Death Monolith | Death Monolith

[Pineapple]

Eh?
Well, I'm not 100% sure it's needed, so I guess you don't need to change it at this moment..

[ralouf]

Okay if needed i will change it

[Kuroaitou]

CURATOR COMMENT
-While the tables technically match, the non-upgraded card's COST is formatted improperly; like the cards in game, if it requires a specific type of elemental quanta, the card in front must -always- have a numeric value placed in front of it. (i.e. - the top right corner of the non-upped card must be exactly '1 ' like the cards found in-game)

Interesting form of quanta generation you have here. Do these stack like pillars/pendulums, and can you have more than 6 in a deck?

The main issue I'm slightly concerned about is how the permanent acts as a form of auto-cc for the upgraded version - if you place them in an upped deck for example, I could imagine that these guys would be pretty annoying against most opponents. If you follow up the same strategy with the other Monolith cards ( gets Rewind upon being played, uses Fire Lance, etc.), then the actual CC spells may not even be used at all in comparison to the monolith cards.

[OldTrees]

As long as the ideas do not resemble previous effects to closely in method or purpose then they can be balanced to difference niches. A pillar/monolith/obelisk/pendulum stall sounds like a nice addition to creatureless and only creature fun decks.

@ralouf1
I think the monolith should be treated like a pillar. In all ways. (6+ in a deck, earthquake destroys 3, nymphs tear creates a nymph, and it forms a stack.)

[crabaugh]

i like the idea cool to heve a quatra producer and a skill.

[ralouf]

Kuroaitou : Ok I will update the picture for unupped so.
For time or fire I have other idead if you want (draw a card then discard one for time; +2/+0 for fire..) just ask me I have full of ideas.

OldTrees : Just totally agree with you for monolith they are very similar to pillars except that they have a cost/effect. 
However obelisk must be considered as a permanent : i.e not stack; <= 6 in a deck; can't be targetable by earthquake..
What do you think ?

[Spiraler]

OK idea, but it just seems too much like a pillar to me. I think you could change it to 0:infect the target creature.

[OldTrees]

OldTrees : Just totally agree with you for monolith they are very similar to pillars except that they have a cost/effect. 
However obelisk must be considered as a permanent : i.e not stack; <= 6 in a deck; can't be targetable by earthquake..
What do you think ?

I was suggesting that perhaps they should act like pillars/pendulums in all aspects including stacking. The obelisk skills I suggested assumed that only 1-2 stacks would exist at a time as an additional balance measure. If it doesn't act like a pillar then it become less of an activated skill pillar.

It is your choice because you are in charge of the monolith and obelisk series.

[ralouf]

For obelisk I think they must be like a classic permanent. If it is too OP we can do something like making them stack when you control 3 of them.. ? other idea ?

[OldTrees]

For obelisk I think they must be like a classic permanent. If it is too OP we can do something like making them stack when you control 3 of them.. ? other idea ?

Black Obelisk|Black Obelisk has been updated. (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23253)

Series thread:http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,23373.msg318147#msg318147

[Rutarete]

I suggest, to make infecting a bit less redundant (among other reasons), that instead of the regular infect, it be a more severe poison.
This Severe Poison would do damage as normal ETG poison does, but would chronically weaken it (aka stop it attacking). The chronic-ness being some % chance.

[ralouf]

So you mean that the number of poison can grow with the time ? Why not it is a very good idea that make the card more interressant and fun