[Official] Shard of Focus | Shard of Focus

[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

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)

OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics

[justaburd]

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.

I would like to add that the secondary function of murdering rainbows with BH is just icing on the cake.

[Laxadarap]

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.

Gpull can be useful, but 10 damage a turn is pretty easy to get.  Accel kinda sucks.  An armagio that starts with no attack for more quanta. Hmm.. 

As to its versalitility, true, but it has a turn of summoning sickness, which is a pain, especially when it is going to be vulnerable to cc.
As to catapults, takes 4 turns for it to get the hp, takes same amount of quanta of titan, and titan will do 40 damage in the time it takes for SoF to get high enough hp.  With Titan vs. Sof, the only permanent that needs to be taken out is maybe a pulverizer? Very narrow job.

[TheAccuso]

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.

Gpull can be useful, but 10 damage a turn is pretty easy to get. 

it can grows, SoF + gravity pull it's actually pretty strong.

[RRQJ]

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)

OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics

Nobody like SoF as it is.  The PC ability does not cost enough.  However, nobody else has had any problems with the BH part.  I don't claim to have read all the posts, but from the posts I've read, you're the only one who has continued to say that SoF should not become a BH.  All you say is that "it creates too strong of a combo."  That's only an opinion, not evidence.  I don't think this is a strong combo, and it will be weaker if/once the cost of the PC aspect is increased.

Also, it seems like you're assuming you get a SoF out on the first turn.  That can't always happen.  If you're playing against a mono deck and it takes to 2-3 turns to get SoF out, I guarantee that you will not prevent them from playing stuff, unless they got a bad draw (like 0-1 towers or something) in the beginning.

[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

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)

OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics

Nobody like SoF as it is.  The PC ability does not cost enough.  However, nobody else has had any problems with the BH part.  I don't claim to have read all the posts, but from the posts I've read, you're the only one who has continued to say that SoF should not become a BH.  All you say is that "it creates too strong of a combo."  That's only an opinion, not evidence.  I don't think this is a strong combo, and it will be weaker if/once the cost of the PC aspect is increased.

Also, it seems like you're assuming you get a SoF out on the first turn.  That can't always happen.  If you're playing against a mono deck and it takes to 2-3 turns to get SoF out, I guarantee that you will not prevent them from playing stuff, unless they got a bad draw (like 0-1 towers or something) in the beginning.

As i said - BH isn't the biggest problem in this card, but giving BH after SoF is decision which I can't understand. We should promote in this game others cards than BH (for example Overdrive). BH is hard counter card and we allow to use 12 BH in game (24 in Arena) + Gravity Nymph. And it isn't important how much quantum BH destroy - sometimes destroying 3-6 quantum means problems for opponent. Zanz probably want to nerf rainbows in 1.30-1.31. Yes, rainbows needs nerf. But is it the best way to reach the goal? In my opinion no, escpecially when this card is powerful and it has got only one counter (Sanctuary), which is pretty easy to destroy for SoF.
I prefer more cards like SoW than SoF. SoW gives new possibilities of attack (by reflect) and allow avoid shield. Fine idea, 0% destruction, 100% tactic. And I want to see 12 Shards like this or like SoFr, which gives new abilities but not destroy. As long as SoF wouldn't be popular then this card isn't a big problem. But in few months this Shard will be the same popular as SoG - then situation wouldn't be so funny.

[microman362]

I agree, this card needs a nerf.

[sunyata]

OP said they would add a poll once there's feedback.  Surely its high time there was a poll.  Plenty of suggestions so far in thread:

1) increase cost
2) incease activation cost
3) fewer turns till BH
4) freezes  / rewinds rather than destroys permanent
5) remove from game / change its ability to somethng else
6) lower HP to turn into BH if mark is not 
7) lower initial HP
8] HP falls rather than goes up when destoy perm.  Turns to BH when it dies. 
9) variant on [8]: destroying your own perm increases HP
10) using 2x in a row gives singularity instead of BH
11) Introduce more anti-pc counters that are available to more elements
12) and of course, though not sure anyone other than mathematistic will vote for it,  "no nerf".

[memimemi]

OP said they would add a poll once there's feedback.  Surely its high time there was a poll.  Plenty of suggestions so far in thread:

(...)

12) and of course, though not sure anyone other than mathematistic will vote for it,  "no nerf".

I, as well, would vote for "no nerf."  It's really not all that powerful - high cost, no damage, vulnerable to CC (Freeze/Congeal is especially a PITA for this card), Fractal/TU bait, etc.

If there is anything OP about SoF, it's the fact that it can accrete/cancel, and still gain the HP.  If it worked more like FW/AW, and couldn't go off without a valid target, or at least only gained HP after successfully destroying a permanent, it might seem a little more fair to those who fear it.

But, really, there are often better cards to use than SoF in most decks.  Just my opinion - but I play Arena, and always pack PA in any deck that relies on perms anyways.  If anything, SoF, for me, just means that more decks I face justify using PA, instead of it being a dead card in my hand against anything but darkness and fire.

[Absol]

Also, add this:
Decrease HP gain per use. (still 3 use before turning to BH, though.)

[sunyata]

Also, add this:
Decrease HP gain per use. (still 3 use before turning to BH, though.)

I think that is already implicit in (6) lower HP before turn into BH

[RRQJ]

Spoiler for Hidden:

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)

OK, we have other look on this game. I see problem with PC for everyone and adding easy BH in hand, You no.
Probably I am wrong and maybe oldschool, because I see that today more players like SoF than when this topic was started. I must accept fields with SoF and new destroying tactics

Nobody like SoF as it is.  The PC ability does not cost enough.  However, nobody else has had any problems with the BH part.  I don't claim to have read all the posts, but from the posts I've read, you're the only one who has continued to say that SoF should not become a BH.  All you say is that "it creates too strong of a combo."  That's only an opinion, not evidence.  I don't think this is a strong combo, and it will be weaker if/once the cost of the PC aspect is increased.

Also, it seems like you're assuming you get a SoF out on the first turn.  That can't always happen.  If you're playing against a mono deck and it takes to 2-3 turns to get SoF out, I guarantee that you will not prevent them from playing stuff, unless they got a bad draw (like 0-1 towers or something) in the beginning.

As i said - BH isn't the biggest problem in this card, but giving BH after SoF is decision which I can't understand. We should promote in this game others cards than BH (for example Overdrive). BH is hard counter card and we allow to use 12 BH in game (24 in Arena) + Gravity Nymph. And it isn't important how much quantum BH destroy - sometimes destroying 3-6 quantum means problems for opponent. Zanz probably want to nerf rainbows in 1.30-1.31. Yes, rainbows needs nerf. But is it the best way to reach the goal? In my opinion no, escpecially when this card is powerful and it has got only one counter (Sanctuary), which is pretty easy to destroy for SoF.
I prefer more cards like SoW than SoF. SoW gives new possibilities of attack (by reflect) and allow avoid shield. Fine idea, 0% destruction, 100% tactic. And I want to see 12 Shards like this or like SoFr, which gives new abilities but not destroy. As long as SoF wouldn't be popular then this card isn't a big problem. But in few months this Shard will be the same popular as SoG - then situation wouldn't be so funny.

Ah, in that case, the explanation is simple: that's how the theme of the card works.  Supermassive stars become black holes when they die.  SoF gets too big -> dies and turns to black hole.  I don't think zanz intended to make another card to nerf rainbows; it was just something that happened.

And I now understand that you are giving your opinion on what you want (stuff like SoFr instead).  That's fine.  But you can't go saying SoF needs to do ___ instead without giving a justification.  There are people who like destruction effects.  Other people are looking at the card from a balance point of view.  "I don't like destroy effects"  isn't something they are going to take as justification for why SoF should be changed.

SoG was too useful -> got nerfed.  SoSa was too useful -> got nerfed (indirectly).  I'm sure that if SoF continues to be OP even after the new nerf, it will get another nerf.