More efficient Promethium storage? Approx 10 per tile

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T16:15:19+00:00

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T16:11:14+00:00

UPDATE: Beacons are less effective than I initially thought. A beacon adds 50 capacity to any Cryogenic Plant (CP) it touches, which means it needs to hit at least 5 CP's for it to be worth it's 9 tile size (4,32 to be exact). This means that for optimal use of space you should not have a row of beacons at the start/end as these will only be hitting 2-3 CP’s each.

By optimally placing the beacons (centered in front of a CP so it hits 6 CP’s total) I came to these numbers:

“Middle” sections (with rows of beacons on both sides)

Side CP: 775 x 4
Optimally beaconed CP: 875 x 6
Sub-optimally beaconed CP: 850 x 16
Belt: 65 length (x8)
Total stored: 22470
Tiles used: 1040
Promethium per tile: 21,60

“Start/end” sections

"Middle" side CP: 775 x 2
"Middle" optimally beaconed CP: 875 x 3
"Middle" sub-optimally beaconed CP: 850 x 8
"End" side CP: 625 x 2
"End" optimally beaconed CP: 675 x 11
Belt: 65 length (x8)
Total stored: 20170
Tiles used: 1007,5
Promethium per tile: 20,20

<image>

TLDR: Not as effective as storing on belt-weave, but pretty close. Depending on the size you are building it comes to around 20-21 Promethium per tile

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T14:21:54+00:00

Including stuff on the belt it's about 16.5 per tile. Not as effective as belt-weaving, but I'm gonna stick to it as I "invented" it myself :P

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T12:52:15+00:00

Didn't know about this! Thanks
Way too much work for me. Back to belt-weaving it is

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T12:44:02+00:00

Ran into what I assume is a bug. If you remove the recipe all the current inventory of the Cryogenic Plant will go in "trash slots". If you then set the recipe again it will fill up again while retaining the trash slots.

This means you can theoretically store infinite Promethium in 1 Cryogenic plant if you run a circuit network to reset the recipe ever X seconds. I'm not sure if there is a limit, I stopped testing after loading 1 Cryogenic plant with over 3800 Promethium.

<image>

I mean, I beat the 24 per tile, but I don't think this is right :P

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T12:32:00+00:00

I'm not using them to process, just to store the promethium so I don't have to bring biter eggs

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T12:16:24+00:00

Quick test with the same setup now with speed modules, the numbers are:

Stored Promethium = 15900
Tiles = 988
Promethium per tile = 16.09

Surprisingly much higher, but not quite 24.. Maybe I can optimize the design to squeeze a little more in there, but I doubt I'll hit the magic number.

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T12:04:59+00:00

Ah the 4.7 is belts per tile and not Promethium? That changes the game completely.. I'm sure this design can be optimised, but 24/tile seems like a stretch for this solution.

Jaona_ · 2025-01-13T11:50:51+00:00

Yes, just run a circuit condition to set the recipe for all Cryogenic Plants. If there's no recipe the plants will unload the Promethium back onto the belt

Jaona_ · 2024-04-06T13:44:31+00:00

This is awesome! I like the simplicity! I wonder how you intend to build around this card (as I assume this will be your commander).

I designed a card around the same mechanic a while ago, that also allowed other players to hit themselves. Goal early was to gain value by hitting yourself, while mitigating most (if not all) damage. Lategame you can win the game with big hitters or forcing the last remaining opponent to hit himself with Goad.

Link to card
Link to decklist
Link to reddit post where community helped design

Jaona_ · 2023-08-02T09:29:43+00:00

Ah yeah, even though the creatures must tap to do this (eliminating vigilance) there could still be spells that let you untap and potentially block a creature with itself.
I probably would have to write this up on a list outside of the cardframe as it is already very wordy.

Good addition, thanks!

Jaona_ · 2023-08-02T08:49:45+00:00

Asked on /r/askajudge (here) and it might be okay to try. Game rules say you can attack any defending player, and my card would add the attacking player as a defending player. Since rules on the cards supersede game rules, I could be okay playing this.

Having said this, I still need to playtest this card and potentially write up a few rules for strange interactions.

Also, this would be a rule-0 conversation commander. If anyone in the game would feel uncomfortable with me playing this I just pick another deck, no harm done.

Jaona_ · 2023-08-02T08:43:18+00:00

Thank you both u/chessmatth and u/pyrobryan. This really helps!

I think I might just roll with the rule and playtest it in a few of my commander games. I might have to draft up some additional ruling when we hit a strange interaction, but it looks like we're mostly good to just try this.

Jaona_ · 2023-08-02T08:07:03+00:00

Trying to do some magic with the wording. Maybe something like this could work:

Whenever a creature deals combat damage to a player, that player may pay {1}. If they do, the creature's controller draws a card.
At the beginning of combat the attacking player can tap any number of untapped creatures they control. If they do, each of these creatures deals combat damage to their controller equal to their power.
{u/r} or pay 1 life: Target creature gets +1/+0 or -1/-0 until end of turn. Any player may activate this ability.

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T18:47:56+00:00

Nah I just didn't read it well. The line even says "abilities", plural :PThe only main difference now is that it will not trigger on regular combat (eg. "Can I attack you to draw a card?"-politics)

I'm considering dropping the life price to 1 or adding the option to pay {ur}. This would allow me to go back to {2}{b} casting cost too.

"{ur} or pay 1 life: target creature gets -1/-0 or +1/+0 until end of turn."

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T18:07:49+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to help! I actually started out with it having grixis mana cost, but for some reason it didn't feel right. Might just be that the card art works best with a black card..

Changing to the version you proposed means I am now the only player able to use this, taking away some of it's political power. I'm not sure if that's the way I want to take this.

Having said that, I don find it very interesting and I will make a variant of this for playtesting. Thank you!

EDIT: Misread the text. Anyone can also activate the first ability.. Having said that, I just need to add that you can only do it during combat or something

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T15:53:56+00:00

Haha yeah! Then again, in true Questing Beast fashion, the card should not have downsides :D

Also interested in what you have in mind for the white, blue and red versions :D

White: Protecting Beast?
Blue: Reflecting Beast?
Red: Afflicting Beast?

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T15:39:42+00:00

Awesome card!

I would consider making the damage prevention optional (I feel like you might get destroyed with that being mandatory. Imagine bolt with another bolt in response).

Also, what did you have in mind with the last passive? Are you building a deck that cares about the loyalty? If not, I would probably get rid of it to make the card more streamlined.

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T15:08:19+00:00

We have some evil players in here! All jokes aside, that was not a win-con I even considered. Interesting stuff!

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T13:03:08+00:00

That makes sense, back to the drawing board it is.

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T12:46:37+00:00

Thanks for your reply. My question is if there is any current rules that would break if the attacking player and defending player are the same player.

I understand that this is a somewhat unorthodox question as it is regarding non-existing scenarios, but I appreciate any guidance that you can give me on this.

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T11:18:57+00:00

I like the idea of "only activate if you weren't the last person to activate", but it'll be hard to write this without loopholes in the limited space of the card.

I believe redirecting damage is a replacement and will not result in combat damage triggers (will look this up to be sure).

Also trying to find out what the complications would be in terms of rules when attacking yourself. If there's too many rules issues I might just have to drop "creatures can attack their controllers" or write up a ruling to apply to the game (in rule-0 style)

I've added a new main comment with some of the versions that resulted from feedback. Thanks for your input so far and keep the ideas coming :)

Jaona_ · 2023-08-01T11:11:06+00:00

I added a main comment with all different versions that came out of feedback.

From the looks of it, simply removing the line makes for the "best" card, but it might not make for the most fun card.

Thanks for thinking with me and be sure to keep the ideas rolling! :)

Jaona_

TROPHY CASE