Skeleton Regent | Skeleton King

[the Sage]

The card description says + N/2 for the number of skeletons.
You don't need to use N here, and you don't actually define it either.

I would say:
+1/+0 for every 2 skeletons you have in play.
OR (if you MUST use N)
+N/+0. N is half of the number of skeletons you have in play.


Oh and I forgot: I really really like the card!

[ratchetspyro94]

The card description says + N/2 for the number of skeletons.
You don't need to use N here, and you don't actually define it either.

I would say:
+1/+0 for every 2 skeletons you have in play.
OR (if you MUST use N)
+N/+0. N is half of the number of skeletons you have in play.


Oh and I forgot: I really really like the card!

Not great idea the card has a max attack of 13 or 14.

[Xelax]

The card description says + N/2 for the number of skeletons.
You don't need to use N here, and you don't actually define it either.

I would say:
+1/+0 for every 2 skeletons you have in play.
OR (if you MUST use N)
+N/+0. N is half of the number of skeletons you have in play.


Oh and I forgot: I really really like the card!

Not great idea the card has a max attack of 13 or 14.

Ratchet you  misunderstood- he was trying to make the description more comprehensive, that's all. I don't actually quite get what you were trying to say, but Sage wasn't trying to change the ability

[ratchetspyro94]

The card description says + N/2 for the number of skeletons.
You don't need to use N here, and you don't actually define it either.

I would say:
+1/+0 for every 2 skeletons you have in play.
OR (if you MUST use N)
+N/+0. N is half of the number of skeletons you have in play.


Oh and I forgot: I really really like the card!

Not great idea the card has a max attack of 13 or 14.

Ratchet you  misunderstood- he was trying to make the description more comprehensive, that's all. I don't actually quite get what you were trying to say, but Sage wasn't trying to change the ability

Oh my bad

[philipsballs]

Very nice jmdt

[Kuroaitou]

Hey jdmt, here's a few things you might wanna look out for before submitting this to the crucible (or before the Curator takes a look at this):

http://www.totalwallpapers.com/wallpapers.asp?number_id=877

Go to the VERY BOTTOM of that page where you found the picture, and you'll find this quote:

"All pictures/wallpapers displayed here are copyrighted to their respective owners. Commercial use of those pictures is strictly forbidden without prior agreement of the author. Each picture/wallpaper present here can be removed from the author."

Which means that you'll need to find other art, or ask permission from the artist to use that picture.

[Mantriel]

Great card idea.

In my opinion the "bad side" (darkness and death) aren't very good on their own. This card would fix this, in a stylish way.

[twinsbuster]

What happens if you have five skeletons out and a Skeleton King out? How much damage does it do?

Its N/2 rounded up, so 5 skeletons would be +3 so 5/4

so do you think this card is a bit UP? Only a 5/2 creature with 7 cost and 5 skeletons in play.
Its cost worth +attack equal to the total number of skeletons but not divided by 2.
Also the text need to be rephrased anyway. Just like Scrab: "Gains N attack where N is the number of skeletons on your field divided by 2"

[jmdt]

so do you think this card is a bit UP? Only a 5/2 creature with 7 cost and 5 skeletons in play.
Its cost worth +attack equal to the total number of skeletons but not divided by 2.
Also the text need to be rephrased anyway. Just like Scrab: "Gains N attack where N is the number of skeletons on your field divided by 2"

1st.) I agree and will change the text to match scarab when I update.

2nd.) I have been thinking this card was a bit UP for a bit and PhantomFox's Mechanics of Card Cost - Creatures (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10994.0.html) thread proves it.  Based on his findings unupped should be 2 cost for 2 attack and 2 more cost for growth in attack only.  That would mean that instead of 7 cost, this card should be lowered to 4 unupped.  So based on this should I lower the unupped cast to 4 or 5 .  I feel 5 may be a bit better balaned here.

As far as upped we can either add 1 attack and possibly 1 hp or lower the cost to 4

I would like to get everyione's suggestions on these balance issues.

3rd.) I did some searching on the art and found this page.   From this page it says: This file is from a shared repository and may be used by other projects.  Does this finding make the image ok to use further?

[ratchetspyro94]

so do you think this card is a bit UP? Only a 5/2 creature with 7 cost and 5 skeletons in play.
Its cost worth +attack equal to the total number of skeletons but not divided by 2.
Also the text need to be rephrased anyway. Just like Scrab: "Gains N attack where N is the number of skeletons on your field divided by 2"

1st.) I agree and will change the text to match scarab when I update.

2nd.) I have been thinking this card was a bit UP for a bit and PhantomFox's Mechanics of Card Cost - Creatures (http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,10994.0.html) thread proves it.  Based on his findings unupped should be 2 cost for 2 attack and 2 more cost for growth in attack only.  That would mean that instead of 7 cost, this card should be lowered to 4 unupped.  So based on this should I lower the unupped cast to 4 or 5 .  I feel 5 may be a bit better balaned here.

As far as upped we can either add 1 attack and possibly 1 hp or lower the cost to 4

I would like to get everyione's suggestions on these balance issues.

3rd.) I did some searching on the art and found this page.   From this page it says: This file is from a shared repository and may be used by other projects.  Does this finding make the image ok to use further?

Even tho I hate reading long post tho ill read books that Mechanics of Card cost - Creatures was very interesting.

[redium]

Merry Christmas

[jmdt]

Merry Christmas

That new art is soo amazing redium.  You rock

+ Karma