+1: Angrath, Chain Wielder deals 2 damage to up to two target creatures and/or opponents.
-3: Destroy target creature. That creature's controller loses 2 life.
-7: Create a colorless artifact token named Flame Chain with "T: Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the next end step."
There doesn't appear to be any unifying trait here, walker's tend to have a specific trait that links several of abilities.
I immediately thought of Ob Nixilis Reignited. That guy was a reasonable card that saw significant play. Angrath put him to shame. While the plus is usually useless on the first turn it is almost always better after that, getting to see two cards and without the typical limitation of no lands. The minus just has a bolt stapled on, so strictly better because multicolor? The ultimate is the most unfair I've ever seen without actually winning the game. The opponent needs to attack with a minimum of 5 creatures to get any through and will lose 4 of them, and if they aren't pressuring your life total you are destroying their lands left and right.
There doesn't appear to be any unifying trait here, walker's tend to have a specific trait that links several of abilities.
I immediately thought of Ob Nixilis Reignited. That guy was a reasonable card that saw significant play. Angrath put him to shame. While the plus is usually useless on the first turn it is almost always better after that, getting to see two cards and without the typical limitation of no lands. The minus just has a bolt stapled on, so strictly better because multicolor? The ultimate is the most unfair I've ever seen without actually winning the game. The opponent needs to attack with a minimum of 5 creatures to get any through and will lose 4 of them, and if they aren't pressuring your life total you are destroying their lands left and right.
Angrath's -3 is literally a variation of Angrath's Fury without the search, or Unlicensed Disintegration without the artifact requirement. I say that to say that specific type of effect has been done before.
More unfair than reducing an opponent's life total to 1, Tooth and Nail Entwined, instant Emrakul or "You probably don't get another turn ever again"? I guess. I can have it just be one chain, and restrict it to creatures since that's what it's supposed to snag anyway.
The +1 is the one I was having a hard time with, so I might change it to something that ties the other two abilities together.
You know, your design here makes me see a little light in the "Create" title. It does make an interesting accent for artifact tokens (in the sense of engineering or blacksmithing the artifacts). But I still think at most, they should have split concept, and used the term "Summon" for creature tokens, and then "Create" for non-creature tokens. This would have effectively reserved the flavor on both sides, as I personally find using the word "Create" for creature tokens very bland, and linear, and lifeless. Even despite the loose tie to "human engineering", not every effect is going to tie into that flavor, so it's still more of a bad assignment than anything else.
You know, your design here makes me see a little light in the "Create" title. It does make an interesting accent for artifact tokens (in the sense of engineering or blacksmithing the artifacts). But I still think at most, they should have split concept, and used the term "Summon" for creature tokens, and then "Create" for non-creature tokens. This would have effectively reserved the flavor on both sides, as I personally find using the word "Create" for creature tokens very bland, and linear, and lifeless. Even despite the loose tie to "human engineering", not every effect is going to tie into that flavor, so it's still more of a bad assignment than anything else.
Except you're trying to reserve an entirely new action word that applies to an incredibly low number of cards. The vast majority of effects that create non-creature tokens are concentrated in Ixalan block, with scant representation elsewhere. Creature tokens appear in every set in every color, so it makes perfect sense to absorb a rare mechanic into a functionally similar common one. That leaves your idea with a very small number of advantages, subjective terminology choices notwithstanding, and it actually has downsides, to boot. Cards like Saheeli's Artistry that can create either or both noncreatures and creature cause the distinction you think you're establishing to collapse in upon itself. You either have a card that summons noncreatures, creates creatures, or uses both words in a supremely clunky piece of text. Flavor should never get in the way of sensible game design, and your idea would do just that.
Cards like Saheeli's Artistry that can create either or both noncreatures and creature cause the distinction you think you're establishing to collapse in upon itself. You either have a card that summons noncreatures, creates creatures, or uses both words in a supremely clunky piece of text. Flavor should never get in the way of sensible game design, and your idea would do just that.
I think that would be a special case, and in the event you're making Artifact Creatures, I would think the Create function generally takes precedence. Probably would motion to compose the standard that way. "When Artifact is in the clause, the "Create" action word takes precedence." However, could also have it only pertain to Artifact Creatures that are a copy of another creature, and otherwise from scratch use the term "Summon"; but I think the term "Create" would function pretty universally for all Artifact Creature token effects and their relative fantasy aspects.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Mana Cost: 3BR
Starting loyalty: 5
Legendary Planeswalker - Angrath
+1: Angrath, Chain Wielder deals 2 damage to up to two target creatures and/or opponents.
-3: Destroy target creature. That creature's controller loses 2 life.
-7: Create a colorless artifact token named Flame Chain with "T: Gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap it. It gains haste until end of turn. Sacrifice it at the beginning of the next end step."
I immediately thought of Ob Nixilis Reignited. That guy was a reasonable card that saw significant play. Angrath put him to shame. While the plus is usually useless on the first turn it is almost always better after that, getting to see two cards and without the typical limitation of no lands. The minus just has a bolt stapled on, so strictly better because multicolor? The ultimate is the most unfair I've ever seen without actually winning the game. The opponent needs to attack with a minimum of 5 creatures to get any through and will lose 4 of them, and if they aren't pressuring your life total you are destroying their lands left and right.
Angrath's -3 is literally a variation of Angrath's Fury without the search, or Unlicensed Disintegration without the artifact requirement. I say that to say that specific type of effect has been done before.
More unfair than reducing an opponent's life total to 1, Tooth and Nail Entwined, instant Emrakul or "You probably don't get another turn ever again"? I guess. I can have it just be one chain, and restrict it to creatures since that's what it's supposed to snag anyway.
The +1 is the one I was having a hard time with, so I might change it to something that ties the other two abilities together.
Except you're trying to reserve an entirely new action word that applies to an incredibly low number of cards. The vast majority of effects that create non-creature tokens are concentrated in Ixalan block, with scant representation elsewhere. Creature tokens appear in every set in every color, so it makes perfect sense to absorb a rare mechanic into a functionally similar common one. That leaves your idea with a very small number of advantages, subjective terminology choices notwithstanding, and it actually has downsides, to boot. Cards like Saheeli's Artistry that can create either or both noncreatures and creature cause the distinction you think you're establishing to collapse in upon itself. You either have a card that summons noncreatures, creates creatures, or uses both words in a supremely clunky piece of text. Flavor should never get in the way of sensible game design, and your idea would do just that.
I think that would be a special case, and in the event you're making Artifact Creatures, I would think the Create function generally takes precedence. Probably would motion to compose the standard that way. "When Artifact is in the clause, the "Create" action word takes precedence." However, could also have it only pertain to Artifact Creatures that are a copy of another creature, and otherwise from scratch use the term "Summon"; but I think the term "Create" would function pretty universally for all Artifact Creature token effects and their relative fantasy aspects.