Whirlpool | Whirlpool

[Drake_XIV]

NAME: Whirlpool ELEMENT: Water COST: 4 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: : Drain Drain 2 quanta from your opponent. Can be used twice if Flooding is in play.	NAME: Whirlpool ELEMENT: Water COST: 3 TYPE: Permanent ATK|HP: TEXT: : Drain Drain 2 quanta from your opponent. Can be used twice if Flooding is in play.

ART: flaivoloka (http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1110073) IDEA: Drake_XIV NOTES: You choose the quanta pool from which you want to drain the quanta from.  If there is less than 2|3 quanta in the targeted pool, it completely drains the pool. It goes without saying Inundation still counts for Flooding... SERIES:

[juan_de_diablo]

How did you come up with the cost? To me, seems 4 with an additional 2 to use is overpriced. You might wait for some more experienced people to comment, but I think reducing the cost to play initially by 1 seems reasonable when compared to black hole. Even then, still seems expensive for not much yield.

[OldTrees]

Can I get your thoughts on the following ideas, preferably in their respective threads?
Whirlpool | Whirlpool

Whirlpool | Whirlpool
4 + 1 card for
Up to once per turn (twice with flooding) you lose 2 and your opponent loses up to 2 .
2 > up to 2

2 + 1 card for
once per turn (twice when adrenal) you gain up to 1 and your opponent loses up to 1

[juan_de_diablo]

  Uuuuuuuuuh, I retract my statement of cost after seeing OldTrees' calculations and not understanding it... He knows what do.

[OldTrees]

Uuuuuuuuuh, I retract my statement of cost after seeing OldTrees' calculations and not understanding it... He knows what do.

I agree that it is UP.

[Drake_XIV]

I was trying to avoid this being too easily splashed into decks for quanta denial.  But in this case, which should be lowered, the playing or the skill cost?  Or both?

[OldTrees]

I was trying to avoid this being too easily splashed into decks for quanta denial.  But in this case, which should be lowered, the playing or the skill cost?  Or both?

First I would give it a niche other than Devourer's brother.
Second I would use Devourer as a standard to estimate balance.

[Drake_XIV]

Can it really be compared to Devourer?  Disregarding costs, Devourer drains 1 and generates 1 .  This drains 2|3 and does not generate any quanta.

Would Black Hole be another alternative to comparing it?

On another note, I dropped both costs for the time being.

[OldTrees]

Can it really be compared to Devourer?  Disregarding costs, Devourer drains 1 and generates 1 .  This drains 2|3 and does not generate any quanta.

Would Black Hole be another alternative to comparing it?

On another note, I dropped both costs for the time being.

Yes it can.

The generation of quanta is akin to a negative activation cost. An activation cost is akin to negative quanta generation.

[Drake_XIV]

Ah.  But what of the current state?  Would you say it's different enough?  Or still UP and too similar to Devourer?

[juan_de_diablo]

I think the current costs are better.

[OldTrees]

Ah.  But what of the current state?  Would you say it's different enough?  Or still UP and too similar to Devourer?

It is within the error range on my balance calculation.
I do not think it has its own niche yet.