Narrow Bridges | Contested Bridges

[OdinVanguard]

It seems the general consensus is to make this an earth or gravity card. I made it type other to start with to allow broad usage, but I do agree it fits very well under those themes. I will repost the card after I get a chance to make a couple of the other scenery card ideas I had as well. Thanks for the feedback.

I've put up a poll to let people vote what element this should be in. Earth and gravity make the most sense to me, but I put all 13 options up just to be thorough.

[AvusXIV]

This would add an entirely new dimension to the game, but would not break it or make it a new game in my opinion. I like the concept a lot. I would make it earth elemented or gravity elemented though.

The first thing I was surprised of (what even puzzled me at the very beginning) when I first played this card game was that creatures directly attack the opponent, not it's creatures.

The implementation of this card would, to a certain degree, turn Elements into a *Tyrant*, *Card Monsters* or even *Magic*. Saying that in a more cautious way: It would push Elements in the direction of those other games.

I am really concerned about two things:

1) The -creature attacking creature- feature has never been part of this game AT ALL. The only connection was the spell/ability Gravity Pull or skills that creatures might use against others. But the fighting itself always targeted the player and his HP bar. This would now basically change. Along with that, the worth of all CC skills and cards, same as the atk|def stats would not fit anymore assumed they are forced into melee battle with other creatures and so on...

2) As a consequence of accepting this idea, it's possible that card designers here as well as people in general tend to go more into the creature vs. creature game mechanic. Be aware of this (dangerous?) potential development of Elements.

[OdinVanguard]

I also noticed that the creature vs creature aspect was conspicuously absent from elements when I first started playing.

Coming from playing MtG, I both liked and disliked that. I loved how simple and automatic the attack phase was, but I also noticed that creatures with more than about 5 HP were rather wasteful unless specifically combo'd with gravity pull (or later catapult)... Even then decks of those type would often get overwhelmed by higher attack creatures due to raw damage output. MtG's creature combat system helped balance that, but at the cost of a long, and sometimes quite tedious, battle phase.

My goal with this card was to add in creature battling without needing heavy player interaction (which wouldn't be possible anyway under the play-by-mail theme).
 
Thinking on it more, I do agree that making it too broadly available will have a dramatic impact. Perhaps to a fault. So I am definitely leaning heavily towards making it an element specific card rather than an "other" type card. A small cost boost could help too.

That said, I don't think having a card that can add a creature vs creature aspect is necessarily a bad thing.

For the impact on CC, I fully agree that this card would make a major impact, but I don't think it would reduce the value, even for hard damage based CC. What it would do is increase the value of "soft" CC like stun and freeze, since they would prevent enemies from attacking or counter attacking.

It would mean that CC need not actually kill a creature directly, just weaken it enough for your allies to finish the job, or stop its counterattacking from killing your allies.

In other words, CC spells in all forms should actually become MORE useful since they will help your own creatures survive against tougher opponents. (E.g. fires crimson dragon will get squashed by gravity's colossal dragon unless fire's CC is brought to bear)

It would also make creature healing much more valuable, and some spells (such as adrenaline or momentum) could have more of a double edged sword effect. E.g. adrenaline could end up getting the reciepient killed on its weaker attacks and using momentum could mean that a hard hitter like crimson dragon wouldn't get a chance at killing a potential threat.

Long story short, it would force players to think much more strategically. In my opinion that would be a very good thing.

In any event, a major factor in determining what level of impact we would see is card cost. Since I will almost definitely make this an element specific card, its casting cost will be a major factor in determining how frequently it is seen. Thus, if this cards mechanics seem too dramatic, a high cost will help curtail the impact.

With a very high cost, it would only be seen late in the game against mono or duo type decks that are primarily powered by the element of this cards type.
With a very low cost, it would probably become an extremely common sight since it could be used as a "splash" card in almost any deck and powered with mark or nova setups.

The break off point would be somewhere around 2 to 4 quanta… unless people vote it to be a fire type, in which case the break off would be much higher due to immolation. This situation would be similar for light, dark, and perhaps life as well.

(at the moment, gravity and earth seem to be most popular though)

With that in mind, I'm adding a poll for casting cost.

[AvusXIV]

To keep it not being played all the time, a minimum cost of 6 is required (I voted 7). And it can never be Gravity (I voted Earth) because having all those creatures with mass hp combined with the Grav Pull spell just seems imba to me.

However, after Odins explanations I backed up a little bit and reduced the intensity of my critics. With Earth (or whatever, but not Gravity) as type and quite high costs it's okay to be put into the game

[OdinVanguard]

Gravity certainly seems to stand to gain the most out of this spell since its creatures tend to have the highest HP totals for the size, yet are often outshown by higher damage output of more dpt to cost efficient elements such as life and fire.

Putting this in element with gravity would definitely make gravity players happy... on the other hand it could easily make gravity a bit OP. A high cost would help, but putting it in earth might be a better bet.

The gravity pull comment brings up an interesting point... depending on whether gp effect is applied before or after battles get resolved could make a big difference.
When putting this card together, I worked under the assumption that gp would only apply to damage that "got through" (i.e. creatures in unoccupied rows). Having gp absorb first could be interesting... it may become a bit OP though, since it would then become a shield effect for the players creatures.

[Naesala]

This indeed benefits gravity most, however I feel that gravity is currently the weakest element and most of it's creatures aren't used. At best, people splash momentum or use chimera for mass momentum; the only other gravity things I've seen have been catapult decks and occasionally overdrive decks.

[Dhanzig]

First off ... this seems like the most intelligent conversation I've encountered among Elementalists.

Secondly, I think all logical routes must be discussed.  As in ... what is stopping flyers from just flying?  TUNNELS I could understand but if I have, say, a Crusader on the bridge, and there is a Ruby Dragon on the other side, I don't see how the dragon wouldn't just lift off.  Also, having flyers just go over helps with the issue of Gravity Pull. Which brings me to ...

Thirdly, Gravity Pull sounds like a really good name for a terrain that pulls flyers down.  However, this new Gravity Pull with Wings would be like mtg's Island Sanctuary + Mystic Decree with NO drawback ... in other words SILLY.  and Mystic Decree brings me to

Fourthly, in Mtg, Mystic Decree is an 'Enchant World,' a card type where only one of the TYPE can be in play ... which makes sense for the Terrain cards.  If the opponent (or even you ...) play a different Terrain it should wipe out the one in play already.  after all Tunnels in a Treetop Village on Contested Bridges in a Volcano would be just TOO insane!!

[Naesala]

Fourthly, in Mtg, Mystic Decree is an 'Enchant World,' a card type where only one of the TYPE can be in play ... which makes sense for the Terrain cards.  If the opponent (or even you ...) play a different Terrain it should wipe out the one in play already.  after all Tunnels in a Treetop Village on Contested Bridges in a Volcano would be just TOO insane!!

This is also how field spell cards work in Yu-Gi-Oh

[OdinVanguard]

First off ... this seems like the most intelligent conversation I've encountered among Elementalists.

Secondly, I think all logical routes must be discussed.  As in ... what is stopping flyers from just flying?  TUNNELS I could understand but if I have, say, a Crusader on the bridge, and there is a Ruby Dragon on the other side, I don't see how the dragon wouldn't just lift off.  Also, having flyers just go over helps with the issue of Gravity Pull. Which brings me to ...

Thirdly, Gravity Pull sounds like a really good name for a terrain that pulls flyers down.  However, this new Gravity Pull with Wings would be like mtg's Island Sanctuary + Mystic Decree with NO drawback ... in other words SILLY.  and Mystic Decree brings me to

Fourthly, in Mtg, Mystic Decree is an 'Enchant World,' a card type where only one of the TYPE can be in play ... which makes sense for the Terrain cards.  If the opponent (or even you ...) play a different Terrain it should wipe out the one in play already.  after all Tunnels in a Treetop Village on Contested Bridges in a Volcano would be just TOO insane!!

-A good discussion is what I was after since both creature battle mechanics and scenery / environment / terrain effects, while not new in general, sees almost no play. Even if this card flops, I would like to see others try to find creative ways to work it in ... with a distinct EtG flare of course

-For the flyer part... I was thinking windsheer... it happens overtop large chasms... but yes I see the point. Mainly, the purpose of the flyer bonus is to help give a sense of physical background to the card... having looked over all the various stock photos on bridges this one seemed to work best, but my original concept was something more like the "leap of faith bridge" scene from the third Indiana Jones movie. So flyers can indeed lift off, but to get the enemy player, they would still have to land on the bridge.

-This is a little more than gravity pull with wings... victims of gravity pull don't get a chance to fight back

-Ahh good old MtG ... Its complexity was and is both a strength and a migraine inducing flaw. But I digress... Avoiding a plethora of broad global type effects is why I decided to make up a special permanent type. Scenery cards will be limited to 2 in play at a time (one for each player). Just like weapons and shields, but trickier to break. The idea is that each Elemental (player) can control the environment on their side of the field, but creatures, spells, etc. will have to pass through both. Its not a perfect metaphor... but then neither is nightfall getting blown up by a butterfly chasing cat.

Fourthly, in Mtg, Mystic Decree is an 'Enchant World,' a card type where only one of the TYPE can be in play ... which makes sense for the Terrain cards.  If the opponent (or even you ...) play a different Terrain it should wipe out the one in play already.  after all Tunnels in a Treetop Village on Contested Bridges in a Volcano would be just TOO insane!!

This is also how field spell cards work in Yu-Gi-Oh

Thats actually where some of my inspiration came from... I haven't played MtG in a while so I've missed alot.

[OldTrees]

Fourthly, in Mtg, Mystic Decree is an 'Enchant World,' a card type where only one of the TYPE can be in play ... which makes sense for the Terrain cards.  If the opponent (or even you ...) play a different Terrain it should wipe out the one in play already.  after all Tunnels in a Treetop Village on Contested Bridges in a Volcano would be just TOO insane!!

This is also how field spell cards work in Yu-Gi-Oh

But not how they work in EtG. See Flooding during an Eclipse.

[OdinVanguard]

Fourthly, in Mtg, Mystic Decree is an 'Enchant World,' a card type where only one of the TYPE can be in play ... which makes sense for the Terrain cards.  If the opponent (or even you ...) play a different Terrain it should wipe out the one in play already.  after all Tunnels in a Treetop Village on Contested Bridges in a Volcano would be just TOO insane!!

This is also how field spell cards work in Yu-Gi-Oh

But not how they work in EtG. See Flooding during an Eclipse.

Exactly. This is why I'm saying a special permanent type or slot would be useful here. That way it is guaranteed that there will be no more than 2 types in play at once and no more than one per player.

[OldTrees]

Fourthly, in Mtg, Mystic Decree is an 'Enchant World,' a card type where only one of the TYPE can be in play ... which makes sense for the Terrain cards.  If the opponent (or even you ...) play a different Terrain it should wipe out the one in play already.  after all Tunnels in a Treetop Village on Contested Bridges in a Volcano would be just TOO insane!!

This is also how field spell cards work in Yu-Gi-Oh

But not how they work in EtG. See Flooding during an Eclipse.

Exactly. This is why I'm saying a special permanent type or slot would be useful here. That way it is guaranteed that there will be no more than 2 types in play at once and no more than one per player.

I do not think we need a special slot. Few terrain actually prohibit other terrain being nearby. Oceans and deserts are adjacent IRL. Furthermore even if B cannot exist with A or C that does not imply that A cannot exist with C.

In my opinion EtG has a better system than YuGiOh