Planar Vortex | Planar Shift

[Kuross]

Poll added.

I knew ahead of time that making this card would have some issues to get past, but I really want to see something like this get moved on. I love cards that really mis up the field and I hope this, or someone else's idea similar, gets passed on up 

[AnonymousRevival]

I think it should have the effect of absorbing remaining aether quanta.

[QuantumT]

I like rooftrellan's idea of making the new character positions random.

I also agree with Anonymous that it should drain all remaining aether quanta.

[Kuross]

I can get behind the notion of draining all quanta. I was originally going to do that, but didn't (not sure why  )

Maybe if the first were to randomly swap creature positions, while the upped were to randomly move creatures?  The first would then make for a 100% fair exchange, and the second would, in theory, cause a 50/50 spread on the creatures in play, so not allow anything quite as extreme as a flat out exchange.

As for swapping random  unupped versus moving upped, I am not exactly sure what you mean Roof. The unupped version random switches the position of all creatures in play with a small chance of changing creatures with the opponent. The upped just flat out changes creature. I am probably being dense, and as it stands at the time of this post, I haven't had my coffee, it probably is me, but could you explain a bit more? Anything that works to make this card happen, I'm all for

[Rooftrellen]

Not a problem.

The unupped version would randomly shuffle the creatures already on the field.  There would be the same number of creatures for both players, they would be in the same places on the board, and they would end up with the creatures just all mixed up.  You could get creatures from your opponent, and they could get creatures from you, but there would be no chance of creatures going to currently empty spaces.

As an example.  We each have one creature and flooding in play.  You can play this card, and the creatures will be randomly moved to a place occupied by a creature.  In this case, they would either swap sides, or not.  Neither creature could land in a flooded area, because neither started there.  The creatures could only appear in a spot already taken by another creature.

As an extension of this, no player may gain or lose creatures, as was something you said you thought about.

The upped version would basically collect all the creature cards and deal them onto the field totally at random, with disregard for who had more creatures, where those creatures were, or what is the proper location for them.  Normally, each person will get half of the total creatures, but one side could benefit over the other (though this would be more likely to happen with fewer creatures.

As an example.  We each have one creature and flooding in play.  You play this card.  The creatures will go to ANY random spot that a creature can take.  I may get both, you may get both, one or both may end up in the flooded area.  It would move them 100% at random.

The first would ask you to play creatures first.  Sparks would actually be great to lay down in combination with the unupped version of this, though, which is nice to see, even if the spark doesn't cost any aether quanta.  The upped works best if you have no or few creatures, just as your idea, but it doesn't destroy all the work your opponent has put in.  It just evens the board, at least on average, which seems a bit more fair than one person playing nothing and stalling with dimensional shields while their opponent builds up, then taking all their creatures, giving nothing in return.

The unupped would have good synergy with sparks.  The upped could be quite powerful with TU to normally give an instant creature advantage.

With this, I am unsure of if it would be good enough to drain all quanta or not, but either way could work, since it would obviously be powerful.

[Kuross]

Okay, I think I gotcha now.

I'm not too sure how the scripting works for the game engine, but I can't imagine it's all the difficult to simply use the 23 creature card slots in a randomizing way. The reason I'd say it would be easier is because it would be taxing to write the code that would have to look at each creature slot and see if there's a counterpart on the opposite side to switch with. With simply letting the code plug the creatures into the creatures slots somewhat randomly it would minimize complexity. I find simple is better in games.   So with that, how about this...

Basic version

Planar Vortex
Cost: 7

Ability: Randomly move all creatures in play. (15% chance to switch creatures with an opponent, assuming the opponent has creatures. The idea is you can reshuffle how the creatures are laid out in play, with a chance to trade with an opponent.)

Upgraded version

Planar Shift
Cost: 8 , drains remaining aether.

Ability: Redistribute all creatures in play. (Essentailly collects all creatures in play and starting with the player that played Planar Shift, randomly deals out one creature per player until all creatures have been dealt out. The dealing of creatures would be dealt out as if initially played, so starting in the first creature slot and so on until all creatures are dealt as if played in sequential order from your hand.)

[AnonymousRevival]

So, this card is both part and part , this can be the very first duo-element card!

[Rooftrellen]

15% seems like a low chance of trading, but you could make the percentage as you want, of course.  I think it would be most simple just to redistribute randomly into spaces already occupied, but neither would be OP, certainly.

The second, if I understand, would remove some of the chance from it (which I thought held a bit of charm), since both players will always get exactly half, plus one for someone if there is an odd number, but, randomly giving one person more or less, or just half and half, either way, its going to be balanced, I do believe.

As for the  part of the card, I see nothing...it looks pure  to me...

[Kuross]

@anonymous- sadly duo elements will never happen. Some of my first expirences on the forums was looking into getting dup elements in game. I was kindly informed such a thing will likely never happen

@Rooftrellen- I really do believe the change will be easier to code in game and thus more likely to take off. I'd love to get the feedback of a developer on that though. I'd be more than wiling to shift the easier of the two. but I did like what you were suggesting, Roof, and I hope the change encompasses that to some degree.