Elements the Game Forum - Free Online Fantasy Card Game

Elements the Game => Level 2 - Forge => Card Ideas and Art => Forge Archive => Topic started by: Tiko on January 06, 2011, 01:02:00 pm

Title: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Tiko on January 06, 2011, 01:02:00 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/abKby.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/vMZ7e.png)
NAME:
Bastet
ELEMENT:
Time
COST:
4 :time
TYPE:
Creature
ATK|HP:
4|3
TEXT:
Protector: Gains +2/+0 if you have a Pharaoh or Anubis in play.
NAME:
Sekhmet
ELEMENT:
Time
COST:
4 :time
TYPE:
Creature
ATK|HP:
5|5
TEXT:
Protector: Gains +2/+0 if you have a Pharaoh or Anubis in play.
ART:
Photo of product on Kaboodle.com: Mask of Bast (http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/egyptian-cat-mask-bast) , Mask of Sekhmet (http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/black-sekmeht-mask...handmade-egyptian-lioness-leather-mask)
IDEA:
Tiko

-- Thanks goes to Xinef for helping me out.
NOTES:
Ability and theme based on ancient egyptian religion.

Passive.
Abilty does not stack with each Pharaoh or Anubis.
SERIES:
None
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Flayne on January 06, 2011, 01:58:44 pm
Let´s say i put three Sekmehts on the field, then i put a pharaoh or anubis, do those three Sekmehts gain the bonus?
also lets say i put an Anubis on the field and i play one of these afterwards, do they still gain the bonus?
i´ll say that this is fairly balanced and it encourages even more use of Anubis and possible  :aether :time duos, but i recommend raising the cost of the upgraded card to 5 :time since it does become pretty powerful after the bonus: raising to 5 cost discourages fractalling the creature. other than that nice idea. ;)
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Tiko on January 06, 2011, 02:16:54 pm
Bastet's (and later Sekmeht's, though she was more of a war godess) role was a protector and defender of pharaohs, even after death and, by this, was often mentioned together with Anubis by her side, who was the god of afterlife. Idea is, that if there's any of the two played (on your side) they gain the bonus from it - regardless of the sequence they've been played.

Was thinking about the cost much, though, but having a look at the 9 :time of Pharaohs and the 8 :time of the Anubis, it would be quite some 'time' to maintain all the quanta needed to play them out, especially with fractal. And compared to the other elements, most of them have stronger or same attack creatures for a lower cost.
Plus you'll be needing an extra amount of :time for the scarabs if Pharaoh, and an extra :aether to use the Immortality of the Anubis.

other than that nice idea. ;)
Thank you very much!
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Thalas on January 06, 2011, 02:31:23 pm
(http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd118150/Bastet.png) (http://imageplay.net/)(http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd118182/Image_1073.png) (http://imageplay.net/)
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Flayne on January 06, 2011, 02:38:19 pm
Bastet's (and later Sekmeht's) role was a protector and defender of pharaohs, even after death and, by this, was often mentioned together with Anubis by her side, who was the god of afterlife. Idea is, that if there's any of the two played (on your side) they gain the bonus from it - regardless of the sequence they've been played.

Was thinking about the cost much, though, but having a look at the 9 :time of Pharaohs and the 8 :time of the Anubis, it would be quite some 'time' to maintain all the quanta needed to play them out, especially with fractal. And compared to the other elements, most of them have stronger or same attack creatures for a lower cost.
Plus you'll be needing an extra amount of :time for the scarabs if Pharaoh, and an extra :aether to use the Immortality of the Anubis.

other than that nice idea. ;)
Thank you very much!
but im assuming all you need is just one Anubis or Pharaoh for the creatures bonus to be activated, a soon as one of them are played, all you have to worry about is a sekmeht that costs 4 to fractal it, i still recommend raising it´s cost to 5 :time
to prevent such a spamming, remember you have electrum hourglasses to get more pillars faster and sundials to (although you need :light) to give you more time and get cards at a faster rate.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: rohlfo on January 06, 2011, 03:12:23 pm
I think it's obvious, but just to check, it would only ever get +2/+0 max? as in, not +4 if you had a Pharaoh and Anubis in play? If it can go to +4 then I think perhaps they should both cost 5 quanta.
I think the upped is ok, although if strength is an issue, perhaps make upped +4/+5?
just food for thought  :)
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Tiko on January 06, 2011, 03:30:54 pm
@Flayne:
Yes, you should only need one of the two out, that would give them the morale 'to defend something'. For the hourglass, you'd need another 4 :time and +1 each turn to fasten your draws - and probably that would delay the whole combo enough to get you minced by the time everything has been set up. There are better solutions for fractal in my opinion for the same amount of resource (still easier to fractal i.e: mummies, recluses, frogs, or even vamps and steel golems), but this should be also considered in balance of power, of course.

Maybe I should include a poll then(?)

@rohlfo
They should not gain the bonus from each Anubis or/and Pharaoh played, as it means if you get to kill/rewind/mutate/whatever all the pharaohs for example, they lose the +attack accordingly. Their life should remain low I think, I didn't want to create an unstoppable army, especially if you choose the Anubis, and start to quint them.

@Thalas:
Wow, kitties! Nice, thank you! Prrr:3

Edit -- Poll added, please take it seriously :]
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Shantu on January 06, 2011, 05:04:33 pm
Fractaling a 4-cost creature is not easy. 2 is easy, 3 is ok, but 4 is something that is hard to pull off. You need to stall a lot for it to work, while also including enough towers, fractals, Sekmehts and Pharaohs/Anubises to draw them all in time. Fractal scarab is a lot easier combo, requiring only a few gravity towers/a mark to use their ability.

So.. don't be afraid of fractal in this case. 4 :time as a cost is fine.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Tiko on January 06, 2011, 09:27:46 pm
Agreed with Shantu, personally.

..But it seems some would like to see some froglike frenzy too >:]
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: BloodAngel on January 06, 2011, 10:37:19 pm
I think the cost is right, might be even underpowered so you can make it 3 :time, but then considering fractal 4 should be better.

but i really like the idea, its good 'nd original, fills in the empty middle attacker spot for time, fit's the theme and its a kitty!!  :o

Ps. I suppose that if the enemy has a pharaoh/ anubis on the field you get the bonus as well?


Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Tiko on January 06, 2011, 11:03:43 pm
I think the cost is right, might be even underpowered so you can make it 3 :time, but then considering fractal 4 should be better.

but i really like the idea, its good 'nd original, fills in the empty middle attacker spot for time, fit's the theme and its a kitty!!  :o

Ps. I suppose that if the enemy has a pharaoh/ anubis on the field you get the bonus as well?
Thank you, BloodAngel!

Now that's a very good question.. Probably it shouldn't (at least, that would seem logical - their role seems kinda weird to defend someone from the opponent army), but as I'm thinking now, I don't know how easily could that be implemented..

Edit - Opinions are welcome about this too
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: BloodAngel on January 07, 2011, 02:46:59 pm
 
I think the cost is right, might be even underpowered so you can make it 3 :time, but then considering fractal 4 should be better.

but i really like the idea, its good 'nd original, fills in the empty middle attacker spot for time, fit's the theme and its a kitty!!  :o

Ps. I suppose that if the enemy has a pharaoh/ anubis on the field you get the bonus as well?
Thank you, BloodAngel!

Now that's a very good question.. Probably it shouldn't (at least, that would seem logical - their role seems kinda weird to defend someone from the opponent army), but as I'm thinking now, I don't know how easily could that be implemented..

Edit - Opinions are welcome about this too
Yeah i admit im good  :P

Nahh, but I was just curious, because you didn't noted it anywhere, so if it is, then i get credit for you paying 9 quanta to summon a pharaoh, if you know what i mean.

My opinion: I wouldn't mind that, it would just be a nice bonus, like eclipse boosts your  :darkness mutants for example.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Tiko on January 07, 2011, 09:24:59 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Kuroaitou on January 08, 2011, 07:44:44 am
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 :time 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 :time 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 :P) 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.)
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: OldTrees on January 08, 2011, 08:30:35 am
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 :time
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Tiko on January 08, 2011, 09:13:10 am
@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 :aether Mark and Anubis, creating this way slowly a half-immortal army; or you can go :gravity Mark, and outnumber the enemy, if you have a steady quanta supply -- or a :death mark even, with mummy rewind, a faster/cheaper way to bring out a pharaoh, but you'll need to get some :gravity 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 :time for now
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: OldTrees on January 08, 2011, 09:30:53 am
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 :time
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: Shantu on January 08, 2011, 10:29:09 am
..But you would have to pay for the Pharaoh or the Anubis (which means 9 or 8 :time) to get that +2 damage. 4 :time as a cost is completely fine, in my opinion.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekmeht
Post by: OldTrees on January 08, 2011, 02:28:15 pm
..But you would have to pay for the Pharaoh or the Anubis (which means 9 or 8 :time) to get that +2 damage. 4 :time 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 :time 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 :time value + 50% x 6 :time value = 5 :time value.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Shantu on January 08, 2011, 03:32:01 pm
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 :death
5 | 3 with a passive ability. You need 2 :time to activate it.

Bastet 4 :time
4 | 3 with a passive ability. You need 8 or 9 :time 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.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Xinef on January 08, 2011, 04:10:07 pm
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 :water
6/6 4 :water
Phase Spider / Phase Recluse
4/2 3 :aether
7/2 4 :aether
Flesh Spider / Flesh Recluse
3/3 3 :death
6/3 3 :death
Mummy / Elite Mummy
5/3 4 :death
5/3 3 :death

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 :time 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 :time 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 :entropy 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.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: OldTrees on January 08, 2011, 04:23:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Tiko on January 08, 2011, 05:49:16 pm
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:

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 :]
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Xinef on January 08, 2011, 06:50:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Tiko on January 08, 2011, 07:13:23 pm
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.
As this, edited first post:
Increased stats  to 5|5, virtually 7|5 -- and this way, may it be a force to be reckoned with, and may it fill the gap for Time.

I hope in it's current form it became satisfactory for the cause.

**Edit: Still, opinions, remarks, comments are more than welcome. Thanks.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Tiko on March 30, 2011, 07:36:23 am
Huh, this was a long time ago.. The poll reset reminded me of this 'gem' I had here almost completely forgotten, so (sorry for) a bit of necrobump:

Not so long after Bastet was made, Ghost of the Past was introduced, and since then it turned out to be an extremely efficient middle-attacker with the high damage output in pair with obssession/nightmare/rewind. But everyone's own child is the sweetest, and I don't want to let her go that easy :]

The question mainly is: is she viable enough in the shadow of the Ghost?
This card was made when there was still a gap between Deja Vus and Drakes, while bearing in mind Time's two other (mostly) underused creatures: the Anubis and the Pharaoh. These two cards have a very high potential and even stronger abilities, but their high cost and palying speed makes them useful only in very specialized decks and then, they still lose most of the time against the rushier/faster/more control decks. Now, it would take place between the Ghost and Deja Vu, with a considerably cheaper cost than Ghost but still with a potential high damage (and for Sekhmet, a slightly greater chance to survive). Most possibilities with decks and usage have been discussed before (maybe with the exception of a Death/Time combo), so I shouln't repeat them, but I would like to hear any opinions regarding the card itself, and in comparance with the new and fearsome Ghost of the Past, before she tooks place in the archives.

The major flaw I see, personally, is the Egyptian theme, which we are already connecting Time to, but most people say, it's fine this way, but enough - which I share.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Augustorm on July 22, 2011, 02:32:19 am
I don't know who Bastet is, but i know Sekhmet appeared with the body of a human woman and the head of a lioness.  Could that be the upped card's final art, or would that be strange, considering that Sekhmet is a god, and she acts as a middle-power card?  Other than that, this is a good card.  I like the Egyptian reference with Time's Anubis and Pharoh cards.  :)
Title: Re: Bastet | Sekhmet
Post by: Tiko on July 22, 2011, 10:31:15 am
Quote from: Wiki
Originally she was viewed as the protector goddess of Lower Egypt. As protector, she was seen as defender of the pharaoh, and consequently of the later chief male deity, Ra, who was also a solar deity, gaining her the titles Lady of Flame and Eye of Ra.

Her role in the pantheon became diminished as Sekhmet, a similar lioness war deity, became more dominant in the unified culture of Lower and Upper Egypt.
She was a cat-headed goddess, and later somewhat merged with Sekhmet.

Well, we already have Anubis as a card, who also was a God in his time. As I am someone who's quite inquired by mythologies, it disturbs me also a bit, but I guess it's just a game afterall.

-- ugh, this card's still struggling in the Crucible ? I wonder if she can survive for the one-year dreamborder.. :]
blarg: