Basically a kicker version of the Desecration Demon mechanic. While the rare is Grixis themed, I could see this keyword being used as a Rakdos guild mechanic as the design space is fairly limited and specific (not to mention developmentally problematic.
Rotfarm SwarmB
Creature – Insect [Common]
Bloodgift 1 (You may pay 1 life as this creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with a +1/+1 counter on it.)
1/1
Twitching Tether1BB
Creature – Spirit Horror [Uncommon]
Skulk (This creature can’t be blocked by creatures with greater power.)
Bloodgift 2 (You may pay 2 life as this creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with two +1/+1 counters on it.)
1/3
Blood-Eye Thaumaturge2UBR
Creature – Cyclops Shaman [Rare]
The first creature spell you cast each turn has Bloodgift X, where X is that card’s power. (You may pay X life as that creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with that many +1/+1 counters on it.) UBR: Untap target creature you control. It gains haste until end of turn.
2/4
For the rare card above, the intention is that the Bloodgift X keyword also affects the rare itself (so when you cast the rare, you can pay life to give it counters equal to its power). Is the current wording correct or does it imply that only other creature spells have Bloodgift, and not the rare itself?
Blood-Eye Thaumaturge's ability, as it is currently worded, definitely does not give itself Bloodgift. Nothing that modifies spells cast apply their static abilities to their own casting. If you want to give it Bloodgift, you need an entirely separate line of text.
Blood-Eye Thaumaturge's ability, as it is currently worded, definitely does not give itself Bloodgift. Nothing that modifies spells cast apply their static abilities to their own casting. If you want to give it Bloodgift, you need an entirely separate line of text.
Okay, any suggestions on how I can do that? How about:
"Whenever you cast Blood-Eye Thaumaturge or another creature spell for the first time each turn, it gets Bloodgift X, where X is that card’s power. (You may pay X life as that creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with that many +1/+1 counters on it.)"
Or would it be better to ignore the "first creature spell you cast each turn" restriction and boost the power level by just giving all creature spells you cast Bloodgift X?
Blood-Eye Thaumaturge's ability, as it is currently worded, definitely does not give itself Bloodgift. Nothing that modifies spells cast apply their static abilities to their own casting. If you want to give it Bloodgift, you need an entirely separate line of text.
Okay, any suggestions on how I can do that? How about:
"Whenever you cast Blood-Eye Thaumaturge or another creature spell for the first time each turn, it gets Bloodgift X, where X is that card’s power. (You may pay X life as that creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with that many +1/+1 counters on it.)"
Or would it be better to ignore the "first creature spell you cast each turn" restriction and boost the power level by just giving all creature spells you cast Bloodgift X?
That wording change is super confusing. If you want to give it Bloodgift X, just give it Bloodgift X. Nothing good comes from trying to mash together a creature's own ETB-replacement with a static ability that grants ETB-replacement effects. The ability applies while entering the battlefield, and the static ability does nothing until the creature is already on the battlefield. They are two totally separate things, and they should be treated as such.
I'm pretty sure that a 2/2 for B (at any rarity, let alone common) that costs you only 1 life is a bit too good.
And here's the thing - when do you ever not Bloodgift? If it's "when you're at 1 life", it really feels like this is too narrow to justify making it optional.
Still UnderrcostedB
Creature - Zombie (U)
When Still Undercosted enters the battlefield, lose 2 life.
2/2
If I'm at 2 life, I really shouldn't have the option to play this.
I'm pretty sure that a 2/2 for B (at any rarity, let alone common) that costs you only 1 life is a bit too good.
2 power 1 drops generally aren't printed at common due to the impact on limited, but a 2/2 for 1 with minor drawback isn't OP. It even has recent precedent in black thanks to diregraf ghoul. That said....
And here's the thing - when do you ever not Bloodgift? If it's "when you're at 1 life", it really feels like this is too narrow to justify making it optional.
I agree that this mechanic isn't very interesting for the reason you highlight here. Life loss vs a more efficient body just isn't a very interesting decision.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
- Manite
I guess the question is how much you think "comes into play tapped" is worth. diregraf ghoul is quite an interesting precedent, but it's drawback is worth more than 1 life. If it blocks, it's going to block more than 1 life normally. CIPT also prevents haste from helping to get in some extra damage.
Is 2 life a fair enough drawback? I don't know. I'm inclined to like it over 3 simply for the symmetry of his having 2 p/t and costing you 2 life, but at the same time it feels really aggressive. Now, if you're asking me whether I'd print this or diregraf ghoul in a new set, I'd be inclined to go with the reprint normally... but the "pay 2 life" thing is really flavorful and can teach players about that drawback.
I'd be VERY INTERESTED in whether or not diregraf ghoul gets reprinted in the next core set. It's a simple-enough drawback that is relatively hard to evaluate for new players. Yet it's simple enough that I don't feel bad about the slight increased complexity on this card compared to a counterpart vanilla. (Note: The big question is which, if any, color gets the 2/2 for 1C in the upcoming coreset. I'm calling red; and if they want to make us think about playing it, it should be a goblin warrior or something. However, if we want to finally give blue a 2/2 for 1U, a merfolk soldier might be fair too.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rotfarm Swarm B
Creature – Insect [Common]
Bloodgift 1 (You may pay 1 life as this creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with a +1/+1 counter on it.)
1/1
Twitching Tether 1BB
Creature – Spirit Horror [Uncommon]
Skulk (This creature can’t be blocked by creatures with greater power.)
Bloodgift 2 (You may pay 2 life as this creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with two +1/+1 counters on it.)
1/3
Blood-Eye Thaumaturge 2UBR
Creature – Cyclops Shaman [Rare]
The first creature spell you cast each turn has Bloodgift X, where X is that card’s power. (You may pay X life as that creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with that many +1/+1 counters on it.)
UBR: Untap target creature you control. It gains haste until end of turn.
2/4
For the rare card above, the intention is that the Bloodgift X keyword also affects the rare itself (so when you cast the rare, you can pay life to give it counters equal to its power). Is the current wording correct or does it imply that only other creature spells have Bloodgift, and not the rare itself?
Okay, any suggestions on how I can do that? How about:
"Whenever you cast Blood-Eye Thaumaturge or another creature spell for the first time each turn, it gets Bloodgift X, where X is that card’s power. (You may pay X life as that creature enters the battlefield. If you do, it enters the battlefield tapped with that many +1/+1 counters on it.)"
Or would it be better to ignore the "first creature spell you cast each turn" restriction and boost the power level by just giving all creature spells you cast Bloodgift X?
That wording change is super confusing. If you want to give it Bloodgift X, just give it Bloodgift X. Nothing good comes from trying to mash together a creature's own ETB-replacement with a static ability that grants ETB-replacement effects. The ability applies while entering the battlefield, and the static ability does nothing until the creature is already on the battlefield. They are two totally separate things, and they should be treated as such.
And here's the thing - when do you ever not Bloodgift? If it's "when you're at 1 life", it really feels like this is too narrow to justify making it optional.
Still Underrcosted B
Creature - Zombie (U)
When Still Undercosted enters the battlefield, lose 2 life.
2/2
If I'm at 2 life, I really shouldn't have the option to play this.
2 power 1 drops generally aren't printed at common due to the impact on limited, but a 2/2 for 1 with minor drawback isn't OP. It even has recent precedent in black thanks to diregraf ghoul. That said....
I agree that this mechanic isn't very interesting for the reason you highlight here. Life loss vs a more efficient body just isn't a very interesting decision.
- Manite
Is 2 life a fair enough drawback? I don't know. I'm inclined to like it over 3 simply for the symmetry of his having 2 p/t and costing you 2 life, but at the same time it feels really aggressive. Now, if you're asking me whether I'd print this or diregraf ghoul in a new set, I'd be inclined to go with the reprint normally... but the "pay 2 life" thing is really flavorful and can teach players about that drawback.
I'd be VERY INTERESTED in whether or not diregraf ghoul gets reprinted in the next core set. It's a simple-enough drawback that is relatively hard to evaluate for new players. Yet it's simple enough that I don't feel bad about the slight increased complexity on this card compared to a counterpart vanilla. (Note: The big question is which, if any, color gets the 2/2 for 1C in the upcoming coreset. I'm calling red; and if they want to make us think about playing it, it should be a goblin warrior or something. However, if we want to finally give blue a 2/2 for 1U, a merfolk soldier might be fair too.