Beacon | Beacon

[Pineapple]

it feels just a tad to strong, but I like the idea.

This. It's RoL -1 atk but resistant to CC. Currently, there's not much PC, so this could be quite potent with a hope shield. Especially if 12 RoLs+6 beacons=12 defense. Also, do you have to discard beacon when a spell card is played or is it optional? Because the wording is ambiguous.

You are forced to discard beacon when a spell card is played. As stated in the notes, you cannot discard a beacon during your opponent's turn, so you cannot negate your opponent's spells if you are protected by sanctuary.

7 cards for 8 damage reduction isn't too powerful, especially with repeatable PC such as Butterfly Effect and Pulverizer.

[oblivion1212]

You are forced to discard beacon when a spell card is played. As stated in the notes, you cannot discard a beacon during your opponent's turn, so you cannot negate your opponent's spells if you are protected by sanctuary.

you do know this translates to you never getting the spell negation effect as a counter for your enemy, which then implies that you're countering your own spells (atm, elements doesn't have a spell card which allows one to use it on his or her opponent's turn)
it's actually a pretty useful card, which looks (a little bit) better than RoL (bio-luminescence unupped)
lol, payed pillar XD

[oblivion1212]

You are forced to discard beacon when a spell card is played. As stated in the notes, you cannot discard a beacon during your opponent's turn, so you cannot negate your opponent's spells if you are protected by sanctuary.

you do know this translates to you never getting the spell negation effect as a counter for your enemy, which then implies that you're countering your own spells (atm, elements doesn't have a spell card which allows one to use it on his or her opponent's turn)

either i'm correct, or i was wasted while reading this XD
it's actually a pretty useful card, which looks (a little bit) better than RoL (bio-luminescence unupped)
lol, payed pillar XD

sorry, double-posted.. accidentally clicked quote instead of modify :|

[Pineapple]

What I meant (and what you easily could have inferred by glancing at the notes) was that you cannot discard Beacon during your opponent's turn while you are protected by Sanctuary (since your hand cannot be altered during your opponent's turn while you are protected by Sanctuary), so you cannot negate your opponent's spells if you are protected by Sanctuary.

[oblivion1212]

i knew it! i knew i was wasted  8) 8)

didn't even bothered to look at the notes, my bad XD

[furballdn]

I think most people would much rather have a beacon than nullify a spell. Sanctuary+beacon+hope=invincible shield for no PC people.

[Pineapple]

I think most people would much rather have a beacon than nullify a spell. Sanctuary+beacon+hope=invincible shield for no PC people.

Thing is, you can only hold up to 6 Beacons in a deck of at least 30 cards, and you still need a win-condition within those 30 cards. So really, the only decks it can beat are no-PC no-CC decks, which are few and far between.

[Elite arbiter]

Well, I probably would unless there was a spell that could really screw me over like fire storm. But I think the point is that the question of "Oh, for Hope it replaces 6 useful slots" is wrong because it would replace Light Towers, not anything else. Granted, a deck that runs for 6 Light Towers, 6 Beacons, and 6 RoL's would have trouble with deck space, but it would be able to keep a 12 wall of hope up. I would have to think about exactly what combos could be derived, but it opens up the possibility of mono-light Hope decks, or Hope decks that splash a mark and/or light pends for another element.

[furballdn]

Well for winning I suppose you could make a rol bouncing deck since if you have a good shield up and sanctuary up, you'll just stall your opponent out. I do agree that it's not as powerful as I thought it was at first though.