Add a red mana, remove "you control".
Removing "you control" means that shenanigans with using your opponent's creature to fight your opponent's other creature can happen. This would be accomplished by chump-blocking an enemy creature then having that enemy creature kill another one of their own.
Exactly. Your opponent still has to attack with the right creature and you have to chump block and then there still has to be a third creature you want to kill. By letting your creature die in combat, you're inciting the opponent's creature to go into a blood frenzy and kill somebody ELSE. You might be able to get a 2-for-2 out of it.
If you have a creatureAND it dealt damage to another creatureAND that other creature diedAND there is another creature in play you want to killAND that creature couldn't be killed by IncinerateTHEN play this card.Too many if/ands. Love the flavor, but it isn't worth it.
Nice card, Jay! Here's a proposed fix to make this card "worth it:"Who's Next? RInstantTarget creature you control that dealt damage to a creature that died this turn gets +3/+3 until end of turn and fights another target creature.This makes it better than Flame Slash - and for good reason; there's lots of requirements as Andrea pointed out. Otherwise, just run Lightning Bolt or Incinerate over a +2/+2 bonus for fighting.Also, I chose +3/+3 over +4/+4 because I'm assuming that the creature has at least one power if it killed something to fulfill the condition of being able to be used for Who's Next?.
You could try:SorceryTarget creature that was blocked this turn gets +2/+2 and fights another target creature.-It can only target your creatures because you're the only one who can attack on your turn.-If a creature was blocked and survived, then there's good odds it killed another creature, so the flavor still works.Alternatively:InstantTarget blocking creature gets +2/+2 and fights target attacking creature.-Prevents friendly fire.-Creature has the potential to be in two successive "fights."-It does allow a creature to block, die in a fight, and still stop a larger creature that would've killed it anyway, which undercuts the flavor (this is a bad thing).
The first one is brilliant-ish. Nice!
Love the flavour and wouldn't change anything major about the card, but man there's a lot of different factors here. Perhaps it is better suited in uncommon (in which case perhaps the cost could drop to just R).Alternatively if you wish to notch up to rare how about this:Who's next2RRRareInstantTarget creature you control that dealt damage this turn to a creature that died this turn gets +1/+1 and fights another creature. If that creature dies, copy this spell as it resolves. You may choose new targets for this copy.Now Who's next becomes a fully fledged bar fight.
This idea could also work as a twist on Vampiric Embrace (in need of better name):Challenging Stance REnchantment-Aura (U)Enchant Creature You ControlWhen ~ enters the battlefield, you may have enchanted creature fight another target creature.Whenever a creature dealt damage by enchanted creature this turn dies, put a +1/+1 counter on enchanted creature. You may have it fight another target creature.
Red Wrath2RRTarget creature fights each other creature.
I agree that Who's Next is both too weak and too complicated (more hard-to-parse, really, but close enough) to see print as-is. I'm glad the flavor made it across, at least. Here's the simplest version:Who's Next? RInstantTarget creature you control that dealt damage this turn fights another target creature.Still worse than Mugging, but at least it's simple.4143fa72-7096-11e2-9971-000bcdca4d7a has a neat kernel too:Double Trouble 1RSorceryTarget creature you control fights up to two target creatures. (It deals its power in damage to both of them, and they each deal their power in damage to it.)
I think the first is good, although I still prefer it as a sorcery.I believe the correct template for Double Trouble would be: "Target creature you control fights another target creature. Then, it fights up to one more target creature." Awkward. It might be better without the second target being optional.
Either way it doesn't play intuitively because state based effects won't kill a creature with lethal damage on it during the resolution of a spell.
Yes, good point.