More slots for permanent card

[Selvaria]

This game seriously needs more slot for permanents. "There are no permanent slots available" is really irritating.

Suggestion: Stack cards with same name.

This is what I mean:

(http://imageplay.net/view/m7Gbd164209/untitled)

p.s. This is why I hate aether.

[PlayerOa]

It is not needed. I have played for over a year and I have never had a full permanent field.

If you hate , why not shift deck?

[funerallaughter]

I don't think there's much justification in increasing permanent slot numbers by showing that picture? >.>"

[KingOfArmagio]

I've only had full permanents once. When I used my 'Spectral' FG deck and had 11 sets of pendulums (how stupid am i?), instead of Quantum pillars. I included Mindgates in that, so my permanents were full. After, I replaced pendulums with Q. Pillars.

[zzz124]

for those saying this is not a problem - try playing a complex deck based on mindgates, vs another complex deck. it's not a very serious problem, admittedly (do you *really* need all that junk to be on the table?), but stacking things seems to make sense, too.

[EvaRia]

No, it doesn't actually make sense.

If you have a stack of 4 hourglasses and activate the ability, what happens?

If you stack stuff you can only activate the ability once, it's how the game is built right now.

That's why the majority of permanents do not stack.

[KingOfArmagio]

No, it doesn't actually make sense.

If you have a stack of 4 hourglasses and activate the ability, what happens?

If you stack stuff you can only activate the ability once, it's how the game is built right now.

That's why the majority of permanents do not stack.

This means that only Perms without abilities can stack, correct? If you activate a 4-MindGate stack, then do you get 4 copies of the top card? Get the next four cards? Same for hourglasses. You draw the next four cards? You draw four copies of the top card of your deck, which may be a problem because it may stop you from getting a certain card?

[funerallaughter]

Well, that and it costs quanta to power those abilities. If the stacked permanents' abilities are used all at once, each consuming the proper amount of quanta, players lose their ability to control their quanta use. Also, specifically with Mindgate, if I draw a Miracle, for instance, from the opponent's deck, I'm probably not going to want more than one of those. Having separated permanents allow the most control for the user as of now. There is no card in EtG which allows its ability to be used for a set amount of times other than one or limited to quanta amount, such as Photosynthesis.

[zse]

No, it doesn't actually make sense.

If you have a stack of 4 hourglasses and activate the ability, what happens?

If you stack stuff you can only activate the ability once, it's how the game is built right now.

That's why the majority of permanents do not stack.

If you have 10 and you activate Rustler | Leaf Dragon, what happens?
- You'll have 9 and 2 ; 8 and 4 ; 7 and 6 ...

If you have a stack of 10 Bonewalls and you're attacked 5 times, what happens?
- You'll have 5 Bonewalls.

The code for doing those things are already made, and I believe those could be implemented also to stacked Hourglasses, Mindgates, Graveyards and whatnot. The real question is: do we, the community, or zanz want to have it changed?
(http://imageplay.net/img/m7Gbd166910/Skeletor_Akebono.bmp)
4 different qantum sources
6 SoG
4 Hourglass
2 Graveyard (1 was thrown away early due to not having enough quanta to play it.)

[killybob]

it's really an easy problem to avoid. all that's necessary is to prioritize what the most important perms are. for instance if you have 4 hourglasses up and you can see that's all you'll need, then don't play any more to save space. it's simple. besides not all decks are permanent heavy and if you're having trouble all you have to do is, as i've said, prioritize.

[cometbah]

I do run into the full-permanence situation when going against top-50s with a Mindgate deck. However, I find that the limited space actually adds to game-play.

The inability to place that one extra shard may cost you an otherwise tied or even winnable game (tied games being another issue, discussed here: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24070.msg328984#msg328984 (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24070.msg328984#msg328984)). Mindgate players should really take the possibility into account when placing down permanents instead of spamming whatever happens to come into your hand. It's a 'Mindgate', not a Mindlessgate.

There is so much potential to limiting permanent slots - perhaps a card in the future (most likely Darkness? Along the line of Nightmare) would even allow a player to 'gift' permanents, like a reverse-steal. Or maybe something a lot better. Either way, it would surely beat the mindless spamming of permanents by a long shot in terms of fun-value.

[Sevs]

There is so much potential to limiting permanent slots - perhaps a card in the future (most likely Darkness? Along the line of Nightmare) would even allow a player to 'gift' permanents, like a reverse-steal. Or maybe something a lot better. Either way, it would surely beat the mindless spamming of permanents by a long shot in terms of fun-value.

funny you say that, I thought of this like 30 min before you said that http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,24064.0.html