Monotize some cards

[plastiqe]

Unupped Shards Casting Cost:
5 Divinity
5 Gratitude
5 Readiness
7 Sacrifice
3 Void
3 Patience
3 Serendipity
5 Freedom
3 Wisom
5 Bravery
7 Focus
5 Integrity

[whatifidogetcaught?]

So, Deflag would essentially cost 2?

I cannot say I am for this, but I cannot say I am against it. It's interesting, but i don't find it necessary.

[plastiqe]

So, Deflag would essentially cost 2?

I cannot say I am for this, but I cannot say I am against it. It's interesting, but i don't find it necessary.

So you don't really have an opinion but you're afraid of change, thanks for the input.  : P

[regen2k9]

So, Deflag would essentially cost 2?

I cannot say I am for this, but I cannot say I am against it. It's interesting, but i don't find it necessary.

So you don't really have an opinion but you're afraid of change, thanks for the input.  : P

He's not necessarily afraid of change bro, he just doesn't see it as a necessary change.

Anyway, lets see what this would do.  Well, it would definitely take longer to play each card in terms of the first play of that card, but each successive play would not take longer when compared to the original card.  That means in order to take effect, SPECIFICALLY early use of the above cards would need to be OP.  Is it?  Well, it is easy to see how early EQ usage could shut down an opponent.  RT is usually more effective vs. buffed cards or high cost cards, so I think that the disadvantage of this change to RT is marginal (i.e. not much change).  For deflag, now with late plays, sancs, discord, etc. receives a buff.  Actually, discord is indirectly buffed from all of these.

There are two consequences from these changes that are most noteworthy imo.  1)  Speedbows are further nerfed.  2) Splash decks (i.e. RT off the mark) are nerfed.  Do splash decks need nerfing? imho no.  Do speedbows need further nerfing?  Actually, perhaps they do.  Yet, discord has already required multiple nerfs in the past, and I think this change takes it in the opposite direction.  A speedbow nerf means non speedbow decks become more viable, but now disco can have a stronger advantage against those decks due to the increased base cost.  Furthermore, while I could see a speedbow nerf, I don't think that splash decks need nerfing.

Thus, I personally do not think that this change needs to be implemented, but I do commend your insight in these card changes.

[plastiqe]

You're right regen, I didn't account for Discord.

Spoiler for Hidden:

I disagree that splashability is fine.  It's too easy to just run time mark and throw in some RT.  You could still have RT, but you might actually have to commit to generating some time quanta in your deck or you're waiting three more turns.

[Evan_85]

Sorry for interrupting, might us newcommers ask what exacty you mean by 'monotize'? I find the original post to be lacking information.

[Calindu]

Sorry for interrupting, might us newcommers ask what exacty you mean by 'monotize'? I find the original post to be lacking information.

Make the cards to be used mostly in monos, not splashable.
Also this nerf to Deflag is not needed lmao, furthers buffs Dim, which is already very powerful if not OP.

[OldTrees]

You attempting to use a balance technique from Mana that does not translate well to Quanta. The returned energy in the case of Mana (especially for instants) is usually lost when the card is played at the optimal timing. The returned energy in the case of quanta in never lost. So obviously it does not work as a balance technique.

If used as an attempt to reduce the range of potential decks available to players then it succeeds. I do not support intentionally shrinking the metagame without a good reason. Making even small (relatively) demonstrations of an element require a full commitment is not a good goal in my opinion.

PS: Committing your mark to another element is a hefty cost. It deserves an equal reward.

[plastiqe]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.






Playing spells off your mark is very little cost (easy to do).  Playing spells with pillars/pends is not as easy (like in a trio).  Playing cheap spells in a rainbow is way too easy (rainbows OP).  Buff monos, buff actual duos (not splash duos) and nerf rainbows.  Monotizing™ is also a small buff to denial, you have a bigger window to steal their quanta.

[Jenkar]

Personnal thought if that it's not needed, for the reasons that regen put out. Also, there is no thematics to having card give you quantum when you play it (at least not for the proposed ones). Alsox2, you say splashability is "too easy". So far, the best use i saw for splashability is in restricted environments, and by using super intuition and making a good counter in leagues (which is a situation quite similar to restricted environment, really). So so far, i haven't seen any proof that in unrestricted environments (which imo are what are the grounds for balance), splashing is more powerful than it should be.

[OldTrees]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.






Playing spells off your mark is very little cost (easy to do).  Playing spells with pillars/pends is not as easy (like in a trio).  Playing cheap spells in a rainbow is way too easy (rainbows OP).  Buff monos, buff actual duos (not splash duos) and nerf rainbows.  Monotizing™ is also a small buff to denial, you have a bigger window to steal their quanta.

Playing spells off your mark is easy to do. Therefore devoting your mark to an element is a high cost (opportunity cost).
Splash Duos do not need the nerf in my opinon.

[meowww]

I can see these cards will hurt a lot against denial, and are quite a nerf.
Even to one already using mono, he is less likely to use them in the early turns, which helps a lot to slow the other down.
With +2 to +3 cost, the other effectively get one more turn before these card hits.

And, while you playing denial against another denial, one strike first, the other almost never able to comeback.