This sets aside that the "Its spell abilities gain and start with the text "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent," are already a bootstrap that doesn't work in the rules as Maro has said that text can be copied between cards but things that change the text don't work (outside of replacement of specific game terms a la Magical Hack).
Could you clarify this as the rules as written don't support this idea. Otherwise the mechanic cleave wouldn't be able to be a text changing ability. I know Maro isn't the most rules savvy person but he usually doesn't spread false information and corrects himself when he does.
So, even with more focused templating like user suggested, this effect at its core doesn't work in regular Magic due to the multitude of corner cases it creates. It works just fine in the big picture for silver-bordered/acorn Magic but falls apart when applied is some specific situations, just like how Far Out is perfectly understandable until someone tries to play Outlaws' Merriment with it.
For example: Call For Blood can't see the creature that was sacrificed when its time for the ability to eventually trigger.
If I have a spell on the battlefield and Ephemerate it, it never comes back.
Nonsensical text like animating Spark Spray which would gain "When this creature attacks, Cycling R"
TLDR: Works fine in an unset, but has to be reworked majorly to be doable in the core Magic rules.
Looking over these effects I don't see anything that doesn't work. For Call for blood and similar effects I don't see why the game can't remember the sacrificed creature. While for spark Spray there is no problem as Cycling isn't a spell ability.
I've looked at various spells and can't find any that don't work with the rules text I posted. Yes, blinking will cause the creature to exile and never return but its hardly the first time that's happened. In fact you can achieve this exact result right now with manifest.
Edit: "don't work" is a poor choice of words. Obviously many spells work work such as any spell that targets a spell. The correct words I should use are "catastrophically fail".
Ignoring the problems of putting non-permanent cards onto the battlefield. This would be more appropriate wording. Also, to make being creatures more important I'm changing their spell abilities to be saboteurs instead of ETBs.
As an Instant or Sorcery spell is put on the stack, it becomes a creature. Its spell abilities gain and start with the text "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent," and their power and toughness are each equal to their mana value.
The transformation wording it taken from bestow. The text granting from similar cards though the specification of starts with has no precedent. Spell abilities are clearly defined in the comp rules and I couldn't find any problems with this wording.
No, Trample changes how you're allowed to assign combat damage not how damage is dealt. Trample allows you to assign damage in excess of blocking creatures toughness to the opponent. If you choose to assign all damage to a single 1/1 then that just means you assign all the damage to that creature.
A neat design. I don't believe that the silence tokens need to enter tapped but it's a good safety valve. I'd rather not make Jace the counterspell walker. Despite what flavor text would have you believe it's not his Forte and I prefer for walkers to have more focus for their abilities.
The only problem is see with this mechanic is the significant loss of hidden information. If you always are peeking at the opponent's hand in such large numbers it makes the game less interesting.
That said I like the prismatic cultivator. It's odds of hitting high are low in 1-on-1 but it has some real use I multi-player.
Thoughtpick, 4 is too much. Blackmail is an existing very powerful card. The added variety of peek shouldn't necessitate and increase in cost but shouldn't use a larger number either.
Thanks! I was wondering about that, but I assumed the transformation has a later timestamp that takes precedent. I guess this is just one of those layer things?
Its actually the difference between the state of a card and the characteristics of a card.
A cards state, whether it's tapped, transformed, phased out, flipped, turned upside-down, is attacking or blocking isn't copied. Only a cards characteristics are copied. Your card transforms but it is still a copy so it's original characteristics don't matter.
Instead of the nonsense of "treat this as though it just entered" have it leave and re-enter. Is there any value in not having this exile and return as a copy of the intended card?
I think where this logic fails is that cost and effect are really subjective to the card you are playing. Why no one will play Clash of Titans is because they can play Threaten for two less and essentially get the same thing. So like, when we're designing, we do have to consider the third dimensional aspect, and what alike effects can be achieved, and what their effective costs are. This one becomes the middle ground between the two. We can achieve virtually the same thing for one less, but for selection we are paying one more.
People don't play either of those cards. Let's assume for a moment that people did play Threaten. They wouldn't be playing it as a means of replicating the effect of Clash of Titans. They would play it because it steals the opponent's creature. Which opens a world of alternative interactions. Comparing them shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what those cards do.
Comparing your card to Clash of Titans is a viable comparison because they can do exactly the same thing. Which shows that your card is fundamentally undercosted by at least 1. However, there's also the value of splitting up the cost across two abilities meaning it can be split across multiple turns which necessitates a cost increase. Then there is the repeatability of the effect which necessitates a second cost increase. Finally, there's the value of not being locked into making the opponent's creatures fight which again necessitates a cost increase. It's plain to see that you have massively undercosted this effect. This is why its been suggested to make it only enchant your creatures. That cuts down on the versatility thus lowering necessary costs.
Don't compare radically different effects simply because in a made-up scenario in which you don't have control over every factor they can result in similar outcomes.
I honestly just don't see it. Killing a small creature is like one mana, and debuffing another is two or three.
This is technically true. However, you're missing the fact that this would be one multiple cards. When you consolidate into a single card it's worth more mana.
An easy example of this effect. Drawing one card isn't even worth 1 mana. However, on a single card drawing two cards pushes the cost up to 3 mana. Not all abilities scale at this level but they all scale. Doing multiple things on a single card costs more. Even if it's just potentially more. The more potential the more cost.
What logic are you using to conclude that? If you attach this to a creature an opponent controls, you're giving that creature infect (a dangerous liability against you). If you attach it to a lesser creature, to fight a larger creature, only the lesser creature dies. Even if the larger creature is weakened, it's not directly removed as a usable resource. If you attach it to a greater creature to fight a lesser creature, the lesser creature dies, but you have a greater creature with infect as a threat against you. Over turns, this greater creature might be able to devour their whole team of lesser creatures—yet at the mana cost of that—it only hopes to be a worthy expense. If the creatures are equal, it only becomes a more systematic Dead Ringers. That would just be Clash of Titans, but I think we can agree that card looks to be dead in the water and is useless at its cost. I will supplement this could cost one more somewhere, at most.
First of all, giving infect is both a boon and a bane. If you are at less than 10 health it effectively gains you health. So don't pretend that it's strictly upside for the opponent.
Second, it gaining infect is huge for the value of putting it on a smaller creature and fighting larger creatures. If the opponent has a 5/5 and a 3/3 you can kill the 3/3 leaving a 5/5 with infect or leave them with a 2/2. This is a huge tactical advantage.
Your estimation of the mana cost of wiping out a small army vs the value of using only one card to do that is way off.
Carnal Virus, this really needs enchant creature you control. The ability to put this on an opponent's creature then fight another you don't control is too powerful at any reasonable mana cost.
Photomastery, it's good that you're listening and addressing problems instead of ignoring them but you still have the issue of not functioning with costs that include a zone change, such as exile, in their costs. Though this is a narrower problem and possible to simply let fall to the wayside. The replacing card names is fairly nonsensical. Card names are short hand for "this card" changing "this card" to target creature results in nonsense such as
Sacrifice target creature and this artifact, T: Search your library for a basic land card, put that card onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle.
I see how you want self-referential abilities to be able to target other creatures but this isn't a valid option.
What makes you think it won't work? What are Treasure tokens then?
I don't know what you think treasure tokens have to do with this card but let me explain. You are adding the cost of t and sacrifice to already existing costs. If those costs happen to already have a t or a zone change then you won't be able to pay both making the ability unusable.
Once more, this is why the better you understand the rules the better you can template your own cards. Though above and beyond that, if you don't understand the rules. Yield to those that do.
I've looked at various spells and can't find any that don't work with the rules text I posted. Yes, blinking will cause the creature to exile and never return but its hardly the first time that's happened. In fact you can achieve this exact result right now with manifest.
Edit: "don't work" is a poor choice of words. Obviously many spells work work such as any spell that targets a spell. The correct words I should use are "catastrophically fail".
As an Instant or Sorcery spell is put on the stack, it becomes a creature. Its spell abilities gain and start with the text "Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent," and their power and toughness are each equal to their mana value.
The transformation wording it taken from bestow. The text granting from similar cards though the specification of starts with has no precedent. Spell abilities are clearly defined in the comp rules and I couldn't find any problems with this wording.
That said I like the prismatic cultivator. It's odds of hitting high are low in 1-on-1 but it has some real use I multi-player.
Thoughtpick, 4 is too much. Blackmail is an existing very powerful card. The added variety of peek shouldn't necessitate and increase in cost but shouldn't use a larger number either.
A cards state, whether it's tapped, transformed, phased out, flipped, turned upside-down, is attacking or blocking isn't copied. Only a cards characteristics are copied. Your card transforms but it is still a copy so it's original characteristics don't matter.
So, other than being a potential dark depths combo piece it's just kind of a lazy design.
Comparing your card to Clash of Titans is a viable comparison because they can do exactly the same thing. Which shows that your card is fundamentally undercosted by at least 1. However, there's also the value of splitting up the cost across two abilities meaning it can be split across multiple turns which necessitates a cost increase. Then there is the repeatability of the effect which necessitates a second cost increase. Finally, there's the value of not being locked into making the opponent's creatures fight which again necessitates a cost increase. It's plain to see that you have massively undercosted this effect. This is why its been suggested to make it only enchant your creatures. That cuts down on the versatility thus lowering necessary costs.
Don't compare radically different effects simply because in a made-up scenario in which you don't have control over every factor they can result in similar outcomes.
An easy example of this effect. Drawing one card isn't even worth 1 mana. However, on a single card drawing two cards pushes the cost up to 3 mana. Not all abilities scale at this level but they all scale. Doing multiple things on a single card costs more. Even if it's just potentially more. The more potential the more cost.
Second, it gaining infect is huge for the value of putting it on a smaller creature and fighting larger creatures. If the opponent has a 5/5 and a 3/3 you can kill the 3/3 leaving a 5/5 with infect or leave them with a 2/2. This is a huge tactical advantage.
Your estimation of the mana cost of wiping out a small army vs the value of using only one card to do that is way off.
Photomastery, it's good that you're listening and addressing problems instead of ignoring them but you still have the issue of not functioning with costs that include a zone change, such as exile, in their costs. Though this is a narrower problem and possible to simply let fall to the wayside. The replacing card names is fairly nonsensical. Card names are short hand for "this card" changing "this card" to target creature results in nonsense such as
Sacrifice target creature and this artifact, T: Search your library for a basic land card, put that card onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle.
I see how you want self-referential abilities to be able to target other creatures but this isn't a valid option.
Once more, this is why the better you understand the rules the better you can template your own cards. Though above and beyond that, if you don't understand the rules. Yield to those that do.