Desiccation | Desiccation

[Pineapple]

Desiccation (unupgraded) seems... --much-- stronger than Thunderstorm. Maybe Thunderstorm should be changed into Asphyxiation with the "Gain for each point of damage dealt." clause.

My only counter-reasoning for that kinda change for Thunderstorm would be that Air already has an alternate quanta generating mean, which is even free to play upgraded and furthermore, it deals 1-2 damage to the opponent itself. But this is probably for another topic.

And thanks for the feedback so far.

Also:

I personally have something against giving water hard cc [...]

How so?

Well, water currently has Freeze, Ice Bolt, Arctic Squid, and Ice Shield, bolt and flooding being the only water cards that can kill an opponent with only . I'm fine with something like "Deal 1 damage to each enemy creature unless their HPs are 1, up to 3 times. Gain equal to damage dealt." Because that has synergy with plague, fire shield, thunderstorm, etc, works as quanta generation for water, and can be as cheap as 3 / 2 .
This card, however, broadens mono-water outside of its thematic niche and has basically no synergy: it's just a firestorm/thunderstorm with a higher/lower cost determined by whether the opponent is swarming or not. Of course, Desiccation works better with freeze effects than if you outright kill the creature before using it because you're negating the damage but generating more quanta since the opponent has more creatures, but meh.

Again, these are my personal beliefs, and from an objective view the card is already complete as is.

[Tiko]

Well, it was intended to strengthen Water itself - it already has so many synergies, it became more of a weakness than an advantage. The cards you listed while working awesomely, are easy to get around, mostly based on the same mechanic, and can only delay opposing creatures; a well rounded deck nowadays can easily bypass the defenses Water can provide, especially when expected. Also, Ice bolt is a great card, but very, very hard to kill with, and Flooding.. well, powerful in theory, but close to useless in practice.
You're more often than not forced to use one (or more) off elements not just to complement the deficiencies the element has, but to use many of its creatures to their full potential.

Also, if you think about it, the 1 | 2 damage Desiccation deals is hardly enough to kill anything (especially unupped, where it also severely wounds many of your own creatures also), with the exception of various 1 costed ones (like Skeletons, Déja Vus and such) and many of Fire's creatures - which is again intended; as a form of counter-action (which would come naturally from Water against Fire, at least in my opinion).
I see nothing wrong with broadening the theme Water holds in Elements, it should be the most mutable element after all.

"Water elementals have a good balance between offensive and defensive skills." - we need more offense.

[dracomageat]

I would suggest 2 things:
1) add ~2 to both costs as you will get 2+ back most of the time so the unupped effectively costs nothing as is.
2) reword the quanta gain ability so that the upped still only produces 1 per creature as 2 per creature could end up a lot of quanta gain for little cost on your part (1 card and a bit of waiting).

[Tiko]

Thanks for your suggestion, draco; but:

1) Though it may seem that unupgraded it will "cost you nothing", as you'll very likely to gain back the quanta cost, but your own creatures will also pay for it with their health. And don't forget that even this minor scratch will bring down even the most durable Water creatures to be an easy prey to CC, not to mention the key ones, like Squids. The same reasoning why Pandemonium has such a cheap cost.

2) Yes, it could end up with an awesome quanta boost (with the maximum of 46 = 10 dmg boosted bolt), but that solely depends on your opponent. It's (almost) the same thing with Flooding: at first it seems extreme to kill 2 rows of creatures instantly for 3/2 (+upkeep), but then you realize that very few players fill up even the middle.. I guess you can be happy to accumulate around 10 this way, and even then it's not likely.

[dracomageat]

If it hits your board aswell, the quanta gain is even greater than I expected but that does also prevent it from being a solely positive effect. Balance would need to be tested as I don't think we can accurately judge it from theory if it hits both sides.

[Tarmaza]

i really like the idea.

[Mithcairion]

I think that this is a good enough card to be used situationally, but not be so OP that it gets abused.  Obviously, it fails hard against creatureless decks, but against any sort of "swarm" creature decks it has a great deal of synergy with Ice Bolt.  I do like that it gives Water more in-element synergy, as well.  That being said, I do think that this is a little bit redundant with Flooding, as both are considered 'mass CC', but with the massive failing of Flooding being useful, I would rather have this card replace it.  Or, better yet, have the effect of Flooding be this, instead.

[TribalTrouble]

I think that this is a good enough card to be used situationally, but not be so OP that it gets abused.  Obviously, it fails hard against creatureless decks, but against any sort of "swarm" creature decks it has a great deal of synergy with Ice Bolt.  I do like that it gives Water more in-element synergy, as well.  That being said, I do think that this is a little bit redundant with Flooding, as both are considered 'mass CC', but with the massive failing of Flooding being useful, I would rather have this card replace it.  Or, better yet, have the effect of Flooding be this, instead.

Yes. This would work a lot better as Flooding's effect. I also think that one of the first decks this should be tested in is a variation of the 30 creatures -because I can deck. Together with that and a few modifications you could get some pretty high-priced water creatures with little to no pillars in your deck out on the field. Imagine this + luciferin/hope together in a no-skill mass creature deck. This+Boneyard works well too.

[RavingRabbid]

I might used the unupped more than the upped, if this gets in game.

I liek this.


Zanz put in game pl0x.

[Tiko]

I think that this is a good enough card to be used situationally, but not be so OP that it gets abused.  Obviously, it fails hard against creatureless decks, but against any sort of "swarm" creature decks it has a great deal of synergy with Ice Bolt.  I do like that it gives Water more in-element synergy, as well.  That being said, I do think that this is a little bit redundant with Flooding, as both are considered 'mass CC', but with the massive failing of Flooding being useful, I would rather have this card replace it.  Or, better yet, have the effect of Flooding be this, instead.

Would be a shame for the wonderful FX Flooding has :] I wouldn't want that to happen. I'm still a firm believer of that someday Flooding will be a very useful and fearsome card, just like it was when introduced.
But until then..

Thanks for your feedback so far.

[Jaymanfu]

I like this card, though the picture is a little wierd

[furballdn]

This card looks perfect for an icebolt stall deck. Damages all opponent creatures? And gain water quanta? The cheap cost of it and the gain in water quanta makes me feel the card is a bit too strong. Maybe if it cost 5 or so?