus, that is). With the exception that SoPa can be used effectively even without Flooding.

Compare Oty.

This card is duo, so it can have some more attack than Oty. But the forced combo really limits its usage.

[Rutarete]

Because of the limits of the forced combo, I think it could stand to have a lower cost.
That said, hooray for new inherent synergy!

[OldTrees]

Because of the limits of the forced combo, I think it could stand to have a lower cost.
That said, hooray for new inherent synergy!

Which are you saying?:

A) It is a forced combo. The forced combo is weak. Thus the weakness of the normal usage justifies a lower cost.
OR
B) It is a forced combo. Being a forced combo is a weakness. Thus it being a forced combo justifies a lower cost.

I believe B is misleading/erroneous while A may or may not be true.

PS: I find it strange to consider a cost as "new inherent synergy". New and inherent I can see but usually costs are not called synergistic.

[Chapuz]

"Move to an open slot."
What's its purpose? I don't get this mechanic

[Rutarete]

"Move to an open slot."
What's its purpose? I don't get this mechanic

The creature you're devouring has to be in the same slot number on the opponent's field. So you move to a slot on your side where you don't have a creature (though I suppose you could technically move to a permanent slot), so that you can get at a different creature of the opponent's.

Because of the limits of the forced combo, I think it could stand to have a lower cost.
That said, hooray for new inherent synergy!

Which are you saying?:

A) It is a forced combo. The forced combo is weak. Thus the weakness of the normal usage justifies a lower cost.
OR
B) It is a forced combo. Being a forced combo is a weakness. Thus it being a forced combo justifies a lower cost.

I believe B is misleading/erroneous while A may or may not be true.

PS: I find it strange to consider a cost as "new inherent synergy". New and inherent I can see but usually costs are not called synergistic.

I was thinking more along the lines of A. I don't think the card as it is is satisfactorily viable.

Often with deck ideas and card ideas (I think more the former than latter) I've seen many people say that so and so elements don't have synergy, or don't work together well. My view is that all elements have synergy - but the direct synergy that people often look for I call inherent synergy, because it directly ties the elements together.

[OdinVanguard]

So would it be good to drop cost by 1 on both then?

[jazzfan27]

I dont' really like or think it's necessary to have the activation paid in  .  It's allready a 2 card combo, I think requiring a 2nd source of Quanta is too much.

Would you consider changing it to  instead?

BTW:  Love the art, love the card. 

[OdinVanguard]

I dont' really like or think it's necessary to have the activation paid in  .  It's allready a 2 card combo, I think requiring a 2nd source of Quanta is too much.

Would you consider changing it to  instead?

BTW:  Love the art, love the card.

Hmm... would this work as an alternative:
"Moves to a new open ally slot each turn during nightfall or while invisible and devours opposing enemies with less hp"

Or would making the movement random weaken it too much?

This could make for a "Grue-tal" combo

[jazzfan27]

If it's gonna move around randomly, I'd suggest making it devour anything it opposes, not just those with lower health.

[OldTrees]

That said, hooray for new inherent synergy!

I find it strange to consider a cost as "new inherent synergy". New and inherent I can see but usually costs are not called synergistic.

Often with deck ideas and card ideas (I think more the former than latter) I've seen many people say that so and so elements don't have synergy, or don't work together well. My view is that all elements have synergy - but the direct synergy that people often look for I call inherent synergy, because it directly ties the elements together.

I agree that direct synergy is synergy however there is more to synergy than 2 elements being used together. When the use of the second element is a bonus/benefit it is synergy. When the use of the second element is a cost to use the card then it is a cost rather than synergy.
So the inclusion of an off element activation cost is not synergy.
"Requiring Nightfall, Invisibility, Darkness Quanta and, Gravity Quanta are costs"

I would use Inherent Synergy to describe when a single card has 2 effects from different elements such that the 2 effects synergize with each other.
"Moving to different slots" and "Automatically attempting to devour opposing creatures" do synergize with each other. However I only see one element (Generic, Gravity) involved.

Direct Synergy I would describe as when an effect on a card has synergy with a card of a different element than the effect on the first card.
"Devour" and "Nightfall (extra hp)"
However a good example of direct synergy would be a card with 2 effects from different elements such that each effect had cards from the opposite element that it synergized with.

[OdinVanguard]

I agree that direct synergy is synergy however there is more to synergy than 2 elements being used together. When the use of the second element is a bonus/benefit it is synergy. When the use of the second element is a cost to use the card then it is a cost rather than synergy.
So the inclusion of an off element activation cost is not synergy.

I would use Inherent Synergy to describe when a single card has 2 effects from different elements such that the 2 effects synergize with each other.

This card would build in an additional - synergy since it would benefit greatly from plate armor.
It could also make for interesting synergy with since it will generate death effects.