Fort | Castle

[rastiladog]

So here's what I came up with. The idea is that Fort can use one barrier to "burrow" a target creature. That creature can no longer be targeted by CC just like with burrow, as long as as Fort/Castle still has barriers left. The opponent would have to use PC on Castle, only removing one barrier at a time. If more than one creature is sheltered and there is an equal amount of barriers left when PC is used on Fort/Castle, a barrier is removed as usual and the last creature to be sheltered loses its protection.

I think it fits Earth pretty well considering its defensive nature and use of "burrow". I'm not sure about whether or not it should stack, which wouldn't matter at all except when using PA, which could make a very powerful combo. This is one of the many things I want your opinions on, that is(obviously) why I'm posting this thread. Other quite uncertain attributes are card/skill cost, amount of barriers and other things that require expertise and balancing.

Also, if anyone wants to do artwork for this, that would be very welcome. I'm not going to lie, the picture is straight from google  , though I think it fits pretty well.

So, all comments and critique welcome and encouraged 

[Drake_XIV]

Why not just have it say "Burrow target creature for one turn." or something to that effect?

[rastiladog]

Why not just have it say "Burrow target creature for one turn." or something to that effect?

Because its for as long as theres barriers left, not for a single turn. But the text isn't important to me, I want to know what you think of the mechanism.

[OldTrees]

Nice.

So this is a permanent that requires X (X = 3|4) PC to remove. Each use of PC reduces the number of creatures Fort can protect by 1 (from 3|4).

Unlike burrow, the opponent can use PC to remove the protection/atk nerf.

I would change the name so it makes sense when the barrier is placed on my creatures OR on my opponent's creatures.

I will definitely be following this card. It has the elegance and versatility of a great card.

[rastiladog]

Nice.

So this is a permanent that requires X (X = 3|4) PC to remove. Each use of PC reduces the number of creatures Fort can protect by 1 (from 3|4).

Unlike burrow, the opponent can use PC to remove the protection/atk nerf.

I would change the name so it makes sense when the barrier is placed on my creatures OR on my opponent's creatures.

I will definitely be following this card. It has the elegance and versatility of a great card.

Glad you like it.

As for the name, any ideas are ofc welcome. Given that its already a defensive card and it uses a classic earth ability such as burrow, there are tons of options for thematics.

Right now, I've got nothing more to throw on the table, which is why I'm hoping to get help from the community, be it thematics or balancing.

[OldTrees]

Nice.

So this is a permanent that requires X (X = 3|4) PC to remove. Each use of PC reduces the number of creatures Fort can protect by 1 (from 3|4).

Unlike burrow, the opponent can use PC to remove the protection/atk nerf.

I would change the name so it makes sense when the barrier is placed on my creatures OR on my opponent's creatures.

I will definitely be following this card. It has the elegance and versatility of a great card.

Glad you like it.

As for the name, any ideas are ofc welcome. Given that its already a defensive card and it uses a classic earth ability such as burrow, there are tons of options for thematics.

Right now, I've got nothing more to throw on the table, which is why I'm hoping to get help from the community, be it thematics or balancing.

I think it is ready for the Smithy (or even the Crucible)

I do not have a better name.

Please remind me about this card later this month.

[rastiladog]

Thanks, I'll work on it.

[rastiladog]

Also, I forgot to comment on what you said earlier about sheltering the opponents creatures, which is an interesting aspect indeed. My first thought would be whether or not the protection should be possible to remove by activating an ability(i.e. unburrow).

It would be a bit weird if only the owner of the fort could "unburrow" his/her opponents. Though its strategically logical, it doesn't fit the games mechanism. I was thinking that maybe the only way to neutralize the forts shelter would be to use PC, adding a little twist to the card, which would be good imo since this would give much more depth and versatility for say earth duos.

Ofcourse, this is all highly debatable.

[Pineapple]

The mechanic is good, but I would suggest using the following vehicle (you do not have to use it):

Gain 3 barriers when played.
: Shelter (use barrier)
Create a permanent keeping target creature burrowed.

The mechanical changes is that, when you have at least one shelter generated, the enemy can choose to destroy and unused barrier and can choose to destroy a shelter for a creature other than the one last sheltered.

Again, this is just a suggestion.

[OldTrees]

Also, I forgot to comment on what you said earlier about sheltering the opponents creatures, which is an interesting aspect indeed. My first thought would be whether or not the protection should be possible to remove by activating an ability(i.e. unburrow).

It would be a bit weird if only the owner of the fort could "unburrow" his/her opponents. Though its strategically logical, it doesn't fit the games mechanism. I was thinking that maybe the only way to neutralize the forts shelter would be to use PC, adding a little twist to the card, which would be good imo since this would give much more depth and versatility for say earth duos.

Ofcourse, this is all highly debatable.

Requiring PC to remove Forts is the better design. It allows you to Shelter your skilled creatures and Shelter your opponent's dragons.

I also like Pineapple's idea.

[rastiladog]

The mechanic is good, but I would suggest using the following vehicle (you do not have to use it):

Gain 3 barriers when played.
: Shelter (use barrier)
Create a permanent keeping target creature burrowed.

The mechanical changes is that, when you have at least one shelter generated, the enemy can choose to destroy and unused barrier and can choose to destroy a shelter for a creature other than the one last sheltered.

Again, this is just a suggestion.

Yes, I like this idea. It would prevent the card from being OP with PAs. Though in this case I think the original Fort should be stackable, as it would nonetheless take up lots of permanent space. I think I'm going to make this change, thank you.

I think this is going to the smithy now.