Project: Quantum Generators

[The_Mormegil]

ok, lets think about this from a slightly different angle, mitosis on a ray of light is considered balanced.  that ray of light can produce 22 other rays of light for 0 additional quanta (although there is a loss of 1 quanta per turn due to mitosis removing the quanta generation from 1 of the rays of light), at the cost of taking up the field over 22 turns.  rays of light can also do damage (even if it is weak), while pillars cannot.  what cost would make up for pillars not using creature space, and not doing any attacks?

Filling your field is A LOT less useful, RoL are weak to CC, Mitosis is very prone to CC itself and a single RoF will wipe out everything. Not really comparable IMO.

[moomoose]

1 PC gets rid of PQ.  like i said, what is the difference in cost between the two, given whatever variables you think are in between them

[The_Mormegil]

1 PC gets rid of PQ.  like i said, what is the difference in cost between the two, given whatever variables you think are in between them

I'd say +1 to +3 to activation cost. Casting cost is ok.

[OldTrees]

Interesting Comparison
Mitosis'd Ray of Light
CC:4 + 2 cards
AC:0 (but duo)

PQ(X,Y) + Tower
CC: X + 2 cards -
AC: Y (but mono)

PQ(4,1) would be equivalent but not account for the Creature/CC/max 22:Permanent/PC/stack
PQ(4,2) or PQ(3,3) might account for the difference.
I would recommend PQ(3,3) upgraded of course. Please change the unupped to be as consistent as the upped but generate pillars instead.
PQ(3,3)Pillars|PQ(3,3)Towers

[moomoose]

so if im reading this correctly, you think paying 3 quantum for pq and then 3 quantum per pillar would be worth doing?

[The_Mormegil]

so if im reading this correctly, you think paying 3 quantum for pq and then 3 quantum per pillar would be worth doing?

Monoentropy would greatly benefit from this, fat timebows / entropybows would greatly benefit from this, and speaking of new features, I figure a 3x mark stall would greatly benefit from this.

[OldTrees]

so if im reading this correctly, you think paying 3 quantum for pq and then 3 quantum per pillar would be worth doing?

yes. Or at least as a starting point.
CC 3 requires 3 Towers or 2 Towers with a 1 turn delay and AC 3 created a decent guess at an appropriate low quanta period.
However if possible change the element so it does not buff That shield.

[moomoose]

yeah, after the change to the entropy shield, this is more powerful in mono-entropy than in a duo-trio-quarto, which was its intended use. 

but i have a hard time believing people would be willing to pay 3 quanta for a tower, even paying 2 would seem high.  i think front-loading the cost, and limiting the number that can come out is a much more realistic scenario, cost 3 [element] and can generate up to ~5 pillars/towers, one per turn per PQ, is much more workable.

[OldTrees]

People will pay 3 quanta for a tower if they see a powerful deck do so. A __/Fire duo (PQ will not be Fire) OTK would change their minds.

[moomoose]

thats kinda dragging away from why i made this card, it was supposed to support decks which could have several element types and would lessen the number of pillars you needed to have in your starting hand.  OTK is the least of what i was hoping for.  firestalls dont need any more help.

[OldTrees]

quadratic quanta growth will be used by Bolt, Fractal and Dissipation Shields.
It will also be used by quanta usage heavy decks (few Quantum Generators)

[The_Mormegil]

It will also be used by quanta usage heavy decks (few Quantum Generators)

I disagree. If you have few Quantum Generators the LAST thing you want is to use a card that slows you down even MORE and WASTES quanta for a lot of time. You'll be heavily outrushed.