Pseudoquanta

[Hyroen]

Please continue the naming convention of "quanta".

I am not sure what benefit can be derived from that relaxed cost mechanic that is not already provided by the  pseudoquanta mechanic.
However I am not all seeing.

I'll still think OldTrees is omniscient even if there are humble comments. I really like the idea of combining the Underworld art with elemental marks, though what's odd is that in some of the cases the Underworld symbol does not stand out as much as some of the other elemental marks. I'd suggest that they be adjusted such that the Underworld symbol be as prominent as all of the elemental mark combinations. , , , and almost have their Underworld symbol non-existent.

Also, how would these symbols appear when they are the normal, smaller size? Would they be distinguishable from the normal elemental symbols?

Aside I would also agree that the mechanic you present seems a little like a fusion between and and element. It seems a little redundant with ideas already in existence, and I, personally would prefer a different mechanic.

Good job with the creativity though.

EDIT: Also, should you want your pseudoquanta to be added to the OP, confirm the functionality of your idea and make small symbols.

[Xenocidius]

Comparison:




The mana symbols look shinier, although the underworld symbol is hard to see.

An alternative is to have the card belong to the element, but the mana symbol would be displayed instead of the elemental symbol.

Energy (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24026.msg328275#msg328275) would be a great symbol for mana, but since Sir Valimont is gone it may be hard getting permission to use it.



For example:

[ZephyrPhantom]

Prism Quanta - Costs X of each element in order to be used.

A card that costs 4 Prism Quanta would have to use 4 quantum of each element.

Prism Quanta symbols:





Mark by Bloodshadow.

I would like this Pseudoquanta to be added to the OP.

[Hyroen]

@Zblader: Added! ^_^

Also, if you wish to have Prism Quanta's Concept Thread to be linked in the OP please post it here. Thank you. c:
Just wanted to point out that it's nice to see all these colours in the table. Nice work people!

[EmeraldTiger]

I just thought of this the idea is that cards that require a discard for cost and a set cards that do something when discarded.

[OldTrees]

I just thought of this the idea is that cards that require a discard for cost and a set cards that do something when discarded.

Good alternate cost idea. (not a Pseudoquanta)

Look up the Author of Flame (creature forge)

[Xenocidius]

I'm going to reuse my name 'general' quanta for another idea.

I feel it must have been done before, but I can't see it in the OP, so if it has I'll at least draw attention to it.

General quanta: Takes its quanta cost from a single, random quanta pool.



For example, if you have 2 of each element you couldn't play a 3 card. But if you had 3 of each element, it would drain one of your quanta pools.

Also, there are two instances of copy quanta in the OP.

[OldTrees]

General OR/AND Copy?

Pros and Cons. What benefit would each mechanic bring? Does one do most of the job of the other? Is either more useful from a design point of view?

[Xenocidius]

General vs. Copy? They have completely different functions ...

[OldTrees]

General vs. Copy? They have completely different functions ...

While they are mechanically different, it looks like they provide very similar design benefits. I want to know how the benefits they provide compare. This clarification would also help designers that shop this thread for mechanics.

[Xenocidius]

General quanta is perhaps preferable over Mirror quanta in that it can be used in Monos with another element splashed in via the mark. It also balances Other cards too powerful for rainbows in the general sense (no pun intended).

As for General vs. Copy quanta - Copy quanta can be used in a mono deck only if it is Mono Aether with Mindgates, Mono Darkness with Steals, or where the opponent's mark is known. General quanta on the other hand is built for monos.

To be honest, I'm not sure why a card would have Copy quanta unless it made thematic sense. Its usage seems very limited, whereas General quanta is very broad.

[OldTrees]

General quanta is perhaps preferable over Mirror quanta in that it can be used in Monos with another element splashed in via the mark. It also balances Other cards too powerful for rainbows in the general sense (no pun intended).

As for General vs. Copy quanta - Copy quanta can be used in a mono deck only if it is Mono Aether with Mindgates, Mono Darkness with Steals, or where the opponent's mark is known. General quanta on the other hand is built for monos.

To be honest, I'm not sure why a card would have Copy quanta unless it made thematic sense. Its usage seems very limited, whereas General quanta is very broad.

Opps. Thanks for catching my mistake. I meant Mirror and General. Both can be used to balance powerful other cards.
When is using Mirror in design better than General and vice versa?

General would be able to be paid more often. Mirror would be able to be paid less often.
The type of quanta Mirror uses is set and that might be useful for some themes.