Carnassid Yearling :1mana::symg:
Creature - Beast (U)
Trample
:2mana::symg::symg:: If ~ has no +1/+1 counter on it, put three +1/+1 counters on ~.
2/1
Imposing Tyrranax :4mana::symg::symg:
Creature - Beast (R)
~ enters the battlefield with a number of +1/+1 counters on it equal to the total number of +1/+1 counters on other creatures you control.
5/5
The pangolin is kinda confusing. At first I wondered why you didn't just make it cost [GGGGG]. Maybe "You can't add nongreen mana to your mana pool."?
I considered both wordings and flipped a mental coin since I had no idea which of the two would be the less confusing. I'll take either.
It also feels rare to me. If not mythic, due to the incredibly unique ability.
Since when are uncommons not allowed to have unique abilities? Imperiosaur was uncommon - and I feel it could still be today when I compare it to Mwonvuli Beast Tracker. To be honest I felt it wasn't interesting enough to be rare. It's just another green fatty.
I guess I would put it at rare if I have no better card to put into the slot.
This is an excellent bunch of very cool cards. The only one I have issue with is Pangolin; I really don't like the rules issues associated. Mungha Wurm accomplishes basically the same thing much more efficiently. I'd also like to note that Tyrranax should mention permanents, not creatures so as to enhance synergy.
I'd rather see the Pangolin with "Mana added to your mana pool is green." Or if the rules need it to be more explicit, "If mana would be added to your mana pool, add that much green mana to your mana pool instead."
The only one I have issue with is Pangolin; I really don't like the rules issues associated. Mungha Wurm accomplishes basically the same thing much more efficiently.
How is forcing you into monogreen "basically the same thing" as Winter Orbing yourself? The drawback is pretty much negated by playing monogreen. That being said, the body could be a bit more efficient because of the drawback.
That being said, the body could be a bit more efficient because of the drawback.
I disagree simply because the drawback really only matters in limited. You are not going to play this in constructed in a non-mono green deck, so it's not really a draw-back. And in limited, depending on the set, you could probably either do better or do monogreen.
As far as the power level is concerned, it does feel too good to be uncommon yet not extremely rare. it seems like it would be an amazing uncommon or a crap rare.
Timmy like Tyrranax, however, I'm unsure how well position it is elsewhere. It seems like it's either well above the curve, or just on the curve because it would suck anyway to play.
With all of that said, I really like the design on all of these cards. Teh pangolin is my least favorite just because of its complexity. It seems too complex for its own good. Which is deceiving because it looks simple.
I disagree simply because the drawback really only matters in limited. You are not going to play this in constructed in a non-mono green deck, so it's not really a draw-back. And in limited, depending on the set, you could probably either do better or do monogreen.
As far as the power level is concerned, it does feel too good to be uncommon yet not extremely rare. it seems like it would be an amazing uncommon or a crap rare.
Limited is the only time being an uncommon would matter. For constructed, there are much better options than essentially a vanilla 6/5 for 5.
In limited you can get a 6/5 for 6 or a 5/5 for 5 at common, I don't think you need such a severe drawback in limited to get that extra power or the one less mana AND a bump up in rarity.
This is an excellent bunch of very cool cards. The only one I have issue with is Pangolin; I really don't like the rules issues associated.
Thank you.
I wish you would point out the rules issues so I could consider them myself.
Mungha Wurm accomplishes basically the same thing much more efficiently.
It does a very different thing. During my design I researched that card among others and didn't consider the two of them being anywhere close to each other.
I'd also like to note that Tyrranax should mention permanents, not creatures so as to enhance synergy.
Could? Yes. Should? I'd like input from others.
I personally feel strongly that Corpsejack Menace doesn't need to synergize with Llanowar Reborn. I consider quite the opposite to be true: Mentioning creatures explicitly can be the preferable choice from a more holistic view on the design: It makes a statement on where players are expected to search for +1/+1 counters.
In the New World a conscience choice to say "creature" can be the right choice even though it is a restriction.
I'd rather see the Pangolin with "Mana added to your mana pool is green." Or if the rules need it to be more explicit, "If mana would be added to your mana pool, add that much green mana to your mana pool instead."
I want it to be a definite drawback that also reads as a drawback. Your card doesn't read like a drawback and isn't even strictly one. Now my Urzatron and a Forest can pay for Khalni Hydra.
I'd like to hear more about the reasons behind your suggestion though.
How is forcing you into monogreen "basically the same thing" as Winter Orbing yourself? The drawback is pretty much negated by playing monogreen. That being said, the body could be a bit more efficient because of the drawback.
RFT on the first part.
I can see where you come from on the second part. I decided on the stats first and mused on a drawback that would justify the stats approximately. I wouldn't have a problem with adjusting them, but without a set to give context I don't think crunching the numbers will make much sense.
I disagree simply because the drawback really only matters in limited. You are not going to play this in constructed in a non-mono green deck, so it's not really a draw-back. And in limited, depending on the set, you could probably either do better or do monogreen.
As far as the power level is concerned, it does feel too good to be uncommon yet not extremely rare. it seems like it would be an amazing uncommon or a crap rare.
It's too good? I'm not sure I follow your line of thought. Could it be you are missing a word or two?
There is no way I'd make it a rare without some kind of change that bolstered its power beyond crap. I like though that the card gets one person excited and another less so. It seems like the kind of reaction I'd like to this kind of uncommon.
Timmy like Tyrranax, however, I'm unsure how well position it is elsewhere. It seems like it's either well above the curve, or just on the curve because it would suck anyway to play.
Yeah, I'm not able to place it either. I aimed for the kitchen table.
With all of that said, I really like the design on all of these cards. Teh pangolin is my least favorite just because of its complexity. It seems too complex for its own good. Which is deceiving because it looks simple.
Thanks.
I'm not really getting what's complex about Territorial Pangolin though. What's the most worrisome situation for it?
Limited is the only time being an uncommon would matter. For constructed, there are much better options than essentially a vanilla 6/5 for 5.
In limited you can get a 6/5 for 6 or a 5/5 for 5 at common, I don't think you need such a severe drawback in limited to get that extra power or the one less mana AND a bump up in rarity.
Do you think it could be common? Or do you think the ability disqualifies it as common and hence it should get a power buff? I thought the later, just checking.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Territorial Pangolin needs to have trample and be a 7/6 for the same mana cost.
Seconded. Also, I think the best way to template the ability would be "You can only add green mana to your mana pool." That way it is still restrictive (nongreen sources add nothing) while still being readily grokkable and doesn't cause weird rules confusions. This way it simply restricts what you can do rather than causing weird replacement effects.
As for the others, I'll second the oddity of the Bogle not targeting a creature, but I guess if shroud is a thing in your set then it's okay. The others look super cool (though I'm less thrilled about the tyrranax... then again, he's not designed for me :p)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Cubes! Feedback is always encouraged!
Seconded. Also, I think the best way to template the ability would be "You can only add green mana to your mana pool." That way it is still restrictive (nongreen sources add nothing) while still being readily grokkable and doesn't cause weird rules confusions. This way it simply restricts what you can do rather than causing weird replacement effects.
I'm confused.
Once again mention of weird rules confusions that are not explained. What is the issue? Doesn't the original card "[restrict] what you can do rather than causing weird replacement effects"?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Not quite. "You can add nongreeen mana to your pool, but you can't spend it" isn't particularly intuitive. "Yoiu can't add nongreen mana to your mana pool" is, as it only asks one thing -
'Is this mana green?'
'No'
'Then you can't add it to your pool.'
It's much simpler and more elegant, whilst still being flavourful.
I'm not certain I follow the argument of complexity. How is this more complex than e. g. a standard green mana symbol :symg:? You can add blue mana to your mana pool, but you -unless something else allows you to do so- can't spend that blue mana to pay the cost represented by that green mana symbol.
The change comes from "nongreen mana be spend to pay generic costs and colored costs of the same color" to "nongreen mana can't be spend at all".
I fail to see how - from a rules confusion perspective - the two wordings don't create a vastly different amount of confusion in my eyes.
Here is the difference:
Scenario A - my wording:
A blue-green deck. The player has three blue mana and three green mana and three untapped creatures available. The player casts Territorial Pangolin in the hope of later casting Shared Discovery to get some cards.
Once he attempts to cast the spell, the player's opponent points out that he can't spend the green mana.
Scenario B - your wording:
A blue-green deck. The player has three blue mana and three green mana and three untapped creatures available. The player floats all the mana then casts Territorial Pangolin in the hope of later casting Shared Discovery to get some cards.
Once he attempts to cast the spell, the player's opponent points out that he can't add blue mana to the mana pool. The player replies that the mana was added to the mana pool before the mighty Anteater Beast was on the battlefield and nothing prevents the spending of nongreen mana that is already there and proceeds to draw some cards.
I don't say that one scenario is more confusing than the other. You are. I don't see it though.
In a world with mana burn the difference might have been clearer, but nowadays...
My argument in favor of the current wording stems from the fact that there is a great lot of precedent for restricting the way you spend your mana - not so much precedent for restricting the mana you add to your mana pool.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
The pangolin is more complex than it appears because the "draw-back" does not match the cost. The cost, leads one to believe that this could be used in a multi-colored deck at the high-end. But because you can only spend green mana after it is cast, this can only be played in a mono-green deck.
All I'm saying is that it is not as simple as it appears.
Creature - Beast (U)
Trample
:2mana::symg::symg:: If ~ has no +1/+1 counter on it, put three +1/+1 counters on ~.
2/1
Creature - Beast (R)
~ enters the battlefield with a number of +1/+1 counters on it equal to the total number of +1/+1 counters on other creatures you control.
5/5
Creature - Anteater Beast (U)
You can't spend nongreen mana.
6/5
Creature - Beast (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may untap a creature you control.
1/1
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
It also feels rare to me. If not mythic, due to the incredibly unique ability.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I considered both wordings and flipped a mental coin since I had no idea which of the two would be the less confusing. I'll take either.
Since when are uncommons not allowed to have unique abilities? Imperiosaur was uncommon - and I feel it could still be today when I compare it to Mwonvuli Beast Tracker. To be honest I felt it wasn't interesting enough to be rare. It's just another green fatty.
I guess I would put it at rare if I have no better card to put into the slot.
Bogles are from an age when hexproof was the nonkeyworded stepchild.
Nothing speaking against targeting.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
How is forcing you into monogreen "basically the same thing" as Winter Orbing yourself? The drawback is pretty much negated by playing monogreen. That being said, the body could be a bit more efficient because of the drawback.
I disagree simply because the drawback really only matters in limited. You are not going to play this in constructed in a non-mono green deck, so it's not really a draw-back. And in limited, depending on the set, you could probably either do better or do monogreen.
As far as the power level is concerned, it does feel too good to be uncommon yet not extremely rare. it seems like it would be an amazing uncommon or a crap rare.
Timmy like Tyrranax, however, I'm unsure how well position it is elsewhere. It seems like it's either well above the curve, or just on the curve because it would suck anyway to play.
With all of that said, I really like the design on all of these cards. Teh pangolin is my least favorite just because of its complexity. It seems too complex for its own good. Which is deceiving because it looks simple.
Limited is the only time being an uncommon would matter. For constructed, there are much better options than essentially a vanilla 6/5 for 5.
In limited you can get a 6/5 for 6 or a 5/5 for 5 at common, I don't think you need such a severe drawback in limited to get that extra power or the one less mana AND a bump up in rarity.
Thank you.
I wish you would point out the rules issues so I could consider them myself.
It does a very different thing. During my design I researched that card among others and didn't consider the two of them being anywhere close to each other.
Could? Yes. Should? I'd like input from others.
I personally feel strongly that Corpsejack Menace doesn't need to synergize with Llanowar Reborn. I consider quite the opposite to be true: Mentioning creatures explicitly can be the preferable choice from a more holistic view on the design: It makes a statement on where players are expected to search for +1/+1 counters.
In the New World a conscience choice to say "creature" can be the right choice even though it is a restriction.
I want it to be a definite drawback that also reads as a drawback. Your card doesn't read like a drawback and isn't even strictly one. Now my Urzatron and a Forest can pay for Khalni Hydra.
I'd like to hear more about the reasons behind your suggestion though.
RFT on the first part.
I can see where you come from on the second part. I decided on the stats first and mused on a drawback that would justify the stats approximately. I wouldn't have a problem with adjusting them, but without a set to give context I don't think crunching the numbers will make much sense.
It's too good? I'm not sure I follow your line of thought. Could it be you are missing a word or two?
There is no way I'd make it a rare without some kind of change that bolstered its power beyond crap. I like though that the card gets one person excited and another less so. It seems like the kind of reaction I'd like to this kind of uncommon.
Yeah, I'm not able to place it either. I aimed for the kitchen table.
Thanks.
I'm not really getting what's complex about Territorial Pangolin though. What's the most worrisome situation for it?
Do you think it could be common? Or do you think the ability disqualifies it as common and hence it should get a power buff? I thought the later, just checking.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Seconded. Also, I think the best way to template the ability would be "You can only add green mana to your mana pool." That way it is still restrictive (nongreen sources add nothing) while still being readily grokkable and doesn't cause weird rules confusions. This way it simply restricts what you can do rather than causing weird replacement effects.
As for the others, I'll second the oddity of the Bogle not targeting a creature, but I guess if shroud is a thing in your set then it's okay. The others look super cool (though I'm less thrilled about the tyrranax... then again, he's not designed for me :p)
180 Winston Dueling Cube!
Antiquities War-themed Artifact Cube!
I'm confused.
Once again mention of weird rules confusions that are not explained. What is the issue? Doesn't the original card "[restrict] what you can do rather than causing weird replacement effects"?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I'm not certain I follow the argument of complexity. How is this more complex than e. g. a standard green mana symbol :symg:? You can add blue mana to your mana pool, but you -unless something else allows you to do so- can't spend that blue mana to pay the cost represented by that green mana symbol.
The change comes from "nongreen mana be spend to pay generic costs and colored costs of the same color" to "nongreen mana can't be spend at all".
Your Mountain won't pay for your Giant Growth; now it won't pay for Shock either.
I fail to see how - from a rules confusion perspective - the two wordings don't create a vastly different amount of confusion in my eyes.
Here is the difference: I don't say that one scenario is more confusing than the other. You are. I don't see it though.
In a world with mana burn the difference might have been clearer, but nowadays...
My argument in favor of the current wording stems from the fact that there is a great lot of precedent for restricting the way you spend your mana - not so much precedent for restricting the mana you add to your mana pool.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
All I'm saying is that it is not as simple as it appears.