WoMMan2WU
Legendary Creature - Spirit [M]
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to ~.
Exile another Spirit you control: Gain control of target non-Spirit creature with converted mana cost less than the exiled card for as long as you control ~. When you lose control of that creature, return the exiled card to the battlefield under its owner's control. You can't activate this ability during combat.
0/2
I think that flying is irrelevant to the design, and not all spirits fly, so I dropped it.
I turned the indestructible into prevent all damage. This still hoses red and green removal, but allows white and black to deal with her. However, the core of the card is a large and complex ability, and space is at a premium here. It might be prudent to protect her by increasing her toughness rather than giving her a defensive ability.
The main ability contains some tweaks. I dropped non-token and switched it from power to converted mana cost. I feel that converted mana cost is more fair, as you can't temporarily buff it up with spells to grab larger targets. With that change, tokens simply don't function at all for the ability, so specifically excluding them is unnecessary. I return the exiled Spirit under its owner's control rather than under your control, to avoid the ability being used to turn temporary control into permanent control.
Finally, I added a no-combat restriction, taken directly from Djinn of Infinite Deceits.
That art is so creepy. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a layers-deep horde of Zombies trying to break into the city within a sandstorm. And what appears to be a child who's dropped a ball near the barrier, and is hesitant to get closer to retrieve it.
Because by opening the door for creatures to be attached to other creatures you open up a lot of strange scenarios. The simplest is Auras and Equipment becoming creatures. Currently if this happens then they would immediately unattach and in the case of auras, die. There are currently quite a bit of rules dedicated to stopping this from happening, so a change on this front would also require a change to every rule designed to stop this, which is quite the overhaul. The game can probably handle everything without exploding but the extra confusion to players isn't really worth saving a bit of space, especially since you have to add the new rules for attached creatures.
I don't think so. The rules for attachment specify enchantments and artifacts with specific properties that may be attached. If an artifact that is attached to a creature stops being an Equipment, (say, when Bludgeon Brawl leave the battlefield) it falls off. There are currently not ways to change Enchantment subtypes, but if an Aura were to lose it's Aura subtype or it's Enchant ability, it too would become unattached. My change would carve out an exception for creature attachment right along side artifact and enchantment attachment. I think that it is much less difficult to incorporate into the rules than you'representing it.
Just to rough it into the quoted rules from above: 701.3b. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest to an object it can't be attached to, the Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest doesn't move. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest to the object it's already attached to, the effect does nothing. If an effect tries to attach an object that isn't an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest to another object or player, the effect does nothing and the first object doesn't move.
704.5q. If a creature without Infest is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that's neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification nor Creature with Infest is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.
I'm deliberately using Flip just for the name. I'm fully aware that it's defunct and DFCs are better in every way.
Hope For SuccessU
Enchantment
When ~ enters the battlefield, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, flip ~.
Whenever you win a coin flip, scry 1.
----- Prepare For Failure
Enchantment
Whenever you lose a coin flip, scry 1.
Golgon Relic3
Artifact T: Add R to your mana pool. 4: Flip ~.
----- Golgon Ancient
(Red)Artifact Creature - Cyclops
At the beginning of your end step, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, flip ~.
4/4
Wary Ironshell2U
Creature - Turtle
When ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, flip it.
2/4
----- Frightened Ironshell
Tribal Artifact - Turtle
Indestructible
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you win the flip, flip ~.
Destined Carp1U
Creature - Fish T: Flip a coin. If you win the flip, flip ~. If you lose the flip, return ~ to its owner's hand.
0/2
----- The Dragon of Legend
Legendary Creature - Dragon
Flying
If you would flip a coin, you may flip two coins and ignore one.
4/4
I have the same problem with your Sigarda as I had with the last Sigarda, it's that she's an Angel. I want a Human legendary lord for my Humans, that's what the other races get!
Other than that: I think that the Kira, Great Glass-Spinner ability is out of place in these colors. Green-white spell protection is about stopping the spells from being cast in the first place with Hexproof, Protection, or the Grand Abolisher effect.
Good flavor on Olivia, but with First Strike built in, her control ability is way too powerful, if she ever gets blocked by anything without first strike, she just grabs it no questions asked. I think an ability along the lines of Soul Collector would be more appropriate.
It bothers me that Gisa and Geralf don't come with any Zombies or make Zombies or reanimate anything. They're a necromancer and a stitcher, they should make Zombies! I like the "scry = largest zombie's power" that feels very Geralf, or Ludevic to me. I'm not entirely sold on gaining life from a horde of zombies for Gisa though. I think she's too crazy to plan and use her horde like that, that feels like more of a Liliana strategy.
I like Ulrich a lot. He looks powerful, leads his pack in both day and night, yet isn't overpowered.
Lady of the Night is a very interesting and powerful effect. The spirits possess other creatures and take control of them. The flavor here is just perfect. I think that the indestructible might be a tad too much considering you've tied maintaining control to keeping the Lady in play. You also will want to put some timing restrictions on the activated ability, nabbing a creature in the middle of combat is an effect that is usually best avoided. The name might want to be revisited though? Lady of the Night is a classic euphemism for *ahem* a prostitute.
Having seen your non attach version, I have to ask. What benefit does attaching bring? From what I can tell the entire functionality can be captured by a t infest as long as t may choose to not untap. This makes it so you can't leap around infesting multiple creatures a turn(without help). While making sure you can't attack or block(again barring shenanigans). I really like this mechanic(except for the attaching part) especially the wider applications of infesting different permanent types.
Attaching is an easily understood and well defined process in Magic already, and it is a word that literally describes what external parasites do to their hosts. By using attach, I can slim down the reminder text significantly and do not need to add blocks of rules text to define my mechanic, unlike what was done with Soulbond (for example) which was functionally identical to attachment, but since it used a different word needed to me completely defined from scratch and taught to players.
I don't understand why you're so opposed to using attach. What harm does it do to use the existing rules in a new way? Why must I re-write the entire rules for attachment but swap out the one word for a word of my own?
Shroud Land - Why can't this just have Hexproof? Oh, and CIP and tap for G at the cost of 1 life.
I don't understand what you're getting at, that sounds like a totally different land design.
Chromatic Land - That 2nd ability alone is probably too good. No one cares about C.
Agreed with a caveat: It doesn't produce mana until you play a nonland permanent, so it's really bad for early game.
Exotic Land - Why can't this just have all basic land types, CIPT, and be legendary? Maybe bounce a land when it does?
A land with all basic types, even etb tapped, is too powerful. As it stands this pulls duty as a Mana Cylix that costs 0, doesn't take a spell slot, and combos with things that care about basic types. It's a solid rare as-is.
P-I-S-M-F - Damage doesn't feel good. You want to put a city of brass drawback on it? Sure.
The drawback is greater than City of Brass to compensate for the more powerful land. I think that the etb tapped is unnecessary with the more punishing pain drawback.
Mana Divergence - Doesn't this just really obsolete most of the pain lands?
The Final Frontier - T: Add one mana of any color to your mana pool. Use this ability only if a land entered the BATTLEFIELD UNDER YOUR CONTROL THIS TURN.
That's not a critique of the card, that's just a different design. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does the all-caps section indicate shouting? What is the significance of all caps in a card's text?
Undiscovered Country - T: Reveal the top card of your library until you reveal a land card. Add one mana of any color that land can produce to your mana pool, then put the revealed cards on the bottom of your library in a random order.
Again, just a different design. If all you wanted was to make your own cards, why hitch them to my designs' names in a list of critiques? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
You're underestimating the value of land damage. Mouth of Ronom springs to mind as an example. The ability is significantly improved by being attached to a colorless land.
The Final Frontier
Legendary Land Landfall - Whenever ~ or another land enters the battlefield under your control, add C or one mana of any color that land could produce to your mana pool.
Undiscovered Country
Land T: Reveal the top card of your library. Add C or one mana of any of that card's colors to your mana pool.
Infest <type> {cost} {cost}: Attach this to another target <type>. Infest only as a sorcery. A creature attached to a permanent can't attack or block.
That would permit infestations of other card types (lands primarily), or specialized infestations of specific creature types for narrower and potentially more powerful effects.
It's not real. It's not pretending to be a translated mockup of a non-English card, so bad translation doesn't account for the blatant rules violation in the Ultimate.
Also, the claim that it's been handing around on some facebook page for 8 hours and nobody noticed is really a fishy story. A third planeswalker spoil would be a huge deal given the excitement around the other two.
What would I like to see? A pulling-back from the creature-centric game, a return of effective answers to reasonable threats.
I also want to bring back Shroud, and related to that the general concept that cards and abilities can have downsides or be symmetrical, even at common.
Infest C(C: This creature infests another target creature. Infest only as a sorcery. A creature can't attack or block while it's infesting another creature. A creature can Infest only one creature at a time.)
So I just dropped the word Attach for the word Infest with no other changes. Functionally identical but doesn't step on the existing definition of Attach. I originally went with Attach because its simple and understandable and is already defined as what I want it to do. Soulbond itself was just a workaround for attach, the paired creatures were effectively attached to each other, just using a different word so they wouldn't have to carve out an exception to the rules for attachment. Soulbond also carried baggage though, preventing stacking up pairs on a single creature, requiring it to be an enters the battlefield trigger, more like an Aura.
Ok, dropping the Parasite creature type and associated rules. I kind of knew that this was the direction it would end up going in.
- I don't want my parasites to be able to hide from creature removal just by being attached to another creature. Turning into an artifact or enchantment really breaks flavor, and is the one feature of the Licids that I hated. It just doesn't make sense that a parasite standing alone is vulnerable to Shock, but when it's sucking someone's brains it's vulnerable to Disenchant, and is now somehow unaffected by Withstand Death.
- If I made them flexible enough to apply to multiple permanent types, there would need to be a line denoting what permanent types each parasite can attach to, the way Auras are structured. By keeping it to only creatures, that can be rolled into the keyword's rules the way it is with Equip.
- There is definitely some flavor baggage, and the ability is a top-down design. I started out wanting to make parasites like the Licids that don't stop being creatures.
701.3b. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to an object it can't be attached to, the Aura, Equipment, or Fortification doesn't move. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to the object it's already attached to, the effect does nothing. If an effect tries to attach an object that isn't an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification to another object or player, the effect does nothing and the first object doesn't move.
704.5q. If a creature is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that's neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.
* Of course, your hypothetical rules entries for infest could just override these rules entries that I've quoted here. However, you need to be wary as to what constitutes a legal attachment where the object being attached is a creature object. For instance, if an Axehead Worm is attached to a creature, but Axehead Worm loses infest somehow, there is no way for the Axehead Worm to remain on the creature no matter what rules entries you hypothetically come up with.
I'm aware of these rules, however I am also aware that prior to the creation of Equipment, there were rules precluding artifacts from being attached to permanents as well, an exception was carved out to allow them. I mean, the rule specifically points out Fortification, which is a single card, exceptions can be made to any rule.
I fully intend for Infest creatures to fall off if they somehow become invalid. That makes sense flavor-wise and also allows for another means to interact with them, especially in blue. If you turn a Leech into a Frog, it's not really going to be able to keep sucking your blood.
I'm more concerned about the use of a creature subtype versus having the rule reference the Infest activated ability:
- Using the ability to determine which creatures can be validly attached raises the possibility that a creature could acquire Infest that was never intended to have it. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not though. Without the companion ability that defines attributes granted to the Infested target creature, all it really does is Pacifism the creature. But it is for this possibility that I was considering allowing Infest creatures to become unattached from their hosts without needing the host to leave the battlefield or move to another.
- Using the creature type Parasite to denote which creatures can be attached would mean that even if a creature managed to acquire Infest, it is not functional. It is also in keeping with the existing rules governing Aura, Equipment, and Fortification, which all use a subtype to permit attachment. However, I know that we and the designers are leery of connecting any rules to specific creature types since the retirement of the special Wall and Legend subtype rules. It would also create a strange situation in which Changelings and other creatures with changed subtypes would be able to be attached. Again, it would functionally just Pacifism the creature, so I don't know if it's even a problem. Also, without the Infest ability, there should be almost no way for a creature to become attached if it does acquire the Parasite subtype, so there should be very few instances of fraudulent attachments in this scenario.
WoMMan 2WU
Legendary Creature - Spirit [M]
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to ~.
Exile another Spirit you control: Gain control of target non-Spirit creature with converted mana cost less than the exiled card for as long as you control ~. When you lose control of that creature, return the exiled card to the battlefield under its owner's control. You can't activate this ability during combat.
0/2
I think that flying is irrelevant to the design, and not all spirits fly, so I dropped it.
I turned the indestructible into prevent all damage. This still hoses red and green removal, but allows white and black to deal with her. However, the core of the card is a large and complex ability, and space is at a premium here. It might be prudent to protect her by increasing her toughness rather than giving her a defensive ability.
The main ability contains some tweaks. I dropped non-token and switched it from power to converted mana cost. I feel that converted mana cost is more fair, as you can't temporarily buff it up with spells to grab larger targets. With that change, tokens simply don't function at all for the ability, so specifically excluding them is unnecessary. I return the exiled Spirit under its owner's control rather than under your control, to avoid the ability being used to turn temporary control into permanent control.
Finally, I added a no-combat restriction, taken directly from Djinn of Infinite Deceits.
I want a large version of this art.
I don't think so. The rules for attachment specify enchantments and artifacts with specific properties that may be attached. If an artifact that is attached to a creature stops being an Equipment, (say, when Bludgeon Brawl leave the battlefield) it falls off. There are currently not ways to change Enchantment subtypes, but if an Aura were to lose it's Aura subtype or it's Enchant ability, it too would become unattached. My change would carve out an exception for creature attachment right along side artifact and enchantment attachment. I think that it is much less difficult to incorporate into the rules than you'representing it.
Just to rough it into the quoted rules from above:
701.3b. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest to an object it can't be attached to, the Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest doesn't move. If an effect tries to attach an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest to the object it's already attached to, the effect does nothing. If an effect tries to attach an object that isn't an Aura, Equipment, or Fortification or Creature with Infest to another object or player, the effect does nothing and the first object doesn't move.
704.5q. If a creature without Infest is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield. Similarly, if a permanent that's neither an Aura, an Equipment, nor a Fortification nor Creature with Infest is attached to an object or player, it becomes unattached and remains on the battlefield.
Hope For Success U
Enchantment
When ~ enters the battlefield, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, flip ~.
Whenever you win a coin flip, scry 1.
-----
Prepare For Failure
Enchantment
Whenever you lose a coin flip, scry 1.
Golgon Relic 3
Artifact
T: Add R to your mana pool.
4: Flip ~.
-----
Golgon Ancient
(Red)Artifact Creature - Cyclops
At the beginning of your end step, flip a coin. If you lose the flip, flip ~.
4/4
Wary Ironshell 2U
Creature - Turtle
When ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, flip it.
2/4
-----
Frightened Ironshell
Tribal Artifact - Turtle
Indestructible
At the beginning of your upkeep, flip a coin. If you win the flip, flip ~.
Destined Carp 1U
Creature - Fish
T: Flip a coin. If you win the flip, flip ~. If you lose the flip, return ~ to its owner's hand.
0/2
-----
The Dragon of Legend
Legendary Creature - Dragon
Flying
If you would flip a coin, you may flip two coins and ignore one.
4/4
Other than that: I think that the Kira, Great Glass-Spinner ability is out of place in these colors. Green-white spell protection is about stopping the spells from being cast in the first place with Hexproof, Protection, or the Grand Abolisher effect.
Good flavor on Olivia, but with First Strike built in, her control ability is way too powerful, if she ever gets blocked by anything without first strike, she just grabs it no questions asked. I think an ability along the lines of Soul Collector would be more appropriate.
It bothers me that Gisa and Geralf don't come with any Zombies or make Zombies or reanimate anything. They're a necromancer and a stitcher, they should make Zombies! I like the "scry = largest zombie's power" that feels very Geralf, or Ludevic to me. I'm not entirely sold on gaining life from a horde of zombies for Gisa though. I think she's too crazy to plan and use her horde like that, that feels like more of a Liliana strategy.
I like Ulrich a lot. He looks powerful, leads his pack in both day and night, yet isn't overpowered.
Lady of the Night is a very interesting and powerful effect. The spirits possess other creatures and take control of them. The flavor here is just perfect. I think that the indestructible might be a tad too much considering you've tied maintaining control to keeping the Lady in play. You also will want to put some timing restrictions on the activated ability, nabbing a creature in the middle of combat is an effect that is usually best avoided. The name might want to be revisited though? Lady of the Night is a classic euphemism for *ahem* a prostitute.
Attaching is an easily understood and well defined process in Magic already, and it is a word that literally describes what external parasites do to their hosts. By using attach, I can slim down the reminder text significantly and do not need to add blocks of rules text to define my mechanic, unlike what was done with Soulbond (for example) which was functionally identical to attachment, but since it used a different word needed to me completely defined from scratch and taught to players.
I don't understand why you're so opposed to using attach. What harm does it do to use the existing rules in a new way? Why must I re-write the entire rules for attachment but swap out the one word for a word of my own?
I don't understand what you're getting at, that sounds like a totally different land design.
Agreed with a caveat: It doesn't produce mana until you play a nonland permanent, so it's really bad for early game.
A land with all basic types, even etb tapped, is too powerful. As it stands this pulls duty as a Mana Cylix that costs 0, doesn't take a spell slot, and combos with things that care about basic types. It's a solid rare as-is.
The drawback is greater than City of Brass to compensate for the more powerful land. I think that the etb tapped is unnecessary with the more punishing pain drawback.
Not at all, in fact I would say it's worse than Mana Confluence and City of Brass since it etb's tapped.
That's not a critique of the card, that's just a different design. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does the all-caps section indicate shouting? What is the significance of all caps in a card's text?
Again, just a different design. If all you wanted was to make your own cards, why hitch them to my designs' names in a list of critiques? I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Legendary Land
Landfall - Whenever ~ or another land enters the battlefield under your control, add C or one mana of any color that land could produce to your mana pool.
Undiscovered Country
Land
T: Reveal the top card of your library. Add C or one mana of any of that card's colors to your mana pool.
Infest <type> {cost} {cost}: Attach this to another target <type>. Infest only as a sorcery. A creature attached to a permanent can't attack or block.
That would permit infestations of other card types (lands primarily), or specialized infestations of specific creature types for narrower and potentially more powerful effects.
Also, the claim that it's been handing around on some facebook page for 8 hours and nobody noticed is really a fishy story. A third planeswalker spoil would be a huge deal given the excitement around the other two.
I also want to bring back Shroud, and related to that the general concept that cards and abilities can have downsides or be symmetrical, even at common.
So I just dropped the word Attach for the word Infest with no other changes. Functionally identical but doesn't step on the existing definition of Attach. I originally went with Attach because its simple and understandable and is already defined as what I want it to do. Soulbond itself was just a workaround for attach, the paired creatures were effectively attached to each other, just using a different word so they wouldn't have to carve out an exception to the rules for attachment. Soulbond also carried baggage though, preventing stacking up pairs on a single creature, requiring it to be an enters the battlefield trigger, more like an Aura.
- I don't want my parasites to be able to hide from creature removal just by being attached to another creature. Turning into an artifact or enchantment really breaks flavor, and is the one feature of the Licids that I hated. It just doesn't make sense that a parasite standing alone is vulnerable to Shock, but when it's sucking someone's brains it's vulnerable to Disenchant, and is now somehow unaffected by Withstand Death.
- If I made them flexible enough to apply to multiple permanent types, there would need to be a line denoting what permanent types each parasite can attach to, the way Auras are structured. By keeping it to only creatures, that can be rolled into the keyword's rules the way it is with Equip.
- There is definitely some flavor baggage, and the ability is a top-down design. I started out wanting to make parasites like the Licids that don't stop being creatures.
I'm aware of these rules, however I am also aware that prior to the creation of Equipment, there were rules precluding artifacts from being attached to permanents as well, an exception was carved out to allow them. I mean, the rule specifically points out Fortification, which is a single card, exceptions can be made to any rule.
I fully intend for Infest creatures to fall off if they somehow become invalid. That makes sense flavor-wise and also allows for another means to interact with them, especially in blue. If you turn a Leech into a Frog, it's not really going to be able to keep sucking your blood.
I'm more concerned about the use of a creature subtype versus having the rule reference the Infest activated ability:
- Using the ability to determine which creatures can be validly attached raises the possibility that a creature could acquire Infest that was never intended to have it. I'm not sure if that's a problem or not though. Without the companion ability that defines attributes granted to the Infested target creature, all it really does is Pacifism the creature. But it is for this possibility that I was considering allowing Infest creatures to become unattached from their hosts without needing the host to leave the battlefield or move to another.
- Using the creature type Parasite to denote which creatures can be attached would mean that even if a creature managed to acquire Infest, it is not functional. It is also in keeping with the existing rules governing Aura, Equipment, and Fortification, which all use a subtype to permit attachment. However, I know that we and the designers are leery of connecting any rules to specific creature types since the retirement of the special Wall and Legend subtype rules. It would also create a strange situation in which Changelings and other creatures with changed subtypes would be able to be attached. Again, it would functionally just Pacifism the creature, so I don't know if it's even a problem. Also, without the Infest ability, there should be almost no way for a creature to become attached if it does acquire the Parasite subtype, so there should be very few instances of fraudulent attachments in this scenario.