Entangle | Entangle

[Brontos]

Good concept!

But I don't really see myself playing this card. It synergises with none of Life cards that I can think about (while it can be good for a rush to gain one turn vs Oty, playing this card will weaken my rush deck globally), and if it is played with different elements, there are stronger cards to CC opponent's creatures. Freeze, Reverse Time, Firebolt... pick one.
Plus, this card just lose the card advantage and only really works on a big hitter, who will stay kinda big after anyway. This doesn't really solve a problematic situation. It doesn't give you that many extra time either. :/

Why not dropping the atk to 0 totally instead? Same price and all.

[traceurling]

Hm I was a bit worried about that as a lava golem getting halved wouldn't care that much... Meh I'm trying to think of what to change;
Cost: Increase/decrease the cost based on what I change the effect, most likely increase
Attack: Increase amount of attack reduced by; maybe 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 idk, reduce to 0 might be OP. or it could be reduce by a base number like "reduce by 9" althought that might not fit as WEL thematically. It would never go into negative attack though.
Turns: if I increase attack reduced by by too much, might remove this effect all together, or if I don't increase effect of attack reduced by(by too muh) I could increase turns delayed by
HP: don't know if this fits thematically but I could make it decrease HP too to deal with annoying stuff like Armagio and Otyugh...

Opinions? Most likely I'll have to implementation least 2 of those changes, but which ones should I use and should they be increase/decrease by how much?

[OdinVanguard]

Hm I was a bit worried about that as a lava golem getting halved wouldn't care that much... Meh I'm trying to think of what to change;
Cost: Increase/decrease the cost based on what I change the effect, most likely increase
Attack: Increase amount of attack reduced by; maybe 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 idk, reduce to 0 might be OP. or it could be reduce by a base number like "reduce by 9" althought that might not fit as WEL thematically. It would never go into negative attack though.
Turns: if I increase attack reduced by by too much, might remove this effect all together, or if I don't increase effect of attack reduced by(by too muh) I could increase turns delayed by
HP: don't know if this fits thematically but I could make it decrease HP too to deal with annoying stuff like Armagio and Otyugh...

Opinions? Most likely I'll have to implementation least 2 of those changes, but which ones should I use and should they be increase/decrease by how much?

How about tweaking the wording slightly:
"Target deals half damage" instead of "target's attack is halved"
Then a lava golemn would definitely care since it would only gain +1 attack per growth instead of +2

[skyironsword]

But then what would the visible change be?

[OdinVanguard]

But then what would the visible change be?

Place a debuff marker probably

[traceurling]

I added flavor text think I'm gonna do a short line for every card I make from now on...

[skyironsword]

Debuff marker of what?

You can't do the life mark due to already being taken by Adrenaline.

[traceurling]

Adrenaline actually has its own buff market yah? The green circle and black snake eyes...

[moomoose]

if the effect is changed to be a lasting 'halved' status effect rather than a straight up one-time debuff of -50% atk, that is way too much power for just 1 , it would need an increase to ~4|3 , and i would recommend removing the stun effect, it seems unnecessary after buffing it to be a status effect.

just be sure in whatever you end up doing, that you keep it distinct from slow|stop, which is a similar atk reduction mechanic already in level 3 (and as such has likely been rejected by zanz).  it being a status effect would accomplish this.