All Summons1RG Sorcery
Choose a color and a creature type. For each permanent you control with a mana ability, put a 1/1 creature token of the chosen type and color with defender and "This creature can't be sacrificed." onto the battlefield. "I'll just cross that bridge when I come to it."
—Famous last words
Was originally going to name this Summon the Tribe, but the flex that I added to it in the final concept takes away the focus on that name suggests when you're crossing the creature type you're maining with the one you're summoning.
So, first, I don’t know what this card is trying to accomplish. The main reasons to generate large numbers of tokens are (a) to attack with them and (b) to sacrifice them and you specifically prevent that from happening.
Second, why the number of permants with mana abilities? That is a super wired restriction when in most cases it will just be “the number of lands you control.”
Lastly, nothing about this card is red. You’re making an army of tokens that cannot be aggressive or used as fodder, so this is white/green or maybe even just white.
The idea here is to create a card that's interactive and self-sufficient.
However, we should all know that interactivity is a sensitive aspect when it comes to balance.
When you create a card with interactivity abroad, the interactivities with the most power-drive will dominate, and other possible interactivities will get back-seated into oblivion. The limits here are taking away from those interactivites which are power-hungry and would dominate, allowing the other, more creative interactivies to take a place in the light and thrive.
The concept behind permanents with mana abilities makes for a dynamic booster. When you think about what that could be, Lotus Petal/Lion's Eye Diamond/Birds of Paradise, in addition to lands, it lights up the imagination with promise of all the interactivity available.
I originally wanted this to cost 2, which would be great if you're using it for its self-sufficiency (battlefield defense), given the restrictions. Yet given the potential abroad, I figured you're not going to be running this without any mana ability enabling permanents anyways, which will put you on the same time-frame anyways. So for the greater potential that's available (after the first casting)—or when Reverberate—I decided to increase the cost to 3 permanently to suit.
All Summons is an item from the game Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen. It brings all your dispersed units to your current location. It's used when you gotta super burn someone. Typically, when you go to battle the boss or are dealing with an aggressive wave from a stronghold city. That kind of mobility is represented by fury and passion. Hence the red. Green represents the nature and survival of such a thing.
I understand that white has traditionally sought to represent all thing "military" but let me just say that is a terrible misconception. The white regarding military should always represent only what is True and Pure in military; and entities that represent truth, justice, purity, discipline, values, wholesomeness; respect of free-will, well-being, personal space, and free speech. The only combat of which involve defending against people that would threaten the balance to disrespect these things for their own unjust gain (unjust enrichment, unjust deprivation, unjust privilege, unjust quartering).
Military itself certainly can span the entire color wheel. And it's in our best intentions to never lose touch with that. The balance or right-standing of one's place in the military is their own responsibility to provide the equilibrium for. This so easily becomes dark or violent things; weak things that succumb to carnal desires (to survive or to thrive [for one owns pleasure]. Can you realize the ground you're standing on is crimson red; that it is pitch-black even?
You've lost touch with that pure white ground entirely.
Making the tokens unable to attack or be sacrificed makes the spell less interactive, not more so, because the tokens have fewer uses.
Also, you're spewing a lot of philosophical BS there, but your card still has nothing to do with red, because red's gameplay is defined by aggressive play and short term advantage, which you are specifically eliminating from your tokens. It's not about flavor justification because you can justify anything with flavor, its about making sure the card matches the gameplay of the colors its in.
If you spent less time typing longwinded buzzword vomit and actually played the game, you might actually learn to make good cards.
It's not that white represents the military and as a result gets these token makes, but that you made them defender and non sacrificable which is very much white's part of the color pie and very much opposite red. When red gets tokens outside of just straight up making tokens, they get haste, attack bonuses, and sacrificed at the end of the turn. Making them unable to attack and unable to be sacrificed is just not that color.
I think that perspective of a red-green combination is too narrow-sighted, focusing on the negative aspects, and lacking the view of both colors neutral domains.
Certainly, the conditions reduce interactivity, but there's literally SO MUCH interactivity, that this isn't an aspect of [providing interactivity] but [focusing interactivity]. Some effects as so much interactivity, this comes natural, and the responsibility of the developer is to focus that potential so that the channels available are balanced and still fun (or even more fun) because such overbearing effects literally reduce interactivity with how single-handedly overbearing their domain influence is. Thus, desecrating [continuance] of the game.
Additionally, note the context of interactivity as stated referred that this does little on its own, and requires other content before the potential really becomes dynamic. It's more of a Johnny card than it is a Timmy card. It takes wing on interactivity—which is fun.
I think that perspective of a red-green combination is too narrow-sighted, blah blah blah....
More meaningless jargon vomit. Great. Look, you've got half a dozen people here telling you you're wrong about a game you've admitted you haven't actually played in a decade. If you're not actually interested in feedback you can learn from in order to improve, just stop wasting your time and ours and go post somewhere else. You're never going to get from us the blind praise for imagined genius that your ego apparently craves so desperately.
When packs of wolves, or elephants, or monkeys, rush to the scene of an emergency in fury and chaos to defend their own, do they sacrifice one another? No that's probably not good for survival. And so now since we can stop pretending it's out of color...
You've had nothing to say but a trivial flavor discrepancies and nit-picking my wording composure. Do you think there's actually anything wrong with the functionality? Is it OP? Does it give too much—even with its limitations? Do you think that focusing the interactivity is bad? Is there an argument against anything unmentioned thus far? Is everyone just upset that it would become an expensive card that's very popular?
You are conflating two very different things.
1. Each color has a distinct flavorful identity. If you tell me that a card is flavored around telepathy, I know that it's likely not Green or White. If you tell me that a card is about free expression, I will probably guess that it is green or red.
2. The color pie is a mechanical representation of what effects each color gets.
Those two things are not connected, even though you keep trying to act like they are. Honor is not in the white portion of the color pie and Poison is not in the green portion of the color pie because only game mechanics are governed by the color pie. Making a green creature kill spell isn't suddenly in the color pie because you flavor it as snake venom killing a creature. The flavor does not justify the color break.
Your card has a reasonable effect. The effect not being overpowered does not mean that red has any business creating a bunch of defenders.
You are correct that there is probably come conceptualization of G/R that could flavorfully represent gathering a large horde of creatures. That does not mean that red ahs any business creating a bunch of defenders.
Both of them together... do not mean red has any business creating a bunch of defenders.
The color pie is a prescriptive thing, almost by definition. Wizards defines what is and is not a red effect. There is no argument from flavor to be made to somehow "prove" that an effect "should" be red. If it isn't in the color pie, it simply isn't. You are approaching your arguments from an angle that simply does not work.
Yes, red has some cards with defender. In fact, in the last decade there have been 6 new red cards with defender, and they all either have some direct damage ability, a way to lose defender or a way to buff your offense at the same time. There are 0 card with defender that are both Red and Green. Further, green and white at the two colors always connected to effect that allow creatures with defender to attack as though they didn't, which it one interaction your card as written would actually want to play into.
You've had nothing to say but a trivial flavor discrepancies and nit-picking my wording composure. Do you think there's actually anything wrong with the functionality? Is it OP? Does it give too much—even with its limitations? Do you think that focusing the interactivity is bad? Is there an argument against anything unmentioned thus far? Is everyone just upset that it would become an expensive card that's very popular?
Actually we've said quite a bit the card, which you decided you didn't like and tried to drown us in buzzword soup to disguise the fact that you just don't like hearing, like always, that you don't know what you're doing. But I'll go ahead and spoon feed you the answers.
Is it OP?
No, its actually pretty bad. Since the tokens have very little utility, its not worth playing in most strategies that want lots of tokens, because they want them to attack or as sacrifice fodder. These tokens by themselves do nothing to advance the game state towards you winning.
Does it give too much—even with its limitations?
No, see previous answer.
Do you think that focusing the interactivity is bad?
No, interactivity is good. That is why your choice to limit its interactivity by making the tokens unable to attack or be sacrificed makes it bad. (To clarify, because it seems like we really need to spell things out for you, attacking with tokens and sacrificing them are ways that they are interactive. Your card is LESS interactive, not MORE interactive.)
Is there an argument against anything unmentioned thus far?
Its not a red card. It doesn't make sense in red decks where the token are specifically excluded from reds core gameplay strategies. Without the restrictions it would feel more red, but overall mass token strategies fir best in white's gameplay especially if the cannot attack.
Also the name sounds like a bad anime reference. Your original inclination of summon the tribe was better.
Is everyone just upset that it would become an expensive card that's very popular?
If you have a mana bird, Gemhide Sliver, and two lands on turn two—when you cast this on turn 3 (say you drop another land) you will get 5 slivers and have 10 mana next turn even if you don't drop a land.
If you have a mana bird, Gemhide Sliver, and two lands on turn two—when you cast this on turn 3 (say you drop another land) you will get 5 slivers and have 10 mana next turn even if you don't drop a land.
10 mana on turn 4 is not good enough for you?
This is so underpowered?
Yeah, 10 mana turn 4 is not super strong. In three-card-magical-Christmas-land I can cast Show And Tell on turn 3, put Omniscience into play, and use that to cast Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, and I didn't have to cast mana dorks on turns 1 and 2 so I can use hand disruption to make sure they can't interact with my combo. In fact that is a whole Legacy deck.
I regularly had 10 mana off Metal Workers and Voltaic Keys on turn 2 when I played Tinker back in the early 2000s. That's why it was a world championship deck.
If you actually played the game rather than acting like you're better than everyone, you'd know these things.
But it also only works with the special needs mulligan?
I'm sorry but, "Let me shuffle until I get all the cards for my combo in my hand" is not real gaming anything.
Why even bother shuffling, just set your entire hands from the start.
Yeah, because my scenario of having Show and Tell, Omniscience and Emrakul by turn 3 is SO MUCH LESS LIKELY than your of having mana bird on exactly turn 1, sliver on exactly turn 2 and Summons on exactly turn 3 and you still need a card that actually does something with the mana on turn 4 (assuming they don't kill your sliver.
(NOTE: All caps above signifies: Sarcasm, because your 4 card combo is less likely and slower than the one I offered, and you're not going to play a 10 mana threat on turn 4 thats better than casting a free Emrakul on 3.
Here, lets talk about cards that actually do combo well with your card: Divine Visitation (the tokens are now 4/4 angels and can attack) Mystic Reflection (the tokens are now copied of whatever the best card on the field is. And can attack.)
And.. thats about it, and these are only good because they make the tokens into threats instead of nigh unusable fodder.
Every good payoff for token spam needs them to either attack of be sacrificed or both. Your card is bad because you don't understand how the game is played.
Sorcery
Choose a color and a creature type. For each permanent you control with a mana ability, put a 1/1 creature token of the chosen type and color with defender and "This creature can't be sacrificed." onto the battlefield.
"I'll just cross that bridge when I come to it."
—Famous last words
Was originally going to name this Summon the Tribe, but the flex that I added to it in the final concept takes away the focus on that name suggests when you're crossing the creature type you're maining with the one you're summoning.
Second, why the number of permants with mana abilities? That is a super wired restriction when in most cases it will just be “the number of lands you control.”
Lastly, nothing about this card is red. You’re making an army of tokens that cannot be aggressive or used as fodder, so this is white/green or maybe even just white.
However, we should all know that interactivity is a sensitive aspect when it comes to balance.
When you create a card with interactivity abroad, the interactivities with the most power-drive will dominate, and other possible interactivities will get back-seated into oblivion. The limits here are taking away from those interactivites which are power-hungry and would dominate, allowing the other, more creative interactivies to take a place in the light and thrive.
The concept behind permanents with mana abilities makes for a dynamic booster. When you think about what that could be, Lotus Petal/Lion's Eye Diamond/Birds of Paradise, in addition to lands, it lights up the imagination with promise of all the interactivity available.
The potential for this card is still immense when you consider the incredible powerplays available with cards like Gemhide Sliver, Burn at the Stake, Roar of the Crowd, Brightstone Ritual; and the mass enabler for power in numbers creatures like Beast of Burden/Dauntless Dourbark/Crowd of Cinders/Doubtless One; cards such as Supreme Inquisitor.
Let the sac engines take a rest on the bench.
I originally wanted this to cost 2, which would be great if you're using it for its self-sufficiency (battlefield defense), given the restrictions. Yet given the potential abroad, I figured you're not going to be running this without any mana ability enabling permanents anyways, which will put you on the same time-frame anyways. So for the greater potential that's available (after the first casting)—or when Reverberate—I decided to increase the cost to 3 permanently to suit.
All Summons is an item from the game Ogre Battle: March of the Black Queen. It brings all your dispersed units to your current location. It's used when you gotta super burn someone. Typically, when you go to battle the boss or are dealing with an aggressive wave from a stronghold city. That kind of mobility is represented by fury and passion. Hence the red. Green represents the nature and survival of such a thing.
I understand that white has traditionally sought to represent all thing "military" but let me just say that is a terrible misconception. The white regarding military should always represent only what is True and Pure in military; and entities that represent truth, justice, purity, discipline, values, wholesomeness; respect of free-will, well-being, personal space, and free speech. The only combat of which involve defending against people that would threaten the balance to disrespect these things for their own unjust gain (unjust enrichment, unjust deprivation, unjust privilege, unjust quartering).
Military itself certainly can span the entire color wheel. And it's in our best intentions to never lose touch with that. The balance or right-standing of one's place in the military is their own responsibility to provide the equilibrium for. This so easily becomes dark or violent things; weak things that succumb to carnal desires (to survive or to thrive [for one owns pleasure]. Can you realize the ground you're standing on is crimson red; that it is pitch-black even?
You've lost touch with that pure white ground entirely.
Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Also, you're spewing a lot of philosophical BS there, but your card still has nothing to do with red, because red's gameplay is defined by aggressive play and short term advantage, which you are specifically eliminating from your tokens. It's not about flavor justification because you can justify anything with flavor, its about making sure the card matches the gameplay of the colors its in.
If you spent less time typing longwinded buzzword vomit and actually played the game, you might actually learn to make good cards.
Certainly, the conditions reduce interactivity, but there's literally SO MUCH interactivity, that this isn't an aspect of [providing interactivity] but [focusing interactivity]. Some effects as so much interactivity, this comes natural, and the responsibility of the developer is to focus that potential so that the channels available are balanced and still fun (or even more fun) because such overbearing effects literally reduce interactivity with how single-handedly overbearing their domain influence is. Thus, desecrating [continuance] of the game.
Additionally, note the context of interactivity as stated referred that this does little on its own, and requires other content before the potential really becomes dynamic. It's more of a Johnny card than it is a Timmy card. It takes wing on interactivity—which is fun.
More meaningless jargon vomit. Great. Look, you've got half a dozen people here telling you you're wrong about a game you've admitted you haven't actually played in a decade. If you're not actually interested in feedback you can learn from in order to improve, just stop wasting your time and ours and go post somewhere else. You're never going to get from us the blind praise for imagined genius that your ego apparently craves so desperately.
It triggers for each one.
If you get three tokens, assuming you have at least one of that type, that's 6 cash back?
Yeah, Reap doesn't have a great track record of knowing what words mean.
The best offense is a good defense. Green has always understood this: Giant Spider. Red finds means itself: Battle Squadron.
Where do all these red creatures with defender come from?
Wall of Stone/Wall of Dust/Wall of Razors/Wall of Earth/Wall of Lava/Rage Nimbus/Cinder Wall
When packs of wolves, or elephants, or monkeys, rush to the scene of an emergency in fury and chaos to defend their own, do they sacrifice one another? No that's probably not good for survival. And so now since we can stop pretending it's out of color...
You've had nothing to say but a trivial flavor discrepancies and nit-picking my wording composure. Do you think there's actually anything wrong with the functionality? Is it OP? Does it give too much—even with its limitations? Do you think that focusing the interactivity is bad? Is there an argument against anything unmentioned thus far? Is everyone just upset that it would become an expensive card that's very popular?
Edit: Let's simplify
You are conflating two very different things.
1. Each color has a distinct flavorful identity. If you tell me that a card is flavored around telepathy, I know that it's likely not Green or White. If you tell me that a card is about free expression, I will probably guess that it is green or red.
2. The color pie is a mechanical representation of what effects each color gets.
Those two things are not connected, even though you keep trying to act like they are. Honor is not in the white portion of the color pie and Poison is not in the green portion of the color pie because only game mechanics are governed by the color pie. Making a green creature kill spell isn't suddenly in the color pie because you flavor it as snake venom killing a creature. The flavor does not justify the color break.
Your card has a reasonable effect. The effect not being overpowered does not mean that red has any business creating a bunch of defenders.
You are correct that there is probably come conceptualization of G/R that could flavorfully represent gathering a large horde of creatures. That does not mean that red ahs any business creating a bunch of defenders.
Both of them together... do not mean red has any business creating a bunch of defenders.
The color pie is a prescriptive thing, almost by definition. Wizards defines what is and is not a red effect. There is no argument from flavor to be made to somehow "prove" that an effect "should" be red. If it isn't in the color pie, it simply isn't. You are approaching your arguments from an angle that simply does not work.
Actually we've said quite a bit the card, which you decided you didn't like and tried to drown us in buzzword soup to disguise the fact that you just don't like hearing, like always, that you don't know what you're doing. But I'll go ahead and spoon feed you the answers.
No, its actually pretty bad. Since the tokens have very little utility, its not worth playing in most strategies that want lots of tokens, because they want them to attack or as sacrifice fodder. These tokens by themselves do nothing to advance the game state towards you winning.
No, see previous answer.
No, interactivity is good. That is why your choice to limit its interactivity by making the tokens unable to attack or be sacrificed makes it bad. (To clarify, because it seems like we really need to spell things out for you, attacking with tokens and sacrificing them are ways that they are interactive. Your card is LESS interactive, not MORE interactive.)
Its not a red card. It doesn't make sense in red decks where the token are specifically excluded from reds core gameplay strategies. Without the restrictions it would feel more red, but overall mass token strategies fir best in white's gameplay especially if the cannot attack.
Also the name sounds like a bad anime reference. Your original inclination of summon the tribe was better.
No, because its not a good card. At sorcery speed with kneecapped tokens, it would be a bulk uncommon. There are many better and/or more efficient token creation options with more utility where the tokens aren't tied down and gagged by pointless restrictions
10 mana on turn 4 is not good enough for you?
This is so underpowered?
Yeah, 10 mana turn 4 is not super strong. In three-card-magical-Christmas-land I can cast Show And Tell on turn 3, put Omniscience into play, and use that to cast Emrakul, the Aeons Torn, and I didn't have to cast mana dorks on turns 1 and 2 so I can use hand disruption to make sure they can't interact with my combo. In fact that is a whole Legacy deck.
I regularly had 10 mana off Metal Workers and Voltaic Keys on turn 2 when I played Tinker back in the early 2000s. That's why it was a world championship deck.
If you actually played the game rather than acting like you're better than everyone, you'd know these things.
I'm sorry but, "Let me shuffle until I get all the cards for my combo in my hand" is not real gaming anything.
Why even bother shuffling, just set your entire hands from the start.
#1: Show and Tell + Omniscience = all of your cards in hand for free.
#2: All summons + Manaweft Sliver = 10 mana on turn 4.
Both are 2 card combos. Care to explain how #1 is a combination you would never get when you are worried about the (MUCH LOWER) power of #2?
Yeah, because my scenario of having Show and Tell, Omniscience and Emrakul by turn 3 is SO MUCH LESS LIKELY than your of having mana bird on exactly turn 1, sliver on exactly turn 2 and Summons on exactly turn 3 and you still need a card that actually does something with the mana on turn 4 (assuming they don't kill your sliver.
(NOTE: All caps above signifies: Sarcasm, because your 4 card combo is less likely and slower than the one I offered, and you're not going to play a 10 mana threat on turn 4 thats better than casting a free Emrakul on 3.
Here, lets talk about cards that actually do combo well with your card:
Divine Visitation (the tokens are now 4/4 angels and can attack)
Mystic Reflection (the tokens are now copied of whatever the best card on the field is. And can attack.)
And.. thats about it, and these are only good because they make the tokens into threats instead of nigh unusable fodder.
Every good payoff for token spam needs them to either attack of be sacrificed or both. Your card is bad because you don't understand how the game is played.
It's much more viable strategically in fair play games where you're not allow to mulligan until your hand is set.
I thought I had another combo possibility via Behemoth's Herald and its cycle, then remember the color restrictions.
inb4sliversareallcolorsfor0
I guess the closest to that which remains is: Delraich / Demon of Death's Gate / Dark Supplicant.
You can't sacrifice them though.
Wow, this is one balanced card.
Fixed it for you.