Jabberwock | Jabberwock

[Naesala]

I feel the range is a little high for the cost, decrease the maximum or increase the card cost.

[zgatt]

Yes, 14 and 17 are far too high. Effectively, for 5 quanta, you get a creature that is, on average 7.5|7.5 or 10|10, and is immune to negative status. Lobotomize = kill is there as a drawback, but I still think you end up getting far too much for cost, given that negative status is more common than Lobo.

[DarkArk]

ok well what do you guys think up the cost or lower the max? im bound to lower the max no matter what cause a possible 20/20 creature right off the bat could be op.

i am still afraid that if it wont have much appeal if i lower it below 10 so maybe change the ranges to 0-9 and 0-10? and keep the cost the same or raise it to 6+?

uugh soo much to think about lol, thanks for all the input guys keep it coming

[russianspy1234]

sorry but i think i scooped you by a few hours the day you made it and have already submitted it to crucible.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,30527.0.html
mine is more random (0 is a possibility on the unupped) but it doesnt have the random effect or dieing if lobotmized.

[DarkArk]

that's fine the more the merrier 

 and i think the biggest draw for me at least is the random effect, the random stats just help to bring it in line with entropy

[DarkArk]

final bump maybe?

changed the range for x in the notes i think this version is alright,

let me know what you guys think!

i believe we may be ready for the crucible

[russianspy1234]

that's fine the more the merrier 

 and i think the biggest draw for me at least is the random effect, the random stats just help to bring it in line with entropy

its not the more the merrier though, i dont think having two similar cards in the crucible at the same time will be good for either of us in terms of voting.  the random effect and vorpal blade thing is cool, maybe bring it back to the way you had its stats before? ie, it feeds on chaos rather than embodying it.

[Gorthos]

I think the stats of Jabberwock should be high.  Jabberwocks are very large.

From the poem, here's what we know about Jabberwocks:

"Long time the manxome foe he sought
-- so rested he by the Tumtum tree,
and stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
the Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
and burbled as it came!"

So it seems that if you take action seeking the Jabberwock, it remains hidden, but when you pause to think it reveals itself.

So how about this:
Initial stats on Jabberwock are 0/15 costing 5 
The card text says:

Dies if lobotomized.  Manxome: If your opponent did not play a card last turn, Jabberwock becomes 15/1 until end of turn.

[Naesala]

I think Jabberwock is different enough. They are somewhat similar but I think they are different enough. Course you could just hold off moving Jabberwock until the next round of voting, if youre concerned

[russianspy1234]

I think Jabberwock is different enough. They are somewhat similar but I think they are different enough. Course you could just hold off moving Jabberwock until the next round of voting, if youre concerned

well they determine their stats the same way, this is an extra effect on top of the card i made.  since the random effect (especially on the upped) basically acts as immaterial the cards are similar enough that we would essentially just be splitting the votes between the judges who like the idea of a random stat creature.

[Naesala]

The manxome idea isnt to bad actually, but I would change it some. First of all I like Jabberwock's ability of getting only positive abilities so I'd want that not to change. However, let X=7?-number of cards your opponent plays per turn (the more activly they search, the less the Jabberwock appears). Health would be set at ~5 maybe, or should it be like 10? hm.

[EmeraldTiger]

I might be mistaken but I think I have seen the art before.