Ask the Idea Guru

[OldTrees]

How long does it usualy take for a card to get from the Crucible to the relinquary? Because I can see all thes realy cool cards in there but none of them ever is added to the game.
Is there a way to speed up this proces?

Getting to the Armory is not required nor guarantees a card will be added to the game. A card being in the Armory is a message to Zanz that the card is well liked. Nothing less, nothing more.

Cards can get from the Crucible to the Armory in a month. More often, Armory quality cards take several months to navigate the polls.

[furballdn]

Was there already an idea for a light card that provided soft CC by blinding (delaying) creatures? I want to make a card based on delaying a creature based on how much light emitting creatures you have. What should the blind counter be (as in light emitters or light emitters+1?) and what should the cost be? (I want to keep it between 0-2), and should it be in , or like holy light, be rainbow later on?

[Rutarete]

I believe Flame Child by Timerclock did that. Can't get the link right now

[OldTrees]

Was there already an idea for a light card that provided soft CC by blinding (delaying) creatures? I want to make a card based on delaying a creature based on how much light emitting creatures you have. What should the blind counter be (as in light emitters or light emitters+1?) and what should the cost be? (I want to keep it between 0-2), and should it be in , or like holy light, be rainbow later on?

The first blinding effect I could find (after Flame Child below) was Blind | Blind. It prevented a creature from attacking or targeting other creatures for 1 turn.

There was also Light [blindness] card that prevented a target creature from attacking for 3 turns. (Similar to Freeze)

There are also cards (like Flame Child) that interpret blindness as a miss chance rather than as delay.

Flame Child blinded all creatures for 2 turns

[Drake_XIV]

Can I get your thoughts on:

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37865.html

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37870.0.html

[OldTrees]

Can I get your thoughts on:
Twilit Tyrant
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37865.html
Twilit Queen
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,37870.0.html

Twilit Tyrant
8|5 stats are worth 7 |5.5   + 1 card
Unupped: Reduce quanta produced per stack by 1. This is a 2 sided effect. Usually it will reduce quanta produced by 1-2 per side. Probably worth +0-2 cost
Upped: Quanta production per stack you control increases by 1. This is a 1 sided effect. Usually it will increase production by 3-4. Probably worth +2-4 cost.
7+1+/-1|5.5+3+/-1 -> 8 |8.5 +/-1

The unupped ability would make more sense in a deck of cheap cards. It would be better if the stats & cost were lower.
The upped ability would make more sense early. It would be better if the stats & cost were lower.

Twilit Queen
Restoring creatures to their original state has been done before in Time and Light.
Ex: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22580.msg286116.html#msg286116

PS: Did you mean "Twilight"?

[Drake_XIV]

Twilit Queen
Restoring creatures to their original state has been done before in Time and Light.
Ex: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22580.msg286116.html#msg286116

PS: Did you mean "Twilight"?

No, I meant Twilit, as in having natures of twilight.

While the restoring nature of Twilit Queen | Twilit Empress has been done, and the provided card is a year old and still in the Smithy, I was thinking that the redeeming feature wasn't that it reset the stats, but how the +/-1 to both stats, respective to the ability, would affect the target creature.  Any thoughts on that aspect?

[OldTrees]

Twilit Queen
Restoring creatures to their original state has been done before in Time and Light.
Ex: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,22580.msg286116.html#msg286116

PS: Did you mean "Twilight"?

No, I meant Twilit, as in having natures of twilight.

While the restoring nature of Twilit Queen | Twilit Empress has been done, and the provided card is a year old and still in the Smithy, I was thinking that the redeeming feature wasn't that it reset the stats, but how the +/-1 to both stats, respective to the ability, would affect the target creature.  Any thoughts on that aspect?

The +1|+1 does not stack. I do not see it making much of an addition beyond the restoration. However I might be underestimating that feature.

[furballdn]

Is 2 | 1 balanced for delaying a creature for 2 plus the number of light emitting creatures on your side of the field turns?

[OldTrees]

Is 2 | 1 balanced for delaying a creature for 2 plus the number of light emitting creatures on your side of the field turns?

Freeze for 3 turns costs 1 +1card
Freeze for 4 turns costs 1 +1card +1upgrade ~=2 +1card
Delay for 6 turns costs 2 +1card +20hp

Such a card would be more powerful than Basilisk Blood IF the average number of light emitting creatures on your side of the field were 4 when the card is played.
It is easy to get 4 light emitters.

I would suggest starting with a 3 |2 cost with the expectation of it needing a nerf. Then let the community intuition determine the average number of light emitters to be expected.

[waterzx]

What is your thoughts on this ?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39347.msg489308.html#new

[OldTrees]

What is your thoughts on this ?

http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,39347.msg489308.html#new

The mechanic is: Drain X quanta and [Effect].

It is in the same category as
X quanta: [Effect]
or
Absorb X quanta. [Effect]

Is it useful in a case where the current version are not? Or is it more useful in a case the current version are used?

Something to note is that the proposed mechanic has more of a drawback than an activation cost and less of a drawback than an absorption cost. Since it has a drawback relative to the default (activation cost), it would be used as a disadvantage to a card to balance the card without raising other costs. It is less of a drawback than absorb. Thus it would be used when the desired disadvantage is less than the disadvantage imposed by Absorb. How significant is the disadvantage imposed by absorb? Flooding used to have Absorb  . This cost was discovered to be much too high. It now only has Absorb  . This implies that absorb costs are a high magnitude disadvantage.

However there are other low magnitude disadvantages that are less complex. Stat changes are a low magnitude disadvantage on skill based cards (where this disadvantage would make sense). Stock quanta (Fire Bolt, Ice Bolt, ...) is another low magnitude disadvantage.

I would suggest trying this disadvantage on permanents with abilities that are designed to be played before the regular casting cost would allow them to be played.

In most cases I do not think this mechanic would be a better design than a higher casting cost with the manual activation mechanic. However there would be exceptions.