The reason a mechanical justification for the reduction from 924 is needed is
1) A reduction is needed
2) Each combination has a thematic justification (therefore generic theme with not cause a reduction)
3) The core of the card suggestion is mechanical and thus requires a mechanical justification
4) The mechanic of a card always needs a mechanical justification just as the name always needs a thematic justification
Sorry, i certainly do not mean to belabor this point. But i am still a bit confused particularly about (3). Perhaps it would help if you could explain the difference between this situation and the following hypothetical:
Before the existence of forest spirit, someone suggests it as a new card. There are 132 permutation of elements that could create the card.
1) applies since 132 similar spirit cards is too many
2) any combination could be justified thematically
3) i'm not sure i understand this rule. If someone suggests the forest spirit thematically because he wants to see a plant ( 
) creature that grows ( 
) then a thematic justification is sufficient but if the suggestion springs mechanically from wanting to see a growth creature and then the thematic application of the elements comes afterward then a mechanical justification of why and require a growth creature is necessary? Am i understanding that correctly?
4) as you said, this always applies
I apologize if i am being a bit slow to understand, and i thank you for your continued assistance.
The core of a card idea is what is the piece that if removed changes the topic of the card.
The core of the card is the last piece remaining if you were asked to remove/undefine all the optional parts.
From what your card looks like it appears your card's core is somewhere between: 'supply some of some elements' and 'Generate 2 of 6 elements'.
(4) is saying the mechanical piece of a card needs to be justified to the standard that a piece is held accountable to.
(3) is saying the piece that is also the Core needs to be justified to the standard that a Core is held accountable to.
Forest Spirit could have been created one of two ways:
A) Fire Spirit (Core: Race of Spirits)
B) Lava Golem (Core: Growth mechanic)
A1)An initial reduction from 7(not
)-12(1 per element) was needed to not dominate the opening set of creatures. This would be cause for a temporary not a finalized reduction.
A2)Depending on the meaning of spirit used only a subset of elements would fit.
A3)The core of A was thematic
A4)Growth would still need a mechanical justification
B1)No reduction was needed because skills are added to hypothetical creatures thus there was no quota for Growth
B2)Not every mono or duo combination of costs fits the mechanic (
:Growth [gain +2|+2]? I think not.)
B3)Growth did need a justification for allowing +2|+2 per turn. A justification for Growth would be allowing creature stats to change over time in a positive way to counteract the negative of CC.
B4)see B3
PS: You are not slow to understand.
For me the mechanical justification is to find an intermediate way to play. For now, you can play mono, duo and trio (yes you can) in a not to complicated way (to balance) using pendulums and towers. You can also easily play 8-12 elements using quantum towers and supernovas (without wasting to much speed). However in the gap, play 4-7 elements is rather complicated to balance. A quantum producer which is intermediate between an elemental pillar (no randomness - produce 1 quantum) and a quantum tower (randomness/12 - produce 3 quanta) is logically producing 2 quanta out of 6 (as the present cards).
...
How do you create four types of quantum producer which produce 2 quanta out of 6 in maximizing the versatility? you create two couples of opposite arrangement which have 3 commune elements with each non-partner.
Thanks SnoWeb. You have started the case/discussion. How many possible sets of 4 are we left with and how do we chose which of those maximizes versatility of the set?
