Yin Yang Pendulum

[storyteller]

NAME: Yin Yang Pendulum ELEMENT: Other COST: 9 TYPE: Pendulum ATK|HP: n/a TEXT: alternates between dealing 3 damage to your opponent and healing you for 3 hp	NAME: Yin Yang Pendulum ELEMENT: Other COST: 10 TYPE: Pendulum ATK|HP: n/a TEXT: alternates between dealing 5 damage to your opponent and healing you for 5 hp

ART: tbd IDEA: lord midnight NOTES: my take on an alternate pendulum, one that deal and heal damage, an all around good card SERIES: just a pendulum

[RagingAlien]

Upped should at least recieve a +1 quanta cost, 1 damage/heal is a big difference, especially if per turn.

I'd also say improve both costs to 8|9, respectively, since Other card usually cost a little more (looks at Shards angryly) due to Quantum Pillars.

Overall a nice card, other than what i mentioned above.

[Rutarete]

Hooray for more Pendulum mechanics!
I agree with the cost raising suggestion

[Newbiecake]

You made some mistakes; fix them by doing the following:
-The card type should say Permanent.
-The Atk/Hp section should be left blank.

Does this card stack at a pillar or pendulum, I think it shouldn't, since it isn't a quantum generator, and it works like a shard so it shouldn't be so easily protected by a PA.

[OldTrees]

Druidic Staff called. So did Vampire Dagger. This card is too redundant.

[storyteller]

Druidic Staff called. So did Vampire Dagger. This card is too redundant.

its a permanent that deals damage, which would occur before weapons are used. its another source of damage OT.
there arent any of these yet.

[OldTrees]

Druidic Staff called. So did Vampire Dagger. This card is too redundant.

its a permanent that deals damage, which would occur before weapons are used. its another source of damage OT.
there arent any of these yet.

So the difference of being a non weapon permanent instead of a weapon permanent or a creature is sufficient to justify its addition?
If I wanted a damaging healer in one card that stacked and acted before weapons I would use vampire. If I wanted a damaging healer that is safe from CC but vulnerable to PC then I would use Vampire Dagger. If I wanted both I would use Crusader + Vampire Dagger.

Why include this as well as Vampires, Liquid Shadow, Vampire Dagger and Druidic Staff?

[storyteller]

well, its a nice boost overall. it doesnt really turn the tide on its own, it just helps.
It really opens up the ability to play a creatureless spellless deck. Poison, Couple of these, some shards, maybe a scorpion for neuro conversion. .i8t would be slow, but hard to counter all the ways damage is coming from. Add in spells and creatures you get a lot of different directions damage is coming from. unstable gas and catapult are good, but a nice permanent, that you can play that deals some damage on its own is rather 'needed'. i have looked at things like a cannon, or curses, but this makes a nice other card. Did you notice that you named mostly darkness and light cards in your example, why not have this in a fire deck, or an aether. Damage would be in between creatures and weapons, and is not a spell either, im not sure what shield would affect it, Id think it is physical damage myself.

Its like, why take a Druidic staff, green shards are better. Well, if you are playing mono green Druidic staves are ok. Why have this card, because it would make a nice addition to a lot of decks, but not so many it would always be used. For damage, creatures are better, for healing, a Green Shard, but its right in the middle there, nice and handy in a lot of decks, but not an 'always take'.

[OldTrees]

well, its a nice boost overall. it doesnt really turn the tide on its own, it just helps.
It really opens up the ability to play a creatureless spellless deck. Poison, Couple of these, some shards, maybe a scorpion for neuro conversion. .i8t would be slow, but hard to counter all the ways damage is coming from. Add in spells and creatures you get a lot of different directions damage is coming from. unstable gas and catapult are good, but a nice permanent, that you can play that deals some damage on its own is rather 'needed'. i have looked at things like a cannon, or curses, but this makes a nice other card. Did you notice that you named mostly darkness and light cards in your example, why not have this in a fire deck, or an aether. Damage would be in between creatures and weapons, and is not a spell either, im not sure what shield would affect it, Id think it is physical damage myself.

Its like, why take a Druidic staff, green shards are better. Well, if you are playing mono green Druidic staves are ok. Why have this card, because it would make a nice addition to a lot of decks, but not so many it would always be used. For damage, creatures are better, for healing, a Green Shard, but its right in the middle there, nice and handy in a lot of decks, but not an 'always take'.

So the goal was support for a permanent only deck? You noted the Permanent Unstable Gas. There is also animated Titans with Catapults.

Not all elements can to Creature only decks either. Cards that heal and damage probably should be limited to  . The other healing elements  can use a pure healing card plus a pure damage card. Even non healing elements can do that through SoG.

Why take Druidic staff over SoG? because it costs less and deals damage if it is within a Duo or Mono.

Permanent only deck? See UG or Titan Catapult. Heal and Hurt in one card for all elements? I does not fit all elements.

You have not given a compelling reason for increasing redundancy.

[storyteller]

well i appreciate your point of view, personally i think many elements need damage dealing permanents. ill make a few.

[OldTrees]

well i appreciate your point of view, personally i think many elements need damage dealing permanents. ill make a few.

I agree that more damage dealing permanents are wise. Just not any more that heal and harm in the same card as their primary function.

[storyteller]

id also like to point out this does alternate.