Menoetius | Menoetius

[doc_moore_j]

NAME: Menoetius ELEMENT: Other COST: 24 Other TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 5|5 TEXT: Consume one of each element to gain +3 | +3	NAME: Menoetius ELEMENT: Other COST: 24 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 5|5 TEXT: Consume one of each element to gain +4 | +4

ART: Doc_Moore_J IDEA: Doc_Moore_J NOTES: SERIES:

[Flayne]

this would technically cost 36 quanta instead of 24.ts is that what your saying
although it would need the presence of the other elements.

OP with nova.
change the effect in general.
maybe lower the attk and hp gain.

[agentflare]

Nah, this is actually pretty UP. Compare it with Blessing: 3 for +3/+3. Imo, increase the atk/hp gain. At a QT->Tower conversion, that's a 3:1 ratio. So +3/+3 should be 9 other quanta, rather than 36.

[Flayne]

Nah, this is actually pretty UP. Compare it with Blessing: 3 for +3/+3. Imo, increase the atk/hp gain. At a QT->Tower conversion, that's a 3:1 ratio. So +3/+3 should be 9 other quanta, rather than 36.

umm no, 3 supernova, this + quantum towers = OP

blessing is the easier form and costs light, but this is still overshadowing with supernova on the side, any deck could use this with no problem as long as they have quantum towers and supernova.

[Nepycros]

Don't forget, this requires one of all elements, not 12 random quanta. That means you'd have to run a rainbow, meaning that Black Hole decks would rise to counter this.

[ZephyrPhantom]

-Expensive cost above 15
-A lot of symbols on the card (generally regarded as annoying by many players)
-Extreme effect (consuming one of each quantum)

I don't know about this card, but the design appeal doesn't seem so great. I'd tone down the cost, effect, and generally what the creature can do - right now it would feel really awkward to have this in the game.

You also need to change the title to have it show as "Menoetius | Menoetius".

[dramore]

As someone once told me about a card I made costing 24 quanta. "If you feel that should be the cost then it's a good sign it's Overpowered"  While I may or may not have agreed with that statement at the time. It is a strong factor in that direction.

1. Lower the casting cost.  If it's any quanta to be used to cast a creature 2X the attack power + 1 per 5 hp is a good place to start.
2. Keep the +3 | +3 boost but make it a different cost. Like Pay X For +3 | +3.  X = current attack power.

Those are my Ideas anyway.

[Nepycros]

This card is anything but OP. Just because it gains +3|+3 in comparison to the skill Growth's +2|+2, that extra single point raise costs an extra 11 quanta, in comparison to Growth's cost of 1.

+2|+2 for 1 quanta.
+3|+3 for 12 quanta.

Exactly which one is OP?

[ZephyrPhantom]

This card is anything but OP. Just because it gains +3|+3 in comparison to the skill Growth's +2|+2, that extra single point raise costs an extra 11 quanta, in comparison to Growth's cost of 1.

+2|+2 for 1 quanta.
+3|+3 for 12 quanta.

Exactly which one is OP?

Neither. The card's just really awkward in terms of design with it's really high cost. It should be lowered and made into something a lot more simple like
Quantum Golem
Cost : 5 | 4
Stats : 2 | 3
Ability :  Reinforce : Gain +0 | +2.

I think it would be a good idea for the creator to state why this card is currently designed with such quantum costs.

[dramore]

This card is anything but OP. Just because it gains +3|+3 in comparison to the skill Growth's +2|+2, that extra single point raise costs an extra 11 quanta, in comparison to Growth's cost of 1.

+2|+2 for 1 quanta.
+3|+3 for 12 quanta.

Exactly which one is OP?

I wasn't saying that it was op only making a statement about the 24 cost. If you look my Ideas were to lower it's cost and adjust it's skill cost too. both of which I might add are lower than it currently is.

[storyteller]

its very balanced with those numbers.

[crabaugh]

blessing look at that and then youll see whats the matter