[Official] Shard of Focus | Shard of Focus

[Atico]

Yes, but for me it is next (unnecessary) way to "destroy tactics".
Earlier we had QS+BH duo Earth+Gravity. Now it can be done by SoF+BH.

As I wrote earlier:
1. Destroy non-pillar permament
2. Other card than BH as bonus (maybe Gravity quantum?) or... nerf BH.

[RRQJ]

Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes?  Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.

You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP.  You have given no evidence for that.  I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability.  The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM.  Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed.  The BH was basically a "win more" card.

If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why.  Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.

[TheAccuso]

Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes?  Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.

You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP.  You have given no evidence for that.  I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability.  The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM.  Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed.  The BH was basically a "win more" card.

If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why.  Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.

Well, discord + BH is like hell, but of course it's just 1 tactic and also i like SoF like it is now.

[RRQJ]

Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes?  Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.

You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP.  You have given no evidence for that.  I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability.  The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM.  Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed.  The BH was basically a "win more" card.

If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why.  Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.

Well, discord + BH is like hell, but of course it's just 1 tactic and also i like SoF like it is now.

Yes, but in that case you're also packing the actual BH card.  You aren't going to be relying on the BH generated from your SoF.

[TheAccuso]

Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes?  Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.

You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP.  You have given no evidence for that.  I can't see how it is OP; the only thing I find OP about SoF is the fact that it's too cheap for it PC ability.  The black hole, more often than not, is only used to heal myself and possibly EM.  Never have I found it useful in denying my opponent; usually using the PC ability on their pillars was all that's needed.  The BH was basically a "win more" card.

If you want people to understand why you think it's OP, you need to explain why.  Saying you changed your mark to use BH does not prove that BH is OP.

Well, discord + BH is like hell, but of course it's just 1 tactic and also i like SoF like it is now.

Yes, but in that case you're also packing the actual BH card.  You aren't going to be relying on the BH generated from your SoF.

but of course it's just 1 tactic ²...

[Atico]

Are you certain you wouldn't have done better if you just kept your mark as aether and forget the black holes?  Mono-aether has high cost aether cards; the mark can be the difference between being able to play a shield or losing.

Yes and no. You have 3rd turn and You play SoF. What is the difference between paying 5 :
a) 3 + 2 from Mark
b) 3 + 2 from Mark
There is no difference, but You receive after 3 turns possibility to use BH. But not here is problem of course. I said only that You can have mono non-gravity deck and have CC, PC and quantum denial. So "all in one" in mono. Looks too strong, isn't it?

You say about high cost aether cards. It can be other mono element like Earth (especially with Pulvy)

You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP.  You have given no evidence for that.

I said it a lot of times, so I can say one more time
Destroying Towers and giving into the hand a card which clear quantum is too strong combo. It is like giving BlackHole after each Discord third attack.
Combo QS+BH is also too strong in my opinion.

[Laxadarap]

You keep saying that BH from the SoF is OP.  You have given no evidence for that.

I said it a lot of times, so I can say one more time
Destroying Towers and giving into the hand a card which clear quantum is too strong combo. It is like giving BlackHole after each Discord third attack.
Combo QS+BH is also too strong in my opinion.

Don't really agree with this.  1st of all, DBH's usually have a black hole every 3-4 turns, so its not really that bad, however I get the point of it being one card.  Discord randomizez 9 quanta, leaving 1 quanta of an element, that means that against a mono, this could take out 26 quanta, then Bhole, and drain it all, while opponent can do basically nothing. You would heal a maximum of 26.
 With SoF, you destory 3 permanents, which is basically a quanta gain reduction of -1 a turn.  If you start with 4 pillars, that is 13 (including turn of summoning sickness), enough to play any card in the game.  Use the Bhole, and you gain 3 hp, and oppoenent is left with 10 quanta, still able to play almost any card in the game.   
Very bad comparison.

[Atico]

If you start with 4 pillars

If You win on a lottery...

You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?

I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned

[bogtro]

If you don't like playing against Black Hole with your rainbow, then an easy solution is to not play rainbow. Problem solved.

[Atico]

If you don't like playing against Black Hole with your rainbow, then an easy solution is to not play rainbow. Problem solved.

I don't play rainbows too much, I prefer duos-trios and here BH also hurts But it isn't solve of the problem. Use You this argument also in other "Nerf card" topics?
- You think that Lighting is too powerful? Play Quint
- You think that Quicksand is too powerful? Play RoL
- You think that RoF is too powerful? Don't play RoL
- You think.... - Don't play this game

[Laxadarap]

If you start with 4 pillars

If You win on a lottery...

You show example in mono. The most popular are rainbows. Mono decks aren't so popular, more often You receive 30-36HP than 3.
All depends on deck which we play against. Rainbows got nerf (good decision), so why not nerfing BH, quantum denials and pillars destroying?

I can agree that it isn't the fastest tactic, so when we win on a lottery (4 pillars) we have a chance to avoid this combo. But here is a question - why lucky is the most important thing in game? When I draw 1 pilllar I lose, when I draw 4 I win. I didn't like this.
Remember also that we can put SoF in all mono-duo decks, so also against Explosion/QS decks. What is more - I don't need destroy all Your quantum which You produced. You spend quantum on creatures so I can kill creatures + towers and You haven't got chance to put next creature. It can be new mechanism of winning - destroying Towers. I didn't like this, but maybe it was planned

Still extremely slow unless you use earthquakes.  And so what if it's a nerf on rainbows? Rainbows often pack cc, plus think of novabows, maybe you'll get 2 quantum pillars, SoF can't BH with that, unless you destroy one of your own.  By the time 4 turns are up, there is often enough Damage on the field to get a kill in the next couple turns, especially with opponent spending 7 quanta on a creature (yes this is all unupped, upped is just as relevant)

[Cheesy111]

The real power of SoF is not in destroying pillars, IMO.  A 3x-pillar destruction over three turns is worse than the comparable EQ by far (+2 +1 additional quanta for opponent). The real power of SoF is in destroying  shields, weapons, hourglasses, stuff that COSTS quanta.  And doing it all for free with tons more versatility power than BE or Pulvy, and triple the destruction of Steal and Explosion.  That's SoF's strength, and combining that with something that cata's for practically the damage of a Titan for a measly amount of quanta(just add novae!) as well as combos with GPull and Accel?  Simply ridiculous.