Chromatic Aberration | Chromatic Aberration

[OldTrees]

card updated

I think I'm approaching this the wrong way. I'll probably keep this name and art but do something completely different (using iancudorinmarian's idea as a starting point) and think of another way to make synergies easier to use.

I think this idea has potential. It would be sad to discard it.

Yeah, I'll go with changing it to a card and borrow ian's idea in another card. I don't know if the duration is UP due to the possibility of using a Supernova instead.

For an interesting twist, you could add the lines "Casting cost must be paid with mark quanta."

If you can think of a good name for that, it could open up a sort of "pseudo-quanta". I.e. type other cards that use whatever quanta your mark is...
That could open up some very interesting design avenues.

I'm actually surprised this has not been done before. I think 'mark' is as good a name as any other for this pseudo-quanta (and it's easy to understand). Maybe we could use an empty mark to symbolize it?

Since Entropy has Nova to support its rainbowlike cards, why not choose Water to support its rainbowlike cards?

Mark quanta is a very clear descriptive name that has been firmly established on the forum. In general spelling mark quanta out is better but an empty mark would be a good symbol. Although the empty mark is also a good symbol for fused. (Who should I credit for the name fused? It is a good descriptor for that other pseudoquanta.)

[blarp]

I only see this being used in a few OP situations. I can't think of what those situations are, but I'm sure they exist. I also can't think of a deck that takes advantage of this.

So while an interesting idea, definitely needs some testing to really bring out the core of what this idea will do. Or you can do a really good job explaining how it could be used and not abused.

[OdinVanguard]

Mark quanta is a very clear descriptive name that has been firmly established on the forum. In general spelling mark quanta out is better but an empty mark would be a good symbol. Although the empty mark is also a good symbol for fused. (Who should I credit for the name fused? It is a good descriptor for that other pseudoquanta.)

I believe credit for coining "Fused" goes to Drake_XIV.

I only see this being used in a few OP situations. I can't think of what those situations are, but I'm sure they exist. I also can't think of a deck that takes advantage of this.

So while an interesting idea, definitely needs some testing to really bring out the core of what this idea will do. Or you can do a really good job explaining how it could be used and not abused.

With a 2 turn duration, I think it really should be pretty safe.
I think the core of what it should do is pretty straight forward. It lets you build duo decks around having one or more creatures with useful skills that would other wise take an additional element to power.

I can think of one use right away... Chaos Wardens.

It would let you pull it off with a trio using earth pendulums and supernova to pull out spiders.
Then when / if the opponent plays an airborne creature, you cast this and use the spiders to pull it down, then kill it with the wardens.

Similar could be pulled off with water-earth duo if it is moved to water instead of entropy.

Entropy-Water duo "water bow" is another idea.

Fallen Deja-Vu could be another interesting idea.

[OldTrees]

I only see this being used in a few OP situations. -snip-

So while an interesting idea, definitely needs some testing to really bring out the core of what this idea will do. Or you can do a really good job explaining how it could be used and not abused.

Why do you see it being used in a few OP situations?

Obviously playtesting should happen (it is a card suggestion afterall)

Duo creatures (ones with activation costs of a different element from the casting cost) are though to tend to have a casting cost 1 elemental quanta less than theoretical Mono creatures with the same ability. This card temporarily converts Duo creatures into Mono creatures (or usable Duo creatures). It has a casting cost to try to pay for this benefit. There is the question about whether or not the cost is correct but I think we can easily see the structure is fine.

However there is another layer deeper that we should evaluate on the theoretical level to inform our playtesting. Are there any problematic combinations between duo abilities?

Spoiler for Hidden:

Dive
  Burrow, Infection, Stone Form
  Firefly
  Evolve, Shatter
  Shard activated abilities
  Ablaze
  Lycanthrope, Mutation
  Mutants
  Growth, Divine Shield
  Poison, Inflate, Psionic Wave, Steam, Tsunami
  Nymphs
  Photosynthesis (would be errata'd to 1 activation per turn see SoR precedent), Growth
  Web
  Web
  Immortality, Devour

From this I see no problems but I would double check
Entropy version of Chromatic Aberration in a Mutation deck
Water version of Chromatic Aberration in a Nymph Tear deck
Water version of Chromatic Aberration in a Water creature/Posidon bow deck
Earth version of Chromatic Aberration in a Shard deck
Neat features discovered: Firefly Queen, Flying Pulverizer, Anubis, Pharoah/Scarabs

[OdinVanguard]

The only combos I can see from looking over the spoiler list are

devour combo... that could make for a very potent deck

Flying tsunami deck (if this is made into a water card) ... that would be a nightmare to deal with I think.

[andretimpa]

Out of the duo/abilities OldTrees mentioned I think the most troublesome would be nymph abilities and Steam machine (a mono- Steam machine deck IS pretty scary), so I think this might need rebalancing if it gets moved to . I see no problems however with using this in a mutation deck. As for supernova being in the same element I gave it some thought and I think this is a little more resilient against some forms of quanta control (BH mainly and by extension  -nymph and SoFo), while being weaker against others (if your opponent drops a discord it becomes a bad idea to play this and it turns into a dead card, occupying deck space, even if you can use your creature skills with the now scrambled quanta).

I am leaning towards keeping it in , but maybe I should put up a poll.

The nymph tears deck would still be possible, but slower (mark of entropy, water pendulums and pillars and quantum pillars), with the upside that you don't need to keep many QT to pay for nymph abilities and mitigating the high cost of nymph abilities. It also makes the deck more resistant against EQs.

Flying tsunami deck (if this is made into a water card) ... that would be a nightmare to deal with I think.

They laughed at trident, called it useless, it will have its revenge ... 

[OdinVanguard]

They laughed at trident, called it useless, it will have its revenge ... 

Lol... I've never laughed at it. Actually, I've often wondered why it isn't used more often, now that we have the warden SoPa combo.