Bastet | Sekhmet

[Tiko]

Well, the only card at the moment which produces mass buff is nightfall/eclipse and it affects both sides of the field. But it just sounds plain silly, that as soon the Bastet(s) see a pharaoh on sight, they fell in some mindless rage, and become tough. They should protect him, and in game terms, that can't be done if he's on the opposite side..

So maybe I should reword the card? Or should it be a bonus against the like of Osiris..?

Edit -- Changed card text to fit in more with their source of idea.

[Kuroaitou]

CURATOR COMMENT

Your idea qualifies for the Crucible by the way Tiko. You're definitely getting the hang of card marking. In regards to your poll, keep it at 4 quanta, so that the unupped version of the card matches OldTrees/PF's theory of 'Card Cost = Attack'. (It shouldn't really be that higher because it's vulnerable to a lot of CC, including Paradox)

That said, if we eliminate the idea of Pharaohs being used with this card (for all the new Time players that want to design a Mono-Time deck by chance), then we're stuck with Anubis. Anubis is an INCREDIBLY expensive card in terms of attack (8 for 5 Attack power), meaning that for the majority of new Time players, they'll combine Bastet with 1-2 Anubis creatures and the rest with Scarabs for a 'moderate' rushing deck, instead of trying to spam dragons. That's pretty good. With an Aether mark, the combo is solidified for protected Bastets and Anubises. If you mix either of these cards with Pharaohs, then it becomes redundant (since Scarabs also take continuous Time quanta to produce over Bastets or Sekmehts anyway), unless you're fighting someone with a Gravity Shield.

In regards to BloodAngel's response of having these creatures affected by enemy Anubis/Pharaohs; no, don't do that. Nightfall/Eclipse and Flooding/Innundation (everyone forgets about that card ) are environmental cards because of what they do for a majority of creature types (Darkness/Death and Water/Other respectively). Bastets and Skemeht (sp?) aren't in any way environmental cards, so they shouldn't be affected by both sides of the field.

Also, you should probably specify what the 'Passive' is called for this ability. It doesn't say so in your Notes section, so I had to ask. ^^; (Protector would be a basic ability name if you wanted to choose that.)

[OldTrees]

To clairfy: the formula is Card Cost = Attack + Skill value (further modified by HP, Activation Cost and Elements involved)
The unupped appears to be worth 5

[Tiko]

@Kuro:

Edited again, gained ability name: Protector, corrected mistype (actually the masks confused me )

Pharaohs as an option left there, as I wanted to make it 'flexible' in Time environment, and it would have multiple possibilities this way (both Pharaoh and Anubis with these would be almost impossible to play off..).
Just as a notion: Either you could go with Mark and Anubis, creating this way slowly a half-immortal army; or you can go Mark, and outnumber the enemy, if you have a steady quanta supply -- or a mark even, with mummy rewind, a faster/cheaper way to bring out a pharaoh, but you'll need to get some somehow to use the scarab's devour as CC. Either would be very costly, and Bastets are there to compensate the setup time with damage.

And much thanks for the idea, and qualification! :]

@OldTrees:

Yes, I tried to count the card cost formula, but comparing it to others (i.e: Cockatrices, Chargers, Abominations) you'd be better off with anyithing else in dmg/cost ratio than trying to pull of this combo.

Poll seems to be one sided, so it stays 4 for now

[OldTrees]

I think you would find that Bastet will have an average attack per turn of 5 comparing that to Abomination sets the balanced cost at 5

[Shantu]

..But you would have to pay for the Pharaoh or the Anubis (which means 9 or 8 ) to get that +2 damage. 4 as a cost is completely fine, in my opinion.

[OldTrees]

..But you would have to pay for the Pharaoh or the Anubis (which means 9 or 8 ) to get that +2 damage. 4 as a cost is completely fine, in my opinion.

If Pharaoh and Anubis are balanced then their casting cost is of no matter for it brings equal value and thus is only of importance about how often on average will it be there boosting Bastet. You are not paying 9 or 8 to get the +2 damage rather you made a down payment (Bastet) so later you could get more than you paid for (Anubis and +2damage). Assuming the ability is active only 50% of the time a balanced price would be 50% x 4 value + 50% x 6 value = 5 value.

[Shantu]

Well, first of all, I don't really think those two are balanced in their cost - but this topic is not about that.

Let's compare Bastet to Mummy.
Mummy 4
5 | 3 with a passive ability. You need 2 to activate it.

Bastet 4
4 | 3 with a passive ability. You need 8 or 9 to activate it.

Both have a passive, yet Mummy has a higher damage for the same cost, and a lower cost to activate its passive. Although I see what you are saying and I understand your card cost calculation, I am pretty sure it would make the card underpowered compared to creatures of similar cost. Even if Pharaohs and Anubises pay for their own cost (which they don't IMO), you still need to pay that cost to give Bastet +2 damage. Without them, Bastet is just a 4 | 3 creature.

[Xinef]

Sorry I'm late, anyway:

When we compare Bastet/Sekhmet with other creatures, these are the ones that come to my mind:
Blue Crawler / Abyss Crawler
3/3 3
6/6 4
Phase Spider / Phase Recluse
4/2 3
7/2 4
Flesh Spider / Flesh Recluse
3/3 3
6/3 3
Mummy / Elite Mummy
5/3 4
5/3 3

As we can see, Bastet by itself is similar to Phase Spider, with +1 cost and +1 HP. With an Anubis or a Pharaoh, it is a +2 attack +1 HP for 1 when compared with Phase Spiders. Keep in mind that Phase Spiders have the web ability too, which seems to be worth about 0.5 quanta.
When compared with Mummies, Bastet is at -1 attack when alone and at +1 attack when protecting.

So, I'd say that unupped, Bastet is roughly equivalent to Mummies and Phase Spiders, while better than Blue Crawlers and Flesh Spiders.
Making it cost 5 would make it worse than all of the above, though.

Now for the upped, it seems that all of the aforementioned creatures gain a HUGE buff, ranging from +3 attack for NO COST, through +3 attack +3 HP for +1 cost, up to +3 attack for 1 cost and in Mummy's case -1 cost.

To be honest, I feel that Sekhmet is underpowered as a result. Phase Recluses are better, since they have 7 attack and an ability (web) without need for another creature. They only have 1 HP less than Sekhmet. Abyss Crawlers beat a lone Sekhmet in every aspect, while a protecting Sekhmet might have 1 more attack, but still 3 less HP. Flesh Recluses might have 1 less attack than a protecting Sekhmet, but they are also cheaper by 1 quanta.

In other words, a protecting Sekhmet is barely keeping up with other upped creatures, while a lone Sekhmet is completely underpowered.



So, my conclusion is that Bastet is good as it is, while Sekhmet definitely needs a buff. I'd give it more HP, since it is a guardian, and Time creatures (except dragons) seem to be rather tough for their cost. 5/5 seems reasonable. This way, it is also less vulnerable to Paradox, since when facing an player, you might opt not to play anubises/pharaohs and thus keep your creatures with HP equal to attack.

By the way, the nature of the Protector ability is also making Bastet/Sekhmet underpowered when compared with other similar creatures. This is because Bastet/Sekhmet is basically a rush creature, effective in rush decks that aim to win in as few turns as possible. Both Anubis and Pharaoh are creatures that feel better in stall decks. It is possible to rush with Pharaohs, but then you would probably prefer more Pharaohs/Scarabs/Towers rather than Bastets/Sekhmets in such a deck.
Think about a rush deck. You plan to play a number of high attack creatures as early as possible. You can't do so with Bastet/Sekhmet, since you either have to play them before they can get the +2 buff, or you have to play a Pharaoh/Anubis first, which is against the whole idea of rush.

[OldTrees]

While I still disagree with comparing it to Phase Spider and Mummy instead of Abomination and Sapphire Charger, I will stand aside and trust Xinef's judgement on the matter. I do definitely agree that 5|5 for the upgraded would be more appropriate.

Off Topic: Thank you Xinef for your posts as part of the trials. They live up to my expectations of Master quality critiques and should set an example for how these critiques should be.

[Tiko]

I thank the opinion of the Master himself.

So, as the result of the poll and the reviews of the Time veterans, the cost shouldn't be changed for neither of the upped or unupped versions.

By Xinef's thorough comparsion now it seems for me too that Sekhmet still could be underpowered in counter to other element's attackers. Still, I would like to question, though, the 5|5 stat increase as a remedy for this problem. If one expects to use Anubis as the source of the buff, it seems logical to use it's quintessence ability on all of the creatures aboard - of course if the player has the chance to do so. But if that happens, there'll be a (near-) unkillable army; with a fire buckler it'd take 5 turns to get rid of them, with thorns 3-4 at best. If the Time player manages to play out - let's say - 4 Sekhmets with an Anubis, all of them quinted (which is 33 dmg/turn), the enemy just can't do a single thing about it, except to pull out creatures faster. Personally, I don't support rush-style playing, but as in most games, it's inescapable and a valid playstyle. So..

Propositions for Sekhmet would be then:

• Change stats to 5|5, practically making her 7|5, while protecting, gaining a steady, CC resistant attacker
• Change stats to 6|4, practically making her 8|4, while protecting, somehow resistant to CC, slightly surpassing Recluses that way in exchange of the high cost
• Decreasing cost by 1, leaving her, as it is now: 5|3, practically 7|3 while protecting
• Any other suggestion, not above..

Probably the next poll should be added..

But I would like to continue discussion first about the matter.

Thanks again for the critique and Your Time, Xinef :]

[Xinef]

In a perfect situation, you can play an anubis, immortalize it, then start playing Sekhmets as you immortalize them. But, more often than not, you will have to play some Sekhmets before playing your first Anubis, and this is when high HP is useful. Also, since Anubises are slow while Pharaohs are a bit faster, I personally would prefer Pharaoh+Sekhmet rush. There are also situations when you might want to make a deck with Sekhmets even without an Anubis or Pharaoh (since right now Time's cheap creatures are Deja Vu and Scarabs, both vulnerable to damage reducing shields, while Fate Eggs are vulnerable to CC). Against an opponent with eg. Lobotomizer you might want to try Dragon + Sekhmet rush.

As for rush-style, as much as I prefer stall and control, I still support the idea that every element should be capable of rush. Firstly, there are times when you need to rush, eg. against heavy permanent control, poison, or bolter decks. Secondly, with the current reward system in Elements PvE and random PvP, rush decks give you electrum, score and cards faster than control decks, with the only exception being fully upgraded anti False God decks, which might give electrum and upgraded cards faster than AI3 grinding. Still, new players need to build rush decks if they want to gain rares and upgraded cards faster, and they should be able to do it with every element.

As for your propositions regarding Sekhmet,
- increasing the attack would probably make it one of the best cost 4 creatures. I'm not sure how close to OP it would be, probably it would be acceptable, since Fire, Life and nova rushes would still be faster than mono-Time.
It's entirely up to Zanz, if he wants Time to be a slower element, or if he wants it to join the best rushers.
- decreasing the cost... I don't like this idea when used on creatures, especially ones that change their name and appearance when upgraded. Generally, when we think of upgrading a creature, we imagine it becoming stronger, not cheaper. Look at Mummies - isn't it strange that Elite Mummies aren't stronger than normal Mummies? The name 'elite' would suggest more experienced and better armed creatures. It's true that Micro Abominations and Minor Phoenixes are an obvious exception, but in general I'd rather see cost decreases for spells and permanents, while stat increases for creatures.