A while back I'd thought of a new template I'd want to use for power/toughness-modifying Auras and Equipment. You know how the P/T box is currently only used on creatures and vehicles? Well, what if they also used that space for stat modifiers? Below are examples of existing cards using this suggested new template:
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
If they didn't create vehicles that might have been a possibility as the rules could have defined what p/t on various non-creatures meant. But because we now see p/t on non-creatures it would be unintuitive for them to mean anything else.
It seems like it could have been interesting but I can't see this as reasonable with the existence of vehicles. You could have done the same with keywords so Nimbus Wings would have just read "enchant creature, flying, +1/+2" and it would have worked nicely if they become animated; as its kind of strange that if my Kitesail gains sentience it can't fly.
I will point out that the p/t box is only used if the Aura or Equipment actually modifies power/toughness. Flight for example would not use the box. And you really think players wouldn't be able to figure out "if I give my creature this sword, it gets +1/+1"? The Kitesail argument doesn't hold water as is since you can animate it anyway. +1/+0 clearly applies to the equipped creature and not to the Kitesail itself due to the + signs. Furthermore, Vehicles have a distinct border while Equipment use the general artifact border.
Yes, I can see scenarios of players asking whether or not the +/+ effect for some reason defines base power and toughness for an animated Equipment, but a quick look at Equipment without such boosts should hopefully indicate otherwise, else a judge should be able to easily clarify the matter. If all else fails, you could use a different color for the P/T box.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I get the feeling that this is the kind of thing that really needs to be done so it can be looked at to judge whether it makes sense. As I envision it, it feels strange and unintuitive. You may have a completely different mental image that makes it more intuitive.
Aura/equipment looking differently from other enchantments and spell as well as other equipment that grant similar effects is another concern. The template on cards like Silver-Inlaid Dagger and Adventuring Gear would be very confusing next to 'normal' cards like Vulshok Morningstar.
It would be no different from creatures who give themselves bonuses, like Borderland Marauder and Territorial Baloth. When it's a conditional bonus, you spell it out, and when it's a static effect, you put it in the p/t box.
Silver-Inlaid Dagger1
Artifact — Equipment
As long as equipped creature is a Human, it gets an additional +1/+0.
Equip 2
+2/+0
Adventuring Gear wouldn't change as its bonus is purely conditional.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I have in fact used the template in MSE files before, though I ended up deleting all my MSE sets a while back as for a time I was ready to leave Magic (and Magic design) permanently due to a bit of heartbreak over the GDS3. But I feel the template looked fine. Any change looks awkward at first because you're not used to it. Try designing a few dozen cards with the new template, and you might just find it starts feeling more normal than the current template. That's how it feels for me, anyway.
As for an environment that can really take advantage of the change, I was recently discussing Sigil tokens for New Alara, and there I feel the change would help immensely if the Sigils are implemented as Equipment tokens. Instead of writing "Create a Sigil, a colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1 and 'Equipped creature gets +1/+1'", you can write "Create a Sigil, a +1/+1 colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1." This is similar to how creature token p/t is listed, like a 1/1 white Soldier creature token.
Of course I would prefer that Sigils simply be artifact tokens with Exalted, but that's one example of where the new template would really benefit. Imagine +1/+0 Weapon tokens and +0/+1 Armor tokens.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Even if the solution currently looks awkward in MSE that just means that maybe their would have to be some update e. g. to the font to make the plus signs less awkward, though I personally just tried it and it looks fine - as it should since it is actually currently used on existing cards: Half-Orc, Half- is one of them.
It's something I tried before and am fine with - especially if one plans to use the technique for tokens.
I feel the change would help immensely if the Sigils are implemented as Equipment tokens. Instead of writing "Create a Sigil, a colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1 and 'Equipped creature gets +1/+1'", you can write "Create a Sigil, a +1/+1 colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1." This is simialr to how creature token p/t is listed, like a 1/1 white Soldier creature token.
Of course I would prefer that Sigils simply be artifact tokens with Exalted, but that's one example of where the new template would really benefit. Imagine +1/+0 Weapon tokens and +0/+1 Armor tokens.
Having worked with this in the past I strongly suggest favoring a single square +1/+1 Equipment token over two separate +1/+0 and +0/+1 tokens. More strongly skewed tokens e. g. +2/+0 might be something else, but using too small p/t boni encourages more tokens - which in turn means more clutter on the battlefield/board complexity.
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]
I must say, I wasn't sold on this idea at first read, but I went ahead and mocked up a couple in MSE to see how I felt with with it on an actual card.
I quite like the look of it, and it greatly cleans up the text box. It has bothered me since the introduction of Auras that they need a line defining what they can attach to, after having had it baked into the type line before, it makes Aura text feel cluttered. While this doesn't fix that, it does take something else out of the text, loosening up the clutter that way.
Some issues with it though:
Bestow utterly breaks your template. The P/T boost needs to be defined in the card's text because on Bestow cards, the P/T spot is already occupied. It is not enough to make it a tacit assumption that the Bestow creature's P/T is added to the enchanted creature's, you would need to spell it out, creating an inconsistency between Bestow Auras and regular Auras.
I would not include it in the description for creating tokens the way you have done. Not all Equipment and Auras grant P/T changes, but I think that baking it into the token definition, rather than making it an ability the token has, would require all future equipment and aura tokens (rare now, but you never know) to include a P/T, even if it is 0/0. Of course, leaving it out of the description and making it an ability creates an inconsistency between the card on the table and the game's description of the card. It would take some getting used to either way.
The P/T box is only able to accommodate five characters before either the font has to be reduced or the box enlarged. Since the new template includes the + and - characters, there isn't room for double-digit numbers in the box. Eldrazi Conscription is immediately problematic.
Some Auras grant different effects depending upon what they are enchanting. How would your template handle Clutch of Undeath?
I think you're on an interesting track, but it's not as cut-and-dried as it first seems.
I would not include it in the description for creating tokens the way you have done. Not all Equipment and Auras grant P/T changes, but I think that baking it into the token definition, rather than making it an ability the token has, would require all future equipment and aura tokens (rare now, but you never know) to include a P/T, even if it is 0/0.
That's a bold statement I entirely disagree with. If the Equipment has no static p/t altering ability (e. g. Cobbled Wings) the Equipment card under tzhe new template would have no p/t box saying +0/+0. Accordingly a token that doesn't alter p/t shouldn't have to mention it. At the very least it's nit as given as you assume.
There are already creature tokens that don't explicitly say "create a P/T creature token" if there is no predefined or static power and toughness.
Some Auras grant different effects depending upon what they are enchanting. How would your template handle Clutch of Undeath?
Same way as the above mentioned Adventuring Gear and Cobbled Wings? If there is no universal +P/+T boost use card text as usual.
Look at it this way: The new template is an option you should use if possible, but if not possible the old template still works for all existing cards.
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]
I like the idea, but for as long this is not a template change but a rules change.
The reason is that if we can't add +p/+t boxes to equipment aura and still keep this as ability and not as a separate characteristic. We can't have p/t being a non-ability characteristic of creatures, starting loyalty being a non-ability characteristic of PWs and +p/+t altering property of equipment not following the same rule. It's confusing.
So I think we would need to change base power and toughness altering of creature auras and equipments to be a seperate characteristic from ability. Which could open design space by letting cards reference that characteristic directly.
But it also means pacifism would need to have a 0/0 box, which may seem not very elegant for now (but totally oable).
But it also means pacifism would need to have a 0/0 box, which may seem not very elegant for now (but totally oable).
Once again, no. If you change the rules already, there is nothing stopping you from declaring that a missing p/t box is equivalent to having 0/0 - considering the rule regarding undefined numbers that's actually already the default.
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]
Having worked with this in the past I strongly suggest favoring a single square +1/+1 Equipment token over two separate +1/+0 and +0/+1 tokens. More strongly skewed tokens e. g. +2/+0 might be something else, but using too small p/t boni encourages more tokens - which in turn means more clutter on the battlefield/board complexity.
Hmm, good point. If ever they make a set with such tokens, +2/+0 Weapons and +0/+2 Shields makes for a better weight, and doesn't look strictly worse than the proposed Sigil tokens.
Bestow utterly breaks your template. The P/T boost needs to be defined in the card's text because on Bestow cards, the P/T spot is already occupied. It is not enough to make it a tacit assumption that the Bestow creature's P/T is added to the enchanted creature's, you would need to spell it out, creating an inconsistency between Bestow Auras and regular Auras.
Well, the fact that Bestow cards are still creatures first and foremost means the standard P/T takes precedence over the Aura version. That's a case where you simply write out the boost like you would on any conditional effect, because as far as Bestow creatures are concerned, the Aura mode is conditional rather than being the default state of the card. The p/t box on Auras and Equipment is reserved for cards that are Auras or Equipment by default, with unconditional p/t boosts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Because I feel that I don't often give acknowledgement to those who help me when I should, thank you all for your input thus far. I always appreciate when we have these conversations about how to improve these ideas.
Having worked with this in the past I strongly suggest favoring a single square +1/+1 Equipment token over two separate +1/+0 and +0/+1 tokens. More strongly skewed tokens e. g. +2/+0 might be something else, but using too small p/t boni encourages more tokens - which in turn means more clutter on the battlefield/board complexity.
I see your point. +2/+0 Weapons and +0/+2 Armor it would be, then. That way they don't look strictly worse than +1/+1 tokens like what Sigils possibly could be.
Bestow utterly breaks your template. The P/T boost needs to be defined in the card's text because on Bestow cards, the P/T spot is already occupied. It is not enough to make it a tacit assumption that the Bestow creature's P/T is added to the enchanted creature's, you would need to spell it out, creating an inconsistency between Bestow Auras and regular Auras.
In that case, I would either implement a clause that the p/t box on Auras and Equipment only appears if the card is an Aura or Equipment by default, or I would bake the boost into the Bestow ability like so:
Boon Satyr1GG
Enchantment Creature — Satyr
Flash
Bestow 3GG(If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it's a +4/+2 Aura spell with enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's not attached to a creature.)
4/2
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Actually I think bestow would be fine with this templating. I made a *****ty mockup.
It needs iteration and the current version does cost some text box space, but it's a start. A single random keyword ability isn't a reason to give up on a basically decent idea.
Eh, the second p/t box looks clunky. If they did go that route, I'd put it under the default box, or rather I'd put the default p/t on top. But I think the Bestow errata would be preferable; yes, it is technically functional errata, but all Bestow cards thus far have the +X/+Y effect, so errataing Bestow will still have the basic intended effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
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.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Yeah, that's why I said "it needs iteration." The first draft shouldn't be what you go to press with, but it shows that bestow isn't sufficient to kill the idea.
Short Sword 1
Artifact — Equipment
Equip 1
+1/+1
Holy Strength W
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
+1/+2
Kitesail 2
Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature has flying.
Equip 2
+1/+0
Nimbus Wings 1W
Enchantment — Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature has flying.
+1/+2
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.
If they didn't create vehicles that might have been a possibility as the rules could have defined what p/t on various non-creatures meant. But because we now see p/t on non-creatures it would be unintuitive for them to mean anything else.
It seems like it could have been interesting but I can't see this as reasonable with the existence of vehicles. You could have done the same with keywords so Nimbus Wings would have just read "enchant creature, flying, +1/+2" and it would have worked nicely if they become animated; as its kind of strange that if my Kitesail gains sentience it can't fly.
Yes, I can see scenarios of players asking whether or not the +/+ effect for some reason defines base power and toughness for an animated Equipment, but a quick look at Equipment without such boosts should hopefully indicate otherwise, else a judge should be able to easily clarify the matter. If all else fails, you could use a different color for the P/T box.
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.
Aura/equipment looking differently from other enchantments and spell as well as other equipment that grant similar effects is another concern. The template on cards like Silver-Inlaid Dagger and Adventuring Gear would be very confusing next to 'normal' cards like Vulshok Morningstar.
Silver-Inlaid Dagger 1
Artifact — Equipment
As long as equipped creature is a Human, it gets an additional +1/+0.
Equip 2
+2/+0
Adventuring Gear wouldn't change as its bonus is purely conditional.
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.
As for an environment that can really take advantage of the change, I was recently discussing Sigil tokens for New Alara, and there I feel the change would help immensely if the Sigils are implemented as Equipment tokens. Instead of writing "Create a Sigil, a colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1 and 'Equipped creature gets +1/+1'", you can write "Create a Sigil, a +1/+1 colorless Equipment artifact token with equip 1." This is similar to how creature token p/t is listed, like a 1/1 white Soldier creature token.
Of course I would prefer that Sigils simply be artifact tokens with Exalted, but that's one example of where the new template would really benefit. Imagine +1/+0 Weapon tokens and +0/+1 Armor tokens.
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.
It's something I tried before and am fine with - especially if one plans to use the technique for tokens.
Having worked with this in the past I strongly suggest favoring a single square +1/+1 Equipment token over two separate +1/+0 and +0/+1 tokens. More strongly skewed tokens e. g. +2/+0 might be something else, but using too small p/t boni encourages more tokens - which in turn means more clutter on the battlefield/board complexity.
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 quite like the look of it, and it greatly cleans up the text box. It has bothered me since the introduction of Auras that they need a line defining what they can attach to, after having had it baked into the type line before, it makes Aura text feel cluttered. While this doesn't fix that, it does take something else out of the text, loosening up the clutter that way.
Some issues with it though:
Bestow utterly breaks your template. The P/T boost needs to be defined in the card's text because on Bestow cards, the P/T spot is already occupied. It is not enough to make it a tacit assumption that the Bestow creature's P/T is added to the enchanted creature's, you would need to spell it out, creating an inconsistency between Bestow Auras and regular Auras.
I would not include it in the description for creating tokens the way you have done. Not all Equipment and Auras grant P/T changes, but I think that baking it into the token definition, rather than making it an ability the token has, would require all future equipment and aura tokens (rare now, but you never know) to include a P/T, even if it is 0/0. Of course, leaving it out of the description and making it an ability creates an inconsistency between the card on the table and the game's description of the card. It would take some getting used to either way.
The P/T box is only able to accommodate five characters before either the font has to be reduced or the box enlarged. Since the new template includes the + and - characters, there isn't room for double-digit numbers in the box. Eldrazi Conscription is immediately problematic.
Some Auras grant different effects depending upon what they are enchanting. How would your template handle Clutch of Undeath?
I think you're on an interesting track, but it's not as cut-and-dried as it first seems.
That's a bold statement I entirely disagree with. If the Equipment has no static p/t altering ability (e. g. Cobbled Wings) the Equipment card under tzhe new template would have no p/t box saying +0/+0. Accordingly a token that doesn't alter p/t shouldn't have to mention it. At the very least it's nit as given as you assume.
There are already creature tokens that don't explicitly say "create a P/T creature token" if there is no predefined or static power and toughness.
Same way as the above mentioned Adventuring Gear and Cobbled Wings? If there is no universal +P/+T boost use card text as usual.
Look at it this way: The new template is an option you should use if possible, but if not possible the old template still works for all existing cards.
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
The reason is that if we can't add +p/+t boxes to equipment aura and still keep this as ability and not as a separate characteristic. We can't have p/t being a non-ability characteristic of creatures, starting loyalty being a non-ability characteristic of PWs and +p/+t altering property of equipment not following the same rule. It's confusing.
So I think we would need to change base power and toughness altering of creature auras and equipments to be a seperate characteristic from ability. Which could open design space by letting cards reference that characteristic directly.
But it also means pacifism would need to have a 0/0 box, which may seem not very elegant for now (but totally oable).
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Once again, no. If you change the rules already, there is nothing stopping you from declaring that a missing p/t box is equivalent to having 0/0 - considering the rule regarding undefined numbers that's actually already the default.
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
Hmm, good point. If ever they make a set with such tokens, +2/+0 Weapons and +0/+2 Shields makes for a better weight, and doesn't look strictly worse than the proposed Sigil tokens.
Well, the fact that Bestow cards are still creatures first and foremost means the standard P/T takes precedence over the Aura version. That's a case where you simply write out the boost like you would on any conditional effect, because as far as Bestow creatures are concerned, the Aura mode is conditional rather than being the default state of the card. The p/t box on Auras and Equipment is reserved for cards that are Auras or Equipment by default, with unconditional p/t boosts.
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.
I see your point. +2/+0 Weapons and +0/+2 Armor it would be, then. That way they don't look strictly worse than +1/+1 tokens like what Sigils possibly could be.
In that case, I would either implement a clause that the p/t box on Auras and Equipment only appears if the card is an Aura or Equipment by default, or I would bake the boost into the Bestow ability like so:
Boon Satyr 1GG
Enchantment Creature — Satyr
Flash
Bestow 3GG (If you cast this card for its bestow cost, it's a +4/+2 Aura spell with enchant creature. It becomes a creature again if it's not attached to a creature.)
4/2
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.
It needs iteration and the current version does cost some text box space, but it's a start. A single random keyword ability isn't a reason to give up on a basically decent idea.
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.
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )