Skelesaurus | Skelesaurus

[OldTrees]

Supermassive in not needed provided the hp and poison were recalibrated to 15hp and gaining 1 poison per turn.

Obviously a card effect is not a good fit with Supermassive if the card could be improved by removing Supermassive.

It wouldn't really be improved -- if it was recalibrated to that, who in their right minds would make a gravity duo to catapult it? Who would gravity force it? Who would use chimera with it and have it matter?

All the extra hp does is make it look cooler and more fun. Which is fine by me. A couple of the supermassive creatures will be like that -- creatures that could be scaled down, but it just wouldn't be as fun.

I actually would enjoy the balanced poisonous catapult deck that would result from the recalibration. (5 poison)

I question why you have become so used to 15, 25 and 30 hp that you feel 75 hp is required to give it that cool Gravity style "Massive" effect.

 Balanced poisonous catapult deck? Um... Well, it might be a bit of fun, but you could have just as much fun catapulting a steam engine and it'd make about as much sense, if not more, since the steam engine's attack would grow faster if you somehow worked fire in, it's way cheaper than a skelosaurus would be, and you wouldn't have to catapult it on the first or second turn it comes into play to get the maximum damage out of it. For this one, there is absolutely zero point to scaling it down and taking off supermassive other than because you could. And like Jocko said, at 1 poison per turn and 15 hp, it would eventually get down to a low enough health that hard CC would have an effect. In the current version, even the turn before it dies from the poison, it will have 30 hp.
 
 Why more than 15, 25, and 30? Because I feel like the majority of these cards are a bit more sturdy than an armajio. Take a volcano, for instance.

Steam machine would not deliver poison to my foe. The difference is important for how the deck would be built and played.
I would catapult it at either 9hp 4 poison or 5hp 5 poison to get maximum net damage (28+4x or 35+5x).
Hard CC would be possible at 5 or 9 hp but it would be expensive. The card advantage gained would be valuable. Probably too valuable for the opponent to mistakenly use hard CC.

Volcano vs Colossus vs Asteroid sized Robot vs Great Wyrm Dragon (most dragons are merely Adults). I think you might be confusing Armagio for a smaller weaker creature like a Wyvern (Wyrm).

Sidenote: I have never seen an Armagio killed with hard CC except Gravity Force. Thus such an occurrence is rare.

[RRQJ]

sidetracking to an adjacent convo in this thread- any card can have unlimited passives, they do not have a conflict in the coding.  active abilities (even ones which dont require activation to use, its a bit of a misnomer, but still) can only have one per card

While this is true, it's highly recommended to give each creature 1 passive ability max (with the exception of Airborne, for the reason I stated before), mostly because 2 simple -not meaning vanilla- creatures are better for the game than 1 complex one.
I still like this card, but I would like it to have only one passive skill.

It's codeable, and having two or three passives doesn't really make things that much more complicated.  The only reason why most creatures have 1 passive (excluding airborne, and mutant) is because the only other passive not exclusive to one creature (or two, in the case of "ranged") is poisonous, and even that is pretty exclusive.  Why would a complex creature be worse for the game?

Having said that, I think all passives are explained in the card text of the given creature, except airborne, ranged, and poisonous, which are fairly self-explanatory.  Making a passive that isn't "obvious" to understand without an in-text explanation may be a bad idea.

So yeah, I guess "supermassive" may be problematic to introduce.

[Scaredgirl]

i like the bone wall upon death mechanic
i dislike the huge amount of hp, doesnt seem like this should have more hp than collosal dragon or even bone dragon, for that matter.

I agree.

I think the Bonewall effect is slick, but the HP thing is kind of cheap. Ivory Dragon looks similar to this guy, yet it has 5 HP and this one has 75 HP. I just don't see how someone made out of bone (and brittle one as it is slowly dying) could have this much HP just because it's big. Armagio looks like a transformer with futuristic armor and stuff, yet even that one has only 25 HP.

I would have liked this more with the "Supermassive" and with less HP. The Bonewall ability itself would have been enough to make this card interesting imo.

[PuppyChow]

sidetracking to an adjacent convo in this thread- any card can have unlimited passives, they do not have a conflict in the coding.  active abilities (even ones which dont require activation to use, its a bit of a misnomer, but still) can only have one per card

While this is true, it's highly recommended to give each creature 1 passive ability max (with the exception of Airborne, for the reason I stated before), mostly because 2 simple -not meaning vanilla- creatures are better for the game than 1 complex one.
I still like this card, but I would like it to have only one passive skill.

It's codeable, and having two or three passives doesn't really make things that much more complicated.  The only reason why most creatures have 1 passive (excluding airborne, and mutant) is because the only other passive not exclusive to one creature (or two, in the case of "ranged") is poisonous, and even that is pretty exclusive.  Why would a complex creature be worse for the game?

Having said that, I think all passives are explained in the card text of the given creature, except airborne, ranged, and poisonous, which are fairly self-explanatory.  Making a passive that isn't "obvious" to understand without an in-text explanation may be a bad idea.

So yeah, I guess "supermassive" may be problematic to introduce.

The hope is that on one of these card ideas I'll have enough room to write out supermassive's effect . I admit that it's a problem, but it could be solved by Zanz making an "Elements Dictionary" on the main page of the game that would explain all effects in detail. It's one thing I think the game needs anyway.




To Oldtrees: My bad; I forgot that catapult also poisons the opponent if the creature has poison on it. For some reason I thought you were talking of adding deadly poisons into the deck to provide poison. I agree, that could end up being a cool deck.

To the general consensus that this card would be better without supermassive and with lower health: I'm beginning to agree with you here. But until I think of a better, and bigger, creature that could be death's card in this series, it'll stay as is.

[Rutarete]

i like the bone wall upon death mechanic
i dislike the huge amount of hp, doesnt seem like this should have more hp than collosal dragon or even bone dragon, for that matter.

I agree.

I think the Bonewall effect is slick, but the HP thing is kind of cheap. Ivory Dragon looks similar to this guy, yet it has 5 HP and this one has 75 HP. I just don't see how someone made out of bone (and brittle one as it is slowly dying) could have this much HP just because it's big. Armagio looks like a transformer with futuristic armor and stuff, yet even that one has only 25 HP.

I would have liked this more with the "Supermassive" and with less HP. The Bonewall ability itself would have been enough to make this card interesting imo.

Is the art really the focus here? If art's the main problem, (which it's not), new art can be found. This is a fantasy game. A little mouse could have 15 attack (though it is improbable), and a giant bone dragon can have giant Hp.

[Scaredgirl]

i like the bone wall upon death mechanic
i dislike the huge amount of hp, doesnt seem like this should have more hp than collosal dragon or even bone dragon, for that matter.

I agree.

I think the Bonewall effect is slick, but the HP thing is kind of cheap. Ivory Dragon looks similar to this guy, yet it has 5 HP and this one has 75 HP. I just don't see how someone made out of bone (and brittle one as it is slowly dying) could have this much HP just because it's big. Armagio looks like a transformer with futuristic armor and stuff, yet even that one has only 25 HP.

I would have liked this more with the "Supermassive" and with less HP. The Bonewall ability itself would have been enough to make this card interesting imo.

Is the art really the focus here? If art's the main problem, (which it's not), new art can be found. This is a fantasy game. A little mouse could have 15 attack (though it is improbable), and a giant bone dragon can have giant Hp.

Nope, the theme is. Some people might look at the mechanics only, but I look at the whole package.

If we look at how Elements is now, we have Skeletons which are really weak and Bone Dragon which have less HP than the average Dragons. Now we would have a new skeleton creature that has more HP than half the creatures in the game combined! Going from dragon to dinosaur would give you 15 times more HP. Dinosaurs are big, yes, but not that big. I think that if we start giving high HP, the creature should have epic armor or something. Brittle bones that start to deteriorate as soon as you play the creature, do not sound like 75 HP to me.

I think the Bonewall mechanic is great and this creature would be great if it had less HP, but I don't see this bony creature as the highest HP creature in the game. You might have a different opinion.

I have talked about this before. You cannot do something that is illogical and just say "this is a fantasy game". Doing things like giving a little mouse 15 attack would be just unrealistic and lame. Even though this is a fantasy game, we should not completely forget basic things like physics.

[Jocko]

Not entirely offtopic, how would you think about the bonewall stuff applying to all the boney creatures in game?

[PuppyChow]

Not entirely offtopic, how would you think about the bonewall stuff applying to all the boney creatures in game?

Not sure. I'd be alright with skeleton getting it, but the bone dragon getting it wouldn't really be fair because then it'd be the only dragon with an extra effect (unless you count phase). I'm assuming you don't mean every creature with bones lol.

[Jocko]

Nu i only meant Skele and Bone dragon. I dunno about being unfair, bah. Does this add 3 counters to bonewall? (2 for effect +1 for death trigger)
If it were only an extra counter i think it would be OK.

[PuppyChow]

Nu i only meant Skele and Bone dragon. I dunno about being unfair, bah. Does this add 3 counters to bonewall? (2 for effect +1 for death trigger)
If it were only an extra counter i think it would be OK.

Bony for the unupped adds 2 extra counters, upped adds 3 extra counters.
Also, if a bone wall is not present at all, in its current form bony would replace any shield you have with 2 counters or 3 counters, effectively creating a small bone wall.


Also, since this seems to be the card that gets the most discussion, I've added a poll here and want to make a decision before I post any more of the ideas.

[PuppyChow]

Card edited.

[Naesala]

Definatly a step in the right direction