Void Pillar | Void Tower

[kitty45]

Can you put a poll of saying how is the card OP and suggestions like 6 or less in a deck or I don't know just asking.

Do you think it is OP?
If so do you have a reason?

Yes I do. I think because it kills mono deck since for example you use this deck http://helltgivre.free.fr/elements/?mark=4sn&deck=z95bsz35bsz65buz65c0z65c7 If you have a hand of void towers or pillars the deck will not be able to send creatures except for pillars If the hand is all creatures or pillars are all in the back the deck has 50% to lose so I think only 6 in a deck will not make it OP

[OldTrees]

Can you put a poll of saying how is the card OP and suggestions like 6 or less in a deck or I don't know just asking.

Do you think it is OP?
If so do you have a reason?

Yes I do. I think because it kills mono deck since for example you use this deck http://helltgivre.free.fr/elements/?mark=4sn&deck=z95bsz35bsz65buz65c0z65c7 If you have a hand of void towers or pillars the deck will not be able to send creatures except for pillars If the hand is all creatures or pillars are all in the back the deck has 50% to lose so I think only 6 in a deck will not make it OP

Each void pillar negates either a mark or a pillar of the same element as the mark.
If Player A has 3 Life pillars and Player B has 3 void pillars then both players will only produce 1 quanta per turn. All a mono deck has to do is play an equal number of pillars. But that is the same between mono decks right?

[Dogg]

+ to counter void pillars, you would just have to switch the mark in that deck to... anything except life and your opponent would end up with a deck full of dead cards.

[doublecross]

Would you make a void nymph?

I would love to see that.

I have an idea for its ability:
corrupt (cost 2 void)
target creature must now absorb 1 quanta of its element per turn or it dies
creatures of type "other" absorb random quanta


also, I would love to see a modified quantum tower that has void quanta as one of 13 options.

[Baily18]

^ *cough* http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,21512.msg294664#msg294664 *cough*

[doublecross]

Oh wow. I had come up with my idea today during Economics...

Alternatively, the upgraded version could grant a devourer-esque ability for the creature's element, while the un-upgraded adds the upkeep.


I think that a same-element upkeep works better than a random one, personally.

[Seiya]

I do have a question after thinking it over.  Previously, you have defined void to be the antithesis of matter.  Why doesn't it destroy all types of quanta as opposed to the quanta of the opponent's mark?

[Rutarete]

I do have a question after thinking it over.  Previously, you have defined void to be the antithesis of matter.  Why doesn't it destroy all types of quanta as opposed to the quanta of the opponent's mark?

Would we call that an Antinova?

[Seiya]

While that would be a nice card idea, that's not really what I meant.  I didn't mean one of each quanta; I meant one random quantum.

[Nepycros]

While that would be a nice card idea, that's not really what I meant.  I didn't mean one of each quanta; I meant one random quantum.

Un problemo. You're basing your idea off the idea that the Void destroys all. BS's presentation seems to show that he is manipulating the properties of the Void to target the opponent's most-needed resource (Mark, in this case). If you can create something like "Chaos Void" then kudos, but for now, Mark destruction it is. After all, "Void" quanta gives the opponent quanta of his Mark, so naturally this thing would destroy it.

[Seiya]

His original conceptualization of Void was that it was the antithesis of matter.  It wouldn't really be an entropic, chaos void if it destroyed quanta randomly.  At least, I don't think so.  However, I see your point as fair.  My question to that is, why did Bloodshadow choose to target mark quanta of one element vs. quanta in general?  I guess it's more potent that way.

[doublecross]

Yeah, I think this way works the best.