Steal My Idea!

[OldTrees]

No. Only marks that stack with player mark.

And I have decided that the buff applies to both players.

If you have 2 earth marks, and the enemy has a fire mark,

all earth creatures gain +2|+0

all fire creatures gain +1|+0

The double sided thing helps but the problem is that their is no limit (that I know of) on how many marks can be in a deck. Thus this card you are purposing could be equated to a similar card that only counts the number of unupped pillars +1. I hope you agree that balancing such a thing is really difficult and would require a very high cost. Actually it is worse than the one that only counts unupped pillars because your opponent will typically get +1|+0 while you get +N|+0 where N will grow by about 4+T/2 (T is the turn count).
A minimum cost of 10 seems appropriate.

[doublecross]

Marks are limited to 6. 

Worst case scenario, it is a +7|+0 to most of your creatures, and a +1|+0 to most of your opponents creatures, that takes 7 cards to set up.

It is vulnerable to PC. It gives no health buff, so the creatures involved could still be killed.

Furthermore, this would buff mono's against rainbows, something that we need.

Since the marks can't be upped for this to work, going with marks (which are limited to 6), doesn't let you splash quanta, so it would set back mono-rushes by a turn.

[OldTrees]

Marks are limited to 6. 

Worst case scenario, it is a +7|+0 to most of your creatures, and a +1|+0 to most of your opponents creatures, that takes 7 cards to set up.

It is vulnerable to PC. It gives no health buff, so the creatures involved could still be killed.

Furthermore, this would buff mono's against rainbows, something that we need.

Since the marks can't be upped for this to work, going with marks (which are limited to 6), doesn't let you splash quanta, so it would set back mono-rushes by a turn.

You have convinced me (really marks are limited to 6?)
This would be like an Eclipse you grow into and past. Probably 6|4 ?
I still do not like how it can only be used by the elite and only be used effectively by the collectors.

[doublecross]

Actually, I was thinking that this would be a buff to FG's seeing as they start with 3.

Regular PVP already favours the elite, and this would very likely be banned from most tournaments (as are a good number of other cards).

Also, that life deck you suggested, how would that compare to another deck, say, one the uses towers?

[OldTrees]

Actually, I was thinking that this would be a buff to FG's seeing as they start with 3.

Regular PVP already favours the elite, and this would very likely be banned from most tournaments (as are a good number of other cards).

Also, that life deck you suggested, how would that compare to another deck, say, one the uses towers?

I ignore all AI when balancing cards.

Regular PvP favors experts over newbs. But elites only have more options not more power than experts.
Newb: Starter Deck
Mediocre: Rare Quest
Expert: Upgraded Cards
Elite: Large collection of Rares
Collectors: All Rares (excluding Nymphs)

[doublecross]

Ah, I wish that was how things were.

Can you honestly tell me that someone with no access to rare weapons is limited in options, but not in power?

[OldTrees]

Ah, I wish that was how things were.

Can you honestly tell me that someone with no access to rare weapons is limited in options, but not in power?

Um I said that Experts had access to rare weapons (everyone beyond newbs do).
Elites have an average of at least 3 of each.

[doublecross]

Fair point.

However, would you consider this OP as it stands?

If so, what cost would make it ok?

Mark cards currently are only used for bragging rights.

A card that would have a small use in a lot of decks, that adds to the options for PvE, and would make marks more useful is something I think is worth doing.

I do agree that it should not be so good as to unfairly help those who have earned marks.

[OldTrees]

Yeah I think at 6|4 it would be a situational, almost never used but balanced when combined with 6 marks in a deck.

[doublecross]

Actually, since I don't want complaints of it being unfair (I really did agree with your logic earlier), I think I would rather go with 8|7  .

Since a eclipse for non-darkness is already something that should be kinda expensive, and would potentially give an advantage to long time veterans, I think this is a fair cost.

[achangeofpace]

I'm not very creative, but I was thinking of a kind of alchemy other card that gives a creature with no ability one, based on your mark. I was thinking

  = scavenger
  = web
  = hatch
  = heal
  = lycanthropy
  = poison
  = burrow

Unsure about the rest though... 

[OldTrees]

I'm not very creative, but I was thinking of a kind of alchemy other card that gives a creature with no ability one, based on your mark. I was thinking

  = scavenger
  = web
  = hatch
  = heal
  = lycanthropy
  = poison
  = burrow

Unsure about the rest though... 

Reminds me of Shapechanger. From either the Other Crucible or the Crucible archive.