Eternal Spells

[bobknows]

I think there is potential for damage spells if they have a negative drawback

consider

Inflict
1 
Deal 5 damage to opponent
reduce your max HP by 3

And now look, a new type of OTK with a TTW of 3
Build up 20 quanta and your opponent is dead. No

Could this be an eternal spell?

Soak
1
Remove one poison counter or add one purify counter. Maxes at 12 counters. (the max normally gained from purify)

[storyteller]

I think there is potential for damage spells if they have a negative drawback

consider

Inflict
1 
Deal 5 damage to opponent
reduce your max HP by 3

And now look, a new type of OTK with a TTW of 3
Build up 20 quanta and your opponent is dead. No

Could this be an eternal spell?

Soak
1
Remove one poison counter or add one purify counter. Maxes at 12 counters. (the max normally gained from purify)

ok, but your Max HP would be 40. You could only take 40 damage prior to this OTK for it to work, its blocked by Reflective shields completely and leaves you open. While my numbers might be off, the concept is there.

[OldTrees]

I think there is potential for damage spells if they have a negative drawback

consider

Inflict
1 
Deal 5 damage to opponent
reduce your max HP by 3

The problem is that destructive eternal spells (like damaging spells) have too few counters. [Fewer than Shard of Sacrifice has]

PS: That is not much of a drawback. It would only matter to the OTK deck if it were facing the slower Shard of Void stall. (deal 100 damage in one turn, have you max hp reduced by 40. Game ends.)

Soak
1
Remove one poison counter or add one purify counter. Maxes at 12 counters. (the max normally gained from purify)

I am worried that it would be too hard of a counter for Poison decks.

[bobknows]

1) how many decks do 40 gamage the first 3 turns?
2) currently, the lowering max hp mechanic only lowers the max, not the current. As a result this dexk would em essentially every game. And could not be stopped by damage.
3) sovs will not kill you by reducing max hp below 0, it needs anoter damage source. So, even a deck made of novas, sobs, precogs, and sovs would not be able to stop this deck.


Isnt purify already a hard counter to poison decks?

[storyteller]

noted. Now what if you worded it something like:

reduce your max HP by 5
deal 5 damage to opponent.

what if it dealt 5 to you and 3 to them, still useful but less so.

my point is not on specifics, only that there does exist a balance here between reusable Eternal spells, direct damage, usefulness and not being overpowered.

High cost may be one, 10  instead of 1

Negative consequences is another, reducing your max HP to perform the effect.

[OldTrees]

@storyteller
Have you considered the possibility that a balanced Eternal damage spell might still damage the metagame? It would be a card light, nigh uncounterable combo deck.

[In the specific balancing case: If damage is used as the negative effect, it would either have to be non death and deal damage or lower current hp without dealing damage]

[storyteller]

well, direct damage might not be the effect, permanent or creature control are also destructive effects.

consider

take 15 damage, destroy target permanent.

reduce max HP by 5, destroy a pillar.

if this card is discarded, reduce your max HP by 10 and deal 15 to your opponent.

if this card is discarded, reduce your opponents hand size by one.

[Zaealix]

New question: If only 3 eternal cards were made, what effects would you expect?

I'd expect...Well, I'd PERFER the healing, creature spawning, and my own 'defensive shield' idea to be made.
As for what to expect...I dunno really.
I couldn't help but wonder about the idea of an Eternal spell that was worded something like this:
Sacrific a creature you control, 'X eternal spell' does 2 damage to the opponent.
The idea was, it'd basically have a built in cap of both damage and uses, if not restrained to once per turn.
It DOES have however, an incredible amount of synergy with  , which does concern me...

[OldTrees]

if this card is discarded, reduce your max HP by 10 and deal 15 to your opponent.

if this card is discarded, reduce your opponents hand size by one.

Having the beneficial effect as part of the discard seems off for a non creature that can be played multiple times per turn.

well, direct damage might not be the effect, permanent or creature control are also destructive effects.

consider

take 15 damage, destroy target permanent.

reduce max HP by 5, destroy a pillar.

I am convinced, with negatives well tailored to the destructive effect, eternal destructive effects could be made sufficiently counterable at the cost of having one more clause.


@Zaealix
Your defensive shield and healing are very similar.
It seems strange to give a card multiple uses per turn and then cap the uses.

Another question: What are some effects that would be too weak on a one use spell that also would be useful as an eternal spell?

As for the 3 I expect:
Offense: Creature summoning
Defense: Healing
Utility: Quanta conversion (X per Y of target elemental quanta)

[Zaealix]

@Oldtrees-The creature sacrifice was because uncontrolled damage spells were unbalanceable. I figured that this being the case, there must be a cap of some sort to the amount of times the spell could be used. Using creatures to fuel the spell seemed like a fairly managable method of doing this.
In adddition, the low damage amount meant that  's catapult, would most likly be more powerful in the long run, meaning the spell's niche would be from either it's speed or casting cost, if not it's relative 'invincibility'.
As for the defense being similar to healing-I'll admit that this is the case, but there are some differences-Such a spell could help reduce the effectiveness of on-hit-triggers like the various venoms applied by many poisonous creatures, as well as discord. Healing on the other hand, does not prevent these effects from occuring.

[OldTrees]

@Oldtrees-The creature sacrifice was because uncontrolled damage spells were unbalanceable. I figured that this being the case, there must be a cap of some sort to the amount of times the spell could be used. Using creatures to fuel the spell seemed like a fairly managable method of doing this.
In adddition, the low damage amount meant that  's catapult, would most likly be more powerful in the long run, meaning the spell's niche would be from either it's speed or casting cost, if not it's relative 'invincibility'.
As for the defense being similar to healing-I'll admit that this is the case, but there are some differences-Such a spell could help reduce the effectiveness of on-hit-triggers like the various venoms applied by many poisonous creatures, as well as discord. Healing on the other hand, does not prevent these effects from occuring.

The reason for the limit was clear. It seems strange to use an effect that would use such a limitation to the core mechanic.

There are differences between the two defense eternal spells. I think one or the other would be better. (healing, damage prevention, temporary attack reduction)

[Zaealix]

Something you seem to be emphasing is the idea of being able to use these eternal spells near infinitely. I suppose spell effects normally too weak to be worth creating could be made into eternal spells, but 'weaker' spells tend to lend themeselves to situational use, which in turn, renders the purpose of eternal spells useless.
The core mechanic appears to be reusablity, But I find this reuseablity to be an extremely powerful tool, in that even a relativly minor skill of granting target creature +1/+0 could be extremely powerful and dangerous if repeatable.
Perhaps instead of thinking of 'Eternal Spells' as light abilities that are reusable, we should work from the other end, making them very powerful, but perhaps less effecient then their normal counterparts, useful if repeatedly used or needed to last a long time, but otherwise not worth it.
Light Infusation:4
gives all creatures biolumence and heals you for 10 HP.
Reads roughly the same as it's counterpart, but less repeatable. It also may be cheaper in the long run to have a Light Nymph, as that creature's skill would be cheaper then the 'eternal spell' cost.