Pharaoh | Pharaoh

[Atico]

Maybe N attack will be more interesting change and 7-8 cost?
N - number of Scarabs

[TheManuz]

Maybe N attack will be more interesting change and 7-8 cost?
N - number of Scarabs

If you give it N attack the cost shouldn't be increased, i think.

[Atico]

N attack means that You will have ~4 attack after 8th turn, so cost should be less. But N attack gives more ways for strategy (like Scarabs, SoR, maybe Mitosis).

Or other change. 0|9 stats and cost 7 . Losing 4 attack, but gain 2 and probably 1 scarab more.

[cowPICKLE]

I hate when people are always bragging in chat about having 6 PHARAOH'S in chat
OPPONENT "I have 6 Pharoah's"
ME"I dont giva a crap"

[Ningo67]

Its such a powerfull card cause u can just generate a bunch of  scarabs attacking your opponents and if u have enough and if u have  quanta then u can just eat everything 

[neuroleptics]

N attack means that You will have ~4 attack after 8th turn, so cost should be less. But N attack gives more ways for strategy (like Scarabs, SoR, maybe Mitosis).

Or other change. 0|9 stats and cost 7 . Losing 4 attack, but gain 2 and probably 1 scarab more.

I can't agree with you on that. Anyway, by comparing this to queen  's, you will notice that it's reasonable. cost 6, giving only fireflies that give quantas (although a strong trio or duo can be made) and cost 9, giving scarabs and using 1  to eat up just anything. Now that shards might be used (tho it's still being tested), i don't think it's wise to do that. Plus, i don't want to play a creature with 0 ATK

[Leodip]

N attack means that You will have ~4 attack after 8th turn, so cost should be less. But N attack gives more ways for strategy (like Scarabs, SoR, maybe Mitosis).

Or other change. 0|9 stats and cost 7 . Losing 4 attack, but gain 2 and probably 1 scarab more.

I can't agree with you on that. Anyway, by comparing this to queen  's, you will notice that it's reasonable. cost 6, giving only fireflies that give quantas (although a strong trio or duo can be made) and cost 9, giving scarabs and using 1  to eat up just anything. Now that shards might be used (tho it's still being tested), i don't think it's wise to do that. Plus, i don't want to play a creature with 0 ATK

If you played it you may know that it having no ATK may be even better, indeed, expecially if it is in order to decrease the cost. No slowed scarab-production because of Procrastination (most of the times you play it and your opponent steals it, but sometimes he plays it in its own deck), no infection via thorn carapace. AI's Dark Nymph will almost never vampirize it and it would lose lot of priority over other CCs (Freeze, double lightning, double rage potion, etc...).
However, I find giving more than one scarab pretty impossible, that'd be OP (well, if you use SoR you've got 4 Scarabs instantly).

[neuroleptics]

(well, if you use SoR you've got 4 Scarabs instantly).

SoR's nerfed. No more imba as this. You have got a point there tho.

[rob77dp]

(well, if you use SoR you've got 4 Scarabs instantly).

SoR's nerfed. No more imba as this. You have got a point there tho.

Even with the SoR nerf (only one SoR effect per player turn) a multi-Scarab ability for Pharaoh would generate 4 Scarabs (ability twice with two per use = 2 * 2 * 1once/turn = 4).

[neuroleptics]

(well, if you use SoR you've got 4 Scarabs instantly).

SoR's nerfed. No more imba as this. You have got a point there tho.

Even with the SoR nerf (only one SoR effect per player turn) a multi-Scarab ability for Pharaoh would generate 4 Scarabs (ability twice with two per use = 2 * 2 * 1once/turn = 4).

Not sure if i understand but
The turn that pharoah is out, SoR = 2 scarabs
next turn = 3 scarabs.

Or
pharoah, and wait. then Pharoah
so you need to get 2 pharoahs,  so, lets just say the quanta is sufficient,
you will get 1 pharoah, next turn, 1 more pharoah and the scarab. +SoR = 3 scarabs

unless you waited so long to spam scarbs Or Pharoahs
you might get 2 pharoahs, 2 SoR, = 4

depends on your deck strategy i guess. If no CC, waiting for a combo might not be a good idea. If there're CC, the whole senario will change

[CuCN]

I think everyone might be misinterpreting this:

Losing 4 attack, but gain 2 and probably 1 scarab more.

My interpretation of this suggestion is that the 2 you save from playing it is enough that you will have the quanta to use its ability one more time: the extra scarab is not a suggested change, it is a consequence of the change. Of course, I'm not Atico, and I might be wrong about the meaning of the post.

[rob77dp]

Spoiler for Quote pyramid:

(well, if you use SoR you've got 4 Scarabs instantly).

SoR's nerfed. No more imba as this. You have got a point there tho.

Even with the SoR nerf (only one SoR effect per player turn) a multi-Scarab ability for Pharaoh would generate 4 Scarabs (ability twice with two per use = 2 * 2 * 1once/turn = 4).

Not sure if i understand but
The turn that pharoah is out, SoR = 2 scarabs
next turn = 3 scarabs.

Or
pharoah, and wait. then Pharoah
so you need to get 2 pharoahs,  so, lets just say the quanta is sufficient,
you will get 1 pharoah, next turn, 1 more pharoah and the scarab. +SoR = 3 scarabs

unless you waited so long to spam scarbs Or Pharoahs
you might get 2 pharoahs, 2 SoR, = 4

depends on your deck strategy i guess. If no CC, waiting for a combo might not be a good idea. If there're CC, the whole senario will change

neuro - Sorry to cause such confusion about SoR!  I was following along with Leo discussing how changing SoR and/or Pharaoh could cause an OP combo.  It is apparent to me now your reply to Leo did not follow that logic so you misunderstood me to be referring to actual SoR.  First turn Pharaoh is out = max 2 Scarab due to max 1 SoR and second turn and beyond Pharaoh is out = 3 Scarab max per Pharaoh.