Polar Swap | Polar Exchange

[Rooftrellen]

I don't think a cost increase would be that important.  It will almost always be trading something you want for something you may or may not want, anyway, since you won't pack dead permanents just to try to trade, and you never know when it will be the one that is traded away, leaving it to your opponent to decide if its worth trading, or just locking things into place if they lack gravity.

[Drobbit]

I disagree. I would make a deck based on this card and with plenty of pillars that I will give to my opponent in exchange of useful perms or to denying his use of them.

[March_Wizard]

Yeah, Trading Pillars for Dimensional shields = Very Very Yes.

I don't think the upgraded one should be permanent. It could become a a highly effective Quanta controller, perhaps too effective. I think it should take the Reverse time approach and just lower the cost on the second card.

[Cynxos]

If I target this on a cluster of pillars, do the entire cluster gets swapped or just one pillar?

[Drobbit]

IMO it's much better if the upped one could not include pillars in the change.

[QuantumT]

IMO it's much better if the upped one could not include pillars in the change.

Agreed. Otherwise, basically all of my pillars become steals if I want them to be.

[Rooftrellen]

It would depend on how pillar stacks are treated.

If they are treated as a pile of individual permanents, its likely to get something for basically nothing if you load up on pillars, and the opponent has a normal number of pillars and other permanents, but how well this would work would be questionable.

If the stacks counted as one permanent which would give one of the stack, it would seem fair to me.  If you loaded up on 2 kinds of pillars and 1 of these, with nothing else, every swap there is a 1 in 3 chance you lose the polar exchange and can't use it anymore.

The second situation sounds more right anyway.  It is how pests drain quanta, and gifting 1 piece of bone shield could demolish some decks alone, much more easily than taking tons of pillars, I dare say.  If it treats each stack as one chance of picking, not each card in every stack, as the game seems to do, I can't imagine much of a problem.

[Kamietsu]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I tend to lean towards the "pillar stack is treated as a single entity to trade with" than each individual pillar counting. I'll read through the feedback again and adjust the card.

[miniwally]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I tend to lean towards the "pillar stack is treated as a single entity to trade with" than each individual pillar counting. I'll read through the feedback again and adjust the card.

Wouldn't that go against normal text e.g. deflagration says one permanent but only destroys one pillar so you would need tor reword it I think, I preferred the idea of one pillar = one permanent.

[March_Wizard]

I think it should only affect 1 pillar at a time, just like all other steal/destroy cards. I think its fine that every pillar is a potential steal card, its just that a permanent that can steal is a bit too much. Even if you use your pillars to steal cards, you are depriving your self of 1 extra Quanta per turn to take another card, which is I think enough of a drawback. The cost isn't just 3, its 3+ all quanta from that pillar for the entirety of the game, which is only worth it if there is a really must have Permanent on the other side.

However, and sorry for sounding like a broken record, but a Permanent with this ability is what is putting it over the line. The Upped should either be cheaper or have some extra benefit, like the cards swapped are upgraded/downgraded  or something.

[Kamietsu]

What if, instead of being a permanent that lasts until destroyed by something, what if it only has three charges on it? And every time you swap permanents, it loses a charge. Once all charges are gone it's destroyed.

[Rooftrellen]

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I tend to lean towards the "pillar stack is treated as a single entity to trade with" than each individual pillar counting. I'll read through the feedback again and adjust the card.

Wouldn't that go against normal text e.g. deflagration says one permanent but only destroys one pillar so you would need tor reword it I think, I preferred the idea of one pillar = one permanent.

No, it wouldn't.  It would work like a pest, which has text that sounds about the same, but if you have 500 life quanta and 1 death quantum, there is a 50/50 chance of either kind being taken.