(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o108/Kael_Hate/Elements/Red_Shard.png) | (http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o108/Kael_Hate/Elements/Shard_of_Power-1.png) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
"It allows you to accelerate without having to overstuff your decks with unnecessary pillars."Overstuffing is a gamers term refering to adding more of something than required for the late game. Pillars are truly necessary for a deck especially because this card particularly only produces quanta of your mark. It can in no way produce any quanta outside of that fixture. Only having six in your deck when they do not come to hand during the mulligan effect and a cost of 1 to deploy, means none on the first turn. You still have to run quanta pillars or towers but this allow you to pull back your final limit in your deck by about 3:2 so replacing 6 pillars matching your mark with 6 of these you could also pull out 3 more pillars. and still get the same endgame production.
If they were truly "unnecessary" then why one earth are they in your deck? They are necessary, is why. That is, they are now, with this card, they wouldn't have to be anymore, though.This is a card, that if put into the game, everyone would have to have. But, this is just my opinion. I do like having a new shard, but this one just seems to universal. There isn't a deck scheme out there that couldn't/wouldn't use this card. Why would I even use pillars? Six of these could net me 18+1 a turn.
This card could work though. Say, if it was reduced to giving... well, what a pillar/tower already gives. I think this card would be better using your other idea, make that idea a shard.
The other idea I'm talking about:
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5643.0.html (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,5643.0.html)
This would be stronger than pillars, thus OP. No cards, no matter how rare, can be DEFINITELY better than other cards. Rarity isn't a way to balance cards.Actually it depends on the environment wether this card is better than pillars and mathematicallly it isn't overpowered. If you give me a deck design I'll do a calculative to show you.
Shard of Power 3Extremely weak.
This card generates 2 quantum of your mark at the end of your turn and deals 3 damage to you.
This might be more balanced.
6 of them = 12 quantum per turn at a cost of 18 hp per turn.
KH: 6 Emerald Towers, 6 SoP's, 6 Horned Frogs (unupped), 6 Elite Cockatrices, 6 Adrenaline (elite). Check with towers instead of Shards. :lifemarkI have to grab a Train soon so will have to do this Later, if anyone else wants to show a deck please do and I will do the lot in one table when I get back.
Also, try this (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,658.0.html) with 6 Towers replaced by SoP's.
| When you play it | At the end of the turn | TOTAL after one turn | |
| Tower | +1 | +1 | 2 (with +1 each turn) |
| Shard of Power | -1 | +3 | 2 (with +3 each turn) |
6 of these and 6 pillars will be more than enough in a 60 card deck.In a 30-40 card Mono deck yes. In a 60 card deck you need about 12 towers + the SoP to get clean draws.
Every single mono- or duo-deck should have 6 of these.In the most part Yes. See above.
In the most part Yes. See above.Did you look at that table I made there?
Does the Shard of Power allow you to play any card that is of an element different to your mark?In the most part Yes. See above.Did you look at that table I made there?
Cards like this are the wrong way of designing CCG's. All cards should be equal in "power", only different. This card does what Towers do but almost 3 times faster. It's not only different, it's clearly a much better card.
No. And it also doesn't kill any creatures, heal you, or turn into a pumpkin at midnight.Does the Shard of Power allow you to play any card that is of an element different to your mark?In the most part Yes. See above.Did you look at that table I made there?
Cards like this are the wrong way of designing CCG's. All cards should be equal in "power", only different. This card does what Towers do but almost 3 times faster. It's not only different, it's clearly a much better card.
You were comparing Towers and SoP and saying that Sop is just an Overpowered Tower. It Isn't tho, Its a card that requires an investment in the short term to gain a long term quanta advantage. The disadvantages you need to overcome while using it are its deployment cost rather than being free, and that it cannot fill the role of out of element quanta. If you do decide to use this card that can give you a greater boost you won't be able to use your mark to fuel your secondary effects. It is not overpowered and It will also never replace towers in its entirety so I question your logic.No. And it also doesn't kill any creatures, heal you, or turn into a pumpkin at midnight.Does the Shard of Power allow you to play any card that is of an element different to your mark?In the most part Yes. See above.Did you look at that table I made there?
Cards like this are the wrong way of designing CCG's. All cards should be equal in "power", only different. This card does what Towers do but almost 3 times faster. It's not only different, it's clearly a much better card.
I'm not discussing what the card doesn't do, I'm discussing what it does do. And what it does is produce quanta, lots of it.
Purposely designing overpowered cards is a bad move.
Yeah, but that's the thing.. there is no "short term investment". If you look at the table I drew, you can see that you get +2 quanta on the first turn, which is the same amount of quanta you would get from a Tower.You were comparing Towers and SoP and saying that Sop is just an Overpowered Tower. It Isn't tho, Its a card that requires an investment in the short term to gain a long term quanta advantage. The disadvantages you need to overcome while using it are its deployment cost rather than being free, and that it cannot fill the role of out of element quanta. If you do decide to use this card that can give you a greater boost you won't be able to use your mark to fuel your secondary effects. It is not overpowered and It will also never replace towers in its entirety so I question your logic.No. And it also doesn't kill any creatures, heal you, or turn into a pumpkin at midnight.Does the Shard of Power allow you to play any card that is of an element different to your mark?In the most part Yes. See above.Did you look at that table I made there?
Cards like this are the wrong way of designing CCG's. All cards should be equal in "power", only different. This card does what Towers do but almost 3 times faster. It's not only different, it's clearly a much better card.
I'm not discussing what the card doesn't do, I'm discussing what it does do. And what it does is produce quanta, lots of it.
Purposely designing overpowered cards is a bad move.
umm...ppl only seems to be talking about the card itself,what about its name? i mean, "Shard of Power" dont realy fit with its effect...I don't see any problems with the name. In fact a card as overpowered as this one, "Shard of Power" fits very nicely. :)
Yes, it is great for mono decks, and it even has some use for rainbow decks, however, I dont see it as OP. People keep complaining about how mono decks need to be stronger, however, every time theres a suggestion for it, then it seems shot down because it would make them OP. Would this card really give a mono deck a better chance against an FG? Or would it just make it a more viable suggestion for rush decks and decks that rely on having heavy amounts of quanta?Thanks BluePriest. Echos what I'want to say.
I dont see this card as being any more OP to pillars that novas and supernovas. My favorite rush deck is pillarless and relies on supernovas and immolations. With that, I can STILL use creatures from ANY ELEMENT therefor I can also cast any spell.
If you wanted a deck that relied on this card, and didnt have any pillars, then you would be limited to your mark, and getting luck on the draws since you can only have 6. Which youd also have a discard the very first turn if you went 2nd since there would be no way to play this card without a tower immolation or nova on your first turn.
Also, you wouldnt be able to run a golem rush deck with this card by replacing the pillars with this. You would JUST get earth quanta, nothing else.
Overall, I just dont see it as being OP. I see it as a nice boost in certain situations, however, overall, situational. If you really could make an effective deck with this card, without using pillars, then it would be different, however, I have a feeling most games you would either
A)get quanta at about the same rate as a regular game, or
B)end up being dramatically short on quanta and be waiting to draw this card.
Yes, it is great for mono decks, and it even has some use for rainbow decks, however, I dont see it as OP. People keep complaining about how mono decks need to be stronger, however, every time theres a suggestion for it, then it seems shot down because it would make them OP. Would this card really give a mono deck a better chance against an FG? Or would it just make it a more viable suggestion for rush decks and decks that rely on having heavy amounts of quanta?So you are saying we need overpowered cards to balance the game? Rare, overpowered cards, only accessible to a small percentage of players?
If you wanted a deck that relied on this card, and didnt have any pillars, then you would be limited to your mark, and getting luck on the draws since you can only have 6. Which youd also have a discard the very first turn if you went 2nd since there would be no way to play this card without a tower immolation or nova on your first turn.:) That's not how you use this card. You don't just replace Towers with this one. You use them both.
2 RoLs, 2 Cremations, 3 Supernovas.We are talking about two totally different decks here.
That gives you 24 :fire, 2 :entropy and 8 of everything else. And that can be done the first turn (ive done it several times).
Thats enough to run an entire deck, and it was all done on the very first turn. You dont need a single other quantum card the rest of the game.
2 cremations give a total of 40 quanta. 3 supernovas give 66. That is a grand total of 106 quanta all on the first turn.
Compared to this, where lets say you dont draw any more quanta cards, it would take about 7 turns to get the 106 quanta I got my first turn, IF I dont deflag them, in which case, you wont ever get the quanta you need for the deck before you are destroyed.
The decks are different yes, but im not talking about using the same kind of deck. Im talking about the potential of cards. This cards potential is in your deck, and supernovas potential is in pillarless decks. They do different things, but are still extremely good at what they do.2 RoLs, 2 Cremations, 3 Supernovas.We are talking about two totally different decks here.
That gives you 24 :fire, 2 :entropy and 8 of everything else. And that can be done the first turn (ive done it several times).
Thats enough to run an entire deck, and it was all done on the very first turn. You dont need a single other quantum card the rest of the game.
2 cremations give a total of 40 quanta. 3 supernovas give 66. That is a grand total of 106 quanta all on the first turn.
Compared to this, where lets say you dont draw any more quanta cards, it would take about 7 turns to get the 106 quanta I got my first turn, IF I dont deflag them, in which case, you wont ever get the quanta you need for the deck before you are destroyed.
You would have:I would have:
- empty hand
- zero quanta production
- strategy not based on collecting tons of quanta, but based on creatures (which you don't have)
My situation would be much better than yours. Your only chance would be to have some amazing luck of a draw and pray that my luck is horrible.
- empty hand (doesn't matter because I'm stalling)
- +16 quanta production per turn
- strategy based on stalling and collecting quanta
I really dont see this card as replacing pillars in any way... it may do the job better, but it isnt as reliable. Supernovas replaced pillars about as much as this card would.In that case I'm guessing you misread/misunderstood what this card actually does.
I can't believe the discussion continued after SG's table. This is the same card as a tower only way more powerful. And immune to earthquakes.Yes, good point. The fact that it's immune to Earthquake is one more nail in the coffin.
I'm chiming in late on this one... but I don't see the earthquake argument... sure you can't destroy it with earthquake, but you can steal it... or explode it... steal and explode are way more common in decks than earthquake...I can't believe the discussion continued after SG's table. This is the same card as a tower only way more powerful. And immune to earthquakes.Yes, good point. The fact that it's immune to Earthquake is one more nail in the coffin.
I really dont see this card as replacing pillars in any way... it may do the job better, but it isnt as reliable. Supernovas replaced pillars about as much as this card would.In that case I'm guessing you misread/misunderstood what this card actually does.
It's one card that is a "Pillar x 3" costing 1 random quanta to play. This means it can easily be played during the first turn, and when you do play it, you are already +2 (so it's basically free).
So it works exactly like a Pillar, with these differences:
1. It costs 1 random quanta to play (this cost is nullified when you play it)
2. It produces three times as much quanta per turn as a Pillar/Tower does
Lol, how is that not overpowered?
That's not how you use this card. You don't just replace Towers with this one. You use them both.So im confused, does it, or doesnt it replace towers?
Like this:
Mark of Fire
12 x Burning Tower
6 x Shard of Power
6 x Fire Bold
2 x Explosion
2 x Fahrenheit
2 x Fire Buckler
I'm chiming in late on this one... but I don't see the earthquake argument... sure you can't destroy it with earthquake, but you can steal it... or explode it... steal and explode are way more common in decks than earthquake...Nobody said it is indestructible. Of course you can steal, explode etc. it, but the point is that you can do all those against regular pillar/tower as well OR use Earthquake.
So im confused, does it, or doesnt it replace towers?Not sure what you mean here but I could easily make a deck with 6 x Shards of OP and 6 x Regular Towers which would produce way more more quanta than 12 x regular Towers.
You cant rely on it as the main source since you can only have 6. Those 6 could easily be destroyed or stolen.
Yeah, but this is a much more attractive target to steal... People don't (at least I don't) usually waste a steal for a tower. This would definitely get stolen...I'm chiming in late on this one... but I don't see the earthquake argument... sure you can't destroy it with earthquake, but you can steal it... or explode it... steal and explode are way more common in decks than earthquake...Nobody said it is indestructible. Of course you can steal, explode etc. it, but the point is that you can do all those against regular pillar/tower as well OR use Earthquake.
In other words, there are more ways to "counter" a regular pillar/tower than to counter Shard of Power.
Yeah, but this is a much more attractive target to steal... People don't (at least I don't) usually waste a steal for a tower. This would definitely get stolen...well, that's a whole another topic.
So im confused, does it, or doesnt it replace towers?I don't think you are, cuz it was answered in your quote:
You don't just replace Towers with this one. You use them both.As the card is obviously most similar to a tower other than a quantum tower, comparing it to a supernova or an immo or a quantum tower or a graveyard is less useful than comparing it to a tower. Here's the comparison:
People keep complaining about how mono decks need to be stronger, however, every time theres a suggestion for it, then it seems shot down because it would make them OP.I suspect SG agrees with that thought process and that's why she said:
I don't hate Shard of Power. I actually like the idea that it uses your mark to determine what it produces.
What about SoD and Heal one clearly out does the otherIn the most part Yes. See above.Did you look at that table I made there?
Cards like this are the wrong way of designing CCG's. All cards should be equal in "power", only different. This card does what Towers do but almost 3 times faster. It's not only different, it's clearly a much better card.
For any and every mono deck where I use nine or more towers, I would replace six with six of these.Cool, now you have room for 3 more Creatures etc in your deck but can't use your mark for any activators.
Forget all the math and mechanics. I just want to address this point here.In the most part Yes. See above.Did you look at that table I made there?
Cards like this are the wrong way of designing CCG's. All cards should be equal in "power", only different. This card does what Towers do but almost 3 times faster. It's not only different, it's clearly a much better card.
And Heal is under-powered :).Congrats, you've got yourself one more quanta by turn 3.
Anyway, I'm in the OP camp on this one.
For any and every mono deck where I use nine or more towers, I would replace six with six of these. Simply for the reason SG stated.
In fact, if I could, I would replace EVERY tower in a mono deck with these. Or reduce the number of quanta-generating things. So you discard your first turn, if need be. Let's look at that scenario.
1 Tower vs. 1 SoP.
Tower turn 1: 2
Tower turn 2: 3
Tower turn 3: 4
SoP turn 1: 0
SoP turn 2: 2
SoP turn 3: 5
Even without drawing a single tower on turn one, as long as you're mono deck with the same mark, you get more quanta by turn 3. That's just plain faster. It would be *almost* like taking all the cards in your deck and dividing their cost by 3.
all right, we can say that a deck that consists of small creatures that cost 2 or 3 quanta is not much affected by the SoP.If you really think it is OP, give me a deck where it is comparable enough to break the environment, a deck where its faster than the fastest or suddenly has so much quanta you can break the curve, It is designed to improve the environment bringing the ass end closer to the opening rush types so you can't cut it down because of that.
can we say this scenario is a good test to demonstrate Shard of Power is not OP?
Shard of Power is obvioulsy a card that works well with heavy quanta cards.
I am an SG's follower in this topic, even if i think this card would be fun to play, but it's really OP.
imho a Fire Stall deck would gain an incredible boost with this card,It boosts a Fire bolt deck, but in general Firebolt decks suck. Drop a reflective Shield and Firebolt goes home in tears.
the fractal/pest deck would gain so much darkness mana and would be faster...
i don't know, as i said i really like the idea, because a lot of quanta opens the way to new types of decks, but as a first impression i think this card it's really strong, everyone will put em in every deck...
this card puts you in pisition of an FG.Yeah a False god that draws only 1 card and has to pay to put the extra production into play.
freakin awesome.
What about: replaces your mark to the FG type mark (so you can use only one of these).Pass. You can't steal it or Smash it.
Well, my false-god farming deck (I believe ScaredGirl made it) would definitely have a lot of use. I seem to run out of time quanta all the time. The deck: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,1615.0.html%5B/urlThat Rainbow can get good use out of 1 of these, it doesn't need any more than that. It allows you to drop some towers and fuel your :time requirements at the end game.
Also, if you draw lets say 2 of these in you first hand while playing a mono-fire rush deck you would get out cards shit fast. But on the other hand I feel like rainbow decks are too powerful, and as far as I can see without testing anything this card would buff mono-decks.
I'll leave it there and let it be up to you "pro" guys (and gal) to discuss this.