Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

What should be the initial cost of a creature that starts with 0atk, and every turn gains 1atk per turn? What about 2? Or 3? Is the formula for cost linear or exponential? What is the formula?

Has there a card made that gains 1atk for every time the owner gets hit in a turn, and then resets every turn? How much would that cost? (I would hazard a guess that it would averagely do 4 more damage than its basic attack)

Would a temporary weapon be a good idea? It would be a cost efficient weapon that disappeared in 2|3 turns, but by paying quanta, the user could return the weapon either to their deck or hand, so they can keep the weapon card.

Deflag (destroy any permanent) is 3|2 . How much would a card that only destroyed your opponent's weapon or shield cost? 2|1 ?

The formula for the cost would be linear since the average attack per turn would have a linear difference.
Fire Spirit (probably a bit UP) is a 0|2 for 2 + 1 card that gains +2 atk per turn for 1 per turn.
Generating 1 per turn is worth +1 casting cost. // A creature activation cost of 0 is worth a +1 casting cost.
Ablaze with an activation cost of 0 is almost identical to gaining +2 attack per turn.
So 0+2 per turn costs 2 +1card (assuming Fire Spirit is slightly UP)
Each +1 per turn would probably be a +2-+3 casting cost.

There was a weapon that attacked each time the wielder was attacked. Temporia or something? It was a Time bow.

Dimensional Shield is a temporary shield. Weapons and Shields have few significant differences. I do not think the offensive/defensive difference is relevant to this question since Spark is an offensive card. Either return would work. It depends on what you are simulating.

Destroying only a weapon or shield is less versatile than destroying any permanent. I am not sure if the reduced versatility is great enough for a cost decrease. However it might be. Think of it as 2.5 |1.5 .

[EmeraldTiger]

Would it be OP if a creature could cast nightmare on itself with 1-2 damage while in hand?

[OldTrees]

Would it be OP if a creature could cast nightmare on itself with 1-2 damage while in hand?

I did not understand what you meant by "with" and "while in hand".

Does Angel + This = Permament Nightmare?

[furballdn]

Would it be OP if a creature could cast nightmare on itself with 1-2 damage while in hand?

I'll assume what you mean is a creature that can nightmare itself, as well as causing 1-2 damage in the hand of the owner. Yes, I'd say that's OP. Moomoose made a card that nightmared itself when targetted, but the additional psuedo-poison is too much.

[EmeraldTiger]

so no?

[furballdn]

Definitely no. Especially with that cheap cost. A card that can nightmare itself indefinitely is already pretty OP, and with the extra 5-ish damage per turn, it's definitely OP.

[OldTrees]

Definitely no. Especially with that cheap cost. A card that can nightmare itself indefinitely is already pretty OP, and with the extra 5-ish damage per turn, it's definitely OP.

Furballdn ninja'd me.

Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.

[Rutarete]

Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.

But if it was just upon entering play?

[furballdn]

Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.

But if it was just upon entering play?

Still OP. A sudden burst of nightmare would bring around 4 (guessing) cards into their hand. Assuming they discard one the first turn, you basically just gave them 3 poison counters. Add more nightmares or fractal and it's an OP combo.

[Rutarete]

Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.

But if it was just upon entering play?

Still OP. A sudden burst of nightmare would bring around 4 (guessing) cards into their hand. Assuming they discard one the first turn, you basically just gave them 3 poison counters. Add more nightmares or fractal and it's an OP combo.

Then what if they were given the ability to play them by having a  cost? Enough if a cost that there would still be a bit of temporary poison-like damage, say, 5 or 6?
It would still be a darkness card.

[furballdn]

Giving the opponent nightmares is too powerful an effect for a player to be able to inflict once per turn.

But if it was just upon entering play?

Still OP. A sudden burst of nightmare would bring around 4 (guessing) cards into their hand. Assuming they discard one the first turn, you basically just gave them 3 poison counters. Add more nightmares or fractal and it's an OP combo.

Then what if they were given the ability to play them by having a  cost? Enough if a cost that there would still be a bit of temporary poison-like damage, say, 5 or 6?
It would still be a darkness card.

They play the card, your hand becomes nightmared. Opens up a large can of worms and just nightmare duels over and over. Not exactly fun.

[Rutarete]

Then what if, it only stayed in the hand for as many turns as it has cost? Still going by nightmaring upon entering play. This would be much more balanced I think.