1mana monsters

nekomasa Wrote:K-Army Guy: Destroy to undizzy Khrima? I think that'd be a bit powerful considering that you can spawn as many of them as you'd like per turn. Khrima's Tower would be pretty scary with VCH Khrima in play...

Um... listen to yourself for a sec.  VCH Khrima?  And yes, you can pay 3 per undizzy of the 17 Khrima.  I have no problem with that.  It's not like VCH Khrima or Khrima's Tower are exactly overpowered right now.

nekomasa Wrote:Gremlin: That ability alone would be worth far more than the mana cost. And I never really seen the gremlins=tinkerers running alongside gremlins=demons, myself. Also, the Effect D proposal would be too strong, giving Gremlin Pit 6 destroy target effect. Cheaper than Fire Elemental and being an effect harder to remove than a 20 life monster. I strongly object.

I think people are having a knee-jerk reaction to my proposal, as I doubt it's worth "far" more than the mana (and card) cost (maybe slightly).  With Blur Effect, you pay 3 to dizzy an effect or monster, and it's fast enough that it can counter many abilities that they decide to use on their own turn.  I don't really use Blur Effect since I feel it's a bit too expensive, but if I did, I'm sure that 90% of the time I'd use it on a monster.  So that's not really a valid comp.  Anyway, if you still think it's too potent, what about a Security Button-like effect when the Gremlin attacks, disarming all of the opponent's trap-like abilities for the rest of the turn?  I just think it's more flavorful.  Oh, and I think the "tinkerers" are "demons", or something similar, like imps.

nekomasa Wrote:Melrak Follower: I have no idea whether a 1 mana Invisattacker would be balanced, but I guess I'll go with it until someone comes up with a better idea. Which given our limited space may well not happen.

I'm sure if we had more than one line, we could come up with something better, but this was all I could think of with that restriction.

nekomasa Wrote:Anyway, it seems that you don't object to the proposals based on concept, but rather based on being too weak. The aim here is to get them up to Boomboxen standard - the goalpost that webrunner set a way back when. That may well mean a few more statpoints in exchange for not having 3 sac, but giving a 1 mana monster 32 combined statpoints plus a minor ability is going way over that. If they turn out to be too weak after implementation, then by all means we can rebalance them again, but until then I think it would be better to keep the boosts fairly small.

1.  I don't like some of them on concept (Gremlin, K-Army Guy, Skeleton).
2. Given that it's taken an absolutely ridiculous amount of time for 1-mana monsters to get addressed, I'm not particularly convinced that they will become balanced in the near future if we do these half-measures.  Boomboxen isn't particularly useful in and of itself, but with a creature that small, extra sac mana is better than some of the suggestions.  Remember that the difference between 6 life and 15 life just isn't that big a deal, since perhaps 95% of monsters will kill one, and, say, 92% of monsters will kill the other (no actual math was performed in making the preceding statement).

nekomasa Wrote:Holy Acolyte - Target player gains 4 life (could up to 5 if we want. Or just make it an End turn passive ability to prevent having to use it every turn and keep it at 4.)

Yes, please... 4 life is so small I might not even bother with the effort required to dizzy it every turn, so passive is good.

nekomasa Wrote:Kelar Citizen - Target dark elf gains Entrenching until its owner's next draw phase. (What happens if a monster is targetted for attack and then gains Entrenching during the Defence Phase?)

That's what I was wondering.

nekomasa Wrote:If there are no objections to the proposals, I'll give it until the end of today before moving onto the stats/sac stage, after which the abilities can stay unless we get a real balance concern of a webrunner veto. And by the way, liking the proposal but saying that you might prefer something completely different is not an objection.

Then I should make clear that I dislike some of the proposals, rather than "maybe preferring" something else (see above).