MTG Salvation

Possible cycle for a cumulative upkeep set.

I like that ability. Has that been printed before? I wouldn't use the word "return" to your hand, because the card may have gone to the graveyard without ever having been in your hand. I know Wizards has always worded it wrong, but we don't have to
Ver = green. So he's a green Grinch

Quote from rancored_elf

I like that ability. Has that been printed before? I wouldn't use the word "return" to your hand, because the card may have gone to the graveyard without ever having been in your hand. I know Wizards has always worded it wrong, but we don't have to

We kinda do, since that is the standard. What would you prefer? "Put this card from your graveyard into your hand?"

Unliving Spark... may be undercosted? Recurring burn is always scary, even if it can only hit players.

You should change Vergrinch's name to Verdigrinch. Rolls off the the tongue better.

Quote from void_nothing

You should change Vergrinch's name to Verdigrinch. Rolls off the the tongue better.

All I can see with either of the names is Verde Grinch. :xd:

I really like these cards though. The red one does seem strong. A little too strong...

Quote from void_nothing

We kinda do, since that is the standard. What would you prefer? "Put this card from your graveyard into your hand?"

Yeah, "put... from... into" is the standard used for everything except things leaving the graveyard. If it leaves the graveyard, it must "return".

Raise Dead would be correct if worded:

Raise Dead - B
Sorcery (C)
Put target creature card from your graveyard into your hand.

It's correct AND it uses less text.
I've been barking about this since well before the 6th edition wording changes which fixed a lot of errors like this one.

Stall: Not sure about this or how it'd play, no comment.
Void's Pull: Seems too expensive with doom blade and go for the throat at 1B and dismember at 1BB (Or more commonly, 1 and two life)
I know it's recurring but the buyback cost is a permanent, considering you can't target the creature this could be 1BB or even 1B even if it does get around indestructibility, protection and hexproof.
Unliving Spark: I like this card in both theme and application, perfect how it is in my opinion.
Vergrinch: Name's a little weird to say for me, but so are plenty of other cards.
Touch of Eternity: Love the name, very flavorful. Comparable to darksteel plate. Might be better lowered 1 because of the more stringent mana restrictions, but considering it is subject to less hate and can recur itself I'd say it's good where it is unless testing suggests otherwise.

Quote from rancored_elf

Yeah, "put... from... into" is the standard used for everything except things leaving the graveyard. If it leaves the graveyard, it must "return".

Anything that's public zone to hand is "return".

Anything "public zone", then. Thanks

Quote from rancored_elf

I like that ability. Has that been printed before?

To my knowledge this ability has never seen print before. It's inpired by the theme of cumulative upkeep.
Sacrificing something in your upkeep might be less harsh if the permanent is doomed anyway.

I wouldn't use the word "return" to your hand, because the card may have gone to the graveyard without ever having been in your hand. I know Wizards has always worded it wrong, but we don't have to

I changed some wordings, e. g. "attacks each turn if able" to the more correct "attacks each combat if able". On this one I'll pass though.

Stall
It's actually the card that inspired the whole cycle - for obvious reasons.
Void's Pull
It might be overcosted and be better at :1mana::symb::symb: - I just imagine it as a Limited card right now that should perform quite well.
Trying it at multiple costs might be the key here.
For comparisson: The second casting of Chainer's Edict makes for a total of :6mana::symb::symb::symb: already.
Unliving Spark
May be undercosted - it's just Lava Spike though, not Incinerate.
I'd prefer moving the damage number down to increasing the cost though.
Vergrinch
I'll consider changing the name to something that sounds even more like "green Grinch" then it already does.
Touch of Eternity
Seems to be no disagreement here.

I wonder what everyone thinks what mana cost should be considered equal to "sacrifice a permanent".

Thanks for the input so far!

Quote from SecretInfiltrator

I changed some wordings, e. g. "attacks each turn if able" to the more correct "attacks each combat if able". On this one I'll pass though.

These do not mean the same thing at all. If a creature "attacks each turn if able" during a turn where multiple combat phases occur, it is required to attack during the first combat phase and may either attack (if untapped) or not attack during the subsequent combat phase(s).

Unless what you're actually suggesting is that a wording Wizards doesn't use is "more correct" than a wording Wizards does use?

Stall
It's actually the card that inspired the whole cycle - for obvious reasons.
Void's Pull
It might be overcosted and be better at :1mana::symb::symb: - I just imagine it as a Limited card right now that should perform quite well.
Trying it at multiple costs might be the key here.
For comparisson: The second casting of Chainer's Edict makes for a total of :6mana::symb::symb::symb: already.
Unliving Spark
May be undercosted - it's just Lava Spike though, not Incinerate.
I'd prefer moving the damage number down to increasing the cost though.
Vergrinch
I'll consider changing the name to something that sounds even more like "green Grinch" then it already does.
Touch of Eternity
Seems to be no disagreement here.

I wonder what everyone thinks what mana cost should be considered equal to "sacrifice a permanent".

Thanks for the input so far!

Because of Stall, I'm assuming the whole cycle is rare.

Void's Pull seems to be appropriately costed to me, on the assumption that the format is not going to be filled with disposable token creatures. It's essentially Cruel Edict with "Buyback - 1B, Sacrifice a land card." That is not a trade I am unwilling to make at all, since you are presumably going to have to spend mana to cast new creatures in order to continue tying up my mana with killing them. And since I'm still drawing a card every turn...

Unliving Spark: Dangerous, but too slow for the dedicated burn decks to want it. The fact that it can't kill creatures is a HUGE design plus.

Vergrinch: I like how if you can't pay for its CU you have to wait another turn before dredging it back, but I wonder how many people will be confused by that.

Touch of Eternity: Seems fine. Takes some of the sting out of "removal spell in response to enchant."

Quote from Jenesis

These do not mean the same thing at all. If a creature "attacks each turn if able" during a turn where multiple combat phases occur, it is required to attack during the first combat phase and may either attack (if untapped) or not attack during the subsequent combat phase(s).

Apparently the answer I got by a judge a while ago was wrong. Thanks for making me look up the correct ruling!
That said: Now I will argue for the same wording with flavor.

Because of Stall, I'm assuming the whole cycle is rare.

I actually will try to see whether I can get away with Stall at uncommon due to the prominent role of triggered abilities in the setting, but they might end up at rare.

I appreciate all your input, but have to be most thankful for you pointing out the following:

Vergrinch: I like how if you can't pay for its CU you have to wait another turn before dredging it back, but I wonder how many people will be confused by that.

This will be something I'll have an eye out for when testing the cards with people unfamiliar with them.

Thanks again!