Shatter | Fragment

[Arum]

NAME: Shatter ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 11 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Destroy 2 of the opponent's permanent slots. Can't target Shields, Weapons or Marks. Drain all remaining quanta.	NAME: Fragment ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 10 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Destroy 2 of the opponent's permanent slots. Can't target Shields, Weapons or Marks. Drain all remaining quanta.

ART: Arum IDEA: Arum NOTES: It also destroys permanents in the permanent slot that is destroyed. Probably needs balancing. SERIES:

Old Version:

Spoiler for Hidden:

NAME: Shatter ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 11 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Destroy 2 random permanent slots.  Weapon, Shield, and Mark slots are included. Drain all remaining quanta.	NAME: Fragmentation ELEMENT: Gravity COST: 10 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: TEXT: Destroy 2 random permanent slots.  Weapon, Shield, and Mark slots are included. Drain all remaining quanta.

ART: Arum IDEA: Arum NOTES: Yes, I got new art! Destroy means the permanent slot is removed. It is very powerful, but I believe it can be balanced, eventually. SERIES:

[Arum]

I need feedback.

[DigitoriiX]

Seems pretty cool. I think it shouldn't reach sword, shield, and mark, though. I don't believe it's too OP, since ~all~ permanent slots are rarely filled, and it could destroy maybe the last two slots instead of ones that are already occupied.

[Drake_XIV]

Would it also destroy the permanent in those spots?  If not, this is UP since no one really uses that many Permanents.

[dragonsdemesne]

I don't think it should target the mark slot.  To me, the mark slot should be indestructible in order to help prevent being quanta locked by poor draws or denial or whatever.  I do like the card, though, and the fact that it doesn't specify opponent's permanents means it could hit your own.  In light of that, I don't think it really needs to drain all your gravity quanta.  (if you meant it only to affect opponent's permanents, then I agree that it should drain all gravity quanta, and then the card text should be updated to reflect this)

[Arum]

It is meant for your opponent only.
It also destroys permanents in that slot.
I'll change the sword, shield, mark thing.

[Lneacx]

Is this double-targeting?  Also, thematically "Shatter" sounds more like  .

[choongmyoung]

SoFo is much better.
Yes I know it's OP, but SoFo is waay better.

[furballdn]

SoFo is much better.
Yes I know it's OP, but SoFo is waay better.

Comparisons of cards should not be made with obviously OP or obviously UP cards. They are not good balancing comparisons.

This card is expensive. Almost alongside miracle in terms of cost. Is this card something that is really worth +99hp?

Destroying permanent slots along with clogging permanent slots is a common suggested card idea. Most often it is shot down because of the lack of decks that really make use of permanent slots. I could easily play a game with EtG and half, or even a quarter of my permanents slots available and still be very comfortable.

Does this destroy stacks? If it does, this becomes a much more crippling version of EQ.

[Lneacx]

@furball: according to what the table says ("also destroys permanents in the permanent slot that is destroyed"), it appears to me that yes, it does destroy the stacks as well.
On a side note, does the card description need to specify that Shatter can't target Marks? No other card can target Marks anyways.