MTG Salvation

Alternatively, you could set up a cycle of five transform land faces, and create a set of dual lands by recombining faces, such that you would have lands like

Ruby-Lens Pharos // Opal-Lens Beacon

and

Opal-Lens Beacon // Topaz-Lens Lighthouse

Which permits you you interface with effects like "Search for a land in your library with the same name as a land you control" for instance, in a surprising way.

If you're going to have it cause life loss, I suggest following the example of Sleeper Agent, and setting it to a fixed amount.

Actually, just making a bigger Sleeper Agent without the 'target opponent gains control of it' bit would be all right.

Why do you need the specialty type at all?

So, Mana Claws – If I understand this card correctly, this sequence of events can occur:

You cast Mana Claws, paying 1RR and discarding a card. Your opponent says, "Hey, Mana Claws deals 4 damage to target creature!" Now the counter clause on MC triggers, so it doesn't deal any damage, doesn't counter anything, and you don't draw a card.

Quote from movexig

That's not nearly right. You can draw more than one card a turn, you know. Foreshadow can replace any of those, or multiples of them. Forecast is an upkeep ability and can only be used once per upkeep.

You're totally right! Good point.

These can be worded as Forecast abilities:

Forecast — Reveal ~ from your hand: Do (effect). Draw one fewer card during your draw step.

Quote from silvercut

But using suspend causes you to play the card so it takes up your land play for the turn. This land would take your land play the turn that you first try to play it and your land play the turn that it comes off of suspend. That is why there are so many posts in this thread that are trying to find different ways of wording it without actually using suspend.

Easier solution: Use suspend, and add:

When ~ ETB, you may play an additional land this turn.

Then you don't have to re-design suspend on the card at all, you simply solve the land drop consumption problem.

Quote from Ninja Caterpie

but this isn't any simpler. It's just as complicated but now there's no flavour to make it obvious how it works.

Disagree. Generating tokens that are copies of an Equipment card is pretty complicated, and I think there is generously enough room for flavor in the title, art, and flavor text. Manipulating +1/+1 counters is way less strange than generating multiple token attachable permanents. People have dealt with equipmenty-flavored cards prior to the Equipment mechanic before - remember Sword of the Chosen?

Besides that point, saying "it's for flavor" does not answer the unbalancing card-advantage aspect. This card as written would be a disaster in any format that includes Mirrodin block.

Quote from Windreave

Seems like changing it from being equipment takes a lot of the flavor away. If the intent is to remove sacrifice abuse, why not just add a "~ cannot be sacrificed" clause?

The intent is to simplify and improve.

The facts are, any card that generates 4 permanents is one that creates massive card advantage, not just for sacrifice abuse, but for a multitude of reasons. Off the top of my head, I can think of (in addition to sacrifice abuse):

- Triggering metalcraft
- Effects that count artifacts (Tolarian Academy, Mycosynth Golem, etc., for instance)
- Artifact animation effects generating abnormal numbers of creatures
- Removal resistance

In addition to that, it generates a weird board state. You're creating a number of repositionable +1/+1s, so why do something more complex than using counters? Flavor can lead design, but do not let good design be damaged be flavor.

Here's an attempt at a revision:

Militia's Armaments 2
Artifact
When ~ enters the battlefield, place four +1/+1 counters on it. (+1/+1 counters have no effect on non-creature artifacts.)
1: Move a +1/+1 counter from ~ to a creature you control that has no +1/+1 counters on it.
When a creature you control dies with one or more +1/+1 counters on it, place a +1/+1 counter on ~.

I think it's clear from this wording that a casting cost of 2 is a bit too low.

Devilish Mayhem requires you to use two randomizers, one of which is a variable size?!

That's not just complicated, it's unfeasible. I'd suggest removing the second randomizer like so:

Choose any number of target creatures and/or players. For each of those targets, flip a coin. If you win the flip, ~ deals X damage to that target, where X one-half the number of ~'s targets.

Now you should consider the CC, since you can use this for very effective targeted removal if you've got a lot of creatures to be dummy targets for it, or if your opponent is fielding a lot of creatures; it scales based on the board state, which is...pretty strange really.