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. You may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times.
Design a noncreature spell for this art. Don't use 'destroy' or any P/T boosts. Tell us something new about the world or block it's from, whether that's new or existing.
Pits of Seberang 2RR
ReplyDeleteEnchantment (U)
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, that creature fights a creature of its controller's choice.
/Fighting isn't a way of life, it's a way of birth./
Too good for a creatureless red deck, or would that deck be such a breath of fresh air it's worth it? If this were a 'may' would it still be red?
DeleteThis is very similar to Death Match, except for the lack of 'may' on the Pits. I vote for adding may so that it doesn't punish creature decks too much.
DeleteCreatureless decks? That doesn't sound like what this card wants.
DeletePits of Seberang 3RR
Enchantment (U)
Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, that creature's controller has it fight target creature of their choice he or she doesn't control.
/Fighting isn't a way of life, it's a way of birth./
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJames, fighting isn't optional on Takir.
DeleteI'm on board with this fix, it avoids the "my creature is forced to fight my other creature" feel-bad moment in a flavorful way.
DeleteBetter. It's unfortunate that having more creatures in play is better for your opponent and that having a single good creature could win you the game with this.
DeleteReally? Isn't that what the art depicts?
DeleteMeet in the Arena 2GG
ReplyDeleteSorcery (unc)
Two target creatures fight each other. Draw a card for each of the targets you control.
"Patrons fight to buy tickets for the arena, but the two closest seats are free."
Ooh. I really like the flavour of this, and the potential choices.
DeleteI'm not sure about the numbers though. "Prey Upon with cantrip" and "Conditionally draw two cards in green" both probably cost about 2G, so it makes sense that a card that can do either costs one more than that. But it seems undercosted for Blood Feud: "destroy one to two target creatures", even conditionally, is a bit too good at 4 mana, even without the other modes? But I'm not sure how to adjust it -- you could always give a card to the creatures' controllers, but I don't normally like weird-downside cards.
The flavor text at the end sells it for me. I think 3GG or maybe even 2GR might be an ok number for this since it has the capability to do so much. You can outright destroy two creatures, or you can Prey Upon and draw a card, or you can fight two big butts and draw two.
DeleteIt almost feels like a charm.
I'm thinking that green can get away with a cheaper Blood Feud, and actively pushing this to be green's best non-Hurricane removal spell ever since it's so in-color. But yes, 4 might just be too cheap.
DeleteI'd be very happy for this to be a headline piece of green removal, stronger than Blood Feud. But it feel to me like green removal should still focus on "my monster totally destroys your creature" (even if it's powerful and efficient), whereas "you two fight each other" feels so so so so so red to me, it _could_ be green, but it feels like it should be red first.
DeleteActually, the price of those seats is most likely your face... haha. Love that flavor text tho it reads really well. cool card!
DeleteThe Blood Feud mode of this card doesn't feel Green to me at all.
DeleteI like this a lot. Great idea.
DeleteWhat about "I want to watch two creatures fight" is more red than green? Green doesn't care about loyalties or affiliations. When a snake and a fox tangle, it doesn't matter if someone dude in a blue cap is rooting for one while some chick in a red cap is rooting for the other.
DeleteIt's no my preference, but I *would* be okay making this {2}{R}{G}.
Green understands that creatures fighting is natural. Making creatures fight when they don't want to is very unnatural.
DeleteFor what it's worth, I find the nature of the card drawing on this card a bit too Melvin-y. I think drawing cards should be connected to "winning" the fight.
I do really like the idea of combining Prey Upon and some sort of card draw in Green, and, personally, I'd rather keep that than the Blood Feud mode. Something like:
Time to Fight 2G
Sorcery (U)
Choose target creature an opponent controls. When that creature dies this turn, draw a card. Target creature you control fights that creature.
This is massively Melvin-y, I agree. I like Time to Fight better.
DeleteMore for a multi-player supplement than a set, but hey.
ReplyDeleteSend to the Pits 3BR
Sorcery (R)
Conquer 4 — Sacrifice creatures (Each opponent secretly chooses a number. When this resolves, they must reveal and sacrifice creatures equal to that number. If four or more creatures are sacrificed in this way, this is conquered.)
If Send to the Pits was conquered, each opponent draws a card. Otherwise, each opponent loses 4 life and you put four 2/2 red Gladiator creature creature tokens with haste onto the battlefield.
9 lines is a lot, but acceptable for a rare. My real concern is there's so much going on. Sacrifice, drawing, life loss and token making? Can you focus it more?
DeleteSend to the Pits 3BR
DeleteSorcery (R)
Conquer 4 — Sacrifice creatures (Each opponent secretly chooses a number. When this resolves, they must reveal and sacrifice creatures equal to that number. If four or more creatures are sacrificed in this way, this is conquered.)
If Send to the Pits wasn't conquered, put six 2/2 red Gladiator creature creature tokens with haste onto the battlefield.
That or similar would be fine. The reward for conquering isn't needed although it encourages people to contribute more than they might otherwise.
I'm not sure the secretly choosing is worth the words it adds. Making the sacrifices happen sequentially by your opponents retains a good portion of the card's politics.
DeleteYour opponents may sacrifice any number of creatures in turn order. Unless four or more creatures were sacrificed this way, put six 2/2 Red Gladiator creature tokens with Haste onto the battlefield.
This is 12 points of hasty power for 5 mana if you're in a duel with an opponent who controls 3 or fewer creatures. I know Revel of the Fallen God was bad, but was it really this bad?
DeleteMaybe; this wasn't the easiest thing in the world to balance. The mana cost, conquer number and number of tokens can all be messed around with though.
DeleteI was also thinking in an EDH/Commander mindset when I designed it so I didn't really think about 1-vs-1 play.
DeleteI don't think it's possible to balance this so it works in duels and in multiplayer. Fine with a multiplayer-only design.
DeleteI agree the numbers seem off, but Dev can tweak those. The core concept is much better now.
The worst case, btw, is that one opponent sacks three creatures, no one else does, and you send your 12 power at that player. Should players who sacrifice gain some form of immunity?
Ogre Banditry
ReplyDelete2GG
Target creature you control fights target creature you don't control. If your creature survives, draw two cards.
This ended up really similar to Jay's submission, but oh well, sometimes obvious ideas are good. I'm not sure how much it says about the world, but I think "ogres are semi-organised bands" is enough to distinguish a classic DnD-type world from other fantasy worlds.
Also very strong. Where Meet in the Arena is usually a 2:1 (but in-what-way is conditional), Ogre Banditry is a 3:1 (on the condition you've got a bigger creature), but rather less flexible. I like them both, and yours has to get points for being more straightforward. It's awfully good though. I guess that's a hint mine really is too good too.
DeleteI'm not sure I like the win-more aspect of this card. Fighting a smaller creature with a bigger one already felt a little unfair; this just seems "unfairer". I'd slightly prefer the Time to Feed route of checking whether the opponent died.
DeleteI can't agree that fighting a small creature with a big one feels unfair, since every other color can deal with creatures without controlling any of their own, much less strictly larger ones.
DeleteWhat does "survives" mean? Do I draw the cards if the opposing creature gets removed from the battlefield in response?
DeleteI would guess so.
DeleteMoment of Courage 1W
ReplyDeleteInstant
Target creature you control blocks target attacking creature an opponent controls. (***)
"You can die with your sword in the beast's belly or with his axe in your back! They don't sing songs about the latter!" - Chief Gymer, The Siege of Western Pass
*** The card is meant to let one of your creatures block an opponent's creature regardless of abilities like intimidate and "cannot be blocked" as well as allowing a tapped creature to block. I'm not quite sure on how to word any sort of reminder text without making it a hot mess of wording.
The idea for the block that would want a card like this would be War and an emphasis on color identity. There would be five factions (how original) constantly battling with one another. Intimidate would be a common ability for creatures of this set. There would also be several colorless defender creatures to represent the fortifications of each faction. You'd occasionally see multicolor cards to represent two factions plotting in secret to take out their enemies.
The bit of flavor text is to show a sort of viking like respect for battle.
"Target creature you control can block target attacking creature this turn even if it's tapped and even if that attacker couldn't be blocked otherwise."
DeleteHmm, "can't" abilities trump "can" abilities so I think that actually doesn't work.
How would the 10 two-color Limited archetypes work in terms of flavor in this mono-colored war? When a faction identifies itself by color, making cards associated to that faction colorless seems like a fail. I could see there being unaligned colorless creatures players might draft to counter intimidate.
Pardic Arena R
ReplyDeleteEnchantment (C)
Arena (When you declare attackers, you may assign one creature you control to this arena until end of turn if it's not in another arena).
Creatures you control in this arena have first strike.
The pit fights in Odyssey/Onslaught only showed up in card names and flavor text but didn't seem to have any gameplay ramifications. I would change that in a return to Otaria. Cards with the Arena mechanic grant a bonus to a single creature each combat.
Pardic Arena R
DeleteEnchantment—Arena (C)
Whenever you attack, target attacking creature gains first strike until EOT.
One of my inspirations was Battle-Rattle Shaman, whose template is also simple. The extra words probably aren't worth it, considering you could still make cards like "Gladiator 1W, Creature. Whenever Gladiator becomes the target of an ability from an Arena, it gets +1/+1 until end of turn. 2/2"
DeleteBonus points to submissions that don't use 'fight' or 'block' (but remember, bonus points aren't as good as an awesome design).
ReplyDeleteKhan's Standard 1R
ReplyDeleteEnchantment- Aura (Uncommon)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature must be blocked by exactly one creature if able.
I like the effect, but it's green. And this card probably wants to be stronger.
DeleteRight on both counts. I'm going to try to come up with something that gets the new bonus points...
DeleteOK, let's try this:
DeleteKhan's Aggression 2R
Sorcery (Uncommon)
Put a 3/3 red Ogre creature token onto the battlefield. Each of your opponents puts a 1/1 white Human creature token onto the battlefield.
Buyback 3
Neat, I like Khan's Aggression. I'm torn whether it should be Each opponent or Target opponent for multiplayer purposes. I'm leaning towards Target opponent so it doesn't look bad on first glance.
DeleteI like it.
DeletePurely for discussion:
Khan's Aggression 3R
Sorcery (Uncommon)
Put a 3/3 red Ogre creature token onto the battlefield.
Buyback — Each of your opponents puts a 1/1 white Human creature token onto the battlefield.
I like the "target opponent" suggestion a lot-- it makes multiplayer politics more interesting too. Thanks!
DeleteThe "give tokens as buyback" angle is fascinating, and arguably more flavorful. It's a bit weird to think of as a cost, but Shah of Naar Isle proves that it can be done. I really like that this is a buyback you can "pay" anytime you cast the regular spell, and (surprisingly) it doesn't come anywhere close to breaking the card.
Looks like it could be a reprint of Mark for Death.
ReplyDeleteMy submission:
Rakdos Party Time
3BR
Sorcery (U)
Rakdos Party Time deals 1 damage to each creature.
Each creature attacks this turn if able.
Each creature blocks this turn if able.
Nothing gets the blood flowing like a little fight to the death.
Feedback appreciated as always.
I like this a lot. Could also be mono-red.
DeleteI like this too. Can it be an Instant for multiplayer?
DeleteSure. I'm good with it at instant speed.
DeleteThoughts on red versus red-black? I made this RB to show off another aspect of Rakdos, but I think that can get across as mono-red.
Cool.
DeleteMono-red works.
Considering how symmetrical it is, could probably be cheaper.
I don't think this can be an Instant. Else you can declare attackers, then cast it.
DeleteTack on a cast only before declare attackers clause? I'd rather have the multiplayer mode with a little inelegant wording than the single application here, especially since 5cmc is a lot for a card that doesn't do much on its own.
DeleteHow do people feel about this?
DeleteRakdos Party Time
2RR
Instant (U)
Cast Rakdos Party Time only before combat.
Rakdos Party Time deals 1 damage to each creature.
Each creature attacks this turn if able.
Each creature blocks this turn if able.
Nothing gets the blood flowing like a little fight to the death.
Was it really a problem that the person casting this could cheat themselves past the "all my creatures must attack" clause?
DeleteHour of Glory 2WBR
ReplyDeleteEnchantment (Rare)
Attacking creatures you control must be blocked if able.
At end of combat, if it’s the first combat phase of the turn, untap all creatures that attacked this turn and up to one target creature an opponent controls. After this phase, there is an additional combat phase.
What makes this White or Black?I could see this as a mono red card.
DeleteAlso forcing your opponent to block will most likely kill some of (if not all of your guys). What are the chances that you will have anyone to attack with in the second attack Phase?
How about these:
Hour of Glory 2WBR
Sorcery (Rare)
Attacking creatures you control have first strike, lifelink, and must be blocked if able.
At end of combat, if it’s the first combat phase of the turn, untap all creatures that attacked this turn and up to one target creature an opponent controls. After this phase, there is an additional combat phase.
Hour of Glory 2WBR
Enchantment (Rare)
Attacking creatures you control must be blocked if able.
At end of combat, if it’s the first combat phase of the turn, untap all creatures that attacked this turn and up to one target creature an opponent controls. After this phase, there is an additional combat phase.
I like the enemy wedge tri color it made me think of Alara and how much I loved that block. Your design inspired me to think of this:
Ultimate Defeat RRWWWBB
Sorcery (Mythic)
You decide how blockers are assigned this turn instead of your opponent.
Until the end of turn, creatures you control have first strike and deathtouch. After the first combat phase this turn, untap all creatures you control and there is a second combat phase.
OUCH!
haha
It's white and black in the way that Finest Hour is green and blue. :P
DeleteYou could make the (admittedly loose) argument that untapping all your creatures postcombat is like giving them vigilance. I got nothing for black.
My WBR wedge of Bizzaralara would be themed around attacking with many creatures (as opposed to Bant's one) and effects caring about things dying in combat. Note that you can send in one creature (like a deathtoucher) to soften up the opponent's defense before attacking with the rest of the team during the postcombat main phase. That does generate the odd situation of spawning two combat phases even if nothing attacks, though...will have to think of a fix for that.
"and up to one target creature an opponent controls" is the part that bothers me. It's fiddly and players will ask "what forces me to do that?" The answer is "nothing, but sometimes you'll want to" but that's not the point.
DeleteI'd rather see that line either omitted or untap all your opponent's creatures for another giant melee. If it was profitable the first time, it should be profitable the second time.
I can kind of see the three colors for various bits of honor, valor, savagery, brutality, and trickiness. They're not necessary in a vacuum, but I can definitely see a card like this in the pie-slice block.
Revised version for elegance, fixing the rules weirdness, and ALL THE PROVOKE:
DeleteHour of Glory 2WBR
Enchantment (Rare)
Attacking creatures you control must be blocked if able.
Whenever one or more creatures you control attack, if it’s the first combat phase of the turn, untap all creatures. After this phase, there is an additional combat phase.
My submission is an idea for Tesla. It is meant to represent the people in power and how they are oppressing the lower class.
ReplyDeleteHired Muscle 4R
Sorcery (Common)
Put a 3/3 red Ogre creature token with Dominate onto the battlefield under your control
Dominate (When this creature enters the battlefield, you may put a -1/-1 counter on target creature for as long as this creature is on the battlefield)
so its basically a -1/-1 counter that functions like an O-ring. when the dominating creature leaves, the -1/-1 counter goes with it.
thoughts? will book-keeping be an issue?
The idea is appealing, but bookkeeping is definitely an issue. It's hard to represent with a counter (because weird things happen if you then remove it or double it), but even harder to represent without one.
DeleteAlso, it makes X/1s extremely vulnerable, which would probably warp the Limited environment too much.
Making a sorcery that just makes a creature is clearly skirting the "don't make a creature" part of this challenge. If doing so had someone circumvented my reason of that (that there are two creatures in this art and they don't do that anymore, to make it clear what's what) it would have been cool.
DeleteYeah, this dominate has big bookkeeping issues. It's mostly stronger, but I'd sooner see Dungeon Geists' ability keyworded.
Haha fair... ok lets try again.
DeleteOut-muscle 1R
Sorcery (Common)
Target creature gains Bully until the end of turn.
Bully (This creature can only be blocked by creatures with less power or toughness than it.)
Cool.
DeleteI'd have to test bully to get a better feel for it, but at face-value it looks close to a interesting mechanic.
Last Man Standing
ReplyDeleteBRG
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of upkeep, sacrifice a creature and then put X +1/+1 counters on target creature you control, where X is equal to the sacrifice creature's power.
At the end of each combat, if you control exactly one creature, that creature becomes indestructible.
Do they become indestructible indefinitely? That might be hard to track over the course of a game. I understand the counters should help, but I am a little concerned it'll be hard to follow. Awesome concept though!
Delete"As long as you control exactly one creature, that creature is indestructible."
DeleteThat alone would make for a pretty exciting card. The fact that you will probably have to sacrifice your Last Man at the beginning of your next upkeep seems pretty feel-bad to me.
There's certainly a lot of tension in the two clauses, but I don't know if it's any greater than what you get from Demons that ask you to sacrifice. I'll keep thinking about it though.
DeleteAlso, do players know that being indestructible doesn't create immunity from sacrifice? I suspect not.
DeleteMaking your own creature indestructible for your opponent's turn before you sacrifice it on your next turn is a terrible joke to play on your audience.
DeleteYou could sacrifice LMS when you do make your one big dude invincy.
Is it more of a terrible joke than designing a keyword around making players sacrifice creatures in order to make a single large creature in a block with some of Magic's strongest removal ever printed?
DeleteBut more seriously, sometimes you just start from a point of nihilism and have to work towards fun. The picture is rather grim, you know.
Devour was pretty disappointing.
DeleteDoes fun ever come from nihilism?
Show of Strength 3R
ReplyDeleteSorcery (C)
Target creature with the greatest power fights another target creature.
I don't promise this isn't an uncommon. I'm currently imagining this showing up in Alara Rereborn in Naya, emphasizing the caring about power. Of course, the fact that it also has value if you don't expect to have the creature with the greatest power gives it versatility in a very alara-y kind of way.
I know I just proposed a four-mana Blood Feud, and this is not nearly as powerful, but at common (and in red), this is likely too good. It might even be too weird: When I make my opponent's big guy stomp out my opponent's little guy, what's the flavor? It's not bad, but I'm not sure it's good.
DeleteThat said, this is elegant and has good flavor in every other situation.
When I make my opponent's big guy stomp his small guy, I think the flavor makes sense, inspiring some creature to show off how macho it is by destroying something (even a friend) feels red to me. The weird flavor, to me, is when I make my opponent's Scoria Elemental show off how tough it is against my opponents Hollowhenge Beast, but I guess emotions don't always lead you to smart actions!
DeleteI do think that, at the very least for weirdness/rules complexity reasons this would need to be an uncommon, given that you can do weird things like respond to it by Giant Growthing another creature to counter it.
As the Dust Settles {4}{B}{R}
ReplyDeleteSorcery (R)
Each player chooses a creature he or she controls, then sacrifices the rest. Each of those creatures deals damage equal to its power to another random target creature.
Does the second half of this card know about the first half?
DeleteI don't understand which creatures "those creatures" are in this case.
DeleteWould changing the second line to "Then, each creature deals damage equal to it power to another creature chosen at random" help?
DeleteFight-wrath I can see and Cataclysm-wrath works. Why would we put both on a single card?
DeleteI was aiming for a moment of "who still remains" that players had some degree of feeling like they could influence it. Basically select your champion and then pray.
DeleteWarlord's Zeal (Com or Unc?)
ReplyDeleteR
Enchantment - Aura
Kicker WB (You may pay an additional WB as you cast this spell.)
Enchant creature you control
Enchanted creature has intimidate and double strike.
If Warlord’s Zeal wasn’t kicked, the creature it enchants is chosen at random.
Reading this card is a rollercoaster of emotion. I don't think that's a bad thing, but I'm not sure; it might be a good thing for some players?
DeleteOtherwise, it's certainly interesting and will appeal strongly to the all-random crowd. Spikes will hate it except when they can fashion a board with no opposing creatures, and then they will love it (for rewarding said fashioning).
Keep in mind, it's got "enchant creature you control," so the random choice is never going to be able to target an opponent's creatures.
DeleteI did miss that detail. In that case, the kicker seems superfluous; I think it would be a cooler card without it.
DeleteWill for Battle (uncommon)
ReplyDelete{rw}
Instant
Target creature becomes a Warrior and loses all other creature types until end of turn.
Draw a card.
I could also see going the route of the Velis Vel cycle and have it provide some bonus instead of cantripping.
DeleteCowards can't block Warriors.
DeleteMy thoughts exactly, Jay. I thought that a set that took the Coward/Warrior dynamic and made it a core part of gameplay would have more cards that just cared about one half of the dichotomy.
DeleteGoblin Racist 1R
DeleteCreature-Goblin (unc)
Elves are Cowards.
2/1
That should be a dwarf Jay...
Deletegood call
Delete:-) Legend named Gimli?
DeleteFront-line Command 2RR
ReplyDeleteSorcery [mythic]
Each player puts his or her commander onto the battlefield from his or her command zone.
or...
Besiege the Tower 3RR
Sorcery [mythic]
Politics of War — Each player secretly chooses strike or parry, then all players reveal their choice.
Players that chose strike put their commanders onto the battlefield from the command zone.
Players that chose parry and planeswalkers they control can't be attacked until your next turn.
I hope the latter fits into a text box.
Front-Line Command is amusing and practically screams "turn 3 Progenitus!"
DeleteBesiege the Tower's secondary mode seems awfully weak. In particular, you're probably playing BtT because you have the most threatening general at the table, and choosing parry doesn't protect any opponent from being attacked by said general on your next turn.
Yeah, it probably is.
DeleteDoes Politics of War need to be secret?
DeleteParry should be something tempting enough that a player who hasn't already played their commander would consider choosing.
Even without that change, I like it better than Front-Line Command which will punish players who already got their commander out even more than getting your massive commander cheap will.
I generally prefer secret voting as it makes it a little more tense and it means the last person to vote isn't either irrelevant or the tie-breaker. Parry doesn't seem to have worked, but I'm not sure what would be a good effect. Hrm.
DeleteGain 10 life.
DeleteDraw two cards.
Put a creature card from their hand OTB.
The third one is a good one; it links with the first effect. Call the votes "command" and "deploy".
DeleteEnter the Ring - 2RRR
ReplyDeleteSorcery (Rare)
Each layer reveals cards from the top of his or her library until he or she reveals a creature card. Each player puts the revealed creature card onto the battlefield, then shuffles all other cards revealed this way into his or her library. Those creatures fight each other.
"Two will enter, one will leave. Maybe."
I think this is way too powerful. 5 mana Blightsteel Colossus or Emrakul that then devours whatever my opponent got?
DeleteAlso, should it be target opponent? I'm not sure how creatures fight if there's more than two involved.
Cleaner template and slightly adjusted cost. I don't find 6 CMC to be too cheap, as there are plenty of more efficient ways to cheat out a large creature.
DeleteEnter the Ring - 3RRR
Sorcery (Rare)
Choose an opponent. You and the chosen opponent reveal cards from the top of his or her library until each player reveals a creature card. Each player puts the revealed creature card onto the battlefield, then shuffles all other cards revealed this way into his or her library. Those creatures fight each other.
I think Ben is sort of alluding to that while this is a cool concept (and has been done on Guild Feud), it will never actually play out cooly because people will only play this card if it will cheat out something grossly unfair, meaning that the fight and all will be irrelevant cause your Emrakul will crush their poor little Lotus Cobra.
DeleteGuild Feud gets around the "one creature in my deck" problem by only looking at the top three cards. How will Enter the Ring get around it?
DeleteCould add G to the mana cost, and have it reveal the top 6-7 cards instead.
DeleteYes, sorry that I wasn't being clear.
DeleteI could see 3RGG for the top 7 cards or so.
Why cast this instead of Guild Feud?
DeleteWhich is why I originally suggest CMC 5.
DeleteChoose your Combatant 4RR
ReplyDeleteSorcery - Rare
Search your library for a Human creature card, put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library. That creature fights target creature an opponent controls.
"Avacyn may have dulled the vampire's thirst for blood, but she can do nothing to sate a human's bloodlust."
This is greener than it is red.
DeleteAlso probably way too good: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?sort=cmc-&type=%20[human]||subtype=%20[human]
I remember doing that Gatherer search when Descendants' Path was spoiled, and being surprised to find that there weren't any truly devastating Human targets. If there were a Constructed-playable Human for 5+ mana that this was copies 5-8 of plus Prey Upon, then it would obviously be too good. Otherwise, though, I'm not convinced.
DeleteIt definitely is green; it just felt like red fit the flavor I was going for slightly better. Maybe this is a better design (not sure about the costing again):
DeleteMurderous Charge 2R
Sorcery (Rare)
Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a Human creature card. Put that card onto the battlefield. It gains haste and "At the beginning of the end step, sacrifice this creature."
Not clear from the other elements why it's focused on humans. Funny how that makes it stronger (because you run any number of creatures in your deck, but just the one human you want to get free) and weaker (because there are more abuseable creature types).
DeleteDumbest thing I can think of to do is Auratouched Mage + Eldrazi Conscription. Master Transmuter + one blue mana open is pretty good too, especially since you can bounce the Transmuter to cheat around the sacrifice trigger.
DeleteAgainst All Odds RW
ReplyDeleteSorcery (U)
Target creature you control gets +0/+5 until end of turn and fights another target creature.
/There's only one way to face your fears./
/With a really big shield./
Delete+0/+7 purely for the Righteousness callback?
So are mock-up + review threads just not a thing anymore?
ReplyDeleteNot for the time-being, at least.
Delete