[Official] Shard of Focus | Shard of Focus

[Raitei]

Makes sense.

[kimham8a]

A suggestion was made in the sofo thread that I found nice.
How about it drains one of every non quanta upon activation? Makes it so only mono gravity remains the same, all other elements are nerfed and rainbow heavily punished.

[furballdn]

A suggestion was made in the sofo thread that I found nice.
How about it drains one of every non quanta upon activation? Makes it so only mono gravity remains the same, all other elements are nerfed and rainbow heavily punished.

But then you'll get a disloyalty punishment rather than a loyalty bonus. Elemental hate is bad, and so is punishment.

[jawdirk]

But then you'll get a disloyalty punishment rather than a loyalty bonus. Elemental hate is bad, and so is punishment.

Look at it as an alternative activation cost. If you were playing    it would cost you 2 . If you were playing    , it would only cost you 1 . If you were playing rainbow, it would cost you at most 12 (and this balances the relatively cheap 6 vs. 6 to cast it). There is no punishment there, just a reward for playing  . Note also that it preserves the ability for any player to use it for 0 if they have no quanta.

[OldTrees]

But then you'll get a disloyalty punishment rather than a loyalty bonus. Elemental hate is bad, and so is punishment.

Look at it as an alternative activation cost. If you were playing    it would cost you 2 . If you were playing    , it would only cost you 1 . If you were playing rainbow, it would cost you at most 12 (and this balances the relatively cheap 6 vs. 6 to cast it). There is no punishment there, just a reward for playing  . Note also that it preserves the ability for any player to use it for 0 if they have no quanta.

1) A drain is not a guaranteed cost. There are many ways to time  production to avoid to cheat such a cost.

2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 with a gravity mark.

[memimemi]

1) A drain is not a guaranteed cost. There are many ways to time  production to avoid to cheat such a cost.

2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 with a gravity mark.

1) There are many ways to time the play of any cards, in order to maximize their utility.  The advantage gained thereby is a reward for good play.  This sounds a little too close to a problem with playing well, rather than with SoF specifically.

2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 with a gravity mark; which is 2 more than it is now.  Isn't that a reasonable place to start making changes, in small increments? 

I may be biased, however - I voted that it's fine how it is.  Even still, were jawdirk's suggestion imposed, I wouldn't mind it at all.  It fits thematically; the BH is paid for by the drained  ; and mono- gains the benefit of using SoF in essentially the same form as it is now.

[jawdirk]

2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 with a gravity mark.

Do you mean that this is the most unbalanced aspect of SoFo? After thinking about it, I think I see what you are saying.

As a thought experiment, if SoFo cost 6 , then it would be almost balanced with Pulverizer. It would have the advantage of being cheaper after 2 uses, but it would be more expensive with 0 uses. It doesn't do any damage, but it doesn't use the weapon slot. It only has 3(ish) uses, but it compensates with a top-tier card.

So the real problem is that you can drop it turn one with a nova, and my suggestion only partially helps with that. At least it makes it a little harder to get the full potential out of it because you have to try to use your quanta pool up if you are playing a rainbow deck.

[OldTrees]

1) A drain is not a guaranteed cost. There are many ways to time  production to avoid to cheat such a cost.

2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 with a gravity mark.

1) There are many ways to time the play of any cards, in order to maximize their utility.  The advantage gained thereby is a reward for good play.  This sounds a little too close to a problem with playing well, rather than with SoF specifically.

2) The primary concern is nova + sofo then activating the ability. In this case the ability only costs 2 with a gravity mark; which is 2 more than it is now.  Isn't that a reasonable place to start making changes, in small increments? 

I may be biased, however - I voted that it's fine how it is.  Even still, were jawdirk's suggestion imposed, I wouldn't mind it at all.  It fits thematically; the BH is paid for by the drained  ; and mono- gains the benefit of using SoF in essentially the same form as it is now.

1) If a cost can be avoided with minor thought then it is not a cost. We do not buff cards based on the possibility of subnormal play. Nor do we assume subnormal play when estimating whether something is or is not a significant cost.

2) Keep it short and simple. If the drain would normally be a 2 cost then why not put a 2 cost to ensure payment? My original suggestion was 2-3 activation cost.

[jawdirk]

My original suggestion was 2-3 activation cost.

It doesn't do much to mitigate the complaint that SoFo is OP specifically for rainbow decks. You can still do a lot of damage with 1st turn SoFo + nova with this suggestion.

[OldTrees]

My original suggestion was 2-3 activation cost.

It doesn't do much to mitigate the complaint that SoFo is OP specifically for rainbow decks. You can still do a lot of damage with 1st turn SoFo + nova with this suggestion.

Agreed. It was a start and it is as effective as a drain effect would be expected to be. (hence the KISS rule) I have since agreed that even that would be insufficient. (although the chance of eating  would delay the black hole longer than the drain idea would)

[ZephyrPhantom]

Hmm. Whatever happened to that suggestion of 'sacrifice 1 permanent to destroy one permanent' that I saw a while ago on this thread? Even if the 'double-targeting' coding is a little tough (and could be avoided entirely if the sacrifice was random), I feel that would be a good start since you'd need at least 4 cards to deal with 3 permanents ( SoFo + 3 Pillars seems better than just SoFo) and it prevents Novabows from running Pillarless.

[umgrego2]

-snip-
 Also, I am very interested to see you use gravy dragon, titan, or armagio in decks that don't make use of their high hp.

-snip-

Gravy Dragon? Sounds delicious!

On-topic: Some of these fixes are starting to sound a little too complicated, no?