Alloy Pillar | Alloy Tower

[OdinVanguard]

NAME: Alloy Pillar ELEMENT: Other COST: 1 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Generates 1 to 3 quanta from its alloy each turn, based on number of alloyed elements. 0: Add target element to alloy	NAME: Alloy Tower ELEMENT: Other COST: 0 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: Generates 1 to 3 quanta from its alloy each turn, based on number of alloyed elements. 0: Add target element to alloy

ART: OdinVanguard IDEA: OdinVanguard NOTES: I'm not sure if this has been done before or not… If you know of something very similar post up a link. The card starts out producing 1 random quanta. Each turn, the owner can pick one element to add to the "alloy" (internal list of elements that will be picked from to produce). The primary aim is to multi-element decks more viable by providing a little more stability for quanta production. The scaling of the number of quanta produced needs some work here and any input is appreciated… for starters I'm going with: Elements in Alloy   Quanta produced 0         1 random 1-3        1 4-7         2 8+         3 So for decks that use several types of quanta, but not all, this can become slightly more efficient than quantum pillars, but will take time to build up to it. I am also open to letting it produce 4 quanta at very high alloy levels in order to make it a good competitor for quantum pillars. This shouldn't be a problem since getting there will still take several turns. The other disadvantage here is that they will be extra susceptible to PC and earthquakes since the alloy composition would be lost if the entire stack is destroyed. SERIES:

[Rutarete]

I quite like this, and have not seen another like it so far. I'd like it if it didn't stack, as well. How will you know which elements are in the alloy? Wll there just be images all around the card?

It can function as a second mark to run things off of.

[OdinVanguard]

I was thinking the element symbols could go in a ring like formation on the card.

The main purpose is as a quanta source, so its important that decks can have more than just 6 copies

... So the only major problem with not stacking I can see is that you would quickly run out of permanent slots.

Also, it would have to probably be named something else as well... What would it be called?

[Nepycros]

I'm not sure how useful it'd be. Considering how most decks work based on how effectively you use deck space. Perhaps if this had a different effect that aided accumulation, like consuming both one pillar of yours, and one of the opponents, for a certain cost? Like, paying on quantum of the particular pillar's element to consume it from your opponent's field in addition to your own. That'd double the speed, making it more practical, and add a concept of scrap salvaging from both sides.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Another card that encourages coding 'Target element' and is a flexible multi-element splasher? I like it.

I think stacking is fair but I don't think you should be able to run more than 6 copies. While 1-cost is useful in making this strictly less efficient than a normal pillar, it's important that basic pillars always play some kind of role in how you deck build (there's a reason MTG only lets you run 4 of every nonbasic land as opposed to its 5 'unlimited' basic lands.)

I don't think the quantum generation rate needs to be sped up in any way - at 1-3, 1 quantum of any desired element is probably okay (unless you have a trio with a small splash) and by 4-5, you should have your 'domain' of elements set up, making this somewhere between a normal and quantum pillar in terms of the 1:3 ratio (which makes sense since you're not using all 12 elements.) I doubt you'll ever go beyond 6 elements on this pillar - quantum pillars are probably just better at that point for faster generation.

[Nepycros]

Another card that encourages coding 'Target element' and is a flexible multi-element splasher? I like it.

I think stacking is fair but I don't think you should be able to run more than 6 copies. While 1-cost is useful in making this strictly less efficient than a normal pillar, it's important that basic pillars always play some kind of role in how you deck build (there's a reason MTG only lets you run 4 of every nonbasic land as opposed to its 5 'unlimited' basic lands.)

I don't think the quantum generation rate needs to be sped up in any way - at 1-3, 1 quantum of any desired element is probably okay (unless you have a trio with a small splash) and by 4-5, you should have your 'domain' of elements set up, making this somewhere between a normal and quantum pillar in terms of the 1:3 ratio (which makes sense since you're not using all 12 elements.) I doubt you'll ever go beyond 6 elements on this pillar - quantum pillars are probably just better at that point for faster generation.

That's sort of why I suggest that we amp it up a little by making it also affect the opponent. If we want it to always be a bit worse than the Quantum Pillar, it's safer to just get a Quantum Pillar. For the time and number of cards INVESTED in this single, stand-alone card, we need a way for it to climb up to the point that by the time we reach a focal point of the game's usual length, it can effectively provide practical use to the player.

Also, I advocate Scrap Pillar.

[andretimpa]

Making it possible to target the opponent as well might make mindgates more useful, so I'm in favour of this.

[OdinVanguard]

Another card that encourages coding 'Target element' and is a flexible multi-element splasher? I like it.

I think stacking is fair but I don't think you should be able to run more than 6 copies. While 1-cost is useful in making this strictly less efficient than a normal pillar, it's important that basic pillars always play some kind of role in how you deck build (there's a reason MTG only lets you run 4 of every nonbasic land as opposed to its 5 'unlimited' basic lands.)
I see your point wrt. MtG (which I used to play quite frequently) ... however, MtG has a VAST cardbase and is constructed with such in mind. Also, MtG has fewer elements, and its mana production scheme is significantly different.

I don't think the quantum generation rate needs to be sped up in any way - at 1-3, 1 quantum of any desired element is probably okay (unless you have a trio with a small splash) and by 4-5, you should have your 'domain' of elements set up, making this somewhere between a normal and quantum pillar in terms of the 1:3 ratio (which makes sense since you're not using all 12 elements.) I doubt you'll ever go beyond 6 elements on this pillar - quantum pillars are probably just better at that point for faster generation.
so I should go with:
0 => 1
1-3 => 1
4-5 => 2
6+ => 3
correct?
Seems reasonable enough to me

So the question is, will this card be more valuable than regular pillars in current deck archetypes to the point that it starts replacing standard pillars?
Certainly for mono's and duo's, players are better off with pillars since they will be more quanta efficient.

For trios through pentets, these pillars will provide more stable quanta, but will take a few turns to get running.

Since double production doesnt start until the 4th quanta type is picked, it will take a minimum of 4 turns to become more efficient than standard pillars or pendulums.

Lastly, the unupped version will be hampered by the need to provide quanta just to play it. The unupped will not, but they will still produce more slowly than Towers which provide immediate quanta production.

All that given, however, it is possible that these will still be to potent compared to standard pillars and pendulums due to their flexebility... Anyone know of a good way to test / analyze this?

[OdinVanguard]

Added a couple polls to see what people think for
1) Stacking vs not-stacking
2) no card limit (pillar) vs 6 per deck limit (standard)