Zanz's Christmas Present - Foraker

[Foraker]

Spoiler for original card:

Spoiler for what I changed it to:

Finally I've changed the ability cost to 4.
As Devourer wrote and I totally agree with, a HP decrease (at least for the unupped version) is the best way to balance it.
A creature cost of 4 with 1|2 stats wasn't reasonable in my oppinion, so I've changed the cost to 3 .
A cost of 3 doesn't allow an easy first turn play, so I guess it's ok.

Upped it's a bit tougher.
The production increase in the upped gameplay is much higher, than the increase in the quanta production of most monos (compared to unupped).
So I want the Grinch not to be an easy first turn play, too. Plus its cost/stats ratio should be better (or at least the same) than that of the unupped version.
Also I want to keep the possibility to use it with Butterfly Effect. And I don't want to put it out of the range of most CC cards.
Because of that I came up with what you see above. I'm still thinking about reducing its ATK or HP by 1.
An ATK reduce would make a shutdown with the Grinch not that powerful.
A HP reduce would add the Fire Lance (and Pandemonium receiving Fire Lance effect) to the early one hit CC possibilitys.
I'm not sure if one of the stat decreases is necessary or which of them. So tell me what you're thinking.

[Espithel]

I'd now argue, however, that the unupped is better than the upped.

+ 1 | 2 does not warrant an extra two entropy.

[Foraker]

I'd now argue, however, that the unupped is better than the upped.

+ 1 | 2 does not warrant an extra two entropy.

I really hope that this reply is part of your disturbing humour! 

But you're right. If I would aim for using that ability in an upped deck, I would use the unupped version.

I don't want to increase the stats and I still think that the upped one has to cost more than the unupped.
So the only things are imo to reduce the cost to 4 or to raise the cost of the unupped card back to 4 .

Can someone argue what's better and why?
Some other oppinions how to balance this card are also welcome (even if you tell me that this card is crap, just argue then why you think so).

[Devourer]

I think the changes you made were good, but Frozen also has a point that I would now rather play the unupped version than upped, simply for the cost reduction. Maybe lower the cost to 3|4 ? I also don't want you to be able to play this card to quickly, as would be possible with 3/4 , but neither do I want unupped to be more attractive than upped.  OP beat me to saying this exact same thing by 30 seconds.

Like Arctic Squid, the ability is where this card shines. Because of this, stats are less important than the skill and starting cost. This might be a terrible idea, but its a thought nonetheless. The unupped card costs 3 to play, uses 5 for its skill, but has 2/4 stats. The upped card costs 5  to play, uses 4  for its skill, but has 1/2 stats. Thoughts?

[bossitron]

how about you make the starting cost of the upped like 7  or something and make the quanta drain 3 . just a thought.

[Devourer]

how about you make the starting cost of the upped like 7  or something and make the quanta drain 3 . just a thought.

Once you get 7  , nothing is stopping you from complete wreckage. Imagine that with dissipation field and an all pillars deck. Keeping the cost higher than 3 is the way to go.

[Espithel]

If you want to keep the cost of the upped higher than that of the unupped, what I'd do is decrease cost of the ability by 1.
That would warrant extra entropy.

What I would do, though, is just make the upped cost the same as the unupped, give it some extra HP, and call it a day.