Rule suggestion: playing one pillar/tower per turn

[guy_fawkes]

So,
the other day I was thinking about a game I had in PVP2.

Me and my opponent had an almost identical deck (permanent and creature control, hourglasses, destroyers and fractals) the only difference he opened his hand with 4 quantum towers while I had only one in my starting hand.

I drew other towers in the next draws but the quantum advantage he got in the beginning was too much too handle...

My thought was that if you have the luck to have a bunch of tower in your first hand or top part of your deck, the advantage you get is enormous.

It's clear,if you get the quanta producing stuff in the beginning, then you get the stuff to play, then you play it because you have the quanta in your pool.

It doesn't work the other way around, even if you have the same cards/pillar ratio and if you get one pillar in your starting hand, then 3 pillars draws your'e pretty much screwed anyway...

If only one tower/pillar could be played per turn, the luck factor on the first hand could be handled better

i am sure this suggestion was already made, because the facts here are pretty obvious, what do you think?

note: my suggestion is completely peaceful, i don't want to fight against "elements the game fundamentalists" just explain me your thoughts and pro/cons about this idea...

i really like the game as it is anyway

[Kael Hate]

This example is exactly why MtG and most other successful ccgs have the one land (resource) per turn rule.

[icecoldbro]

this would games eternal and pillarless decks would become more popular and all stals(monoaether included) would be destroyed beacuse a rush would destroy them before they get enough quantum for even the first shield im exxagerating but it would slow down the game enourmously making tounraments eternal

[PuppyChow]

At the same time, it would make nova, supernova, cremation, quicksand, and quanta generation creatures very OP. Maybe even explosion too. I say nay. Also, I like this game being different from MtG. Being able to play more than 1/turn alters playstyles and deckbuilding, essentially changing the core of the game.

It would still be a good game, just a lot different. It's a VERY radical change (and a change that would require balancing a lot of other cards) to just solve a problem that only really shows itself in a rare mirror match though getting more towers on the draw does provide an advantage in non mirror matches too. That's why I usually like to play with 13-14 towers in 30 card decks.

Oh, and since you were playing a FG deck in pvp, I have no sympathy for you  .

[Hodari]

This would also force players to use somewhat larger decks since it would slow the game down considerably by making it take several turns to get anything in play and therefore a 30 card deck would probably deck out before doing enough damage.  On the other hand, playing a larger deck would only increase the chances of getting a bad opening hand and cause exactly the problem it is intended to prevent.

[Kuross]

I would also believe the "one quanta limit per turn" would not fit with Elements too well. Much like any other CCG, this game is about having skill in deck building. If your deck draws too many or too little quanta, then some deck tweaking may be needed. However, my experience in this game thus far is that the spectrum for good/bad draws can be wide, so one looks for consistancy with quanta to fit the theme, or quanta curve, of the deck.

[JotS3]

I think this is the worst idea in the history of ideas. Infact we are all worse for having read it.

  j/k, but I don't like the suggestion at all.

One of the reasons this game is fun is because games can be played relatively quickly. This is true because all the pillars/towers can be played first turn. With only one per turn, people would not be able to generate enough quanta to play stuff unless all the costs were reduced. Also a 1 per turn rule would make this too much like M:tG.

I agree with the person who suggested that quanta issues are best resolved by tweaking number of towers/pillars in deck.

If that is not the issue, i.e. you have a tried and true deck and you just had a bad draw... then deal with it. It isn't unfair if you lost a game due to a bad draw. We all get bad draws. You undoubtedly benefit from other people's bad draws. There is absolutly no reason to change the entire way the game is played because you had a bad draw.

And if it wasn't a bad draw, then you don't have enough towers/pillars in your deck. Either way, no reason to change the rule, IMO. 

[mogv]

So,
the other day I was thinking about a game I had in PVP2.

Me and my opponent had an almost identical deck (permanent and creature control, hourglasses, destroyers and fractals) the only difference he opened his hand with 4 quantum towers while I had only one in my starting hand.

I drew other towers in the next draws but the quantum advantage he got in the beginning was too much too handle...

My thought was that if you have the luck to have a bunch of tower in your first hand or top part of your deck, the advantage you get is enormous.

It's clear,if you get the quanta producing stuff in the beginning, then you get the stuff to play, then you play it because you have the quanta in your pool.

It doesn't work the other way around, even if you have the same cards/pillar ratio and if you get one pillar in your starting hand, then 3 pillars draws your'e pretty much screwed anyway...

If only one tower/pillar could be played per turn, the luck factor on the first hand could be handled better

i am sure this suggestion was already made, because the facts here are pretty obvious, what do you think?

note: my suggestion is completely peaceful, i don't want to fight against "elements the game fundamentalists" just explain me your thoughts and pro/cons about this idea...

i really like the game as it is anyway

So what your saying is you shouldve tied cause you had the same deck? 

[BluePriest]

i am sure this suggestion was already made, because the facts here are pretty obvious, what do you think?

Actually, I hadnt seen this before.
Heres my problem for this. The game would need to be completely changed. FG's would be dramatically weaker, and cards like hourglass/precog will become dramatically weaker. and as mentioned cards like nova/supernova/cremation would become too overly powerful.

[jippy99]

I agree with everyone else that this is a bad idea.  This makes many decks that people have spent a long time building completely useless.  It would slow down the game considerably, and that means less money earend.  The entire game would have to change because some of the AI5/FG decks would not be fair with this rule.