Weekend Art ChallengeClick through to see this weekend's art and the design requirements for your single card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, which I will try to provide, and which everyone is welcome to provide as well.
If you choose, you may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times. I will post and review the most recent submission from each designer some time on Monday, life permitting. To help ensure I recreate your design accurately, please use CARDNAME instead of ~ in your submissions.
Design a card for this art whose rules text includes the words "can't" "don't" "doesn't" or "didn't" exactly twice.
Triumph of the Meek (rare)
ReplyDelete1WW
Enchantment
Creatures with power greater than 1 can't attack.
Creatures with toughness greater than 1 can't block.
This reads beautifully. It also slows most games to a snail's pace (or worse, prevents them from being played at all) and is probably broken in the right deck. Maybe change to 2s? There's precedent for that cutoff in Mentor of the Meek.
DeleteThis is more punishing than I'm okay with; games involving Chill-level hosers just aren't fun. What about:
DeleteEach creature can't attack or block if its controller doesn't pay {X}, where X is that creature's power.
Changing to 1WWW to prevent a player from T1 Temple Garden, Arbor Elf into this on T2. It's a punisher, yes, but so are cards like Stony Silence. I'm sure it's fine in the right environment.
DeleteI would completely bump this up to greater than 2. It's far too oppressive/unfun otherwise.
DeleteAt 4cmc, this seems to basically say the same thing as a Wrath against aggro decks: "Goldfish me before turn 4 or you don't get to do anything for the rest of the game."
DeleteStony Silence hoses one deck out of the sideboard in Modern and is a maindeckable card in Vintage decks on the artifact hosing plan. IIRC it was unplayable in Standard and a junk rare in Limited. A Gatherer search reveals that less than 31% of all creature cards in the history of Magic have a power of 1 or less ("less than" because the search includes creatures that ETB with counters on them, or have CDA's, and I don't know how to easily filter those out), and if you restrict the search to the current Standard environment, this drops to less than 25%. I don't know what the "right environment" would be for this card, if any, but it would probably involve intentionally seeding the format with lots of win conditions other than dealing 20 damage, maindeckable enchantment hate, and/or a linear aggro deck that relies on 1/x creatures like Tribal Goblins or Elves.
I find it amusing that Humility is a hard counter to this card.
Wow, I really got people fired up, eh? Enchantments that hose particular strategies are not uncommon in this game - Blood Moon, for one, hoses a whole host of strategies in Modern, but it's not considered unfun or oppressive. If Triumph of the Meek ever became a T1 deck (and I don't think it could), then a whole host of other cards become amazing sideboard material, like Shrivel, Night of Soul's Betrayal, Pyroclasm, Simoon, Circle of Flame, etc.
DeleteIf you're using this in a control deck just to stall out the game by stopping your opponent from attacking, presumably by the time you hit 1WWW your opponent will have an answer to it.
I should point out, badness points (the opposite of bonus points) for submissions that accomplish the goal by using a purposely silly template. Triumph of the Meek does not suffer that problem, but if it named power twice or limited attacking twice, for example, it would have (because then it could have been collapsed to a single line).
ReplyDeleteThere's significantly less value to a challenge when a submission can be valid or not based purely on how it's templated. My bad. We'll finish this one out, of course, but prioritize cool ideas over technically fulfilling the challenge.
DeleteI'm all for strict restrictions, but I'd prefer to work with ones that could more naturally arise in game design. Anyway, onto the submission:
ReplyDeleteGaea's Preservation 2G
Enchantment (R)
Damage doesn’t cause creatures you control to be destroyed.
Creatures you control can’t block creatures with greater power.
Although it seems interesting and balanced enough on a third reading, at first and second glance this card seems very disconnected. There definitely exist elegant and natural ways to fulfill the restriction, even on actual Magic cards (for example, see Melira, Sylvok Outcast).
DeleteYeah, I'm not in love with this version. There's mild thematic connection, and the second ability's a drawback that makes the first printable, but I'll give this challenge another shot and try to do better.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePedicustos [4GG]
ReplyDeleteCreature – Elemental [rare]
CARDNAME doesn't deal damage to creatures with power 1 or less.
Creatures you control with power 1 or less can't be fought.
4/7
Green is usually the color that likes fighting, so the second ability reads rather weirdly here (in addition to the templating issues it raises). I'd prefer something like "Creatures your opponents control don't deal damage to creatures with power 1 or less."
DeleteThere seems to be a disconnect here. I can see only helping your small creatures or helping all of them, but I'm not sure why Pedicustos would refuse to hurt any children, but only protect some of them from fights.
DeleteWow, you guys keep making typos when you're trying to type, "Everything you do is perfect, Bass."
DeleteThe templating is wrong, it should say, "can't fight". The idea is the creature won't hurt kids and won't let other creatures get into fights with kids. I probably could phrase it better or make it work better somehow, but I don't want the protection to hit your opponents creatures since it would be a feel bad. The guy can protect a weenie strategy, but I don't think he'd be fun if he also booster your opponent's weenies from your big fighters.
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to creatures with power 1 or less?
DeleteStasis Krasis 2UG
ReplyDeleteCreature - Plant Lizard
As long as CARDNAME is tapped, permanents don't untap during their owner's untap steps.
At the beginning of your upkeep, any player may pay 2. If they didn't, return CARDNAME to its owner's hand.
2/2
So in multiplayer, two players can conspire to lock down the game? As much as the concept interests me, I think it's safer to template the second ability as "...you may pay 2. If you don't, ...".
DeleteThe way the first ability interacts with the creature itself is very cool; I like the way this works a lot better than the original Stasis.
I agree that this is a much more elegant implementation, but Stasis is horrifically unfun for the vast majority of players. If we decide it's fans are in need of new card, we should be sure to keep it at a VERY low power level, and while this is weak, I think we'd still see players running it who weren't absolutely in love with this sort of gameplay, and we don't need that.
DeleteDevelopment concerns aside, I think Ipaulsen's right about the final trigger. I'm having a very hard time imagining a game in which two players are working to keep this going and the rest of the table isn't questioning why they play this game.
Sadly wasn't able to come up with anything substantially cleverer than this.
DeleteThe other merit of the second ability is, if your opponent can somehow wrest advantage over you under the lock, they can press the advantage by keeping you under lockdown.
Semi-serious submission:
ReplyDeleteGiant of the Forest 4GG
Creature- Lizard (Common)
4/4
Vigilance (Attacking doesn't cause this creature to tap.)
Hexproof (This creature can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.)
This seems like the correct answer to the challenge.
DeleteOK, reminder text doesn't count. I'll post another submission below.
DeleteI'm pretty okay with this submission. Except the rarity.
DeleteOK, uncommon and we'll pretend it's in a core set. It's probably a better design than the alternative I came up with, so I'd like this to be my official submission.
DeleteThe Mouth in the Forest
ReplyDelete3GW
Legendary Creature - Beast
4/5
Whenever an opponent doesn't pay tribute, creatures that player controls can't attack or block until your next turn.
Seems like this guy really wants to have tribute of his own. I'm thinking of something like:
Delete4/4
Tribute 3
Whenever ~ or another creature with tribute enters the battlefield under your control, if the tribute wasn't paid, creatures opponents control can't attack or block until your next turn.
A little wordier, but less mystifying overall.
I'm with Ipaulson on this one. Unrelatedly, tribute is even more abundant in red than green and given that "can't block" is something red can do I'd prefer this as a red-white card.
DeleteOr Naya colors.
DeleteMesmerizing Stare W
ReplyDeleteEnchantment - Aura (C)
Enchant creature
As long as you control an untapped creature that didn’t attack since the beginning of your most recent turn, enchanted creature can’t attack or block.
Cool and fascinating. I wonder about the concept-- it seems a lot more G or U than W-- but that's probably easier to tinker with than the card's text box.
DeleteThis needs rewording since currently the creature precludes itself from doing anything. The idea's certainly interesting, but also a bit tough to track. I wonder if it would work better Tromokratis style:
DeleteEchanted creature has "this creature can't attack unless all creatures you control attack, and can't block unless all creatures you control block."
@Jules: The creature does perpetually lock itself down if you put it on your own creature. However, because this is a Pacifism variant (hence the W, though I could see it as G as well due to the art), I don't see why you ever would.
DeleteI misread this as looking at the Enchanted Creature's controller's board. It works fine as is, but other people could easily have the same confusion, so I might move this to uncommon for NWO's sake.
DeleteThis variant of pacifism is very green indeed. I like it and would even go as far as temple it thusly:
DeleteIntimidating presence G
Enchantment - Aura (C)
Enchant creature
As long as you control an untapped creature whose power is greater than enchanted creature's, enchanted creature can’t attack or block.
I would like Intimidating Presence more if it locked down activated abilities as well, giving you a reason to put it on very small creature. A pure Pacifism effect is at its best when it's on the biggest, vanilla-est thing on the board. If that creature is your huge green dude, IP is basically a falter, and if that creature isn't, IP won't stop you from losing to it.
DeleteV2.0 of submission, now green-ified:
Mesmeric Melody G
Enchantment - Aura (U)
Enchant creature
As long as you control an untapped creature that didn’t attack since the beginning of your most recent turn, enchanted creature can’t attack or block.
Flavor text:
Bardic magic can soothe even the angriest beast — as long as someone pretends to be the piper.
Take 2:
ReplyDeleteOvergrown Ancient 3GGG
Creature-Lizard (R)
Other creatures you control that didn't deal damage this turn have hexproof. (They can't be the targets of spells or abilities your opponents control.)
6/6
I really like this way of giving hexproof. It's like Tromokratis, but better because it makes sure that the creature actually *does* something in combat.
DeleteMy feeling is that this card would be slightly more awesome if the effect also applied to itself. I don't think that would make it too overpowered-- at most it's hexproof plus Pacifism for all your (1+ powered) creatures.
I believe that again we could dispence with the memory reliance of who did and did not do combat damage and just check for untapped creatures.
Delete@Ipaulsen: I was debating over that. It has more potential for really unfun things to happen, but is certainly more appealing. I'd love to hear more opinions on the matter.
Delete@fading shadows of a memory beloved: In most cases that's the templating I'd go for, but not guaranteeing the creatures get to do something undermines this cards functionality and always hexproofed blockers still causes problems, albeit less severe ones. On top of that, there are fewer memory issues than might be expected since this card tells everyone they need to pay attention to what dealt damage. The only exception is playing is after attacking, but then they could always just target things in response, so I don't anticipate it coming up much.
So apparently reminder text doesn't count unless it's novel. I'll try something else.
DeleteTake 3:
DeleteOvergrown Ancient 3GGG
Creature-Lizard (R)
Other creatures you control can’t be the target of spells or abilities that don’t also target CARDNAME.
6/6
So this is like the Flagbearer ability, except it also affects triggered abilities (which I assume would just get removed from the stack if no legal targets exist)?
DeletePrecisely.
DeleteTake 2 is valid.
DeleteGlad to hear. In that case I'll go with that version, but using Ipaulsen's suggested tweak and a couple of number swaps:
DeleteTake 2: 2:
Overgrown Ancient 5GG
Creature-Lizard (R)
CARDNAME and other creatures you control that didn't deal damage this turn have hexproof. (They can't be the targets of spells or abilities your opponents control.)
7/5
I like the mechanic, but I'm not sold on the match to the art. there needs to be more connective tissue, either through the name, flavor text, or image cropping.
DeleteThe kids that cry Elemental 2BG
ReplyDeletecreature human rare
CARDNAME can't be blocked unless all other attacking creatures are blocked.
When CARDNAME deals combat damage to an opponent, they may pay 3. If they don't, you may put a 5/5 green elemental token creature into play.
1/1
Fascinating interpretation of the art. I'm not totally sold on the concept (let alone on this effect being black-green), but it's definitely an interesting direction to take.
DeleteThe cost is from a previous iteration of the card in my head, forgot to change it. Should be 2GG.
DeleteThe idea would be that no one takes seriously the kids when there are bigger dangers, but they actually were not lying and there is a 5/5 green elemental coming to get you if you do not pay enough attention to them by blocking them or paying mana. Perhaps uncommon? I know it is very complicated, but I like making cards that are tied to the image given. The restrictions on this do not help me make the mechanic like I wanted it to be (kind of like a quest, ignore the harmless chidren enough times and it might turn out to be very harmfull indeed) I will try to find another take on the same idea within these restrictions.
Awesome interpretation. I like the paying mana=paying attention thing, but I'm not sure its necessary given that the first ability already covers there being more pressing matters to pay attention to.
DeleteThe restrictions are dumb. Show me your pure idea.
Delete"Boy who cried wolf" flavor seems like it's got an awesome interpretation out there somewhere.
DeleteThis is waaaaay harder than I expected! Which one is better? Do you have improvements, suggestions?
Delete"Kids who cried Elemental" 2GG
creature human - uncommon
When CARDNAME deals combat damage to an opponent, you may put a 5/5 green elemental creature token into play.
GG: regenerate
1/1
or
"Kids who cried Elemental" 2GG
creature human - rare
Elemental creatures in your hand have nunjustsu GG
0/1
(would rename nunjutsu to replace)
or
"Kids who cried Elemental" 2GG
creature human
Whenever CARDNAME is blocked, you may discard a card at trandom. If the discarded card is a creature, put it in play attacking and blocked by the creature blocking CARDNAME. Otherwise remove CARDNAME from combat.
1/2
1—Not sure why kids have regeneration.
Delete2—Too much weird for one card.
3—Wants to be red.
I currently like the original version better.
Maybe:
Kids Who Cried ‘Elemental’ can’t be blocked unless all other attacking creatures are blocked.
Whenever Kids Who Cried ‘Elemental’ deals combat damage to an opponent, put a 4/4 green Elemental creature token onto the battlefield.
1/1
Probably better than mine since it is reads better under NWO.
DeleteKids were initially with "prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME" because you do not kill the kids of your village that told you there is an elemental coming just because they lied. Was too complex and strong in my mind so I shifted it to regeneration to gain some space!
third one could be red and green. I thought that a descendant's path call of the wild thing would be ok.
The second one I agree, is a stretch, but it is a solution to the story.
I do not know which one to go with however.
Guardian of Neverwood 3G
ReplyDeleteCreature- Elemental (C)
Defender (This creature can't attack)
Guardian of Neverwood can attack as though it didn't have defender as long as an opponent controls a Pirate.
"The Lost Boys call him Fluffy"—Peter Pan
5/4
Brilliant.
DeleteLooming Loam 1RG
ReplyDeleteEnchantment - Aura (R)
Enchant land
Enchanted land is a 5/5 creature that can’t be tapped for mana.
Other creatures controlled by that land’s controller can’t attack or block.
I'm not sure why {R}{G} is getting a Moat, but Moats aren't much fun, even if they require a Guardians of Meletis. What do you think of something like:
DeleteEnchanted land has "Other creatures you control can't attack unless this attacks. Other creatures you control can't block unless this blocks."
OK, redo:
DeleteLooming Loam WG
Enchantment - Aura (R)
Enchant land you control
Enchanted land is a 4/5 creature.
Other creatures you control can’t attack unless Looming Loam also attacks.
Other creatures you control can’t block unless Looming Loam also blocks.
Thanks for the advice.
Ooh, I like having it only on your own lands to make an undercosted beater. It reads like it's not much of a drawback because "why WOULDN'T you send your big creature into combat?", but it can't both attack and block, so it still makes a big creature balanced.
DeleteDoes reminder text count or not? It's not normally "rules text" but several people have assumed it does.
ReplyDeleteJay's ruling from twitter was : "Only if it's empirically awesome, like Obsidian Fireheart."
DeleteYou can do it, but make it count.
New ruling: Count it however you like, if it makes for a better design.
DeleteGaea's Emissary 2GG
ReplyDeleteCreature- Lizard (Rare)
4/4
Spells and abilities opponents control can't counter spells you control.
Spells and abilities opponents control can't cause you to discard cards.
AKA the "no, you actually have to deal with it" monster. Modeled after Melira. Feedback welcome and appreciated.
It feels strange that this can still be countered or discarded rather than having Spellbreaker Behemoth/Loxodon Smiter text, but that might be excessive hosing.
DeleteYes, I was wondering about that too. I avoided it because it would break the parallelism and introduce a third "can't" (not to mention that the card would be pretty wordy). However, I agree that having this countered or discarded feels pretty awful (and is more likely to happen to a creature that costs 4 rather than, say, 2. I'll probably be sticking with my original submission.
DeleteI like it as is an awful lot.
DeleteMaw of Innocence
ReplyDelete3GG
Creature - Elemental (R)
Maw of Innocence can't be countered.
Creatures you control can't be the target of blue or black spells.
5/4
The maw always takes care of her children.
Feedback appreciated as always.
I know Great Sable Stag did it, but hosing blue twice and black once just feels off to me. I want them to be symmetrical, or only have one show up.
DeleteThis pun is a kind of disturbing.
DeleteI don't know that I'm as thrown off by it as you, but I have no issue with changing it to just a blue hoser. Let's do that.
DeleteIt's protecting them. How is that disturbing? xP
"Ma = Maw" not disturbing?
DeleteDoes that mean we're removing "or black"?
DeleteYes, removing "or black" to make this a straight-blue hoser.
DeleteHow about this:
"It appears when children are in danger to carry them to a safer place."
Still creepy?
...Yeah, I see your point.
Anyone else have ideas for better flavortext?
To reiterate my update for more visibility, this challenge isn't great. Try to fulfill it, but if you find something more interesting that doesn't technically work, go with that.
ReplyDeleteI'll give more individual feedback tomorrow, but most of the feedback that's already been given is excellent, and there's nothing more you desperately need to hear from me (as of this posting).
Rhuksyan Ancient {1}{G}{G}
ReplyDeleteCreature-Elemental (rare)
Players can’t cast spells on turns in which they haven’t played a land.
Abilities of lands can’t be activated unless they’re mana abilities.
3/2
Not sure the second ability is holding its weight. Could be hexproof. Or I could go off challenge.
I'm also not sure of the second ability. Certainly in Commander (or Eternal formats; bye fetch-lands!) it's quite good. What I dislike about this card more is that it's super oppressive. How often do you hit a land drop? In Legacy, dropping this will actually cause players to do nothing: they never play lands aside from fetches, making it so they can neither cast spells nor get mana-producing lands. Do you really want to face this down turn 3 (or 2(!) with an Elvish Mystic) in Standard? Considering just how much this shuts down a game, I really would prefer it at a much higher mana cost.
DeleteIf Legacy has a problem, it can ban something. That shouldn't stop us from printing cards in Standard, and every Standard deck can play through this card just fine.
DeleteI like the subtle instant hosing in the first ability, but I'm concerned that it might cut off spellcasting a bit too much of the time.
I don't have any really elegant solutions to that problem, but I guess you could give players a way to Recross the Paths or have a smaller punishment for missing land drops. What about "Spells cost players an additional {3} to cast on turns in which they haven't played a land." or even "twice as much to cast".
"Spells cost twice as much to cast unless their controller has played a land that turn" seems like it hates on instants without being too oppressive. You'd still want to test it, but this is a card I wouldn't mind seeing printed in green.
DeleteIs the idea "Ancient" as in "ancient history of the game itself"? Because otherwise I can't figure out thematically why this card is doing what it's doing. It feels like a Time Spiral card that for most newer players is not going to read cohesively at all. I think the second ability could be lost and it would be much better.
DeleteI also agree with the points about it being a mana cost increase rather than a straight "can't".
That is the idea, R. Maybe:
DeleteRhuksyan Ancient 1GG
Creature-Elemental (rare)
Players can’t cast spells on turns in which they haven’t played a land.
At the beginning of your upkeep step, each player may discard a card. Each player that does, draws a card.
3/2
or
Rhuksyan Ancient 1GG
Creature-Elemental (rare)
Players can’t cast spells on turns in which they haven’t played a land.
At the beginning of your upkeep step, each player draws a card.
3/2
A card that needs to be insta-banned in 3 of 4 constructed formats (remember, Modern loves fetchlands too!) is not a card that should ever see print.
DeleteThat said, it's a creature that costs 1GG. If True-Name couldn't break the format, I doubt this will.
Of the revisions, I like the second one more. Rummaging is still a pretty new red mechanic. No reason to bleed it into green yet.
Hypothesis: Any card that can be made relevant to Legacy without hurting Standard should be printed.
DeleteApprentice Awakener
ReplyDeleteG
Creature - Human Druid - Rare
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, target Forest you control becomes a 4/4 Elemental creature with "This creature can't attack or block as long as CARDNAME is on the battlefield."
1/2
[i]When his friend grew tired of playing with him, he decided to summon another.[/i]
Sorry I couldn't come up with another instance but I liked the outcome of the card a lot. The idea is a creature that just wants to play with the boy, but if the boy is killed it gets angry and starts to fight.
Really interesting card and story, though I wish it were easier to tell the story just from the card. Does the land remain also a land?
Delete"as long as you control a creature named CARDNAME"
DeleteThe flavor text seems to be telling a totally different story from the rest of the card.
Pasture-ise
ReplyDelete2G
Enchant Permanent
Enchanted permanent is a forest land in addition to its other types. (It has {T}: add {G} to your mana pool.)
Enchanted permanent can't attack or block, and its activated abilities can't be activated unless they're mana abilities.
I very nearly submitted Pacifism, but decided it was worth trying a green version that more explicitly turned a creature into a hillside. I wanted the green version to be worse than white removal (both pacifism/arrest and journey to nowhere/oblivion ring) but not strictly worse, so I made it hit all permanent types, but give the controller slight upside of {G} instead.
It's still a lot wordier than I liked, more like faith's fetters than pacifism. Not a staple common, alas, but green probably shouldn't get removal at common anyway. But no simpler version seemed to convey the same story.
I also considered it might be simpler to directly have "enchanted creature/permanent loses all abilities and is a forest land (instead of its existing types)" but (a) it's a bit stronger because it removes static abilities and mana abilities and (b) it didn't meet the terms of the challenge anyway.
Utopia Vow
DeleteYes, exactly, but I think there's room for variants of utopia vow, just as there's Pacifism, Arrest, Faith's Fetters, etc :)
DeleteHorn of Regret 3
ReplyDeleteArtifact (Rare)
3, T: Tap target creature. If that creature shares a creature type with a creature card in its controller’s graveyard, that creature doesn't untap during its controllers next untap step.
I had to unshoehorn the restriction out of this for the sake of the more interesting (less confusing card). It started out as
DeleteHorn of Isolation 3
Artifact (Rare)
3, T: Tap target creature. If that creature doesn't share a creature type with a creature card in its controller’s graveyard, that creature doesn't untap during its controllers next untap step.
Which could be reworded out of the double negative and makes for a less interesting design as far as I'm concerned.
Hey Jay, I have an awesome (IMHO) proposal for a WAC: the Archangel's Light Challenge!
ReplyDeleteThat is, design the original card that came to be substituted by Archangel's Light. It was a white mythic, name ranging A - Bar the Door, the art is fixed, and it was SO PROBLEMATIC to be rejected in late development. (Additional options could be, as MaRo refers, involving "weird life gain")
cfr. https://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/180
Alternatively or unitely, it could be: design a different (and better...) substitution for Archangel's Light itself.
Horn of Anti-magic 4
ReplyDeleteART: zoom in on the kid playing the horn.
Artifact
CARDNAME enters the battlefield with 3 charge counters on it.
T, Remove a charge counter from CARDNAME: Until the beginning of your next turn, You can't cast spells, and permanents you control gain shroud (This permanent can't be the target of spells or abilities)
Given that you can't cast spells anyhow, why not just use hexproof?
Deletei was trying to fit the flavor better. you are creating a field of anti-magic around you and your guys, so any magic effects on them die. I see your point tho. and honestly, enchant creatures are weak enough no reason to make them worse. Lets go with Hexproof.
DeleteI know I may be too late, but here goes:
ReplyDeleteLoping Loam (Rare)
Land Creature - Beast
(Loping Loam isn’t a spell, and it’s affected by summoning sickness.)
Loping Loam is Red and Green.
1, T: Add RG to your mana pool.
Loping Loam can’t attack unless you played a land this turn.
Loping Loam can’t block unless an opponent played a land this turn.
Oh, it's a 3/3.
DeleteLoping Loam can never block, as long as opponent doesn't need to play a land before combat to pay for some sorcery-speed combat trick.
DeleteThis is pretty strong.
Yeah, even as just a mana filter its a very strong card. Development would probably downgrade it to 3/2, which I'm fine with.
DeleteBefore it was a land, it had vigilance to make the blocking matter, But it's such a strong attacker, that even if it could, you'd have to be really desperate to want to.
I also considered a more complicated version that switched the responsibilities.
Loping Loam can't attack unless a player played a land the previous turn.
Loping Loan can't block unless a player played a land the previous turn.
Which is really just
Loping Loam can't attack or block unless a player played a land the previous turn.
But it seemed to hard to track and didn't fit the challenge.
Screw the challenge.
Delete"Loping Loam can't attack or block unless you played a land during your most recent turn"?
Okay then! Final submission:
DeleteLoping Loam (Rare)
Land Creature - Beast
3/2
(Loping Loam isn’t a spell, and it’s affected by summoning sickness.)
Loping Loam is Red and Green.
1, T: Add RG to your mana pool.
Loping Loam can’t attack or block unless you played a land during your most recent turn.
Very very interesting!
Delete