Shadow | Greater Shadow

[RagingAlien]

Crusader + this = uh oh...

light quanta to play, light quanta for the ability = two turns of +5.

2x6=12 turns of +5, if well used.

[OldTrees]

Crusader + this = uh oh...

light quanta to play, light quanta for the ability = two turns of +5.

2x6=12 turns of +5, if well used.

This costs 4 |3 to play and has 0 base attack and can be kept at a constant 5|3.

[RagingAlien]

well, true. was just saying a possible strategy. Would this be ready for crucible now? (also, fixed the IDEA table, i had messed it up the first time.)

[OldTrees]

well, true. was just saying a possible strategy. Would this be ready for crucible now? (also, fixed the IDEA table, i had messed it up the first time.)

Sorry. I thought you were someone commenting on it being unbalanced. (I need to start checking that author mark.)
It looks ready as soon as the competition is over.

[RagingAlien]

You need to sleep more, OldTrees.

Anyway, thanks for the Quanta Balance!

[OldTrees]

My dislike of this passive comes from the fact that when properly used the passive becomes invisible/unnoticed/undifferentiated from a static characteristic like having +5 base attack.

[Manipul8r]

I like the idea, the execution is what made this not a top pick for me.  If it were cumulative +1|+0 and balanced around that with a lower cost, I'd be more inclined to like it, since I like the idea of splashing an element (mono-Light with Shadows splashed in on Darkness mark).  It would also be more interesting if it triggered when your opponent played a spell (possible if the buff is cumulative / until the end of your turn).  It's just a bit too limited right now, and needs to have more than one use in my opinion.  As it is now, it seems only effective with Angels on account of its 0 base ATK.

I also agree with OT's logic, which is the same reason I don't like the idea of 'critical strike' on cards most of the time.

[Rutarete]

My dislike of this passive comes from the fact that when properly used the passive becomes invisible/unnoticed/undifferentiated from a static characteristic like having +5 base attack.

Does this also apply to Emerging Beast?

[OldTrees]

My dislike of this passive comes from the fact that when properly used the passive becomes invisible/unnoticed/undifferentiated from a static characteristic like having +5 base attack.

Does this also apply to Emerging Beast?

Not completely. Emerging beast is a slowly increasing static bonus. When played properly it acts as an effect multiplier on your quanta spending. Shadow is, hopefully, always active at a constant +5 value.

[RagingAlien]

hmm... how about a permanent +1|+0 per 3 quanta used? on the upped, opponnent's quanta use will also be counted, and then maybe the cost would stay the same.

What do you think?

[OldTrees]

hmm... how about a permanent +1|+0 per 3 quanta used? on the upped, opponnent's quanta use will also be counted, and then maybe the cost would stay the same.

What do you think?

At some point an ability should be active not passive

[Manipul8r]

I was thinking something like: "Whenever an <opposite element> card is cast, <card name> gains +1|+0."

To solve the issue of it having only one use it should probably start off with a decent ATK and have a less than stellar growth rate (since the ability functions like a very conditional free growth).  It would be pretty nice with and/or against Fractal+Photon (assuming it didn't check quanta use), but still not very good without a solid number of opposite element cards.  I don't know if this idea in general can be balanced, since it's likely OP in specific situations but not worth being in a deck otherwise.