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.)
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.
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.
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.
Maybe the Master of the Wild Hunt route could have worked, minus the tapping.
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.
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.
I thought MDenham's wording could result in infinite card drawing.
And mine is just too unpolitically correct ever to see print.
extremely bit undercosted. i think this would make lotus cobra explode.
it should definitely cost more than Scapeshift.
'grats, Link!
Am I confused about the scoring process? Where does +7 for Blackbull come from?