Quanta Chameleon | Quanta Chameleon

[Daguerreo]

NAME: Quanta Chameleon ELEMENT: Other COST: 2 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 1 | 1 TEXT: 1: Chamelon Gain 1 quanta of your Mark. Can be used twice per turn.	NAME: Quanta Chameleon ELEMENT: Other COST: 2 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 1 | 1 TEXT: 1: Chamelon Gain 1 quanta of your Mark. Can be used twice per turn.

ART: http://www.google.it/imgres?q=chameleon+rainbow&start=57&num=10&um=1&hl=it&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=KGoK_PmxXZmHvM:&imgrefurl=http://www.freewebs.com/funtimeart/craftykidsholidaywshops.htm&docid=zAlSWR3yg7IBEM&imgurl=http://webzoom.freewebs.com/funtimeart/2011%252520web%252520images/Rainbow%252520Chameleon.jpg&w=336&h=347&ei=tarqTqesL9DV4QSVpPHmCA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=372&vpy=198&dur=2948&hovh=228&hovw=221&tx=76&ty=125&sig=107696097081760517728&sqi=2&page=4&tbnh=138&tbnw=133&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:8,s:57 IDEA: Daguerreo NOTES: Czn balance your quanta production if you need more of your Mark. Limited to twice per turn otherwise should be really overpowered with a Nova. SERIES:

[furballdn]

Seems a bit strong, especially in mono decks. They essentially function as pillars with twice the effectiveness and also attack. Perhaps make the quanta gain random?

[TheIdioticIdiot]

Seems a bit strong, especially in mono decks. They essentially function as pillars with twice the effectiveness and also attack. Perhaps make the quanta gain random?

it costs 1 to use the ability
so I think it's underpowered tbh

[Daguerreo]

Seems a bit strong, especially in mono decks. They essentially function as pillars with twice the effectiveness and also attack. Perhaps make the quanta gain random?

Why in mono? Cost 1 and produce 1 of same element.
1 atk is to be effected by shield.

[burpcow]

I like it... but it would be totally useless in mono decks.

[Daguerreo]

I like it... but it would be totally useless in mono decks.

It's a "Other" card for this reason too, it doesn't synergize with a single element.

[furballdn]

My bad. I didn't see that it costed 1 to use the ability. I thought it was free to cast. Disregard what I said up there.

[OldTrees]

3|6 hp please.
1) 1->3 hp is barely any change and not worth 1500e
2) It needs to have respectable resilience for people to be willing to rely on it.

[ElementalDearWatson]

3|6 hp please.
1) 1->3 hp is barely any change and not worth 1500e
2) It needs to have respectable resilience for people to be willing to rely on it.

I'd say that the HP is fine.  It should cost 1 to play, though, and produce 2 quanta for every 1 absorbed.  That way it'll be in line with Rustler/Leaf Dragon.

[OldTrees]

3|6 hp please.
1) 1->3 hp is barely any change and not worth 1500e
2) It needs to have respectable resilience for people to be willing to rely on it.

I'd say that the HP is fine.  It should cost 1 to play, though, and produce 2 quanta for every 1 absorbed.  That way it'll be in line with Rustler/Leaf Dragon.

Your comparison with Rustler is forgetting to account for many details.
1) Rustler would be better balanced at 3|6 hp.
2) 1 is much cheaper than 1 . The current casting cost of 2 is much closer.
3) A 1 :2 conversion is much higher yield than a  : conversion. The current 1 :1 conversion is much closer.

[ElementalDearWatson]

Your comparison with Rustler is forgetting to account for many details.
1) Rustler would be better balanced at 3|6 hp.

I can only assume zanz disagrees with you.

2) 1 is much cheaper than 1 . The current casting cost of 2 is much closer.
3) A 1 :2 conversion is much higher yield than a  : conversion. The current 1 :1 conversion is much closer.

So then it's fine as it is.