Feral Battalion1GW
Creature - Cat Berserker Knight
Flanking, Rampage 1
All creatures able to block Feral Battalion do so. They excel at two things: getting in people's way, and getting people out of their way.
2/2
I really, really don't like this card. Why? Because of these rules:
Quote from CompRules »
409.1. Playing a spell or activated ability follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the playing of a spell or ability, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the spell was played illegally; the game returns to the moment before that spell or ability was played (see rule 422, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.
Quote from CompRules »
409.1c If the spell or ability requires any targets, the player first announces how many targets he or she will choose (if the spell or ability has a variable number of targets), then announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each of those targets. A player can’t play a spell or ability unless he or she chooses the required number of legal targets. The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on the spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria).
My beef is this:
The modes of the spell are chosen randomly, and mode choices are made in during 409.1b, the step right before choosing targets for a spell or ability. When it comes time to choose targets for the spell, if the "destroy target creature" mode was chosen and there are no legal targets, then the player can't play the spell and has therefore performed an illegal operation, which in this case means simply reverting the game state to the point just before the player played the spell.
Net result: With no creatures on the board, in order for this spell to resolve, you would have to play and replay the spell until you randomly stumble upon the only combination of modes that can legally be played. With this particular card that's not so bad, especially since real live people who know this jargon can skip all the random nonsense and cut to the chase; but the idea of choosing modes randomly, especially modes that target, opens the door to a whole new can of rules baggage that the game really could do without.
Also, I mentioned that it wouldn't be much of an issue in real life. What about MTGO? Click on the card in hand to play the spell and modes are chosen randomly. It'll prompt you in one of three ways: "Choose target player" and "Choose target creature"; "Choose target player" and "Choose target player"; or "Choose target creature" and "Choose target player." Either way, you will know by the second prompt which two modes have been chosen. By the time you come to having to pay the costs for the spell, if you don't like the two modes that have been chosen, you can simply hit "Cancel" to not waste the card. The problem then comes when a player tries to play the spell ad nauseum until they deduce that the client has randomly chosen the two modes they want. Again, some extra code could be coded to avoid such nonsense, but again, MTGO doesn't need the extra baggage.
Also, I agree that it is overcosted. It's only worth the cost if the spell deals the 4 damage to an opponent, and even then you only barely break even for the spell. A card that can destroy a creature and make an opponent discard a revealed card should cost 2BR, maybe even 1BR. The fact that this is all done randomly suggests to me that the cost should be cheaper still.
To give credit where credit is due, randomly choosing modes is interesting, but in this case I think it would be a rules headache (and a nightmare on MTGO) and you would have to use modes that don't use the word "target."
EDIT: I just noticed that the second mode says "Destroy up to one target creature," thus averting the real-life rules issues I brought up for the most part. It'd still be annoying on MTGO, though.
Am I the only one that noticed that the obligatory Mirrorweave picture to accompany the obligatory Mirrorweave question was, in fact, situated beside the Sarkhan Vol and Hostility question, and not the obligatory Mirrorweave question?
That's a minor detail, really, and one over which the writer likely had no control. A good first article with some interesting questions. Well done.
That's a pretty solid analysis, MadMageQc, and while you've given great insight on the issue, I really wouldn't be surprised if it was an MTGO bug.
I don't mean to one of the many to slag MTGO for the sake of slagging MTGO, but in my limited experience with Version 3, I've encountered many interesting glitches: anything as weird and complicated as my entire RFG zone vanishing when my Oblivion Ringed Paradox Haze returns to play enchanting me; things as simple as two "Pay 1 or sac" abilities being compacted into a single "Pay 2 or sac" ability (this one particularly baffles me, as I'm not sure why extra code would be put in to include an effect that is technically wrong); and things as bizarre as showing the art for the face-down cards RFGed via Necropotence on the EOT triggers that put them into the player's hand.
My point is that Magic is a complicated game, and it shouldn't be a surprise that certain interactions sometimes get overlooked and don't work as they should on MTGO. I'm also aware that the rules are robust enough that a computer program should be able to handle it without issue, and thus they should work on MTGO, but it's very possible for such things to happen.
Regarding the article, I am a little confused by the answer given concerning a haunted, persistent creature returning to play:
Quote from "CI" »
Q: If a creature with persist (and no -1/-1 counter) is haunted and dies, will it come back haunted, or will dying make it forget it was haunted?
A: Dying makes the creature forget everything. This includes the likely grisly way it met its demise, as well as the fact that some random other creature was following it around and making spooky noises. The creature that returns to play is a brand-new object and was never haunted. The creature doing the haunting will loiter in the RFG zone for the rest of the game, and it won’t even have anyone to try and scare with its spooky sounds.
Say we've got a River Kelpie haunted by a Blind Hunter. The italicized part at the end implies to me that the Hunter wouldn't do anything if the Kelpie died, but considering both haunt and persist are abilities that trigger when a creature hits the bin, I fail to see why both abilities wouldn't still trigger in this scenario. Yes, the Kelpie will return with a -1/-1 counter and will no longer be haunted, but regardless of whether the Kelpie returns to play before or after the Hunter's haunt trigger, the Hunter will still steal the two life.
If this is somehow wrong, could someone please explain to me why?
I figured JqlGirl was going to take this one. I remember reading the card and wondering "now why didn't I make that?" to myself.
Yeah, I do that every now and then. I submit an idea I think is brilliant, then read someone else's later submission and think, "...whoa. Now that is brilliant."
And on Vineshadow Hydra, the closest I got to a black component was the fact that it effectively prevents you from gaining life. But, well... it's a little too far of a stretch.
Ahh, so it does. I didn't even notice that ability was a replacement effect. Good thing I didn't, otherwise I might have penalized you for phrasing replacement effects two different ways on the same card. It is a bit of a stretch, though.
I find it interesting that you all submitted creatures. I wonder if that's just coincidence or if it's just the blind leading the blind.
Your results:
Bashing Tri-horn :symg::symu::symr:
Artifact Creature - Beast (u)
Trample, Haste
3/3 "Hungry, disgusting, stupid. It's a great specimen for our experiment!"
- Eonar of the Etherium Lab
Balance: 7. Is fair, but doesn't seem overly powerful.
Flavour: 2. These points are based entirely on the flavour text. The name is too generic to be meaningful.
Creativity: 3. The creature seems to be the result of a simple, easy-to-follow formula. It makes sense, but it's not very interesting.
Bonus: +1 for making it an artifact creature.
Total: 13/20.
Valeron Departed - :1mana::symb::symg::symw:
Creature - Zombie Soldier
Exalted
Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 for each card in your graveyard with Exalted.
Unearth :symb::symg::symw:
2/2 After finding his way to the grave, the soldier refused to stop pursuing glory.
Balance: 9. Very interesting and powerful effect, but it's only really insane in the late game. I honestly thought the card was better with an Unearth cost of :symb::symb:.
Flavour: 4. The only real issue is that, if it's this creature that can't stop pursuing glory, how come it can give a huge bonus to another creature? Not entirely your fault, but a fault of how "exalted" was name, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
Creativity: 5. This is definitely not something I was expecting. Great idea.
Bonus: +2 for both Exalted and Unearth.
Total: 20/20. Awesome card.
Firebrand of Jhess :symr::symw::symu:
Creature - Human Rebel
Exalted
Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, choose a color. That creature has protection from the chosen color until end of turn.
2/2 "We have thrown back the yoke of the castes; now our will is free." -- Vyn, Jhessian Revolutionary
Balance: 8. Potentially granting your sole attacking creature protection from your opponent's deck every turn seems insane, but there are enough work-arounds that I don't think it'd be much of an issue.
Flavour: 1. Firebrands are cool and all, but there's nothing red about this creature at all.
Creativity: 2. It feels like you made a home for the one exalted ability that you wish WOTC had actually printed. Doesn't seem original enough. Also, this card is not red at all.
Bonus: +1 for exalted, even though this card is not red at all.
Total: 12/20. Have I mentioned this card is not red at all?
Vineshadow Hydra :4mana::symw::symb::symg:
Creature - Hydra Beast
Vineshadow Hydra comes into play with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is your life total.
If damage would be dealt to Vineshadow Hydra, instead remove that number of +1/+1 counters from it.
Whenever you would gain life, instead put that number of +1/+1 counters on Vineshadow Hydra. The elves consider it to be a god. The humans consider it to be a predator. The leonin consider it to be an enemy. The hydra considers them all to be quite delicious.
0/0
Balance: 7. It's a nicely costed fatty. I thinks it's actually weaker than Serra Avatar, especially since it requires more than one colour of mana.
Flavour: 4. I'm definitely getting the hydra feel, and I like the idea of it growing more heads as you gain more life, but the only vine-like and shadow-like parts of the card are the fact that it's green and black.
Creativity: 5. Again, I like the idea of gaining life making this thing grow more heads. Very cool.
Bonus: Nadda. If there is something Alara-esque about this, it's not readily apparent.
Total: 16/20. I like nice, solid fatties, and this is a decent one.
Defiant Angel :2mana::symw::symu::symr:
Creature - Angel Warrior
Flying, Exalted
When Defiant Angel leaves play you may draw a card.
4/4 "The angel radiated an uncanny aura, like if it's mission was holding it's hunger for battle."
Balance: 7. It's a little underwhelming, considering its cost. It'd be perfect with Momentary Blink, but I really would have wanted more from this.
Flavour: 3. I can sort of see how a leaves-play trigger could represent defiance, and the 4/4 flying angel body is definitely there. However, like MNOP, there's nothing red about this card at all.
Creativity: 1. If that specific leaves-play ability hasn't been printed, there are far too many similar abilities that have. Again, this card is not red at all.
Bonus: Nope. Oh, no, wait, my bad. +1 for exalted. Sorry.
Total: 12/20. If you put a red mana symbol in the casting cost, I want to see red-like abilities in the rules text.
Progenitus, the Ultimate :symu::symu::symg::symg::symg::symb::symb:
Legendary Creature - Hydra
Trample, Wither, Shroud
~ comes into play with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the number of creature with power greater than 5 you control.
4/4
"Asleep for centuries under the royal courts of Bant, the unbridled fury of Naya was unleashed without mercy."
Balance: 5.This so-called "fatty" seems severly overcosted, especially considering that it's legendary. The add-counters ability seems like a really wordy way of saying it might get an extra counter or two. Its only saving grace balance-wise is that not many creatures would actually want to tussle with it.
Flavour: 2. I've given you the benefit of the doubt as far as who/what Progenitus is, but it's not hydra-like enough.
Creativity: 3. It's an interesting add-counters ability, even if it is weak. Beyond that, you've given colour-appropriate abilities to an otherwise unexciting blob.
Bonus: +1, I suppose, for Naya's huge creature theme, even though Naya's is "creatures with power equal to or greater than 5" and yours is just "greater than 5." Also, with a casting cost like that, it should have been an Ultimatum.
Total: 11/20.
Amatory Necromancer :1mana::symb::symg::symw:
Creature - Human Shaman U
When ~ comes into play return a card from your graveyard to your hand.
Unearth :symb::symg::symw: After being overflowed with power of life the Necromancer saw his heart change to give instead of take.
3/3
Balance: 8. Between this guy's beefier body and Eternal Witness's simpler and more accessible mana cost, I'm honestly not sure which of them is better. This guy might be better because nowhere does the word "target" appear in the ability, making it nigh-impossible to counter by removing its target. Regardless, they're both insanely good.
Flavour: 3. The idea of a necromancer giving instead of taking is neat, but it's still pulling stuff out of a graveyard.
Creativity: 3. Witness plus unearth equals card. Woo~.
Bonus: +1 for unearth.
Total: 15/20. Rest assured, however, that if this card ever did see print, I'd be getting me seven foil playsets as soon as it was released.
Appropriated Cerodon :1mana::symg::symr::symu:
Artifact Creature - Beast {R}
Artifact creatures you control have haste and power of 5. The bionic beast charges through the forest, eviscerating those he used to live among.
0/3
Balance: 6. As a 5/3 with haste, it's pretty solid, but the fact that it makes Ornithopters and Phyrexian Walkers more lethal than ever is freaking scary.
Flavour: 4. I don't think you could have used a word better than "appropriated." The flavour text doesn't reflect this idea at all, though. Sadness.
Creativity: 4. Definitely a cool idea, but giving everything haste is a bit overdone.
Bonus: +2 for the artifact theme and the creatures-with-power-of-five theme.
PENALTY: -1 for "power of 5" in the rules text. It should read "The power of artifact creatures you control becomes 5"; "becomes" is italicized because it is the important word that should be in the place of "of." Check Vhati il-Dal for a reference.
Total: 15/20. Despite the templating and power issues, it's still very cool.
Corrosive Sludge :symu::symr::symg:
Artifact Creature - Ooze
As Corrosive Sludge comes into play, you may sacrifice any number of artifacts. Corrosive Sludge comes into play with 2 +1/+1 counters on it for each artifact sacrificed this way.
2/2 "This abomination... this rotted etherium must be wiped out as quickly as possible. We must destroy it before it devours more of our noble work." —Cerul of the Ethersworn
Balance: 9. It's a touch weaker than Thunder-Thrash Elder, but what it lacks in raw body fat is makes up for by not having to sacrifice the rest of your army to make him scary. Very nice balance there.
Flavour: 5. It's hard to wrap my head around "Artifact Creature - Ooze," but they did "Artifact Creature - Illusion," so what do I know? Through and through, this thing is an ooze that consumes artifacts and grows more powerful.
Creativity: 5. You've combined Jund's and Esper's themes in an incredibly elegent single ability. Awesome.
Bonus: +2 for both the coloured artifact creature and the devour-like ability.
Total: 21/20. Freakin' awesome.
Champion of Valeron :1mana::symb::symg::symw:
Creature - Rhino Knight R
Trample
Exalted
~ costs less to unearth for each creature with exalted you control.
Unearth :3mana::symb: The people of Bant celebrated their newfound ability to bring their champions back from the dead, not seeing the corruption that was taking hold.
3/3
Balance: 7. It's comparable to Rhox Charger, and is thus neither too bad nor too good. Don't think I'd put him at rare, though.
Flavour: 3. The abilities aren't as mind-bogglingly good as I would expect to see on a champion. Rhino Knights rock, though.
Creativity: 4. I'll give you credit for the unearth cost reduction, but this still feels too similar to Rhox Charger.
Bonus: +2 for exalted and unearth, just like almost every other person in this round.
Total: 16/20. Decent, but not awe-inspiring.
Drumroll, please...
JqlGirl, with her fantastic artifact-devouring ooze thing! Honourable mentions to Xyre for his definitely very black version of exalted.
Hmm make a card that costs :symw::symb::symr:, :symg:, :symb::symg::symw:, :symr::symw::symu:, or :symg::symu::symb:.
Nono, I said to make a card that IS one of those three-colour combinations. All submissions so far still qualify (and are very good), but I need to clarify that you could submit a card that costs, for example, :symr::symr::symu::symu::symu::symg::symg:, and it would meet the requirements just fine.
So, for future submissions in this round, don't feel you are restricted to one of the five casting costs I've listed; the card needs to be three colours, and those three colours need to match one of the sets I've listed, but the casting cost does NOT.
I think I'll take the honour this time, as I remember giving surging_chaos the win last time we tied. (Also, I got here first, so :P.)
The challenge this round: Make a card that is :symw::symb::symr:, :symu::symr::symg:, :symb::symg::symw:, :symr::symw::symu:, or :symg::symu::symb:.
Balance: 10
Flavour: 5
Creativity: 5
I'll award bonus points if you can tie your card into Shards of Alara somehow. For the bonus points to be awarded, the connection should be obvious enough without any side notes to make it obvious.
I'll also deduct points for any glaring errors in spelling and/or grammar. I won't be too Nazi-esque, but make sure you don't screw something up big time.
12 entries or 48 hours, whichever comes first. Go!
MNOP took what I thought was the obvious route. I'm actually surprised it took six entries to get that card into the contest.
That said, this is the second idea I came up with:
Where Wild Things Roam Legendary Land
:symtap:: Add to your mana pool.
:symtap:, Tap an untapped creature you control with power 5 or greater: Add an amount of colorless mana to your mana pool equal to the tapped creature's power. The beasts bellow from the valley's depths, their echoing roars calling forth great behemoths. Then the valley grows deeper, the roars louder, the echoes reach further.
Re: Sliver Elemental:
It would also copy handy things like "When ~ comes into play, destroy target artifact or enchantment" and "All Slivers have lifelink." The only problem I had with it was that it wasn't a legendary 7/7.
Anyhow. This is going to seem like a rehash of the card I submitted last round, but oh well. This is something I've been stewing for a while.
Redundant Efforts 1
Instant
Copy target instant or sorcery spell with a single target. "Better safe than sorry."
Note that this doesn't say "you may choose new targets for the copy." I was thinking some kind of reminder text might be necessary, but the CompRules do say that targets are a part of a spell's copiable information, so the reminder text should be necessary.
I'm pretty sure I remember the article you linked, but I'll read it over again in a moment as a refresher.
It's a decent argument, but I have two issues against it:
1) They are already doing and apparently have no issues with other templating that defies English conventions ("Enchanted creature has trample"--"trample is a verb and thus one cannot "has" it); and
2) They are already doing and apparently have no issues with other templating that just plain sounds dumb and/or awkward (see my snow examples above).
I was playing on MTGO and my opponent had Tattermunge Duo in play. He plays a green spell and has a 2/3 forestwalker. After that resolves, I snakeform it and it still has forestwalk. Why?
My first instinct is to say that MTGO is bugged, and if you know how to report such things you should do so. However, let me look over that CI article about layers again. I would think that the Duo's ability-gaining ability and Snakeform's ability-losing ability would apply in the same layer, but I could be wrong.
*skims article*
Layer 3: Text is for Artificial Evolution and kin--cards that physically change the text on the card--so neither the Duo nor Snakeform apply here. I see Ovinize and Corrosive Mentor in the example for Layer 5: Other Stuff.
This would lead me to think that, indeed, Snakeform and the Duo's forestwalking ability apply in the same layer, which means they ought to go by timestamps. Since you played Snakeform after the Duo got forestwalk, the Duo should totally not have forestwalk, I would think.
Thus, my conclusion is as my gut told me: MTGO is bugged.
Quote from anderclayton »
The keyword (or rules word or whatever) would be "destroy" which has a specific definition in magic. Indestructible would be an offshoot of that key (or whatever) word. Essentially it would be not effected by destroy (or by things that effectively destroy it).
I'm thinking the rules are pretty convoluted myself though and the silly color thing just takes the cake from my perspective. It seems like the creature should gain it back after it turns back into green if that is what it does from the rules rationales but if it just stays green I guess I can more or less see it.
It does seem like indestructible should be an ability though. At least intuitively.
I get "the silly colour thing"; as unintuitive as it is, I can wrap my head around it no problem. What I don't like is how "indestructibe," as a keyword ability, seems to be treated differently than other keyword abilities because WotC would rather cater to English grammar than Magic grammar, even though they've broken English grammar before in other ways and are still okay breaking English in those ways.
However, my brother mentioned something about how whether a card is indestructible or not could be a card characteristic, much the same way that a cardisblue. I really ought to have looked up the CompRules to see what it says about "indestructible" before I went on that rant. If my brother is right, I can make sense of everything again, but I still won't like it.
Plague Elemental 2BB
Creature - Elemental
Wither
Each creature with a -1/-1 counter on it has "At the beginning of your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on a creature you control for each -1/-1 counter on this creature."
2/3
Creature - Cat Berserker Knight
Flanking, Rampage 1
All creatures able to block Feral Battalion do so.
They excel at two things: getting in people's way, and getting people out of their way.
2/2
My beef is this:
The modes of the spell are chosen randomly, and mode choices are made in during 409.1b, the step right before choosing targets for a spell or ability. When it comes time to choose targets for the spell, if the "destroy target creature" mode was chosen and there are no legal targets, then the player can't play the spell and has therefore performed an illegal operation, which in this case means simply reverting the game state to the point just before the player played the spell.
Net result: With no creatures on the board, in order for this spell to resolve, you would have to play and replay the spell until you randomly stumble upon the only combination of modes that can legally be played. With this particular card that's not so bad, especially since real live people who know this jargon can skip all the random nonsense and cut to the chase; but the idea of choosing modes randomly, especially modes that target, opens the door to a whole new can of rules baggage that the game really could do without.
Also, I mentioned that it wouldn't be much of an issue in real life. What about MTGO? Click on the card in hand to play the spell and modes are chosen randomly. It'll prompt you in one of three ways: "Choose target player" and "Choose target creature"; "Choose target player" and "Choose target player"; or "Choose target creature" and "Choose target player." Either way, you will know by the second prompt which two modes have been chosen. By the time you come to having to pay the costs for the spell, if you don't like the two modes that have been chosen, you can simply hit "Cancel" to not waste the card. The problem then comes when a player tries to play the spell ad nauseum until they deduce that the client has randomly chosen the two modes they want. Again, some extra code could be coded to avoid such nonsense, but again, MTGO doesn't need the extra baggage.
Also, I agree that it is overcosted. It's only worth the cost if the spell deals the 4 damage to an opponent, and even then you only barely break even for the spell. A card that can destroy a creature and make an opponent discard a revealed card should cost 2BR, maybe even 1BR. The fact that this is all done randomly suggests to me that the cost should be cheaper still.
To give credit where credit is due, randomly choosing modes is interesting, but in this case I think it would be a rules headache (and a nightmare on MTGO) and you would have to use modes that don't use the word "target."
EDIT: I just noticed that the second mode says "Destroy up to one target creature," thus averting the real-life rules issues I brought up for the most part. It'd still be annoying on MTGO, though.
That's a minor detail, really, and one over which the writer likely had no control. A good first article with some interesting questions. Well done.
I don't mean to one of the many to slag MTGO for the sake of slagging MTGO, but in my limited experience with Version 3, I've encountered many interesting glitches: anything as weird and complicated as my entire RFG zone vanishing when my Oblivion Ringed Paradox Haze returns to play enchanting me; things as simple as two "Pay 1 or sac" abilities being compacted into a single "Pay 2 or sac" ability (this one particularly baffles me, as I'm not sure why extra code would be put in to include an effect that is technically wrong); and things as bizarre as showing the art for the face-down cards RFGed via Necropotence on the EOT triggers that put them into the player's hand.
My point is that Magic is a complicated game, and it shouldn't be a surprise that certain interactions sometimes get overlooked and don't work as they should on MTGO. I'm also aware that the rules are robust enough that a computer program should be able to handle it without issue, and thus they should work on MTGO, but it's very possible for such things to happen.
Regarding the article, I am a little confused by the answer given concerning a haunted, persistent creature returning to play:
Say we've got a River Kelpie haunted by a Blind Hunter. The italicized part at the end implies to me that the Hunter wouldn't do anything if the Kelpie died, but considering both haunt and persist are abilities that trigger when a creature hits the bin, I fail to see why both abilities wouldn't still trigger in this scenario. Yes, the Kelpie will return with a -1/-1 counter and will no longer be haunted, but regardless of whether the Kelpie returns to play before or after the Hunter's haunt trigger, the Hunter will still steal the two life.
If this is somehow wrong, could someone please explain to me why?
Yeah, I do that every now and then. I submit an idea I think is brilliant, then read someone else's later submission and think, "...whoa. Now that is brilliant."
Ahh, so it does. I didn't even notice that ability was a replacement effect. Good thing I didn't, otherwise I might have penalized you for phrasing replacement effects two different ways on the same card. It is a bit of a stretch, though.
I find it interesting that you all submitted creatures. I wonder if that's just coincidence or if it's just the blind leading the blind.
Your results:
Artifact Creature - Beast (u)
Trample, Haste
3/3
"Hungry, disgusting, stupid. It's a great specimen for our experiment!"
- Eonar of the Etherium Lab
Balance: 7. Is fair, but doesn't seem overly powerful.
Flavour: 2. These points are based entirely on the flavour text. The name is too generic to be meaningful.
Creativity: 3. The creature seems to be the result of a simple, easy-to-follow formula. It makes sense, but it's not very interesting.
Bonus: +1 for making it an artifact creature.
Total: 13/20.
Creature - Zombie Soldier
Exalted
Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, it gets +1/+1 for each card in your graveyard with Exalted.
Unearth :symb::symg::symw:
2/2
After finding his way to the grave, the soldier refused to stop pursuing glory.
Balance: 9. Very interesting and powerful effect, but it's only really insane in the late game. I honestly thought the card was better with an Unearth cost of :symb::symb:.
Flavour: 4. The only real issue is that, if it's this creature that can't stop pursuing glory, how come it can give a huge bonus to another creature? Not entirely your fault, but a fault of how "exalted" was name, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
Creativity: 5. This is definitely not something I was expecting. Great idea.
Bonus: +2 for both Exalted and Unearth.
Total: 20/20. Awesome card.
Creature - Human Rebel
Exalted
Whenever a creature you control attacks alone, choose a color. That creature has protection from the chosen color until end of turn.
2/2
"We have thrown back the yoke of the castes; now our will is free." -- Vyn, Jhessian Revolutionary
Balance: 8. Potentially granting your sole attacking creature protection from your opponent's deck every turn seems insane, but there are enough work-arounds that I don't think it'd be much of an issue.
Flavour: 1. Firebrands are cool and all, but there's nothing red about this creature at all.
Creativity: 2. It feels like you made a home for the one exalted ability that you wish WOTC had actually printed. Doesn't seem original enough. Also, this card is not red at all.
Bonus: +1 for exalted, even though this card is not red at all.
Total: 12/20. Have I mentioned this card is not red at all?
Creature - Hydra Beast
Vineshadow Hydra comes into play with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is your life total.
If damage would be dealt to Vineshadow Hydra, instead remove that number of +1/+1 counters from it.
Whenever you would gain life, instead put that number of +1/+1 counters on Vineshadow Hydra.
The elves consider it to be a god. The humans consider it to be a predator. The leonin consider it to be an enemy. The hydra considers them all to be quite delicious.
0/0
Balance: 7. It's a nicely costed fatty. I thinks it's actually weaker than Serra Avatar, especially since it requires more than one colour of mana.
Flavour: 4. I'm definitely getting the hydra feel, and I like the idea of it growing more heads as you gain more life, but the only vine-like and shadow-like parts of the card are the fact that it's green and black.
Creativity: 5. Again, I like the idea of gaining life making this thing grow more heads. Very cool.
Bonus: Nadda. If there is something Alara-esque about this, it's not readily apparent.
Total: 16/20. I like nice, solid fatties, and this is a decent one.
Creature - Angel Warrior
Flying, Exalted
When Defiant Angel leaves play you may draw a card.
4/4
"The angel radiated an uncanny aura, like if it's mission was holding it's hunger for battle."
Balance: 7. It's a little underwhelming, considering its cost. It'd be perfect with Momentary Blink, but I really would have wanted more from this.
Flavour: 3. I can sort of see how a leaves-play trigger could represent defiance, and the 4/4 flying angel body is definitely there. However, like MNOP, there's nothing red about this card at all.
Creativity: 1. If that specific leaves-play ability hasn't been printed, there are far too many similar abilities that have. Again, this card is not red at all.
Bonus: Nope. Oh, no, wait, my bad. +1 for exalted. Sorry.
Total: 12/20. If you put a red mana symbol in the casting cost, I want to see red-like abilities in the rules text.
Legendary Creature - Hydra
Trample, Wither, Shroud
~ comes into play with X +1/+1 counters on it, where X is the number of creature with power greater than 5 you control.
4/4
"Asleep for centuries under the royal courts of Bant, the unbridled fury of Naya was unleashed without mercy."
Balance: 5.This so-called "fatty" seems severly overcosted, especially considering that it's legendary. The add-counters ability seems like a really wordy way of saying it might get an extra counter or two. Its only saving grace balance-wise is that not many creatures would actually want to tussle with it.
Flavour: 2. I've given you the benefit of the doubt as far as who/what Progenitus is, but it's not hydra-like enough.
Creativity: 3. It's an interesting add-counters ability, even if it is weak. Beyond that, you've given colour-appropriate abilities to an otherwise unexciting blob.
Bonus: +1, I suppose, for Naya's huge creature theme, even though Naya's is "creatures with power equal to or greater than 5" and yours is just "greater than 5." Also, with a casting cost like that, it should have been an Ultimatum.
Total: 11/20.
Creature - Human Shaman U
When ~ comes into play return a card from your graveyard to your hand.
Unearth :symb::symg::symw:
After being overflowed with power of life the Necromancer saw his heart change to give instead of take.
3/3
Balance: 8. Between this guy's beefier body and Eternal Witness's simpler and more accessible mana cost, I'm honestly not sure which of them is better. This guy might be better because nowhere does the word "target" appear in the ability, making it nigh-impossible to counter by removing its target. Regardless, they're both insanely good.
Flavour: 3. The idea of a necromancer giving instead of taking is neat, but it's still pulling stuff out of a graveyard.
Creativity: 3. Witness plus unearth equals card. Woo~.
Bonus: +1 for unearth.
Total: 15/20. Rest assured, however, that if this card ever did see print, I'd be getting me seven foil playsets as soon as it was released.
Artifact Creature - Beast {R}
Artifact creatures you control have haste and power of 5.
The bionic beast charges through the forest, eviscerating those he used to live among.
0/3
Balance: 6. As a 5/3 with haste, it's pretty solid, but the fact that it makes Ornithopters and Phyrexian Walkers more lethal than ever is freaking scary.
Flavour: 4. I don't think you could have used a word better than "appropriated." The flavour text doesn't reflect this idea at all, though. Sadness.
Creativity: 4. Definitely a cool idea, but giving everything haste is a bit overdone.
Bonus: +2 for the artifact theme and the creatures-with-power-of-five theme.
PENALTY: -1 for "power of 5" in the rules text. It should read "The power of artifact creatures you control becomes 5"; "becomes" is italicized because it is the important word that should be in the place of "of." Check Vhati il-Dal for a reference.
Total: 15/20. Despite the templating and power issues, it's still very cool.
Artifact Creature - Ooze
As Corrosive Sludge comes into play, you may sacrifice any number of artifacts. Corrosive Sludge comes into play with 2 +1/+1 counters on it for each artifact sacrificed this way.
2/2
"This abomination... this rotted etherium must be wiped out as quickly as possible. We must destroy it before it devours more of our noble work." —Cerul of the Ethersworn
Balance: 9. It's a touch weaker than Thunder-Thrash Elder, but what it lacks in raw body fat is makes up for by not having to sacrifice the rest of your army to make him scary. Very nice balance there.
Flavour: 5. It's hard to wrap my head around "Artifact Creature - Ooze," but they did "Artifact Creature - Illusion," so what do I know? Through and through, this thing is an ooze that consumes artifacts and grows more powerful.
Creativity: 5. You've combined Jund's and Esper's themes in an incredibly elegent single ability. Awesome.
Bonus: +2 for both the coloured artifact creature and the devour-like ability.
Total: 21/20. Freakin' awesome.
Creature - Rhino Knight R
Trample
Exalted
~ costs
Unearth :3mana::symb:
The people of Bant celebrated their newfound ability to bring their champions back from the dead, not seeing the corruption that was taking hold.
3/3
Balance: 7. It's comparable to Rhox Charger, and is thus neither too bad nor too good. Don't think I'd put him at rare, though.
Flavour: 3. The abilities aren't as mind-bogglingly good as I would expect to see on a champion. Rhino Knights rock, though.
Creativity: 4. I'll give you credit for the unearth cost reduction, but this still feels too similar to Rhox Charger.
Bonus: +2 for exalted and unearth, just like almost every other person in this round.
Total: 16/20. Decent, but not awe-inspiring.
I'll hopefully get the results up for later tonight.
Nono, I said to make a card that IS one of those three-colour combinations. All submissions so far still qualify (and are very good), but I need to clarify that you could submit a card that costs, for example, :symr::symr::symu::symu::symu::symg::symg:, and it would meet the requirements just fine.
So, for future submissions in this round, don't feel you are restricted to one of the five casting costs I've listed; the card needs to be three colours, and those three colours need to match one of the sets I've listed, but the casting cost does NOT.
The challenge this round:
Make a card that is :symw::symb::symr:, :symu::symr::symg:, :symb::symg::symw:, :symr::symw::symu:, or :symg::symu::symb:.
Balance: 10
Flavour: 5
Creativity: 5
I'll award bonus points if you can tie your card into Shards of Alara somehow. For the bonus points to be awarded, the connection should be obvious enough without any side notes to make it obvious.
I'll also deduct points for any glaring errors in spelling and/or grammar. I won't be too Nazi-esque, but make sure you don't screw something up big time.
12 entries or 48 hours, whichever comes first. Go!
That said, this is the second idea I came up with:
Where Wild Things Roam
Legendary Land
:symtap:: Add
:symtap:, Tap an untapped creature you control with power 5 or greater: Add an amount of colorless mana to your mana pool equal to the tapped creature's power.
The beasts bellow from the valley's depths, their echoing roars calling forth great behemoths. Then the valley grows deeper, the roars louder, the echoes reach further.
Horrors Unforgotten 4BB
Sorcery
Target instant or sorcery card in your graveyard gains retrace until end of turn.
Retrace
It would also copy handy things like "When ~ comes into play, destroy target artifact or enchantment" and "All Slivers have lifelink." The only problem I had with it was that it wasn't a legendary 7/7.
Anyhow. This is going to seem like a rehash of the card I submitted last round, but oh well. This is something I've been stewing for a while.
Redundant Efforts 1
Instant
Copy target instant or sorcery spell with a single target.
"Better safe than sorry."
Note that this doesn't say "you may choose new targets for the copy." I was thinking some kind of reminder text might be necessary, but the CompRules do say that targets are a part of a spell's copiable information, so the reminder text should be necessary.
It's a decent argument, but I have two issues against it:
1) They are already doing and apparently have no issues with other templating that defies English conventions ("Enchanted creature has trample"--"trample is a verb and thus one cannot "has" it); and
2) They are already doing and apparently have no issues with other templating that just plain sounds dumb and/or awkward (see my snow examples above).
My first instinct is to say that MTGO is bugged, and if you know how to report such things you should do so. However, let me look over that CI article about layers again. I would think that the Duo's ability-gaining ability and Snakeform's ability-losing ability would apply in the same layer, but I could be wrong.
*skims article*
Layer 3: Text is for Artificial Evolution and kin--cards that physically change the text on the card--so neither the Duo nor Snakeform apply here. I see Ovinize and Corrosive Mentor in the example for Layer 5: Other Stuff.
This would lead me to think that, indeed, Snakeform and the Duo's forestwalking ability apply in the same layer, which means they ought to go by timestamps. Since you played Snakeform after the Duo got forestwalk, the Duo should totally not have forestwalk, I would think.
Thus, my conclusion is as my gut told me: MTGO is bugged.
I get "the silly colour thing"; as unintuitive as it is, I can wrap my head around it no problem. What I don't like is how "indestructibe," as a keyword ability, seems to be treated differently than other keyword abilities because WotC would rather cater to English grammar than Magic grammar, even though they've broken English grammar before in other ways and are still okay breaking English in those ways.
However, my brother mentioned something about how whether a card is indestructible or not could be a card characteristic, much the same way that a card is blue. I really ought to have looked up the CompRules to see what it says about "indestructible" before I went on that rant. If my brother is right, I can make sense of everything again, but I still won't like it.
Creature - Elemental
Wither
Each creature with a -1/-1 counter on it has "At the beginning of your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on a creature you control for each -1/-1 counter on this creature."
2/3