AntiElements

[russianspy1234]

Sorry, couldnt really think of a better title for this mechanic (nega-elements?)
Basically, what I am thinking of is cards that can be payed for with any element except a specific one.  I first came up with it when I was trying to design this:

Defensive stance Permanent 3 Your creatures get -1 | + 3

Defensive stance Permanent 3 Your creatures get -1 | + 3

and thought that such a card doesn't fit well for fire to use (bad thematically and unbalanced mechanically) so I would make it so that it can't use fire quanta.

I think the mechanic might be broad enough to make multiple cards and not just have it as part of the card's ability.  Maybe an upside down / invert color  symbol in the quanta cost? Or something like this (courtesy of kami)

[Anarook]

1) I fail to see how your idea would be unbalanced mechanically for fire.
2) Promoting element hate is a terrible idea.

[russianspy1234]

1) I fail to see how your idea would be unbalanced mechanically for fire.
2) Promoting element hate is a terrible idea.

1)well, fire creatures tend to be really efficient attack wise and weak defense wise.  a card that gives them defense that puts the creatures out of easy CC range might be a bit unbalanced, at least in comparison to other elements.
2)is it really elemental hate?  i mean, its a card that cant be paid for with a certain kind of quanta, which is really just monohate, meaning you would combo your element with any other 1.  i thought the term elemental hate was used for cards that negatively affect your opponents choice of a certain element, not to mean restricting what elements you can use to pay for a specific card.

[ZephyrPhantom]

1) I fail to see how your idea would be unbalanced mechanically for fire.
2) Promoting element hate is a terrible idea.

1)well, fire creatures tend to be really efficient attack wise and weak defense wise.  a card that gives them defense that puts the creatures out of easy CC range might be a bit unbalanced, at least in comparison to other elements.
2)is it really elemental hate?  i mean, its a card that cant be paid for with a certain kind of quanta, which is really just monohate, meaning you would combo your element with any other 1.  i thought the term elemental hate was used for cards that negatively affect your opponents choice of a certain element, not to mean restricting what elements you can use to pay for a specific card.

Not really elemental hate, but rather a thematically awkward cost restriction.
My 2 cents:
1) I have yet to see a card game that restricts only one 'type' of resource like this (resources being cards, mana, gold, etc...) without allowing an alternative method to cast. (Type-specific tributes in Yugioh can be fixed with DNA Surgery or other Monster-type/element altering cards. MTG has certain cards that are overpriced with a lenient alternative or has alternative casting methods like Splice and Suspend. ETG doesn't have this.)
2) Why Fire as the opposition? Air is also an aggresive element that focuses on attack rather than HP. (Dive, Damage CC, lacks creature protection in its commons/nonrares.) Alternatively, I could say Darkness/Entropy would ignores this card due to pragmatism and disregard for 'tactics' respectively. IMHO it is too easy to argue that an anti-element card can 'ban' several elements, at least with the current example.
3) Putting an elemental card in a certain element already limits its accesibility but allows it to be accesible to all other 11 elements. If an antielement card is implemented it will only allow accesibility to 10 or less other elements. Based on the above example it seems easier to balance out such an effect for greater flexibility rather than remove such flexibility just for thematic reasons. In addition, in point 2 there are several other elements this card doesn't fit with and 1 element it fits really well with. (Earth) It seems off to make a low-costed Earth card cost :other + Antielement when said card is easily accessible in a rainbow if needed (I would estimate the current effect to be worth 1-2 based on Plate Armor).

[Drake_XIV]

I'm neutral on the idea, but thematically, how would you justify this?  You can't just say something is everything but or something.  Most elements are tied together by that respect or easily fit into a single element.

[russianspy1234]

1) I fail to see how your idea would be unbalanced mechanically for fire.
2) Promoting element hate is a terrible idea.

1)well, fire creatures tend to be really efficient attack wise and weak defense wise.  a card that gives them defense that puts the creatures out of easy CC range might be a bit unbalanced, at least in comparison to other elements.
2)is it really elemental hate?  i mean, its a card that cant be paid for with a certain kind of quanta, which is really just monohate, meaning you would combo your element with any other 1.  i thought the term elemental hate was used for cards that negatively affect your opponents choice of a certain element, not to mean restricting what elements you can use to pay for a specific card.

Not really elemental hate, but rather a thematically awkward cost restriction.
My 2 cents:
1) I have yet to see a card game that restricts only one 'type' of resource like this (resources being cards, mana, gold, etc...) without allowing an alternative method to cast. (Type-specific tributes in Yugioh can be fixed with DNA Surgery or other Monster-type/element altering cards. MTG has certain cards that are overpriced with a lenient alternative or has alternative casting methods like Splice and Suspend. ETG doesn't have this.)
2) Why Fire as the opposition? Air is also an aggresive element that focuses on attack rather than HP. (Dive, Damage CC, lacks creature protection in its commons/nonrares.) Alternatively, I could say Darkness/Entropy would ignores this card due to pragmatism and disregard for 'tactics' respectively. IMHO it is too easy to argue that an anti-element card can 'ban' several elements, at least with the current example.
3) Putting an elemental card in a certain element already limits its accesibility but allows it to be accesible to all other 11 elements. If an antielement card is implemented it will only allow accesibility to 10 or less other elements. Based on the above example it seems easier to balance out such an effect for greater flexibility rather than remove such flexibility just for thematic reasons. In addition, in point 2 there are several other elements this card doesn't fit with and 1 element it fits really well with. (Earth) It seems off to make a low-costed Earth card cost :other + Antielement when said card is easily accessible in a rainbow if needed (I would estimate the current effect to be worth 1-2 based on Plate Armor).

1) MTG has splitmana which allows 1 of 2 different colors to play it. ETG does not allow for such a thing, and i thought this might be a way to simulated that effect.
2) fire is more aggressive, and this card is more a problem mechanically for fire than air.  a card calld Tactics with antiEntropy would probably be my next creation is this idea could be refined to the point of workability.
3) yes the card itself could definitely use work, i just posted it as an example

I'm neutral on the idea, but thematically, how would you justify this?  You can't just say something is everything but or something.  Most elements are tied together by that respect or easily fit into a single element.

maybe.  i like the general idea, and if i am really hurting for thematics and this doesnt pan out, i would probably make a series of 12  Other cards with the restriction in the text, though those would probably be a lot closer to elemental hate.


maybe we could broaden the scope of this topic (or start a different one?)  basically, I was hoping to refine a way for elements to have multicolor cards in a non-database prohibitive way.  this seemed like a good way to go about it to me.

[OldTrees]

I'm neutral on the idea, but thematically, how would you justify this?  You can't just say something is everything but or something.  Most elements are tied together by that respect or easily fit into a single element.

I think this is the major issue. There are relatively few effects that fit all elements except 1. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of effects that fit all elements except a few. The issue is they all disagree on how many "a few" is.

Although more card intensive, this pattern seems to fit the current plan of every element that can do X will eventually get a card that lets them do X.


However lets talk about Shield. Shield is a generic DR shield that originally belonged in  Death, Life and  Light. Many have noted that its effect does not seem to fit Fire. How could we mechanically represent this in as simple a manner? Russianspy's suggestion would require adding 12 quanta types which is medium effort for this desired effect. Can we identify a simpler method?

[ZephyrPhantom]

1) MTG has splitmana which allows 1 of 2 different colors to play it. ETG does not allow for such a thing, and i thought this might be a way to simulated that effect.

Simulating split mana in ETG would be more easily/thematically well done with Duality Quanta/Hybrid Quanta, which just directly aligns the card to two elements instead of banning a specific element and leaving the rest open to using it. Codewise, the method seems the same, but why would I favor 'banned elements' instead of 'card aligned with several elements'? (Alara's Shards and Ravnica's Guilds focused much more on how their colors tie together instead of how they lacked 2/3 colors, IMHO.)

2) fire is more aggressive, and this card is more a problem mechanically for fire than air.  a card calld Tactics with antiEntropy would probably be my next creation is this idea could be refined to the point of workability.

I agree mechanically that fire is more aggressive, but I don't see your point thematically; while Fire may be the element that is most ready to fight, Air is the element that directly opposes Earth. In addition, Air's defense is about Evasion and dodging as opposed to Earth's 'prepare to get hit' mentality, so I would think Air favors an 'Evasive Stance' much more than a 'defensive stance'.

However lets talk about Shield. Shield is a generic DR shield that originally belonged in  Death, Life and  Light. Many have noted that its effect does not seem to fit Fire. How could we mechanically represent this in as simple a manner? Russianspy's suggestion would require adding 12 quanta types which is medium effort for this desired effect. Can we identify a simpler method?

I think if you really want to alter Other cards to avoid thematic conflict, it would be best to have -some- cards that do not fit in an element have a 'modal' alternative when you're wielding that element (sort of like the mark bonuses on some of the Other-type weapons.)

Using the shield example :
1) Fire is an aggressive element - it doesn't like to play defensive and prefers damage + CC + Quanta Acceleration.
2) DR is not fitting for Fire because Fire cards have low HP, no way to raise HP, and use other methods for defense (Usually ones that maintain tempo, threats, or pressure such as Phoenix, Seraph, and Fire Shield respectively).
3) Fire likes to deal damage in exchange for damage. (Fire Shield, Rage Potion)

Therefore, Shield could have something like :
Shield
1 :Other
Shield : Reduces 1 physical damage per attack.
Shield Bash : If you possess quanta, Shield deals 2 damage to a player the first time you are damaged instead.

Alternatively, an antiElement card could instead have drawback that triggers when you use it while having the 'wrong' type of quanta. (E.g. Defensive Stance gives the target -1/+1 when you have Air quanta.)

At the same time, however, Other-type objects can be 'generic' weapons and equipment created for use by everyone - a Fire Elemental may not benefit the best by using a Shield thematically, which is reflected in Fire deckbuilding rather than having specific cost bans on the card (Firestall usually favors the damage based Fire Shield coupled with healing), but it is still usable by it if he really wants to build a defensive style fire deck. IMHO giving specific interactions/restrictions (effect-wise > cost-wise IMHO) is possible, but it seems a bit nitpicky when one considers that such a card might not be ideal in the Elemental's playing style to begin with. (A trained Graviton Soldier will obviously value a shield much more than a Fire Beserker but both have the option to equip it because its designed for anyone. A similar parallel would be an RPG where a class specializes in a certain weapon but can wield others with a skill penalty as opposed to a complete 'class ban'.)

[russianspy1234]

1) MTG has splitmana which allows 1 of 2 different colors to play it. ETG does not allow for such a thing, and i thought this might be a way to simulated that effect.

Simulating split mana in ETG would be more easily/thematically well done with Duality Quanta/Hybrid Quanta, which just directly aligns the card to two elements instead of banning a specific element and leaving the rest open to using it. Codewise, the method seems the same, but why would I favor 'banned elements' instead of 'card aligned with several elements'? (Alara's Shards and Ravnica's Guilds focused much more on how their colors tie together instead of how they lacked 2/3 colors, IMHO.)

I was under the impression that the way the database is set up, it doesn't allow for hybrid or dual element cards.

2) fire is more aggressive, and this card is more a problem mechanically for fire than air.  a card calld Tactics with antiEntropy would probably be my next creation is this idea could be refined to the point of workability.

I agree mechanically that fire is more aggressive, but I don't see your point thematically; while Fire may be the element that is most ready to fight, Air is the element that directly opposes Earth. In addition, Air's defense is about Evasion and dodging as opposed to Earth's 'prepare to get hit' mentality, so I would think Air favors an 'Evasive Stance' much more than a 'defensive stance'.

However lets talk about Shield. Shield is a generic DR shield that originally belonged in  Death, Life and  Light. Many have noted that its effect does not seem to fit Fire. How could we mechanically represent this in as simple a manner? Russianspy's suggestion would require adding 12 quanta types which is medium effort for this desired effect. Can we identify a simpler method?

I think if you really want to alter Other cards to avoid thematic conflict, it would be best to have -some- cards that do not fit in an element have a 'modal' alternative when you're wielding that element (sort of like the mark bonuses on some of the Other-type weapons.)

Using the shield example :
1) Fire is an aggressive element - it doesn't like to play defensive and prefers damage + CC + Quanta Acceleration.
2) DR is not fitting for Fire because Fire cards have low HP, no way to raise HP, and use other methods for defense (Usually ones that maintain tempo, threats, or pressure such as Phoenix, Seraph, and Fire Shield respectively).
3) Fire likes to deal damage in exchange for damage. (Fire Shield, Rage Potion)

Therefore, Shield could have something like :
Shield
1 :Other
Shield : Reduces 1 physical damage per attack.
Shield Bash : If you possess quanta, Shield deals 2 damage to a player the first time you are damaged instead.

Alternatively, an antiElement card could instead have drawback that triggers when you use it while having the 'wrong' type of quanta. (E.g. Defensive Stance gives the target -1/+1 when you have Air quanta.)

At the same time, however, Other-type objects can be 'generic' weapons and equipment created for use by everyone - a Fire Elemental may not benefit the best by using a Shield thematically, which is reflected in Fire deckbuilding rather than having specific cost bans on the card (Firestall usually favors the damage based Fire Shield coupled with healing), but it is still usable by it if he really wants to build a defensive style fire deck. IMHO giving specific interactions/restrictions (effect-wise > cost-wise IMHO) is possible, but it seems a bit nitpicky when one considers that such a card might not be ideal in the Elemental's playing style to begin with. (A trained Graviton Soldier will obviously value a shield much more than a Fire Beserker but both have the option to equip it because its designed for anyone. A similar parallel would be an RPG where a class specializes in a certain weapon but can wield others with a skill penalty as opposed to a complete 'class ban'.)

The reason i brought this up is that, while (like OldTrees said) there aren't enough cards that fit in every element except one, i felt there are enough it would clutter the Other section to make a chunk of cards with "Cannot use {whatever element} in the text.

[OldTrees]

1) MTG has splitmana which allows 1 of 2 different colors to play it. ETG does not allow for such a thing, and i thought this might be a way to simulated that effect.

Simulating split mana in ETG would be more easily/thematically well done with Duality Quanta/Hybrid Quanta, which just directly aligns the card to two elements instead of banning a specific element and leaving the rest open to using it. Codewise, the method seems the same, but why would I favor 'banned elements' instead of 'card aligned with several elements'? (Alara's Shards and Ravnica's Guilds focused much more on how their colors tie together instead of how they lacked 2/3 colors, IMHO.)

I was under the impression that the way the database is set up, it doesn't allow for hybrid or dual element cards.

The system uses (Quantity, Type). This means it can handle any cost that can be listed as (Quantity, Type). Hybrid costs would require the addition of 66 types but would work. The database doesn't allow costs of the form (Quantity, Type, Quantity, Type).

[ZephyrPhantom]

The reason i brought this up is that, while (like OldTrees said) there aren't enough cards that fit in every element except one, i felt there are enough it would clutter the Other section to make a chunk of cards with "Cannot use {whatever element} in the text.

I don't quite understand this point. Your opening post classifies the card as the following:

Defensive stance
Permanent
3
Your creatures get -1 | + 3

and thought that such a card doesn't fit well for fire to use (bad thematically and unbalanced mechanically) so I would make it so that it can't use fire quanta.

Is this card classified as Earth or Other? Regardless of classification, doesn't it always function as a near-Other card at the same time? (only Holy Light, Eclipse, and SoR interact with Element types, so I don't see any reason to give a card a specific Elemental typing unless it is one of the elements involved with those cards.)

What I am against in OT's statement is the complication 'utility' or 'generic' cards to justify a card's theme when you can argue the way a player builds his deck already does that.

[OldTrees]

What I am against in OT's statement is the complication 'utility' or 'generic' cards to justify a card's theme when you can argue the way a player builds his deck already does that.

Could you give an example of the complication 'utility' or 'generic' cards to justify a card's theme?
I am not sure if I am in favor or against it.