Quanta Beast | Quanta Beast

[russianspy1234]

NAME: Quanta Beast ELEMENT: Life COST: 6 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: X | 3 TEXT: X is amount of quanta you have divided by 15. Your quanta pool can't be altered on opponent's turn.	NAME: Quanta Beast ELEMENT: Life COST: 6 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: X + 1 | 4 TEXT: X is amount of quanta you have divided by 15. Your quanta pool can't be altered on opponent's turn.

ART: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/496471 with rainbow gradient IDEA: russianspy1234 NOTES: SERIES:

[Rutarete]

I'm inclined to think that this is more suited for rainbow than mono

[russianspy1234]

I'm inclined to think that this is more suited for rainbow than mono

true, but cant cost a card in rainbow so it has to have one base.  other could work, but i still think a single element should be chosen to "prime" the beast, even if life is the wrong choice.

[Anarook]

IMO- anything that promotes rainbow decks is bleh
  HATERS UNITE!

[furballdn]

This is the type of card that really should have some playtesting behind it. As of now, I can't tell if it's balanced or not.

[Drake_XIV]

I'm inclined to think that this is more suited for rainbow than mono

true, but cant cost a card in rainbow so it has to have one base.  other could work, but i still think a single element should be chosen to "prime" the beast, even if life is the wrong choice.

Fused mechanic!  See: Glass Miniature and Stem Celluloid in Crucible!

"Living" is just horrible, tacked on like that.   Regardless of thematic, just drop it.

[storyteller]

gahdzirrah!!

[russianspy1234]

updated named and weakened it quite a bit

[ARTHANASIOS]

This seriously has to be Other card rather than an Elemental card. I like it as an idea, but it seriously has to be Other. Furthermore, since it is a truly card, raise its cost to 12 or 24 Other quanta or something (Other costs are good to be calculated in comparison with Nova | Supernova).

[OldTrees]

This seriously has to be Other card rather than an Elemental card. I like it as an idea, but it seriously has to be Other. Furthermore, since it is a truly card, raise its cost to 12 or 24 Other quanta or something (Other costs are good to be calculated in comparison with Nova | Supernova).

Why would it need to cost  ? It would be used in a rainbow deck. Such decks have access to all types of quanta. 6 is possible for a rainbow to pay but it more expensive for the rainbow than 6 would be.

[russianspy1234]

This seriously has to be Other card rather than an Elemental card. I like it as an idea, but it seriously has to be Other. Furthermore, since it is a truly card, raise its cost to 12 or 24 Other quanta or something (Other costs are good to be calculated in comparison with Nova | Supernova).

if it was an Other card, it would just be another piece of muscle to already existing rainbow decks (and a pretty efficient one at that)
as a card of a single element, at 6 cost, it would need a new deck archetype in order to take full advantage of it.

[ARTHANASIOS]

This card can't fit in a mono-deck of any kind. Running mono with 6 Quana Beasts and 6 Novas to buff them or Quantum Pillars/Towers won't work. A creature buffed according to the amount of quanta you have is mechanic-wise similar to Dissipation Field, so it is going to work well in the same decks Dissipation Field works well. And the kind of deck DField best fits in is Quantum Pillar/Tower-based rainbow.
I think 6 can be kept, but a much more expensive cost would be better.
If you don't want it to become another deck buff, then put "X is the amount of quanta you have divided by 10" or something...