Thanks for all the feedback! I see what you're saying, silvercut, but I see it more from the other side. If this spell exists and they think you're playing it, yes they have to adapt their strategy and try to bait all in one turn. Is it better than a hard counter with buyback? Not really, in fact (cost aside) it's inferior, as Forbid would be played in a (casual) deck that plans for the discard.
Guesswork - I think you are correct, and this probably shouldn't be modal. There are a couple other modal spells in the set and I had written it as such to tie in to another ... not really theme but trend. I will probably change it to your wording though; it looks cleaner if nothing else.
I still kind of like the idea though. It's there for exactly what its name implies: to spoil baiting tactics. As I said, the part that I think saves it is that you're generally not leaving 4UUUU open to counter the second spell if need be.
As far as the U/B variant ... something like that is a pretty good idea actually, though I think it would have to be more like 1UUB.
You're not going to be blocking your own creatures very much.
??? How did you get blocking your own creatures out of that? His intention is attach to your own creature that is blocking; thus needs to be reworded.
"Whenever a creature you controls blocks, you may attach ~ to that creature."
Even if he did mean to attach to the other creature, as the above Pacifism comment was geared towards, what would that have to do with blocking your own guy?
All of these can get stuck unequipped, which doesn't make them very fun. I'd suggest some kind of Equip cost.
I personally disagree entirely. I think it's a great concept, and one that I had something similar to going in one of my sets. The key is to print more cards that will equip equipment, so there is an out when they get stuck unequipped.
Think about auras ... they die entirely when you kill the creature. This creates a middleground between auras and equipment, as we know it.
That's a bit of a tossup. Thank god it doesn't have the original Masticore's ping ability. And the upkeep will poison you, which in most formats is only a drawback the third time, assuming your opponent isn't playing a poison strategy.
But I do agree, you're basically looking at 4/4 infect plus another poison counter for a cc of 4 and upkeep sac an artifact. It does seem too strong. Bump casting cost to 5 maybe?
So many people seem to think the enemy colors of the M10 lands will be printed soon. Looking back at dualish land cycles, and not counting actual dual lands, the two most important cycles are probably pains and fetches. Allied pains were printed in 1995, enemy pains in 2001. Allied fetches were printed in 2002, enemy fetches in 2009.
I wouldn't call this a prediction, but I think it's reasonable to anticipate that we might not see the enemy half of the M10 land cycle for a few more years.
Again, I agree with those that point out how rare enemy cycles are, insofar as we aren't "due" to get one.
SecretInfiltrator - Nice thinking outside the box. However, with the block in design, I didn't want to go so far as adding another supertype. I've already stretched the block a bit, and don't want more drastic change, if you know what I mean. But at the same time, I like the idea. I wish there was a way to do it with subtype or something though. As there's not, I think for now I'm back to my zone idea.
MOON-E - the issue is that I want it be a Forest, though not a land, in other zones besides the battlefield. Fetchable, and not restricted to 1 play per turn. Wooded Foothills would grab it, but Primeval Titan would not. Shatterstorm kills it, but Armageddon does not. See what I mean?
Brutal Hellfiend :symb::symb::symb:
Creature- Demon (R)
Trample.
At the beggining of your upkeep, sacrifice a creature with power and toughness 5 or greater, if you cant, discard your hand.
8/8
I wonder if the discard your hand clause is necessary, as you would typically be forced to sacrifice this if not another creature. Alternatively, you could change the sacrifice to a "may" and the discard to "if you don't." Although black isn't always a big fan of "may."
I like the Sphinx quite a bit, and sadly it seems ok based on the power creep of recent years. 5 years ago this would have been INSANE and now it's reasonable, lol.
The Druid seems VERY abusable; however I think the 1 toughness and triple green casting cost help mitigate that.
Not to attack names, but we already have a Tornado Elemental. Otherwise I like the card, especially with the delayed sacrifice (upkeep rather than EOT.) I don't think you need the word "next" in that though. Perhaps it should be triple red in the casting cost, akin to Ball Lightning.
Fair enough. Goes to show, should research before making claims, lol.
I knew I cut this from the set for a reason. I love the concept personally, but rather suspected it couldn't work. Basically under current rules there's no way to keep it nonland; and even if I changed to hypothetical rules and allowed Forest as a subtype of artifacts, I would still need to contend with the definition of Forest, i.e. Tap to add Green. Hmm... Perhaps I should shelf the idea for another couple more years, lol.
edit: This was running through my head as I fell asleep last night ... What if I lose the subtype, and add a "counts as" clause, basically inspired by Diligent Farmhand, combined with a Celestial Dawn type concept that affects it in any zone? Something like ...
Wooded Station
Artifact {C}
~ enters the battlefield tapped. : Add to your mana pool. Play this ability only if you don't control any non-Forest lands.
~ counts as a Forest in any zone.
I wouldn't be sure how to word that line, as there isn't anything exactly like this; I also don't think the word "zone" appears on any non-UN cards. That aside, are there rules issues? I don't know if, when on the battlefield, there is enough of a distinction between "counts as a Forest" and "is a Forest." Then there is the issue that I'm up to three lines of rules on a common, so it would probably have to bump up to uncommon.
I'm not sure I follow. 204.1a is addressing CHANGING types ... this card does not change any types. I do see what you're saying about the subtype Forest not being correlated with artifacts, but as this is custom card creation, we could assume that changes. After all, Forest is a creature type now, so why not?
Thinking about this more, I think the fact that Forest = tap to add green is what made me pull this from a custom set I had designed, as I wasn't sure how I could make the restriction work. I think I would like to find a way to make that work though.
So, for everyone reading this who wants to make a card with a static ability that removes all abilities of creatures - DON'T. The rules have trouble handling it when that card makes itself loses its abilities. Use triggered or activated abilities instead.
Did somebody not like the Humility / Opalescence question on the Judge test? Yes this would interact with March of the Machines in an adverse way, but those interactions DO exist in the game. Granted, I am sure WOTC regrets the aforementioned interaction, and will probably strive to not replicate it, but it is not "unprintable" for that reason.
Quote from Ras »
Or he could make it an enchantment instead.
Again, Opalescence exists. Same problem. And I had the thought of making its CMC 3 instead of 4, to avoid the 4 power when animated, but you can't fully avoid power adjustments, et cetera.
Guesswork - I think you are correct, and this probably shouldn't be modal. There are a couple other modal spells in the set and I had written it as such to tie in to another ... not really theme but trend. I will probably change it to your wording though; it looks cleaner if nothing else.
Thanks again guys!
As far as the U/B variant ... something like that is a pretty good idea actually, though I think it would have to be more like 1UUB.
??? How did you get blocking your own creatures out of that? His intention is attach to your own creature that is blocking; thus needs to be reworded.
"Whenever a creature you controls blocks, you may attach ~ to that creature."
Even if he did mean to attach to the other creature, as the above Pacifism comment was geared towards, what would that have to do with blocking your own guy?
Baitspoil 2UU
Instant {R}
Target spell's controller reveals his or her hand. Choose one - counter that spell, or return ~ to owner's hand.
I think the 4 cmc makes it alright, but as I said in the title I'm not sure that this should even exist. Thoughts?
I personally disagree entirely. I think it's a great concept, and one that I had something similar to going in one of my sets. The key is to print more cards that will equip equipment, so there is an out when they get stuck unequipped.
Think about auras ... they die entirely when you kill the creature. This creates a middleground between auras and equipment, as we know it.
But I do agree, you're basically looking at 4/4 infect plus another poison counter for a cc of 4 and upkeep sac an artifact. It does seem too strong. Bump casting cost to 5 maybe?
I wouldn't call this a prediction, but I think it's reasonable to anticipate that we might not see the enemy half of the M10 land cycle for a few more years.
Again, I agree with those that point out how rare enemy cycles are, insofar as we aren't "due" to get one.
MOON-E - the issue is that I want it be a Forest, though not a land, in other zones besides the battlefield. Fetchable, and not restricted to 1 play per turn. Wooded Foothills would grab it, but Primeval Titan would not. Shatterstorm kills it, but Armageddon does not. See what I mean?
I wonder if the discard your hand clause is necessary, as you would typically be forced to sacrifice this if not another creature. Alternatively, you could change the sacrifice to a "may" and the discard to "if you don't." Although black isn't always a big fan of "may."
I like the Sphinx quite a bit, and sadly it seems ok based on the power creep of recent years. 5 years ago this would have been INSANE and now it's reasonable, lol.
The Druid seems VERY abusable; however I think the 1 toughness and triple green casting cost help mitigate that.
Not to attack names, but we already have a Tornado Elemental. Otherwise I like the card, especially with the delayed sacrifice (upkeep rather than EOT.) I don't think you need the word "next" in that though. Perhaps it should be triple red in the casting cost, akin to Ball Lightning.
I knew I cut this from the set for a reason. I love the concept personally, but rather suspected it couldn't work. Basically under current rules there's no way to keep it nonland; and even if I changed to hypothetical rules and allowed Forest as a subtype of artifacts, I would still need to contend with the definition of Forest, i.e. Tap to add Green. Hmm... Perhaps I should shelf the idea for another couple more years, lol.
edit: This was running through my head as I fell asleep last night ... What if I lose the subtype, and add a "counts as" clause, basically inspired by Diligent Farmhand, combined with a Celestial Dawn type concept that affects it in any zone? Something like ...
Wooded Station
Artifact {C}
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
~ counts as a Forest in any zone.
I wouldn't be sure how to word that line, as there isn't anything exactly like this; I also don't think the word "zone" appears on any non-UN cards. That aside, are there rules issues? I don't know if, when on the battlefield, there is enough of a distinction between "counts as a Forest" and "is a Forest." Then there is the issue that I'm up to three lines of rules on a common, so it would probably have to bump up to uncommon.
Thinking about this more, I think the fact that Forest = tap to add green is what made me pull this from a custom set I had designed, as I wasn't sure how I could make the restriction work. I think I would like to find a way to make that work though.
Did somebody not like the Humility / Opalescence question on the Judge test? Yes this would interact with March of the Machines in an adverse way, but those interactions DO exist in the game. Granted, I am sure WOTC regrets the aforementioned interaction, and will probably strive to not replicate it, but it is not "unprintable" for that reason.
Again, Opalescence exists. Same problem. And I had the thought of making its CMC 3 instead of 4, to avoid the 4 power when animated, but you can't fully avoid power adjustments, et cetera.