MTG Salvation

What's up with CrazyMatt's card? "Not countered? Nice, you have 4 turns to win"...oh wait, there's Devastation Tide. Just a miracle can save you!

Same here =\

Ethosheni Moro
Planeswalker - Ethosheni (artifact, Loyalty 2)
+2: ~this~ deals 1 damage to target creature with both power and toughness 5 and target red enchantment is a 2/2 creature in addition to its other types until end of turn and that permanent gains protection from black until end of turn
-4: draw a card
-4: draw three cards, then discard two cards

worst walker ever.

But this is funny


edit: no votes? =\

Quote from Oculus

Exactly! If you want it to attack, play it first main phase - point being, the drawback is totally irrelevant.

Not so irrelevant. There are more turns besides the one it comes into play. But for it's cots/p-t, yeh Tattermunge maniac was better

Quote from Subbak

Counting the creatures types among creatures you control would be a better idea if it weren't for changelings...

Your design has the same problem or not?

Quote from Flabort

Of course, both creatures WILL always share the "Creature" type with it... Perhaps you meant subtype.

This is wrong, creatures types refer always to those subtypes you mentioned. Creature is a card type, not the same. The ability is worded correctly.

(And I like it, but the cards were never that appealing. At least to steal a vote from others. As I already said, DCC seems to be much about luck of having your good card in a day of not so good cards from others.)

Doing it, hopefully well.

Done. Well, hopefully.

I can remember Cascade, Scepter, Dark Confidant (not 'trick', but clearly an advantage), and I am sure there's more. On the other hand, also suffers from Inquisition of Kozilek, Metal Misstep and others. Ultimately, is a better Concentrate, with its pros and cons.

No love for my card why? =\ Besides the typo (XX)....

I thought it would be interesting to have a concentrate that could be used in some tricks

I think so. But you won't need it Congrats.

I think you only have to post in April 1st thread, but I'm not sure. Probably the thread will state if is the first one or not, check it out then.

The card reads "Then the caster of the target spell may destroy target creature.", which is not the correct wording but it's clear that the player which spell got counter destroys a creature. The correct wording would be something like "Its controller may choose target creature. Destroy that creature." or the first one you said.

Why is it strictly better? There's only a situation it is better: when you have no creatures. Otherwise it's a fine drawback:

Name UB
Instant
As additional cost to cast ~ sacrifice a creature.
Counter target spell.

The submitted card is worst for you, thus is better.

What's wrong with my card today? Too strong?

The idea was to not allow players to be able to pay without any mana. That way people would almost always get it through. That's the reason I said maybe 2U/P would be better. It's a Rune Snag / Miscalculation with a bonus (2 life probably).