Conversion Series

[Ajit]

Slideshow of series:



Sample;

NAME: Blight ELEMENT: Life COST: 4 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Convert half of your life quanta into death quanta.	NAME: Blight ELEMENT: Life COST: 5 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Convert all of your life quanta into death quanta.

ART: Smartse IDEA: Ajit NOTES: SERIES: Conversion Series

lemme know what you think

[Boret]

That's a quite good idea, since you can suddenly change from a style to another one, this card is perfect for duo-Decks
But I don't understand how elements are connected between them. Are they supposed to be opposite (Dark/Light) ? Or making some known synergy easier? (Earth/Fire)?

[Ajit]

YAY a comment

I considered doing it as opposites, but the first ones I did, before I decided to make a series, was precipitation and evaporation, which are perfect thematically for what they do mechanically.  After that I decided to just go with what fit best thematically.  I intentionally did not make time and aether opposites nor gravity and entropy to keep consistent the inconsistencies, if that makes sense.

All of it is quite adjustable, as far as which two pair together, but only if a proper theme is present.

Also, I don't know if this should cost less/cost more, or affect less quanta/affect more quanta.  This is all easily adjustable.

[H2Owned]

So there will be 132 of these?
This would definitely help if you have unneeded late game quanta that you use to get the deck going (using entropy pends solely for snovas)
I think its perfectly well balanced and useful.

[joebob777]

So there will be 132 of these?
This would definitely help if you have unneeded late game quanta that you use to get the deck going (using entropy pends solely for snovas)
I think its perfectly well balanced and useful.

i think there should be only 12, either they be for oppostites, (                     )  or convert it into your mark

[Ajit]

@H2Owned definitely not, I'm just making 12 thanks for the comment.

@joebob777 I like to create new synergies and I always feel the "opposite" element is over-done, but I'm not necessarily against changing it.  Could you think of a thematic or realistic reason as to why fire would turn into water or vice versa?  Or how the ground turns into the sky?

[joebob777]

@joebob777 I like to create new synergies and I always feel the "opposite" element is over-done, but I'm not necessarily against changing it.  Could you think of a thematic or realistic reason as to why fire would turn into water or vice versa?  Or how the ground turns into the sky?

no i can't, but however overused your mark is i think it would be more balanced in my mind  to convert it into your mark insted of the set types

[Uppercut]

How is converting to your mark more balanced than converting to a set type?

[joebob777]

it is more balancing to me as it gives more choice, other than just 12 set cards, but that is just me,

[Uppercut]

The opposite is sort of true too though. It allows you to splash in elements that don't match your mark without putting much strain on your resources.

[joebob777]

The opposite is sort of true too though. It allows you to splash in elements that don't match your mark without putting much strain on your resources.

i actually just thought of that and was going to edit but then i realized something that wouldnt hold it back that i momentarily thought would

also, to mark then from mark (or vise versa) equals about half of one of these

[AnonymousRevival]

The think the  card should be called molten lava, not temper, unless you're trying to use some sort of personification.