Brain Tap - 1
Artifact
If an opponent would draw a card, they reveal the top card of their library instead. You may choose to put that card on the bottom of their library. If you do, that opponent gains control of Brain Tap. Otherwise, they put the revealed card in their hand.
I still don't think the rules text is exactly right, but it does have the intended idea now.
Brain Tap - 1
Artifact
Opponents can't draw cards.
Whenever an opponent would draw a card, they reveal the top card of their library instead. You may choose to put that card on the bottom of their library. If you do, that opponent gains control of Brain Tap.
Is this a bit overcosted? Ghostly Prison gives you only the option to pay 2 when you attack. Caltrops deals 1 damage to each attacker without using any coloured mana. This card gives your opponents extra choices, but yet costs an additional coloured mana, and in an enemy colour at that, making this almost strictly worse than Ghostly Prison.
I think a more fairly costed (and more playable card) would be:
Deadly Bargain - 2WB
Enchantment
Creatures can't attack you unless their controller pays 2 for each creature attacking you.
Whenever a creature attacks you, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature.
Definitely intended to be a casual card. As was said, would make mirror matches interesting but would be interesting to have a lot of one-ofs in a deck trying to guess the metagame . . .
Do you think it could afford to be cheaper? Or perhaps do away with the triggered cost?
Mindtap - 5
Artifact
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may pay 1. If you do, search your library for a card with the same name as that spell, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
Red/white does seem a good choice for the ability, and I do agree that it would require some rules finagling but seems manageable to me.
APNAP would still apply. The active player would declare attackers first, then the non-active player. Then the active player would get priority to play spells/abilities during the declare attackers phase, then the non-active player. The active player declares blockers, then the non-active player. To me, at least, it is intuitive that attacking creatures couldn't block; the idea is that one army is breaking through the other (although a sneak attack/flanking flavour would work as well). Once priority has been passed in the declare blockers step, all combat damage would resolve.
I though about an enchantment for this ability, but I feel it works better (both mechanically and from a flavour standpoint) as a surprise than as something you set up in advance.
Fight Back - 1WUG
Instant
Creatures you control may attack during target opponent's next combat step. (Attacking creatures cannot block.)
Any reason this can't be done? I'm really not sure what color combination this fits best into - sneaky seems to fit it into blue or black, but combat seems to fit it into green or red.
Does anyone else think that giant is pretty undercosted? A 3/3 for 1CC is a rarity even in green and is above the "weenie" theme white has.
As for the ability, wouldn't any deck which played this choose the colour based on what spells THEY were casting? Which instead turns this into a cost reduction machine with a likely useless protection ability.
I would think a more balanced creature would be:
Breaching Guardian - :1mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Giant Soldier
When Breaching Guardian enters the battlefield, choose target nonland permanent an opponent controls.
Breaching Guardian has protection from the chosen permanents colours.
Spells of the chosen colours cost less to cast. He draws nature's resistance to magic about him, shielding himself while clearing its path.
3/3
While I do somewhat agree that the templating is almost definitely off, I don't think that it's hard to comprehend what exactly this piece of equipment does. With that in mind, there has to be a way to make this work within the rules. I can't think of any aura's with effects that can't be channeled through the equipment to the creature (although I'm sure someone is about to bring up a counterexample . . .)
As the aura would not be in play, an imprinted Carapace would not be able to have it's activated abilities played. Note that the equipment does not gain any of the aura's abilities - just the equipped creature.
As Rabid Wombat would be equipped with Charmhold Mace rather than being enchanted with an aura, it would not get the additional +2/+2.
I agree that there is still some inherent card disadvantage, but the strategic advantage should/would/might make up for it. I kept the casting cost down for that very reason, but am still wondering about the equip cost. Would it be balanced if it was reduced/changed to perhaps 4? I'm thinking of it's interaction with stuff like Mythic Proportions.
A lot of people (correctly so) have stated that equipment tends to be better than auras due to the inherent card disadvantage that tends to come with an aura. A lot of people have tried to change this with Licid like enchantments, but what about something simpler? The wording on this is probably off, but you'll get the idea.
Charmhold Mace - 1
Artifact - Equipment
Imprint - When Charmhold Mace comes into play, you may exile an Aura with Enchant creature in your hand. (The exiled card is imprinted on this artifact).
If a creature is equipped with Charmhold Mace, it has all the effects it would have if it was enchanted with the imprinted aura.
Equip X where X is the imprinted aura's converted mana cost.
The KotWO are there to speed up mana development and to stop this deck from rolling over to aggressive decks (of which there are many in the metagame, at least on MTGO).
Brain Tap - 1
Artifact
If an opponent would draw a card, they reveal the top card of their library instead. You may choose to put that card on the bottom of their library. If you do, that opponent gains control of Brain Tap. Otherwise, they put the revealed card in their hand.
I still don't think the rules text is exactly right, but it does have the intended idea now.
Artifact
Opponents can't draw cards.
Whenever an opponent would draw a card, they reveal the top card of their library instead. You may choose to put that card on the bottom of their library. If you do, that opponent gains control of Brain Tap.
Muddling Rustbug
Creature - Ouphe
1/1
:symtap:: Destroy target artifact unless its controller pays X, where X is its converted mana cost.
I think a more fairly costed (and more playable card) would be:
Deadly Bargain - 2WB
Enchantment
Creatures can't attack you unless their controller pays 2 for each creature attacking you.
Whenever a creature attacks you, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature.
Do you think it could afford to be cheaper? Or perhaps do away with the triggered cost?
Artifact
Whenever an opponent casts a spell, you may pay 1. If you do, search your library for a card with the same name as that spell, reveal it and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
APNAP would still apply. The active player would declare attackers first, then the non-active player. Then the active player would get priority to play spells/abilities during the declare attackers phase, then the non-active player. The active player declares blockers, then the non-active player. To me, at least, it is intuitive that attacking creatures couldn't block; the idea is that one army is breaking through the other (although a sneak attack/flanking flavour would work as well). Once priority has been passed in the declare blockers step, all combat damage would resolve.
I though about an enchantment for this ability, but I feel it works better (both mechanically and from a flavour standpoint) as a surprise than as something you set up in advance.
Instant
Creatures you control may attack during target opponent's next combat step. (Attacking creatures cannot block.)
Any reason this can't be done? I'm really not sure what color combination this fits best into - sneaky seems to fit it into blue or black, but combat seems to fit it into green or red.
Other than Mistform Ultimus you mean. And all the changeling cards.
As for the ability, wouldn't any deck which played this choose the colour based on what spells THEY were casting? Which instead turns this into a cost reduction machine with a likely useless protection ability.
I would think a more balanced creature would be:
Breaching Guardian - :1mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Giant Soldier
When Breaching Guardian enters the battlefield, choose target nonland permanent an opponent controls.
Breaching Guardian has protection from the chosen permanents colours.
Spells of the chosen colours cost
He draws nature's resistance to magic about him, shielding himself while clearing its path.
3/3
As Rabid Wombat would be equipped with Charmhold Mace rather than being enchanted with an aura, it would not get the additional +2/+2.
I agree that there is still some inherent card disadvantage, but the strategic advantage should/would/might make up for it. I kept the casting cost down for that very reason, but am still wondering about the equip cost. Would it be balanced if it was reduced/changed to perhaps 4? I'm thinking of it's interaction with stuff like Mythic Proportions.
Charmhold Mace - 1
Artifact - Equipment
Imprint - When Charmhold Mace comes into play, you may exile an Aura with Enchant creature in your hand. (The exiled card is imprinted on this artifact).
If a creature is equipped with Charmhold Mace, it has all the effects it would have if it was enchanted with the imprinted aura.
Equip X where X is the imprinted aura's converted mana cost.
Here is the deck I am currently playing:
5 Island
4 Plains
5 Swamp
4 Path to Exile
2 Courier's Capsule
3 Countersquall
4 Knight of the White Orchid
4 Mind Funeral
2 Mistvein Borderpost
3 Soul Manipulation
4 Fieldmist Borderpost
4 Wall of Denial
4 Esper Charm
4 Nemesis of Reason
2 Telemin Performance
2 Necromancer's Covenant
The KotWO are there to speed up mana development and to stop this deck from rolling over to aggressive decks (of which there are many in the metagame, at least on MTGO).
Critiques welcome.