Ask the Idea Guru

[furballdn]

Hello again once more OldTrees! Thanks for all your help with Stolas!

Has there been cards already where they changed a player's mark to something random? Would a card like that be better as a permanent or spell? How much should it cost? If it's a spell, I'd estimate it at a cost of 2|1 .

There was an attempt once. It was discovered that changing the mark had the potential to cripple decks to easily. It would destroy 1+X/2 quanta per turn. [X=number of pendulums] Furthermore it would usually eliminate all the sources of a type of quanta. A permanent with a duration would be the most workable implementation.

So the biggest problem is ruining pends. Well what if somehow the mark changed, but the pends continued to act the way they used to? What if the mark stayed the same but gave different quanta (As in a mark of entropy giving fire quanta and life quanta)? What if the mark was just disabled (no quanta gained)? Are any of these valid ways of looking at it or is the concept something that should just be discarded?

Also, slightly more personal question, can I go submit alligator | giant alligator to the crucible and all that?

[OldTrees]

Hello again once more OldTrees! Thanks for all your help with Stolas!

Has there been cards already where they changed a player's mark to something random? Would a card like that be better as a permanent or spell? How much should it cost? If it's a spell, I'd estimate it at a cost of 2|1 .

There was an attempt once. It was discovered that changing the mark had the potential to cripple decks to easily. It would destroy 1+X/2 quanta per turn. [X=number of pendulums] Furthermore it would usually eliminate all the sources of a type of quanta. A permanent with a duration would be the most workable implementation.

So the biggest problem is ruining pends. Well what if somehow the mark changed, but the pends continued to act the way they used to? What if the mark stayed the same but gave different quanta (As in a mark of entropy giving fire quanta and life quanta)? What if the mark was just disabled (no quanta gained)? Are any of these valid ways of looking at it or is the concept something that should just be discarded?

Also, slightly more personal question, can I go submit alligator | giant alligator to the crucible and all that?

Those variation remove the problem but render it a scrambling of a single pillar/mark/pendulum. I do not see a useful implementation. However that merely means I have writer's block.

Yes. The competition is over. You can submit Alligator | Giant Alligator to the crucible.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Could you give your thoughts on Blood Pocketwatch | Soulbound Pocketwatch? I am interested in knowing the following, it if helps your critique:

1. Whether it is in the correct element.
2. If the HP amount of draining/healing is UP or OP.
3. If I should be concerned about 's mass of healing cards leading to redundancy or niche interference in an expanding meta.

[OldTrees]

Could you give your thoughts on Blood Pocketwatch | Soulbound Pocketwatch? I am interested in knowing the following, it if helps your critique:

1. Whether it is in the correct element.
2. If the HP amount of draining/healing is UP or OP.
3. If I should be concerned about 's mass of healing cards leading to redundancy or niche interference in an expanding meta.

1) Storing life has not been placed in an element yet.
2) I would use Heal before Blood Pocketwatch. The only advantage Blood Pocketwatch has is storing 5 excess healing per turn. (via Vampire or Miracle)
3) I fear redundancy with Heal. It might also be prudent to be worried that Darkness might be over saturated with healing relative to the other aspects of Darkness.

[Zaealix]

Hrm...That makes me think of a new series of cards.
Light Aegis. , costs perhaps about 5-6  quanta Spell
Gives your creatures+0|+X where X is the number of light-emitting creatures.
Wing Blast|Roc Blast.  ,
version 1: 6-10  quanta, possibly even  quanta draining. Spell
Deals Spell damage to your opponent equal to the number of airborne creatures on your side of the field, returns to your hand when played.
Version 2: 5-8  quanta, spell
Deals Spell damage equal to X, where X is the total attack power of your airborne creatures.
Shared Blood|Shared Life:  5-6  quanta, permanent
0: siphon: take 5 damage, Life well gets 5 counters.
When a creature dies, it gains counters equal to it's max HP. If you die, Lifewell is destroyed and you gain life equal to the number of counters on Lifewell.
If Lifewell runs out of counters, it is destroyed.
Your thoughts?

[OldTrees]

@Zaealix
With the exception of Wing Blast Version 2 (which is too similar to Sky Blitz), I do not have any initial thoughts and would recommend gathering data from the community.

Though you might want to compare Version 1 to an activated ability or an Eternal Spell (look in the Design Theory section)

[furballdn]

What would the metagame be like if there was no limit to how big or small your deck size could be?

[OldTrees]

What would the metagame be like if there was no limit to how big or small your deck size could be?

What is the fewest number of cards for an OTK? (Supernovas included) Some decks would be just a few cards more than that.
What is the optimal immolation or supernova hand? Some decks would be just enough cards to not deck out.
There would also be the Silence + Nightmare + CC deckout deck. (Silence early vs Immo and late vs OTK. Nightmares after Silence vs Immo and before Silence vs OTK)

[ZephyrPhantom]

If you wanted to define the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' in a card(s), how would you do so?

[Rutarete]

Do you think the game would benefit from a fourth type of card? (besides creature, permanent, and spell) I'm not sure what to suggest though, so it's a vague question. Would the sudden influx of cards of that fourth type be too much to keep the game balanced as well as keep the amount of each of the card types relatively close?

Edit: One possible type Z and I just discussed is a Field. It could be a type because it's too big for a permanent. One possible card that could be shifted is Nightfall/Eclipse. Because of relative size and effect, less might be needed for a good ratio of all the types.

[furballdn]

Oh great and wise OldTrees! I have another idea!

Has the idea of a creature taking damage for creatures next to it (left and right only) been done before? If not, what element would it be best in (I'm thinking earth or gravity)?

[OldTrees]

If you wanted to define the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil' in a card(s), how would you do so?

Good and Evil is Independent of element. Darkness and Light have equal chance of being Good.
I would probably have 1 card that switches from Evil to Good but does not change element.
I would probably go with a Malice|Benevolence theme.

Do you think the game would benefit from a fourth type of card? (besides creature, permanent, and spell) I'm not sure what to suggest though, so it's a vague question. Would the sudden influx of cards of that fourth type be too much to keep the game balanced as well as keep the amount of each of the card types relatively close?

Perhaps it would benefit the game. No it would not necessarily be too much. However we should expect similar problems as we have with shards.
A better question would be if anything is missing. If 3 categories covers everything then there is no need for a fourth. We even have enchantments in the form of Neurotoxin Silence and Shard of Sacrifice.

Oh great and wise OldTrees! I have another idea!

Has the idea of a creature taking damage for creatures next to it (left and right only) been done before? If not, what element would it be best in (I'm thinking earth or gravity)?

I do not remember one.
I think it would not be tied to a single element. It really depends on why it is taking damage.