Young Wolverine | Wolverine

[Xenocidius]

NAME: Young Wolverine ELEMENT: Life COST: 2 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 1 | 1 TEXT: Adrenaline: Young Wolverine attacks multiple times per turn.	NAME: Wolverine ELEMENT: Life COST: 4 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 2 | 2 TEXT: Adrenaline: Wolverine attacks multiple times per turn.

ART: http://mafiawarscollectors.yolasite.com/blog/wolverine-animal-130-70- (http://mafiawarscollectors.yolasite.com/blog/wolverine-animal-130-70-), http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues/green-forest-06062011/ (http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues/green-forest-06062011/) - temporary IDEA: Xenocidius NOTES: These basically act as creatures affected by the Adrenaline spell. I figured, other elements have creatures which enter play with their 'natural effects'. For example, Darkness has Minor Vampire|Vampire (vampire ability granted by Liquid Shadow), Gravity has Sapphire Charger|Elite Charger (momentum granted by Momentum|Unstoppable), Aether has Immortal|Elite Immortal (immortality granted by Quintessence), etc. The attack stat is very interesting and there are many options. For example, Young Wolverine could have 3 attack and Wolverine could have 6 attack, and both cost the same. They would each deal 12 damage with no shields, but Wolverine would of course be better against shields. Young could have 2 attack (8 damage) and "Old" could have 4 attack (9 damage). A lot of possibilities here. Plus, if it was actually put into the game, it would have the awesome bonus of growling when played (the 'Adrenaline' sound effect).

[Captain Scibra]

I like the idea of auto-adrenaline.  Perhaps a 3|5 cost though.

[Xenocidius]

Perhaps, I based the costs on this: without shields, it is a simple 1:2 cost to damage ratio. With a 1-damage-absorbing shield up however, it becomes 0 and 1:1. Quite complex, really. Balancing = difficult.

[ralouf]

Sorry to not agree with you again but the ratio attack/cost can be divided by zero only if the creature cost 0

here with a shield the young wolverine just have a 0 in his attack cost ratio.

[Xenocidius]

Are you following me around the forums?

If you consider the cost:damage ratio instead, you do get a divide by zero error, but I suppose you're right. Changed. No need to get started up on one of the greatest mysteries of mathematics .

[ralouf]

Not at all :p I'm just looking at the unread reply/topic and it looks like you are a lot active :p

Anyway yeah that isn't really matter everybody will understand what you meant in your post (however I'm not scared at maths at all I'm in an ingeneer school and I'm the major in maths with an averge of 18/20 this year ^^).

[moomoose]

seems like a vanilla version of cheetah (lowered cost/atk, core concept remains minus the duo) from days long gone by: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=7904.0

[furballdn]

I like this card. Just saying.