Shard | Shard of Power

[BluePriest]

Yes, it is great for mono decks, and it even has some use for rainbow decks, however, I dont see it as OP. People keep complaining about how mono decks need to be stronger, however, every time theres a suggestion for it, then it seems shot down because it would make them OP. Would this card really give a mono deck a better chance against an FG? Or would it just make it a more viable suggestion for rush decks and decks that rely on having heavy amounts of quanta?
I dont see this card as being any more OP to pillars that novas and supernovas. My favorite rush deck is pillarless and relies on supernovas and immolations. With that, I can STILL use creatures from ANY ELEMENT therefor I can also cast any spell.

If you wanted a deck that relied on this card, and didnt have any pillars, then you would be limited to your mark, and getting luck on the draws since you can only have 6. Which youd also have a discard the very first turn if you went 2nd since there would be no way to play this card without a tower immolation or nova on your first turn.

Also, you wouldnt be able to run a golem rush deck with this card by replacing the pillars with this. You would JUST get earth quanta, nothing else.

Overall, I just dont see it as being OP. I see it as a nice boost in certain situations, however, overall, situational. If you really could make an effective deck with this card, without using pillars, then it would be different, however, I have a feeling most games you would either
A)get quanta at about the same rate as a regular game, or
B)end up being dramatically short on quanta and be waiting to draw this card.

[Kael Hate]

Yes, it is great for mono decks, and it even has some use for rainbow decks, however, I dont see it as OP. People keep complaining about how mono decks need to be stronger, however, every time theres a suggestion for it, then it seems shot down because it would make them OP. Would this card really give a mono deck a better chance against an FG? Or would it just make it a more viable suggestion for rush decks and decks that rely on having heavy amounts of quanta?
I dont see this card as being any more OP to pillars that novas and supernovas. My favorite rush deck is pillarless and relies on supernovas and immolations. With that, I can STILL use creatures from ANY ELEMENT therefor I can also cast any spell.

If you wanted a deck that relied on this card, and didnt have any pillars, then you would be limited to your mark, and getting luck on the draws since you can only have 6. Which youd also have a discard the very first turn if you went 2nd since there would be no way to play this card without a tower immolation or nova on your first turn.

Also, you wouldnt be able to run a golem rush deck with this card by replacing the pillars with this. You would JUST get earth quanta, nothing else.

Overall, I just dont see it as being OP. I see it as a nice boost in certain situations, however, overall, situational. If you really could make an effective deck with this card, without using pillars, then it would be different, however, I have a feeling most games you would either
A)get quanta at about the same rate as a regular game, or
B)end up being dramatically short on quanta and be waiting to draw this card.

Thanks BluePriest. Echos what I'want to say.

[Scaredgirl]

Yes, it is great for mono decks, and it even has some use for rainbow decks, however, I dont see it as OP. People keep complaining about how mono decks need to be stronger, however, every time theres a suggestion for it, then it seems shot down because it would make them OP. Would this card really give a mono deck a better chance against an FG? Or would it just make it a more viable suggestion for rush decks and decks that rely on having heavy amounts of quanta?

So you are saying we need overpowered cards to balance the game? Rare, overpowered cards, only accessible to a small percentage of players?

When we look at what card is OP and what is not, we should compare it to other cards, nothing else. And when you compare this card to Tower, it's clearly more powerful, therefore OP.

If you have access to this card, there's no reason to take a Tower instead.

If you wanted a deck that relied on this card, and didnt have any pillars, then you would be limited to your mark, and getting luck on the draws since you can only have 6. Which youd also have a discard the very first turn if you went 2nd since there would be no way to play this card without a tower immolation or nova on your first turn.

That's not how you use this card. You don't just replace Towers with this one. You use them both.

Like this:

Mark of Fire
12 x Burning Tower
6 x Shard of Power
6 x Fire Bold
2 x Explosion
2 x Fahrenheit
2 x Fire Buckler

That deck has the potential of producing 16 quanta on the first turn. On average, producing 10+ quanta during the first few turns is probably very common. Combine that kind of quanta production with Fire Bolt and Fahrenheit, and countering the deck is going to be really difficult.

And it's not only for a Fire Bolt deck. Basically any deck that relies on quanta production would be a huge boost.

Quantum Tower produces extra quanta because it's random, and you don't always get what you want. Shard of Power gives the same amount, but it also gives you exactly what you want (your mark). That doesn't sound weird?

The reason why Nova/Supernova is great, is that it's nicely balanced compared to other quanta producing cards.

1. Both unupped and upped versions have their pros and cons, and neither of them is "better".
2. Nova/Supernova is not always "better" than a Tower because Towers could be better in the long run

So here are out options:

Nova = take 12 quanta for free now
Supernova = take 24 quanta later by paying 2
Tower = start slow but generate a lot of quanta overall

I personally don't want to see:

Shard of Power aka "Super Tower" = start relatively slow but generate 3 times as much quanta as a Tower

[BluePriest]

2 RoLs, 2 Cremations, 3 Supernovas.

That gives you 24  , 2 and 8 of everything else. And that can be done the first turn (ive done it several times).
Thats enough to run an entire deck, and it was all done on the very first turn. You dont need a single other quantum card the rest of the game.

2 cremations give a total of 40 quanta.  3 supernovas give 66. That is a grand total of 106 quanta all on the first turn.

Compared to this, where lets say you dont draw any more quanta cards, it would take about 7 turns to get the 106 quanta I got my first turn, IF I dont deflag them, in which case, you wont ever get the quanta you need for the deck before you are destroyed.

[Scaredgirl]

2 RoLs, 2 Cremations, 3 Supernovas.

That gives you 24  , 2 and 8 of everything else. And that can be done the first turn (ive done it several times).
Thats enough to run an entire deck, and it was all done on the very first turn. You dont need a single other quantum card the rest of the game.

2 cremations give a total of 40 quanta.  3 supernovas give 66. That is a grand total of 106 quanta all on the first turn.

Compared to this, where lets say you dont draw any more quanta cards, it would take about 7 turns to get the 106 quanta I got my first turn, IF I dont deflag them, in which case, you wont ever get the quanta you need for the deck before you are destroyed.

We are talking about two totally different decks here.

You would have:

• empty hand
• zero quanta production
• strategy not based on collecting tons of quanta, but based on creatures (which you don't have)

I would have:

• empty hand (doesn't matter because I'm stalling)
• +16 quanta production per turn
• strategy based on stalling and collecting quanta

My situation would be much better than yours. Your only chance would be to have some amazing luck of a draw and pray that my luck is horrible.

I don't hate Shard of Power. I actually like the idea that it uses your mark to determine what it produces. But what I don't like is how it replaces Tower instead of simply providing an alternative way of collecting quanta (like Nova does).

Simple fix would be for this card to produce 2 quanta. It even makes sense when you think about it:

mono -> 1 quanta
shard of power -> 2 quanta
quantum tower -> 3 quanta

However it could still be overpowered, and could maybe require upping the cost to 2.

[kev]

I can't believe the discussion continued after SG's table.  This is the same card as a tower only way more powerful.  And immune to earthquakes.

[BluePriest]

2 RoLs, 2 Cremations, 3 Supernovas.

That gives you 24  , 2 and 8 of everything else. And that can be done the first turn (ive done it several times).
Thats enough to run an entire deck, and it was all done on the very first turn. You dont need a single other quantum card the rest of the game.

2 cremations give a total of 40 quanta.  3 supernovas give 66. That is a grand total of 106 quanta all on the first turn.

Compared to this, where lets say you dont draw any more quanta cards, it would take about 7 turns to get the 106 quanta I got my first turn, IF I dont deflag them, in which case, you wont ever get the quanta you need for the deck before you are destroyed.

We are talking about two totally different decks here.

You would have:

• empty hand
• zero quanta production
• strategy not based on collecting tons of quanta, but based on creatures (which you don't have)

I would have:

• empty hand (doesn't matter because I'm stalling)
• +16 quanta production per turn
• strategy based on stalling and collecting quanta

My situation would be much better than yours. Your only chance would be to have some amazing luck of a draw and pray that my luck is horrible.

The decks are different yes, but im not talking about using the same kind of deck. Im talking about the potential of cards. This cards potential is in your deck, and supernovas potential is in pillarless decks. They do different things, but are still extremely good at what they do.

Here is my point on why its not OP
Supernovas allow you to be able to play spells and creatures from ANY element. So adding in 2 supernovas, expands the possibility of any deck greatly. This card... well, not so much.

We can talk about the best case scenario all the time, but thats not what really matters. What really matters is what you will usually get.

 I do like the idea of it being reduced to 2 since it does seem to fit in better with the style of cards, however, the cost should stay as it it. An alternative to reducing the amount it gives though, would be to raise the amount it costs, that way it cant be spammed early.

I really dont see this card as replacing pillars in any way... it may do the job better, but it isnt as reliable. Supernovas replaced pillars about as much as this card would.

[Kael Hate]

There is no deck that adding this too that will make it fast enough to beat a rush deck that it couldn't already beat. So the card is not overpoweredly fast.

Anything else that it can do midgame is mitigated by the fact its limited to 6 in your deck at most.

It has an offset in that it only matches your mark. You cannot use it for the Main quanta and your mark as side quanta.

Any archetype that wins the game by stockpiling mass amounts of quanta for a final finishing move can be negated by Emerald Shield or Reflective shield or Rush in the pvp game.

In the current environment of decks it only helps the decks that are lagging in the AI3 grind.

The table means little.
It does not weigh a limit of 6 vs the ability to run as many towers as you want.
It does not evaluate opening plays vs 2nd/3rd turn plays

[Scaredgirl]

I really dont see this card as replacing pillars in any way... it may do the job better, but it isnt as reliable. Supernovas replaced pillars about as much as this card would.

In that case I'm guessing you misread/misunderstood what this card actually does.

It's one card that is a "Pillar x 3" costing 1 random quanta to play. This means it can easily be played during the first turn, and when you do play it, you are already +2 (so it's basically free).

So it works exactly like a Pillar, with these differences:

1. It costs 1 random quanta to play (this cost is nullified when you play it)
2. It produces three times as much quanta per turn as a Pillar/Tower does

Lol, how is that not overpowered?

I can't believe the discussion continued after SG's table.  This is the same card as a tower only way more powerful.  And immune to earthquakes.

Yes, good point. The fact that it's immune to Earthquake is one more nail in the coffin.

[CB!]

I can't believe the discussion continued after SG's table.  This is the same card as a tower only way more powerful.  And immune to earthquakes.

Yes, good point. The fact that it's immune to Earthquake is one more nail in the coffin.

I'm chiming in late on this one... but I don't see the earthquake argument... sure you can't destroy it with earthquake, but you can steal it... or explode it... steal and explode are way more common in decks than earthquake...

[BluePriest]

I really dont see this card as replacing pillars in any way... it may do the job better, but it isnt as reliable. Supernovas replaced pillars about as much as this card would.

In that case I'm guessing you misread/misunderstood what this card actually does.

It's one card that is a "Pillar x 3" costing 1 random quanta to play. This means it can easily be played during the first turn, and when you do play it, you are already +2 (so it's basically free).

So it works exactly like a Pillar, with these differences:

1. It costs 1 random quanta to play (this cost is nullified when you play it)
2. It produces three times as much quanta per turn as a Pillar/Tower does

Lol, how is that not overpowered?

That's not how you use this card. You don't just replace Towers with this one. You use them both.

Like this:

Mark of Fire
12 x Burning Tower
6 x Shard of Power
6 x Fire Bold
2 x Explosion
2 x Fahrenheit
2 x Fire Buckler

So im confused, does it, or doesnt it replace towers?

You cant rely on it as the main source since you can only have 6. Those 6 could easily be destroyed or stolen.

[Scaredgirl]

I'm chiming in late on this one... but I don't see the earthquake argument... sure you can't destroy it with earthquake, but you can steal it... or explode it... steal and explode are way more common in decks than earthquake...

Nobody said it is indestructible. Of course you can steal, explode etc. it, but the point is that you can do all those against regular pillar/tower as well OR use Earthquake.

In other words, there are more ways to "counter" a regular pillar/tower than to counter Shard of Power.

So im confused, does it, or doesnt it replace towers?

You cant rely on it as the main source since you can only have 6. Those 6 could easily be destroyed or stolen.

Not sure what you mean here but I could easily make a deck with 6 x Shards of OP and 6 x Regular Towers which would produce way more more quanta than 12 x regular Towers.

Furthermore auto-Mulligan would pretty much guarantee that I can play a shard on the first turn.