Skeleton Regent | Skeleton King

[redium]

Eva, I did the card text based on Hope since it is the most recent and since I was asked to define what N equaled.  So at this point lol, idk anymore.  But good input, maybe jmdt or a curator can sort it out.

[jmdt]

Scarab's Card Text is worded
n=Number of Scarabs you control at the end of the turn.
The n Refers to the N as it's HP (2|N).
If you wanted it to be worded like scarab than it should say:
2+N/2|4
n=The number of Skeletons you control at the end of the turn.

You have an "N", but atm you don't say what it is.
For example, if N were Death Quanta, and you had 8 quanta and 3 skeletons, It would get +12 (+4 attack for each skeleton.)

I did a bit more card searching and I think Farenheit's (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,2598.0.html) wording is the closest to what would be correct.

How's this: Deal 2 + X damage at the end of every turn.  X is the number of skeleton you own, divided by 2.

[EvaRia]

How about this?
N|4
N=Half the amount of skeletons you control at the end of the turn, +2.

Scarab's Card Text is worded
n=Number of Scarabs you control at the end of the turn.
The n Refers to the N as it's HP (2|N).
If you wanted it to be worded like scarab than it should say:
2+N/2|4
n=The number of Skeletons you control at the end of the turn.

You have an "N", but atm you don't say what it is.
For example, if N were Death Quanta, and you had 8 quanta and 3 skeletons, It would get +12 (+4 attack for each skeleton.)

I did a bit more card searching and I think Farenheit's (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,2598.0.html) wording is the closest to what would be correct.

How's this: Deal 2 + X damage at the end of every turn.  X is the number of skeleton you own, divided by 2.

=O
That springs up the possibility of the king being a... Permanent?
That would actually be interesting 0.o

[redium]

[Higurashi]

Having a mechanism like Fahrenheit also means you won't be able to Paradox it. Yeah, why not.

[jmdt]

Having a mechanism like Fahrenheit also means you won't be able to Paradox it. Yeah, why not.

Makes it weak to lobo though.  You get it one way or the other, lol.

[~Napalm]

Lol, sounds like a lose lose situation to me Card is nice, no matter how you word it

considering coming up with a fire card...let me know if you get any more bright ideas

[murtle]

nice card
would put it in a rainbow with graveyard and som cc

[Higurashi]

Having a mechanism like Fahrenheit also means you won't be able to Paradox it. Yeah, why not.

Makes it weak to lobo though.  You get it one way or the other, lol.

Unless it's made passive. Fahrenheit has "fiery", and this wouldn't use fiery. So while a new ability has to be made, you could have it be passive.

[jmdt]

Having a mechanism like Fahrenheit also means you won't be able to Paradox it. Yeah, why not.

Makes it weak to lobo though.  You get it one way or the other, lol.

Unless it's made passive. Fahrenheit has "fiery", and this wouldn't use fiery. So while a new ability has to be made, you could have it be passive.

Good idea

Passive would make the card work a bit better overall.  I like the fact that the attack always stays 2, but the extra damage comes from an other source, either powering up from the other skeletons or calling a skeleton charge depending how you look at it.

[jmdt]

After thinking about it more, the effect should be passive and called skeleton charge.

[Sir Valimont]

I would add one line to the top of the text description:

Counts as a skeleton.

And I think it should count as a skeleton, obviously.