If you have more creature damage than bleeding, the bleeding won't ever catch up unless your opponent heals. This seems balanced; at first I was afraid it was working like a reverse Stone Skin, doing both damage and reducing max HP, which would have been more powerful than poison. As is, it's just different, and only useful if your opponent heals or if you're running on bleeds alone with very little creature damage.
One balancing factor I just noticed is contingent on bleed damage being applied after creature damage, rather than before as with normal poison. Say you have 10 bleed counters and enemy creatures are only doing 5 total damage... the bleeding would be redundant with the creatures, since you go from, say, 50/50 health to 45/50 after creatures, then 40/40 upon the bleed. If your bleeding is larger than enemy creatures' total attack, it will be the amount of damage you take instead of being added to the enemy creatures' damage (once it catches up).
That's a balancing factor, to be sure, but it's also a little problematic. It means that if the bleed EVER catches up with the creature damage, it has rendered all creature damage for the entire battle completely worthless. So it probably should be additional. I'm just not sure about balance compared to, say, scorpions. Should this have zero or positive attack to start? Would I even be asking if Zanz hadn't put Dune and Deathstalker in the game? Are pancakes tasty?!?
yes. yes they are.
