Weekly Challenge #2: Design a Shield! [VOTING OVER]

[Treldon]

NAME: Boomerang Shield ELEMENT: Earth COST: 5 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: 5|7 (when flying) TEXT: Shield: reduce damage by 2   Flying Shield: Boomerang Shield becomes a creature with 5|7 for 1 turn	NAME: Boomerang Shield ELEMENT: Earth COST: 5 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: 6|8 (when flying) TEXT: Shield: reduce damage by 2   Flying Shield: Boomerang Shield becomes a creature with 6|8 for 1 turn

ART: - IDEA: Treldon (and Stan Lee I guess...) NOTES: So basically it is a simple shield with the added ability to temporarily become a creature, for those cases when you need just a bit more damage. When flown, it becomes a creature, in that time it does not negate any damage. On your next turn it returns to the shield slot (replacing any shield occupying the slot). On the turn after that you can throw it again. If it was delayed in that time it will remain a creature for the duration of the delay. SERIES: Weekly Challenge - CIA

[Opsinis]

NAME: Colossal Wall ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 7 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce physical damage by 4. Only your opponent can activate this card's ability.  : Steal	NAME: Colossal Wall ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 10 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce physical damage by 6. Only your opponent can activate this card's ability.  : Steal

ART: IDEA: Opsinis NOTES: It's different. SERIES: Weekly Challenge #2

[Ghaladh]

Spoiler for Hidden:

NAME: Colossal Wall ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 7 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce physical damage by 4. Only your opponent can activate this card's ability.  : Steal	NAME: Colossal Wall ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 10 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce physical damage by 6. Only your opponent can activate this card's ability.  : Steal

ART: IDEA: Opsinis NOTES: It's different. SERIES: Weekly Challenge #2

I am not sure I understand the characteristic of your shield: does it mean that your opponent, provided he has 1 , can use the Steal ability on you?

[Opsinis]

Spoiler for Hidden:

NAME: Colossal Wall ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 7 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce physical damage by 4. Only your opponent can activate this card's ability.  : Steal	NAME: Colossal Wall ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 10 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Shield: Reduce physical damage by 6. Only your opponent can activate this card's ability.  : Steal

ART: IDEA: Opsinis NOTES: It's different. SERIES: Weekly Challenge #2

I am not sure I understand the characteristic of your shield: does it mean that your opponent, provided he has 1 , can use the Steal ability on you?

Yep! Only during the opponent's turn.
Edit: Which includes, but is not limited to, stealing the shield itself.

[Ghaladh]

Yep! Only during the opponent's turn.
Edit: Which includes, but is not limited to, stealing the shield itself.

I thought about it. It's an interesting strategic choice because it bails the opponent into removing your defenses but renouncing to his other permanents or to leave your defenses but acquiring your permanents (provided he has any  quanta). It balances very well the advantage of this shield. Odd but fun idea. . I think you might even greatly reduce the cost of the shield itself given the balance offered by the steal ability.

[andretimpa]

Yep! Only during the opponent's turn.
Edit: Which includes, but is not limited to, stealing the shield itself.

I thought about it. It's an interesting strategic choice because it bails the opponent into removing your defenses but renouncing to his other permanents or to leave your defenses but acquiring your permanents (provided he has any  quanta). It balances very well the advantage of this shield. Odd but fun idea. . I think you might even greatly reduce the cost of the shield itself given the balance offered by the steal ability.

The cost is probably fine for the unupped, maybe even low. I wouldn't play the shield if my opponent has quanta. If I don't have too playing the shield would give a strong shield to the opponent. If I have the quanta too, we'd keep stealing the shield from each other and it is as if no one had a shield. BUT if your opponent has no quanta (a common situation) you have something stronger than diamond shield.

Instead of increasing the DR I'd decrease the cost for the upgrade, as nearly nothing gets through 6 DR (and whatever gets only tickles you)

[Submachine]

What if the opponent has neither quanta nor any kind of PC? That way this shield can potentially be OP, even worse than Dim Shield. o_O
Balance-wise, the costs doesn't seem right to me either. Notice that a protection of 1 usually costs 3 , a naked protection of 2 costs 4 and a protection of 3 costs 6 . Since the ability is not really a thing that adds for a defense, I think we should be fine to assume Colossal Wall as a vanilla DR shield. Based on the trend of DR shields' ~exponential quanta cost, a protection of 4 should cost 9 and 6 should cost around 15-18 .

Note that I know nothing about game balance, all i just did was observing a similar shield and comparing it.

[andretimpa]

The shield would probably push the meta into a more rainbow one. But 6 DR is indeed broken, no matter how you spin it, hence my previous suggestion.

[Espithel]

In general, I feel a lot of shields here are stronger than the average - not just opsinis'. Treldon and Monox's specifically are much stronger than the already good titanium shield.

It makes Theelk's shield really cute by comparison.

But yes, Opsi's card really should have its ability cost .

I'll point out that you are allowed to edit your post as many times as you want as long as each edit is done before the deadline.

Maybe I'll post a post of all my thoughts on all the entries tomorrow.

[dawn to dusk]

changed mine, ability cost increased and playing cost decreased for unupped, upped is just different (but nerfed cos it was totally OP)

[ZephyrPhantom]

The Voting Phase has begun! Be sure to vote on your favorite cards!

[Submachine]

The polls and the OP say that my shield is called Force Shield, but it's called Focus Shield, like Shard of Focus.

edit: andretimpa's syzgy is also mispelled