Replacement effects can't replace themselves. This was an important part of why I worded it the way I did.
As far as the "if a spell or ability would have you draw a card" nonsense, that has never been used. Ever. Every replacement effect that watches for drawing cards uses "If you/a player would draw a card..." because it's clunky otherwise.
Also did well with others, not too exciting for me. 5/3 and that ability? Just put a +1/+1 on each creature you control and save yourself a lot of text.
The thing is that if you have some more mana and can cast another creature, those creatures with temporal evolve will also benefit. A narrow advantage to your proposed wording but since it's in theme and easily grokkable (it has evolve and grants evolve,) it is definitely preferable.
I'm glad that this thread is seeing some actual discussion again It's been a while since we last had a mass-reviewer.
I'm calling it right now- worst rare in the set. Even good limited players will find better bombs at common and uncommon no sweat. Worst. Episode. Ever.
I really do predict this to be our worst rare in set award winner. I'd be happier opening a jar of eyeballs, so I think anything worse is highly unlikely. This card wont just have zero constructed potential, but not be significantly better than a mass of ghouls in a draft.
Replacement effects can't replace themselves. This was an important part of why I worded it the way I did.
As far as the "if a spell or ability would have you draw a card" nonsense, that has never been used. Ever. Every replacement effect that watches for drawing cards uses "If you/a player would draw a card..." because it's clunky otherwise.
Just how do you rate Self Control in power? You know Phyrexian Arena is getting too good since they printed Underworld Connections, and this has 4 upsides over Phyrexian Arena! -2 mana -less restrictive at one - no life loss -may trigger more than once per turn.
And no, I'm not forgetting 'it downgrades 3+ draws'. It's just completely superfluous:
When do you normally cast spells that draw 3+ cards? Just don't include those spells in your deck. You wont need them with this card.
Even if 2 in the battlefield do nothing, this would be 4x in any blue deck in almost every format. (Who cares if you draw 3 self controls. You'd get even in 1 turn or 2 turns at most). I'd pick this in cube over time walk 90% of the time, and over library of alexandria 100% of the time.
Replacement effects can't replace themselves. This was an important part of why I worded it the way I did.
As far as the "if a spell or ability would have you draw a card" nonsense, that has never been used. Ever. Every replacement effect that watches for drawing cards uses "If you/a player would draw a card..." because it's clunky otherwise.
Even so, the number of times you draw just 1 card far outnumbers the times you would draw more than 1, so it seems severely undercosted.
MDenham, your card would be more balanced if it read "If a player would draw more than one card, that player draws two cards instead."
Yeah, I'll agree with that.
That said: if I'm posting a card that seems overpowered, it's usually because I'm trying out an idea. If I were putting Self Control into another contest, I'd be more likely to cost it at 3U along with making it symmetrical.
That said: if I'm posting a card that seems overpowered, it's usually because I'm trying out an idea. If I were putting Self Control into another contest, I'd be more likely to cost it at 3U along with making it symmetrical.
But it got your attention, didn't it?
then I'd probably just go with Howling Mine. it's a unique idea, but the "drawback" to it is that you only get to draw two cards if you would have drawn more, and that's a controllable situation.
Legal Code4WU
Enchantment (R)
Players have hexproof.
Other permanents have shroud. "132.6c—Thou shalt not act on another person. 132.6d—Thou shalt not act on an object."—Excerpts from the Noravian legal code
A good expansion to Privileged Position, +1 mana, more splashable.
Hexproof and Shroud on the same card is super weird, specially since hexproof killed shroud. It'd be so much simpler and cooler 'Other permanents and players have hexproof'.
On flavor, I don't get it. What world is this that has a super strict and enforced legal code sorely on casting spells (only on things, even on your own!) but lets creature fight all the time?
2.7 / 5
Blind GuardianWB
Creature - Human Knight
Hexproof.
Your opponents can not see your hand. “I will protect your secrets even if I don’t know you”
1/2
Great! use can't (its practically a keyword, its in the rules that it trumps other effects). I think this would be worded differently, or have a medium length reminder, but i'll not speculate.
3.8/5
Each player, starting with you, may choose a creature card he/she owns from outside the game. Reveal this card, and put it into play. Exile Reinforcement Wish.
I like this card. I think magic is a game of creatures, and punishing players that won't be heavy on them is good. (Not that I'm one for banning them, Light to 0-creature decks should exist for variety, but should fluctuate from 5% to 30% max in current formats).
Well, that was my personal philosophy (that'll influence my score of course).
3.2 / 5 (penalty for using the sideboard. casual players usually don't have them).
Creature- Beast Horror (U) (@ can be payed only with colorless mana.)
Whenever Blind Tunneler attacks, put a colorless Cavern land token onto the battlefield tapped. It has "t: Add 1 to your mana pool."
5/4
Alone, this card is fun (deck building fingers tingling). Thinking about a format that uses @, I think it could be fun also. I'm not sold on land tokens, but they may be better for the game than that time waster that is library searching, shuffling.
3.5 / 5
Sunscorch2RW [U]
Sorcery
Sunscorch deals 1 damage to each creature target player controls. Tap those creatues. It's hard to fight what you can't see.
First your botanist was spoiled by the spoiler, now Sunscorch was spoiled by the Fury. Please continue psyching.
On Sunscorch, this is Wrap in Flames. I need innovation
2.5 / 5
Esper Engineer1UU
[U]Artifact Creature - Vedalken Wizard[/U]
:symtap:: Search your library for an artifact card with converted mana cost X or less and put it into your hand, where X is the number of artifacts you control. Shuffle your library afterwards.
0/2
Too much searching grinds the game to a halt. Look at this: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[shuffle]&set=|[%22Innistrad%22]|[%22Avacyn%20Restored%22]|[%22Return%20to%20Ravnica%22]
All the shufflers from the last sets. None is repeatable without spending resouces.
That aside, I think its too strong, but I like the artifact buildup flavor.
2.3 / 5
Undying Hunter3BB
Creature - Vampire [R]
Flying, Lifelink
Pay 4 life: return Undying Hunter from your graveyard to the battlefield.
3/3
Too good, the lifelink really negates the cost in a nasty, bad way. Discard it early for making it impossible for opponents to compete. I may see it as a mythic (I'd hate).
2.2 / 5
Soultyrant Shade :1mana::symb::symb::symb:
Creature - Shade (M)
Other creatures power and toughness cannot exceed Soultyrant Shade's.
:symb:: Soultyrant Shade gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
1/1
Innovative, but unfun. Warps the game's most important part too much for a 4 drop shade.
Wrath of Gideon2WW
Sorcery (R)
Destroy all tapped creatures.
Rebound
I like this, but its way too good. Without the rebound, it's the better part of Sunblast Angel. 2 mana more for a 4/4 flier may seem excelent, but that was a 6 drop. This'll be a one sided wrath too many times.
The rebound is super fun though. I tried to think of fixers, can't get a good one right now... keep at it, this could be a gem.
3 / 5
Iaijutsu Ronin -- 2RR
Creature -- Human Samurai (R)
Bushido 2
If Iaijutsu Ronin would deal damage to a creature it fights, it deals that much damage plus 2 instead.
If a creature fighting Iaijutsu Ronin would deal damage to it, prevent 2 of that damage. 1R,T: Iaijutsu Ronin fights target untapped creature.
2/3
Easier: 1R,T: Iaijutsu Ronin gets +2/+2 and fights target untapped creature. That'll save you 30 words.
Fun.
2.9 / 5
Empty Vessel1:sym2u::sym2u:
Artifact (R)
When a creature dies, Empty Vessel becomes a copy of that creature and gains "if this creature would die, exile it instead, then return it to the battlefield."
"Carved in the shape of the living, it yearns for a soul to animate it."
Cool, fun, innovative. 3.8/5.
Disclaimer : I did not vote for this. This is what happens when you make deeper analysis after voting.
Veiled Sphinx2UW
Creature - Sphinx
Shroud, flying
As an additional cost to cast Veiled Sphinx, reveal your hand. UW: Target opponent names a card. Reveal your hand. If any cards in your hand are the named card, discard them. Else, draw a card.
2/4
I get it, but can't really make it into a flavorful idea. "This opens your head, then you'll get new ideas only if you can change your previous notions, unless your opponent gets lucky"...
Requiring opponent memory on casual is also a minus.
2 / 5
You may choose not to untap Gilded Lamp during your untap step. ,T: Put a 3/3 blue Djinn creature token with flying onto the battlefield. When Gilded Lamp becomes untapped, sacrifice that creature.
Great. Also got better than my previous vote, on deeper gameplay analysis. 3.8 / 5
Hallucibutcher 5BB
Creature - Nightmare Demon (M)
Flying
Whenever a player discards a card, destroy target creature.
6/6
Good. (Its hard to get stuff to say about these types of cards. Its -totally printable -requires a certain deck to be good -doesn't really make me excited). 3 /5
Easier: 1R,T: Iaijutsu Ronin gets +2/+2 and fights target untapped creature. That'll save you 30 words.
...well, you might think it would be, but then it doesn't get the bonus when it gets into other fights (and you can't use a trigger, because by the time the trigger goes off, the fight's already happened.) I probably could've eschewed the toughness altogether and make it more elegant, but I wanted to convey "bushido in a duel".
Not strictly necessary, I suppose, but I think it's a flavor or philosophy fit. I read a post maybe a couple of weeks ago about how red could get enchantment destruction only if it hit opposing Auras on your own stuff, since it's freeing your dudes from the bonds of Pacifism and such.
Also, MDenham, I'm not sure if we're on the same page about this card, but I am deeply disconcerted if it's about what I think it's about.
Yuya-Shrine Miko2W
Creature - Human Cleric (U)
Kicker 1B
If Yuya-Shrine Miko was kicked, it's a black Horror in addition to its other colors and types, and when it enters the battlefield, put a 3/3 green and black Tentacle creature token onto the battlefield.
When you control four or more Tentacles, transform Yuya-Shrine Miko.
2/2
------- Fiend Birther
•• Creature - Tentacle Horror (U)
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a 3/3 green and black Tentacle creature token onto the battlefield. 3GB,T: You may have each Tentacle creature you control fight another creature.
1/5
Portal from the Dark5BG
Sorcery (R)
Put four 3/3 green and black Tentacle creature tokens onto the battlefield. You may have each of those tokens fight another creature.
Flavorful and Fun. The kind of card that limited players and Timmys enjoy to discover in spoilers. 3.8 / 5
Lightning Streaker -- XRR
Creature -- Elemental (R)
Haste, Trample
Elemental Rapport (This creature gets +1/+1 for each other Elemental creature you control.)
When Lightning Streaker enters the battlefield, put X 1/1 red Elemental creature tokens with haste onto the battlefield. Exile those tokens at the beginning of the next end step.
At the beginning of the end step, sacrifice Lightning Streaker.
2/2
The problem with Elemental Rapport... is this card. Assuming midsize creatures with Elemental Rapport, a Lightning Streaker for 6 mana would give them all +5/+5, in addition to attacking with a (6+)/(6+) trampler and 4 1/1 hasters....
yikes!.
Knight SeraphWB
Creature - Horror Knight (R)
Flying.
Knight Seraph doesn’t untap during its controller’s untap step.
Whenever you gain life untap Knight Seraph.
Whenever you loose life tap Knight Seraph.
3/3
Don't like it. Even in a deck with good lifelinkers, this could be negated too easily by removal / pinging. Its the kind of card that even if it makes it into my deck due to stats, I'm sad about playing it.
Humbling Crown4
Artifact - Equipment (R)
If a creature would deal damage greater than equipped creature’s power, it deals damage equal to equipped creature’s power instead.
If a creature would be dealt damage equal to or greater than equipped creature’s toughness, destroy it.
Equip 4
Such a mess. I've read it 5 times, and I get it... but his would be read like 10 times per game featuring it. 'Humbling' just isn't flavorful enough to keep these abilities in player's heads.
It's also a card that has no use other than abusing it with an invisible stalker or the like.
Psychic Taxation2WU
Enchantment (R)
Your opponents play with their hands revealed.
Each spell an opponents casts costs 1 more to cast for each card in that player's hand that shares a card type with it.
Waay to swingy. If you catch your opponents with 4 4+ cmc creatures... they cost 8! and if they draw another in the long way to getting there... good (bad) game.
Legendary Creature - Avatar (M)
When Avatar of Generation enters the battlefield, exile the top X cards of your library, then you may put a creature card from among them onto the battlefield. If you do, repeat this process.
4/4
This card can't be easily analized. I tried. I could give percentages and stuff, but its just a matter of getting critical mass. In a creature mana ramp deck, 7 mana is playable, 8 mana is probably win, 9 mana is more surely win (barring sweepers). Library left is also a consideration.
I'll just have to go with my gut to evaluate it:
2.8 / 5
Perplexing SemanticsU
Enchantment (R)
Whenever you would draw a card, instead exile the top card of your library, then put it into your hand.
Whenever you would discard a card, instead exile that card.
You may exile a card from your hand rather than discard one to pay for a cost. 'I do not learn, nor do I forget. Ideas simply enter and vacate my brain of their own free will.' - Faberjon the Wistful, to his tutor.
Third ability is superfluous (second one covers it). Such a narrow card. Name doesn't tell me anything (it's hard to learn? I'm still getting the same cards... learning is different... and I can't remember stuff?).
When you make cards like this, you're probably thinking about a fun interaction or hosing a card / strategy... but reviewers don't have that context, and just see a card they would not pick / include in their decks.
Rotseed
Instant (U)
Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. If that creature has a -1/-1 counter on it already, destroy it instead.
Flashback :3mana::symb:
Molding SlimeXGG
Creature - Ooze (R)
Graft X
Evolve, evolve.
If you would move a +1/+1 counter from Molding Slime onto another creature, you may move any number of +1/+1 counters from Molding Slime onto that creature instead.
1/1
Messy. Overly complex interactions. Magic has been steering away from cards that give such a great number of options, instead focusing the complexity in card interactions. When I have this in my hand, I'd have to consider tons of variables on current and future plays.
First Strike, Vigilance
Sword Expert may block up to two creatures.
Sword Expert's power doubles when blocking. 2/3
A 4/3 first striker blocker creates stalemates (nevermind that it can kill 2 bears). Well, it's rare, so it shouldn't cause too many problems, and its a lousy attacker. I just feel that rare cards should excite you on how good they are at winning the game (even if they are not really), not at stalling the ground.
Brimstone Elemental1RR [U]
Creature - Elemental Morbid - Whenever another creature dies, put a +1/+1 counter on Brimstone Elemental.
Remove a +1/+1 counter from Brimstone Elemental: Brimstone Elemental deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
1/1
A better Goblin Sharpshooter if you can get it started. Good against tokens. I think it's printable.
Razzmatazz1R
[U]Sorcery[/U] [U]
Kicker 2R
~ deals 2 damage divided as you choose between one or two target creatures or players. If ~ was kicked, it deals 4 damage divided as you choose between any number of targets instead.
You're mad that someone scored your card low on a critique that doesn't count towards anything meaningful?
Fight or Flight is already a card name. Yours is an aggressively dumb pun with a greater-than-Crushing Vines level of disconnect between the modal effects. It really is not a great design. It's certainly an acceptable one, but nothing I'd call a home run.
I wasn't being sarcastic. It is wordplay (flight -> flight), and both effects fit their name, so... nice. I even submitted 'Forever / Alone' a week ago :P. 2.5 is right in the middle of the grades.
Well, maybe you're being honest on 0 / 5 for my crits, if so, I'd appreciate some more depth.
EDIT: to clarify, I rate less than 2.5 when I think the problems outweigh the upsides. FoFl's didn't.
Portal from the Dark needs to specify that the tokens fight another target creature. Re: Fight or Flight-- Forcing creatures to attack isn't typically blue, but Courtly Provocateur is something of a precedence. Noatz's card was simple and elegant.
Portal from the Dark needs to specify that the tokens fight another target creature.
I actually had this discussion on IRC, sort of.
Originally, the card was worded "Put four 3/3 green and black Tentacle creature tokens onto the battlefield, then choose target creature. For each of those tokens, if the targeted creature doesn't have damage greater than its toughness marked on it, that token fights the targeted creature." The intent was that if the second or third (or even the first!) fight killed the targeted creature, you wouldn't be risking the rest of the tokens (say, targeting a 4/1 creature).
Obviously, there were complaints that this wording is ugly because it references "damage marked on (a creature)", and there was the suggestion that maybe they should be able to fight different creatures as well. Hence the current wording. Technically it should read "You may have each of those creatures fight another creature of your choice.", though. (If it read "...another target creature", all four tokens have to fight the same creature. Why? Only one target. The wording to let you split it up while not getting around shroud/hexproof is ugly - uglier even than the original wording. It turns into someting like "Choose up to four target creatures. For each of those tokens, you may have that token fight one of the targeted creatures." I prefer the cleaner method here, which, unfortunately, doesn't target.)
Originally, the card was worded "Put four 3/3 green and black Tentacle creature tokens onto the battlefield, then choose target creature. For each of those tokens, if the targeted creature doesn't have damage greater than its toughness marked on it, that token fights the targeted creature." The intent was that if the second or third (or even the first!) fight killed the targeted creature, you wouldn't be risking the rest of the tokens (say, targeting a 4/1 creature).
Obviously, there were complaints that this wording is ugly because it references "damage marked on (a creature)", and there was the suggestion that maybe they should be able to fight different creatures as well. Hence the current wording. Technically it should read "You may have each of those creatures fight another creature of your choice.", though. (If it read "...another target creature", all four tokens have to fight the same creature. Why? Only one target. The wording to let you split it up while not getting around shroud/hexproof is ugly - uglier even than the original wording. It turns into someting like "Choose up to four target creatures. For each of those tokens, you may have that token fight one of the targeted creatures." I prefer the cleaner method here, which, unfortunately, doesn't target.)
Soratami Gunlem
Artifact
Tap an untapped creature you control with toughness 2 or less: Soratami Gunlem becomes a copy of that creature until end of turn, except it's a 7/7 colorless Artifact creature - Golem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really like this. It isn't easily grasped though which makes me wonder if WotC would word it like that.
The flavor of this is ironically tasty yet unpalatable. I wonder if WotC would go there.
I thought MDenham's wording could result in infinite card drawing.
And mine is just too unpolitically correct ever to see print.
As far as the "if a spell or ability would have you draw a card" nonsense, that has never been used. Ever. Every replacement effect that watches for drawing cards uses "If you/a player would draw a card..." because it's clunky otherwise.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
The thing is that if you have some more mana and can cast another creature, those creatures with temporal evolve will also benefit. A narrow advantage to your proposed wording but since it's in theme and easily grokkable (it has evolve and grants evolve,) it is definitely preferable.
I'm glad that this thread is seeing some actual discussion again It's been a while since we last had a mass-reviewer.
Just how do you rate Self Control in power? You know Phyrexian Arena is getting too good since they printed Underworld Connections, and this has 4 upsides over Phyrexian Arena! -2 mana -less restrictive at one - no life loss -may trigger more than once per turn.
And no, I'm not forgetting 'it downgrades 3+ draws'. It's just completely superfluous:
When do you normally cast spells that draw 3+ cards? Just don't include those spells in your deck. You wont need them with this card.
Even if 2 in the battlefield do nothing, this would be 4x in any blue deck in almost every format. (Who cares if you draw 3 self controls. You'd get even in 1 turn or 2 turns at most). I'd pick this in cube over time walk 90% of the time, and over library of alexandria 100% of the time.
Even so, the number of times you draw just 1 card far outnumbers the times you would draw more than 1, so it seems severely undercosted.
That said: if I'm posting a card that seems overpowered, it's usually because I'm trying out an idea. If I were putting Self Control into another contest, I'd be more likely to cost it at 3U along with making it symmetrical.
But it got your attention, didn't it?
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
then I'd probably just go with Howling Mine. it's a unique idea, but the "drawback" to it is that you only get to draw two cards if you would have drawn more, and that's a controllable situation.
A good expansion to Privileged Position, +1 mana, more splashable.
Hexproof and Shroud on the same card is super weird, specially since hexproof killed shroud. It'd be so much simpler and cooler 'Other permanents and players have hexproof'.
On flavor, I don't get it. What world is this that has a super strict and enforced legal code sorely on casting spells (only on things, even on your own!) but lets creature fight all the time?
2.7 / 5
Great! use can't (its practically a keyword, its in the rules that it trumps other effects). I think this would be worded differently, or have a medium length reminder, but i'll not speculate.
3.8/5
I like this card. I think magic is a game of creatures, and punishing players that won't be heavy on them is good. (Not that I'm one for banning them, Light to 0-creature decks should exist for variety, but should fluctuate from 5% to 30% max in current formats).
Well, that was my personal philosophy (that'll influence my score of course).
3.2 / 5 (penalty for using the sideboard. casual players usually don't have them).
Alone, this card is fun (deck building fingers tingling). Thinking about a format that uses @, I think it could be fun also. I'm not sold on land tokens, but they may be better for the game than that time waster that is library searching, shuffling.
3.5 / 5
First your botanist was spoiled by the spoiler, now Sunscorch was spoiled by the Fury. Please continue psyching.
On Sunscorch, this is Wrap in Flames. I need innovation
2.5 / 5
Congrats on 2k. On Voice... can't really evaluate it in a vacuum.
2.5 / 5
Innovative. I like these designs where you go 'how could I make this effect better?' and hit them while they are down.
3.6 / 5
Too much searching grinds the game to a halt. Look at this: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&text=+[shuffle]&set=|[%22Innistrad%22]|[%22Avacyn%20Restored%22]|[%22Return%20to%20Ravnica%22]
All the shufflers from the last sets. None is repeatable without spending resouces.
That aside, I think its too strong, but I like the artifact buildup flavor.
2.3 / 5
Too good, the lifelink really negates the cost in a nasty, bad way. Discard it early for making it impossible for opponents to compete. I may see it as a mythic (I'd hate).
2.2 / 5
Good flavor, not too exciting.
2.5 / 5
Innovative, but unfun. Warps the game's most important part too much for a 4 drop shade.
2.7 / 5
I like this, but its way too good. Without the rebound, it's the better part of Sunblast Angel. 2 mana more for a 4/4 flier may seem excelent, but that was a 6 drop. This'll be a one sided wrath too many times.
The rebound is super fun though. I tried to think of fixers, can't get a good one right now... keep at it, this could be a gem.
3 / 5
Easier: 1R,T: Iaijutsu Ronin gets +2/+2 and fights target untapped creature. That'll save you 30 words.
Fun.
2.9 / 5
Cool, fun, innovative. 3.8/5.
Disclaimer : I did not vote for this. This is what happens when you make deeper analysis after voting.
I get it, but can't really make it into a flavorful idea. "This opens your head, then you'll get new ideas only if you can change your previous notions, unless your opponent gets lucky"...
Requiring opponent memory on casual is also a minus.
2 / 5
Great. Also got better than my previous vote, on deeper gameplay analysis. 3.8 / 5
Good. (Its hard to get stuff to say about these types of cards. Its -totally printable -requires a certain deck to be good -doesn't really make me excited). 3 /5
...well, you might think it would be, but then it doesn't get the bonus when it gets into other fights (and you can't use a trigger, because by the time the trigger goes off, the fight's already happened.) I probably could've eschewed the toughness altogether and make it more elegant, but I wanted to convey "bushido in a duel".
'would' without 'instead' makes it a replacement, and the fight still happens.
"Whenever this would fight, it gets +2/+2 until end of turn."
I like this but... where is the red in it?
Not strictly necessary, I suppose, but I think it's a flavor or philosophy fit. I read a post maybe a couple of weeks ago about how red could get enchantment destruction only if it hit opposing Auras on your own stuff, since it's freeing your dudes from the bonds of Pacifism and such.
Also, MDenham, I'm not sure if we're on the same page about this card, but I am deeply disconcerted if it's about what I think it's about.
This... This is Hentai: The DFC, right?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Flavorful and Fun. The kind of card that limited players and Timmys enjoy to discover in spoilers. 3.8 / 5
The problem with Elemental Rapport... is this card. Assuming midsize creatures with Elemental Rapport, a Lightning Streaker for 6 mana would give them all +5/+5, in addition to attacking with a (6+)/(6+) trampler and 4 1/1 hasters....
yikes!.
2.3 / 5
Don't like it. Even in a deck with good lifelinkers, this could be negated too easily by removal / pinging. Its the kind of card that even if it makes it into my deck due to stats, I'm sad about playing it.
2.2 / 5
Such a mess. I've read it 5 times, and I get it... but his would be read like 10 times per game featuring it. 'Humbling' just isn't flavorful enough to keep these abilities in player's heads.
It's also a card that has no use other than abusing it with an invisible stalker or the like.
2 / 5
Waay to swingy. If you catch your opponents with 4 4+ cmc creatures... they cost 8! and if they draw another in the long way to getting there... good (bad) game.
2 / 5
This card can't be easily analized. I tried. I could give percentages and stuff, but its just a matter of getting critical mass. In a creature mana ramp deck, 7 mana is playable, 8 mana is probably win, 9 mana is more surely win (barring sweepers). Library left is also a consideration.
I'll just have to go with my gut to evaluate it:
2.8 / 5
Third ability is superfluous (second one covers it). Such a narrow card. Name doesn't tell me anything (it's hard to learn? I'm still getting the same cards... learning is different... and I can't remember stuff?).
When you make cards like this, you're probably thinking about a fun interaction or hosing a card / strategy... but reviewers don't have that context, and just see a card they would not pick / include in their decks.
2 / 5
Great use of flashback. 3.8 / 5
Nice pun. 2.5 / 5
Messy. Overly complex interactions. Magic has been steering away from cards that give such a great number of options, instead focusing the complexity in card interactions. When I have this in my hand, I'd have to consider tons of variables on current and future plays.
2 / 5
A 4/3 first striker blocker creates stalemates (nevermind that it can kill 2 bears). Well, it's rare, so it shouldn't cause too many problems, and its a lousy attacker. I just feel that rare cards should excite you on how good they are at winning the game (even if they are not really), not at stalling the ground.
2.4 / 5
A better Goblin Sharpshooter if you can get it started. Good against tokens. I think it's printable.
2.7 / 5
Flavorful. 3.5 / 5
Good. Printable, I think. 3 / 5
Nice crit. 0.0/5
That goes for all your crits.
You're mad that someone scored your card low on a critique that doesn't count towards anything meaningful?
Fight or Flight is already a card name. Yours is an aggressively dumb pun with a greater-than-Crushing Vines level of disconnect between the modal effects. It really is not a great design. It's certainly an acceptable one, but nothing I'd call a home run.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I wasn't being sarcastic. It is wordplay (flight -> flight), and both effects fit their name, so... nice. I even submitted 'Forever / Alone' a week ago :P. 2.5 is right in the middle of the grades.
Well, maybe you're being honest on 0 / 5 for my crits, if so, I'd appreciate some more depth.
EDIT: to clarify, I rate less than 2.5 when I think the problems outweigh the upsides. FoFl's didn't.
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Originally, the card was worded "Put four 3/3 green and black Tentacle creature tokens onto the battlefield, then choose target creature. For each of those tokens, if the targeted creature doesn't have damage greater than its toughness marked on it, that token fights the targeted creature." The intent was that if the second or third (or even the first!) fight killed the targeted creature, you wouldn't be risking the rest of the tokens (say, targeting a 4/1 creature).
Obviously, there were complaints that this wording is ugly because it references "damage marked on (a creature)", and there was the suggestion that maybe they should be able to fight different creatures as well. Hence the current wording. Technically it should read "You may have each of those creatures fight another creature of your choice.", though. (If it read "...another target creature", all four tokens have to fight the same creature. Why? Only one target. The wording to let you split it up while not getting around shroud/hexproof is ugly - uglier even than the original wording. It turns into someting like "Choose up to four target creatures. For each of those tokens, you may have that token fight one of the targeted creatures." I prefer the cleaner method here, which, unfortunately, doesn't target.)
(Probably NSFW) So you may have heard I'm trying to write a TV series...
Most Nominated for Random Categories, 2013
Maybe the Master of the Wild Hunt route could have worked, minus the tapping.
What did I ever do to you?
this is niceee
Tentacles, eh? I made a card for you:
Soratami Gunlem
Artifact
Tap an untapped creature you control with toughness 2 or less: Soratami Gunlem becomes a copy of that creature until end of turn, except it's a 7/7 colorless Artifact creature - Golem.