Insatiable Hunger|Hunger

[FallenSoul]

NAME: Hunger ELEMENT: Death COST: 5 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: - ABILITY: The target creature gain Devour and loses 1HP at the end of every turn. Previous skills are removed	NAME: Starving ELEMENT: Death COST: 4 TYPE: Spell ATK|HP: - ABILITY : The target creature gain Devour and loses 1HP at the end of every turn devour not activated. Previous skills are removed

ART: FallenSoul IDEA: FallenSoul NOTES: - SERIES: -

[killsdazombies]

hmmm heres an idea,
Hunger
target creature gains devour, every time it does not use its ability it loses 1 hp.

[wizelsnarf]

hmmm heres an idea,
Hunger
target creature gains devour, every time it does not use its ability it loses 1 hp.

Yeah that is an excellent modification.

[unionruler]

i concur with killdazombies in part--i think the unupped should be loses 1 hp every turn and the upgraded should be loses 1 hp every turn devour not activated. but you haven't specified the cost of the devour ability--i would recommend that it be set at 1 quantum of an element which is not  because otherwise it would be readily synergize-able with the bone wall and graveyard combi.

[FallenSoul]

well.. my first ideas was something like liquid shadows, so something that kill the creature and this is the reason behind the fact that the creature doesn't gain never hp and in the upgraded card it losses it always
something more like a curse than instead a bless
(and this is why i didn't specify the quantum cost of devour ability)

if it became a bless instad i agree in your conditions
(i've updated the session)

and maybe it could turns fun with  cost or  or  instead of the classic  for the devour cost

[Downsociety]

not to be a douche or anything, but it would sound better as "Starvation" rather than "Starving" because you have a noun, or an essence of the name, rather than a verb that describes that thing.

[unionruler]

not to be a douche or anything, but it would sound better as "Starvation" rather than "Starving" because you have a noun, or an essence of the name, rather than a verb that describes that thing.

At first I was thinking the same, but "starving" can be used as a gerund here, and it sounds nicer. And also it's more appropriate as "starvation" seems to imply that the effect of the card applies to many creatures and not just one.

[FallenSoul]

Which one is better? or.. maybe need some other fixes?

[unionruler]

Which one is better? or.. maybe need some other fixes?

CASE 1 looks more original. I support it. Just remember to insert  as well before devour.

[Scaredgirl]

I love that weird art. Very cool.

Idea is good too.

Thumbs up.

[Arondight]

I really like the art as well.

The card design looks confused, though. Giving a creature an ability that requires  , having the darkness template, and having a  cost to play.  It does looks very aesthetically pleasing, though.

I like ability # 2, but with a suggestion to that. I think it would be better if the cost to devour should be the same element of the card. Also, instead of "Devour," it should be named differently because it would lose 1HP without eating. Something like.. "Insatiable Hunger" in the description while having "Devour" as the ability name at the bottom of the card when it's in play.

Even if it would be used as a Lobotomize, usually the weakest creatures have the best abilities, so they may die from hunger because they are too weak.

[jmizzle7]

If this is a Death card (which it is), use the Death template.