Echo | Echo

[ZephyrPhantom]

You should still be allowed to copy echo. Even though it just wastes your air quanta.

Is it thematically possible to have an echo of an echo, or is 'echoception' actually one echo bouncing off several surfaces to sound like multiple echoes?

(There is no reason to restrict repeated use of Echo mechanically happen since each Echo 'overwrites' the previous one, avoiding 'complicated combos'.)

[choongmyoung]

You should still be allowed to copy echo. Even though it just wastes your air quanta.

Is it thematically possible to have an echo of an echo, or is 'echoception' actually one echo bouncing off several surfaces to sound like multiple echoes?

(There is no reason to restrict repeated use of Echo mechanically happen since each Echo 'overwrites' the previous one, avoiding 'complicated combos'.)

Why not possible? Echo can make another echo.

[ZephyrPhantom]

You should still be allowed to copy echo. Even though it just wastes your air quanta.

Is it thematically possible to have an echo of an echo, or is 'echoception' actually one echo bouncing off several surfaces to sound like multiple echoes?

(There is no reason to restrict repeated use of Echo mechanically happen since each Echo 'overwrites' the previous one, avoiding 'complicated combos'.)

Why not possible? Echo can make another echo.

I never said it wasn't possible, I was just asking whether an echo of an echo ('echoception') is just the same sound bouncing off twice or the echo of the sound making a 'new' bounce.

[choongmyoung]

You should still be allowed to copy echo. Even though it just wastes your air quanta.

Is it thematically possible to have an echo of an echo, or is 'echoception' actually one echo bouncing off several surfaces to sound like multiple echoes?

(There is no reason to restrict repeated use of Echo mechanically happen since each Echo 'overwrites' the previous one, avoiding 'complicated combos'.)

Why not possible? Echo can make another echo.

I never said it wasn't possible, I was just asking whether an echo of an echo ('echoception') is just the same sound bouncing off twice or the echo of the sound making a 'new' bounce.

Aha, so you're talking about, for example, the Echo after an Echo after a Shockwave should give a Shockwave instead of Echo?
But I see that is not a big deal.
Let's say you played a Shockwave then an Echo(1). You'll get a Shockwave in your hand. Then you play another Echo(2). You'll get an Echo(1) again, but it's not a problem because you don't know Echo(1) copied what spell. But, you have Shockwave. After you use the second Shockwave, you can just use Echo(2) again and gain a new Shockwave instead of Echo(1). Yeah, this are slightly different, but it still makes sence imo.
Echo of an Echo is an Echo. If you don't know what caused an Echo, you can still call it just an Echo.

[skyironsword]

^ Simple version: Old Echo bounces off stuff you don't remember. New Echo bounces off Echo. So do you want that stuff you don't remember or some random spell in your hand?

[TeamBftw]

So, my 2 cents are that this should be an  card.  While it obviously keeps in line with the minor theme of  having access to all quanta types, it also makes sense from a real world perspective.  Sound is by no means limited to air, it travels through water and the earth just as well.  Additionally, sound really is entropy at work, things affecting one another causing and oscillation of density.  Perhaps and argument could be made that it could be a  card, due to the fact that some sort of density to be oscillated is required for the wave to happen.

 

[choongmyoung]

So, my 2 cents are that this should be an  card.  While it obviously keeps in line with the minor theme of  having access to all quanta types, it also makes sense from a real world perspective.  Sound is by no means limited to air, it travels through water and the earth just as well.  Additionally, sound really is entropy at work, things affecting one another causing and oscillation of density.  Perhaps and argument could be made that it could be a  card, due to the fact that some sort of density to be oscillated is required for the wave to happen.

 

Usually, if you say 'echo', it means the reflected sound in air like on the mountains.

[TeamBftw]

So, my 2 cents are that this should be an  card.  While it obviously keeps in line with the minor theme of  having access to all quanta types, it also makes sense from a real world perspective.  Sound is by no means limited to air, it travels through water and the earth just as well.  Additionally, sound really is entropy at work, things affecting one another causing and oscillation of density.  Perhaps and argument could be made that it could be a  card, due to the fact that some sort of density to be oscillated is required for the wave to happen.

 

Usually, if you say 'echo', it means the reflected sound in air like on the mountains.

   . . .  thats only cause I'm not a dolphin, or a bat . . . but now that you mention it, I see more reason for it to be a  or  card because the sound wave needs to hit something denser then where it originated in order to reflect, or echo,  . . . which brings me to echolocation and the realization that this could be a  card.  I still vote for       

[Pella]

Good arguments, TeamBftw.  The Air element has been established as having sway over sound and sound waves, though.  The arguments you present are more of the "if, if, if" type than the generic type.  Generically, people think of echoes as going through the air.  Therefore, an Echo card belongs in Air.

I could see an argument for a Sonar card or Dolphin card being in Water.  A Bat card definitely should go in Darkness, although an Echolocation ability arguably would revert to Air.  I can't think of any useful game purpose for Echolocation, though, so that's kind of a moot point.

[skyironsword]

^ Echolocation: Passive. Dodge all targeted effects by the opponent

[Arum]

^

Then make a Bat card already