Thunder Hawk | Minor Thunder Hawk

[moomoose]

NAME: Thunder Hawk ELEMENT: Air COST: 5 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 5 | 2 TEXT: Charged: Has a 25% chance to cast Thunderstorm after each successful attack	NAME: Minor Thunder Hawk ELEMENT: Air COST: 2 TYPE: Creature ATK|HP: 4 | 2 TEXT: Charged: Has a 25% chance to cast Thunderstorm after each successful attack

ART: vrt and http://www.sxc.hu/photo/648596 IDEA: moomoose NOTES: It really is about time that air gets a bird of some sort. Thunderstorm is arguably the weakest of all aoe spells, but making it a proc may make it more worthwhile.  A deck which makes many hawks, be it through mitosis or fractal, would produce a field of creatures that provide moderate damage as well as the potential for continuous CC- however they are very fragile and lack the rebirth of their phoenix cousins. SERIES:

[Rutarete]

I like how you fitted the art to the theme. Though I somewhat question if it really deserves a -3 cost for the upgrade, though it seems that it's to make it more alike to Minor Phoenix.

[furballdn]

I like how you fitted the art to the theme. Though I somewhat question if it really deserves a -3 cost for the upgrade, though it seems that it's to make it more alike to Minor Phoenix.

If the unupped is balanced, the upped is also balanced due to the upgrade bonus. (+2)

[OldTrees]

Thunder Hawk + Adrenaline = 10 damage per turn + an expected 0.75 Thunderstorms per turn for 5 + 4 + 2 cards ~= 10 + 2 cards
Horned Frog + Adrenaline = 12 damage per turn for 6 + 2 cards

So +4 cost, -2 "attack" = 0.75 Thunderstorms per turn?


Thunder Hawk = 5|2 + an expected 0.25 Thunderstorms per turn for 5 + 1 card
Mummy = 5|3 + Mummy for 4 + 1 card

So +1 cost, - Mummy, 3->2hp = 0.25 Thunderstorms per turn?

Edit: Typo fixed.

[moomoose]

also factor in the mono vs duo for the horned frog portion, which is not to be tossed out.  monos are notably easier to pull off than duos.  and the percents are a bit off because each proc is independent, so it isnt simply additive, there will be a 27/64 chance that at least one thunderstorm will be cast when using adrenaline, and a 37/64 chance that none of the attacks will proc a thunderstorm.  It's a little less than a 50% chance when fleshed out, but there are also chances for 2 or 3 strikes that turn as well, albeit much lower percents.  (link for probability related math: http://www.edcollins.com/backgammon/diceprob.htm )

as far as the mummy goes, that's a more straightforward comparison, but you may have made a typo with
"So +1 cost, - Mummy, 3->2hp = 0.75 Thunderstorms per turn?" -> "So +1 cost, - Mummy, 3->2hp = 0.25 Thunderstorms per turn?"?

and yeah, i think 1 cost for a 25% chance to proc a single 1 aoe damage is worth about right.  keeping in mind something such as a plague would proc 1 damage aoe to all creatures each turn for 2 (be it from the retrovirus or the spell itself)

[OldTrees]

also factor in the mono vs duo for the horned frog portion, which is not to be tossed out.  monos are notably easier to pull off than duos.  and the percents are a bit off because each proc is independent, so it isnt simply additive, there will be a 27/64 chance that at least one thunderstorm will be cast when using adrenaline, and a 37/64 chance that none of the attacks will proc a thunderstorm.  It's a little less than a 50% chance when fleshed out, but there are also chances for 2 or 3 strikes that turn as well, albeit much lower percents.  (link for probability related math: http://www.edcollins.com/backgammon/diceprob.htm )

as far as the mummy goes, that's a more straightforward comparison, but you may have made a typo with
"So +1 cost, - Mummy, 3->2hp = 0.75 Thunderstorms per turn?" -> "So +1 cost, - Mummy, 3->2hp = 0.25 Thunderstorms per turn?"?

and yeah, i think 1 cost for a 25% chance to proc a single 1 aoe damage is worth about right.  keeping in mind something such as a plague would proc 1 damage aoe to all creatures each turn for 2 (be it from the retrovirus or the spell itself)

I did the duo -> mono conversion (the +1 cost from 5 4 to 10 )

Expected value of independent events is additive. This is how the expected value is 0.75 Thunderstorms despite that result never occurring.
2 coins have 1/4 * 0 heads + 2/4 * 1 heads + 1/4 * 2 heads = expected value of 1 heads out of 2 coins

Thanks for correcting the typo. Fixed now.

I agree that it is about right.

[moomoose]

ah, i see what you meant, average procs per turn rather than chance that at least one will proc on a given turn. my math came up with ~.7 using your formula, but may have miscounted at some point in the binary tree.

and given that adding in adrenaline still doesnt even move it to an avg of 1 per turn, its probably just easier to play them as augmentations to a deck rather than a focus- which is an underutilized avenue of card design imo.

[OldTrees]

ah, i see what you meant, average procs per turn rather than chance that at least one will proc on a given turn. my math came up with ~.7 using your formula, but may have miscounted at some point in the binary tree.

1 way out of 8 to get 0 + 3 ways out of 8 to get 1 + 3 ways out of 8 to get 2 + 1 way out of 8 to get 3
P(0) = (3/4)^3
P(1) = 3 * (3/4)^2 * (1/4)^1
P(2) = 3 * (3/4)^1 * (1/4)^2
P(3) = (1/4)^3
Summation of P(X) * X = 0.75

I suspect it would be used in a manner similar to how Plague and Fire Shield are used.