Binding Ties | Binding Ties

[jazzfan27]

NAME: Binding Ties ELEMENT: Love COST: 9 :love TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Save a permanent you control by discarding a random card and paying 5 Love quanta.  Autocast.	NAME: Binding Ties ELEMENT: Love COST: 8 :love TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Save a permanent you control by discarding a random card and paying 5 Love quanta.  Autocast.

ART: IDEA: Jazzfan27 NOTES: An unusual card.  If your opponent spell or affect would discard a permanent you control and you have at least one card in hand and 5 Love Quanta, that spell or effect is countered and you discard a random card and lose 5 Love Quanta.  This happens automatically, and only once per turn.  If the conditions are met it just triggers. SERIES:

[skyironsword]

... meanwhile I can just use graviton salvager

[jazzfan27]

Hmmm, good point.  What if we just make it a permanent version of graviton Salvager?  It would have the benefit of salvaging other copies of itself and being more resistant to destruction, and would have the disadvantage of not doing damage.  Where do you think the cost for such a card should be?

[skyironsword]

Change the card so that it just makes you discard a random card without the love quanta requirement. And then it would be 2|1.

[regen2k9]

The cost is much too high imo.  Consider the following:

Save 1 perm:
14 quanta, 1 discard

Save 2 perm:
19 quanta, 2 discard (9.5/1 each)

Save 3 perm:
24 quanta, 3 discard. (8/1 each)

Save 4 perm:
29 quanta, 4 discard (7.25/1 each)

Even at 4 permanents (which is usually greater than or equal to the amount of PC used against you in a single game) you're paying 7.25 quanta + a discard to save each one.  This is an extremely high cost, especially when considering the opportunity cost of a discard AND when comparing it to graviton salvager (which is already a UP card imo).  Thus, this card is extremely UP imo.

[skyironsword]

Do you even read posts above yours? That's exactly what we were discussing.

[regen2k9]

Do you even read posts above yours? That's exactly what we were discussing.

Whoa.  You need to calm down.

Yes, I realize that is what you were discussing, which is why I added on to your discussion with supplementary computation, which you did not include.  You know, reaffirmation is allowed.

[skyironsword]

That's a cool card!

That's a nice card!

im a gurl com and ply minecraft plz?

I like this card!

Redundant much?

[regen2k9]

That's a cool card!

That's a nice card!

im a gurl com and ply minecraft plz?

I like this card!

Redundant much?

1) Those have no substance so are not even applicable to my post
2) I did not copy what you two said.  Rather, I took an alternate means of arriving at a similar conclusion.
3) Even if my post were the same, it is not your job to moderate.

End of discussion.