Shades of Grey | Shades of Grey

[EmeraldTiger]

NAME: Shades of Grey ELEMENT: Duality COST: 5 :duality TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: For 2 turns, opponent's quanta pools cannot have a greater quantity than any of your quanta pools.	NAME: Shades of Grey ELEMENT: Duality COST: 4 :duality TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: For 2 turns, opponent's quanta pools cannot have a greater quantity than any of your quanta pools.

ART: EmeraldTiger IDEA: EmeraldTiger NOTES: = or SERIES:

Spoiler for Archived Version:

NAME: Shades of Grey ELEMENT: Duality COST: 5 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: For 2 turns, opponent's quanta pools cannot have a greater quantity than any of your quanta pools.	NAME: Shades of Grey ELEMENT: Duality COST: 4 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: For 2 turns, opponent's quanta pools cannot have a greater quantity than any of your quanta pools.

ART: EmeraldTiger IDEA: EmeraldTiger NOTES: = or SERIES:

[EmeraldTiger]

Is this better?

[Contrary]

I don't understand the concept thematically. When you say shades of grey I think morality but when I look at the mechanic I don't think of morality at all.

Maybe having something to do with "Envy" or "Balance" would work better?

Also this is pretty friggin brutal. If you mono with it that's basically taking away all of the quanta of a tonne of other decks for two turns. Imagine this with Nightmare/GotP! I'd make it a single turn. Also I dislike how it kind of doesn't effect certain decks, though I realize it may be structured as an anti rainbow that can't be used by rainbows- a sentiment I like.

[Rutarete]

I like the ability. Cost looks fitting also.

[OldTrees]

 / duality cards should make sense as Mono Darkness and Mono Light cards. I do not think this would make sense as Mono Light. I could possibly be convinced on it fitting as Mono Darkness.

[TheManuz]

I read the discussion you were making with OldTrees about this card.
While i was reading

I was trying to do protection of resources and denial of opponent's resources. I guess I missed the mark on the part.

i thought "why not making a card that leave quanta pools unaltered on both sides for 1 turn?"
I'm saying that your quanta pool and opponent quanta pool stays the same, even if you cast spells, but only for one turn.
I don't know if it's a good or a bad idea, i just thought of it while reading your phrase, and so i wanted to tell it to you.

[xsindomanx]

(Assuming that quarta pool = total quarta you own, as otherwise this card is unspeakably powerful)

Interesting idea, but as it is shown currently, it seems way too destructive against some types of decks.
A rush deck which quickly uses up all its quarta used this card against a stall deck, or in the worst case, a fire bolt OTK deck that needs to save up 100 fire quarta, the win is guaranteed.

Also, some clarification seems to be necessary.
If your opponent has 30 quarta total and you have 10 quarta total when this card is used, would your opponent's 20 additional quarta disappear, or would your opponent not be able to gain more quarta for the next turns unless you get more than 30 quarta total.
If it is the first case (quarta disappearing), how would the quarta loss be divided among the elements?

[ninetyfools]

That is a nice idea. Ill just slap those cards on and have 0 quanta for everything and use sparks. 

[EmeraldTiger]

Would an affect that protects player's quanta pool from forced decrease and denies opponent an increase.

Edit: Let me elaborate on what I was thinking. My thoughts were Light's primary function is protection of resources. Darkness primary function is to use or deny opponent's resources. So with that in mind I came up the rough concept of a mechanic. I am thinking this should be a temporary affect. The light side would use something like sanctuary's quanta protection affect. the darkness side is the inverse of that against the opponent. I think the inverse is where opponent can not gain any quanta above the point of the highest quanta pool at the time the spell is cast.

Thank you for the feedback so far and any yet to come.

Something like Sanctuary's protection effect? How would it differ? Since Sanctuary is such a hard counter to quanta denial, I imagine this would be more of a soft counter?

An effect like the one you described there, where the opponent cannot gain any quanta in a pool if it is higher than your highest quanta pool. That way, it would serve both as soft protection AND soft denial.

this is where the line of thought for the mechanic came from.

[xsindomanx]

Ahh, now I understand the concept for this card, and seems like a decent idea.
Even so, I have a feeling that "if it is higher than YOUR highest quarta pool" could be problematic, although my mind's in a bit of a mess now, so I can't provide any examples.
I thought of "opponent cannot gain any quarta in a pool if it is higher than HIS --- (x highest) quarta pool " but this may have similar problems..

[RRQJ]

That is a nice idea. Ill just slap those cards on and have 0 quanta for everything and use sparks. 

You need quanta to play this card in the first place.

[OldTrees]

That is a nice idea. Ill just slap those cards on and have 0 quanta for everything and use sparks. 

You need quanta to play this card in the first place.

The mark would suffice. Thus the opponent would be limited to Turn-6|5 quanta.