How well did I capture the essence of 
and 
in Shades of Grey (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32881.0.html)?
Disclaimer: 1) Duos have many possible essences. 2) My theory about the essence of the elements can be inaccurate.
I have always considered Light to be focused on ignoring the opponent and enabling itself to ignore the opponent. (Miracle, Santuary, Morning Glory, High hp creatures, Hope) Healing is a means of enabling yourself to ignore the opponent's offense. Still the character of Sanctuary, Vampire and Empathetic Bond all vary based on the element.
I have associated Darkness on the other hand with interaction with the opponent. (Vampire[and variants], Drain Life, Nightmare, Pest, Steal) However this interaction is usually a 0 sum game where Darkness drains from the opponent.
Destruction of quanta is not native in Darkness or Light from preexistIing themes.
Quanta caps are new so the lack of a precedent is less troublesome.
The healing converts 2quanta destroyed to 1 hp healed. This is similar to Darkness healing.
Summary: Where is the Light? Why destruction of quanta?
What's your opinion on the Shard of Sacrifice?
While dislike aspects of the card I find it to be overall a beneficial addition to the game in the moderate to long term.
1] I greatly appreciate Zanz tying the Shards to Elements. This makes their effects easier to justify being universally available.
2] Rarity and the trainer were good moves to increase the target audience of the game without harming existing players.
3] Draining all but
with an
casting cost only restricts the card's versatility and combinations. It does not act like an additional cost.
4] The hp cost of playing Shard of Sacrifice requires the opponent to be fielding 11|9 damage per turn for it to be played. As such the hp cost acts more like effect mitigation than an additional cost.
5] Shards are usually named after virtues however I do not think Sacrifice is a good descriptor considering neither alternate cost acts like an alternate cost. A good sacrifice should return a benefit in a manner different than the sacrifice. Immolation is a good example.
6] Each Shard of Sacrifice slows the opposing win condition down by 4hp per damage per turn above 10|8. This means it is a good anti-rush card. Even rushes can make use of it. A 10|8 damage per turn rush with SoS has a fair chance of beating most faster rushes.
7] Certain cards (SoP & Sundial) have exaggerated effect against Shard of Sacrifice. However Shard of Sacrifice is more vulnerable to indirect countering than direct countering. The Shard of Sacrifice defense can be indirectly countered by circumvention if predicted.
8] Remember I said the hp cost acts like effect mitigation? This single variable can be adjusted to balance the card without altering the core idea of the card.
9] Able to be balanced does not imply balanced. It may or may not be balanced. The magnitude of its effect is highly metagame dependent and also is expected to cause some metagame shifting. The indirect counters will take longer to infiltrate the metagame. Expect small aftershocks. Once the metagame is quieter the balance/imbalance of cards becomes more apparent. I expect it to be roughly balanced after the final aftershock.
10] Here is where I expect to lose some people. I apologize. Rereading usually helps.
Metagame is a word with many meanings. The common usage in EtG and the usage above was in reference to the types and frequency of decks in a format (pvp1, pvp2, PvArena, War, Tournaments, ...). However metagame can also refer to the tier of combat that can occur between two players that are both aware of the previous tier. Recently the arena was dominated by Fire Stall. A fraction of players fighting the arena were aware of this. They decided to modify their decks so they were better against Fire Stall but more vulnerable to other decks. A fraction of the people submitting to the Arena recognized this shift and modified the decks they submitted to take advantage of the AntiFireStall decks. This back and forth was a tier 2 metagame. The tier 2 metagame of formats like War is very complex because the opponents persist and the decks change. The tactical variations between cards with the same strategic purpose can be exploited to greater advantage.
There are many options to fulfill the strategy of defending against creatures (CC, Healing, Blocking). Healing and CC work better against fewer creatures. This makes them more potent against stalls. In response some stalls added cards to evade the CC (Quint) or counter the healing (PC or CC depending on the source of healing). CC and healing force defensive decks to further dilute their offense to be able to protect that small offense. Rush/Stall hybrids are discouraged by the prevalence of CC and healing. Most blocking is either most effective against large swarms of enemies (shields) or tiny groups (Warden or Squid). Creature based Rushes tend to have enough offense to secure the precious middle between the forms of blocking. Shard of Sacrifice is one of the defensive measures that is most effective against Rushes and does not care about how the incoming damage is distributed.
I expect Shard of Sacrifice to simultaneously reward the inclusion of Healing and punish pure Rushes. I expect this to promote Rush/Stall hybrids to appear at greater frequency while still not dominating over Rushes or Stalls. A flatter frequency continuum than the current one will make tier 2 metagame combat more interesting and complex. This will also result in the aesthetic quality of Rock Paper Scissors model for the metagame including many more options. (Google RPS 25) Another useful side effect is that as the tier 2 metagame becomes more transparent higher tier metagames will get more players.
