In general I think this should be [Big-Creature-Type] Fodder. Sacrificing this to cast more Goblins is a little weird flavorfully, but being able to reduce the cost of Dragons/Wurms/Leviathans/etc. is cool, and works well mechanically.
Unassuming Buffalo {2}{G} Creature - Ox Wurm Fodder (You may sacrifice this to cast a Wurm spell for up to {2}{G} less) 2/3
Right; ideally a mechanic like this would be in a tribal-oriented environment built around a small/large pairing, which would work much like Onslaught blocks creature/class system.
I think that this also needs to learn from Devour and Offering before it and provide some additional incentive to offset the card disadvantage. Something as simple as providing a +1/+1 counter may be enough, and reinforce the concept of feeding the larger creature.
I like it, but I think you could template it better:
Sacrifice this creature: Add its mana cost to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast spells that share a creature type with it. Mana costs include color.
Along the lines of the card presented, we could have a Fodder keyword that lets you sacrifice your creature to add mana to your pool that can be spent however you like on creatures that share a type with it.
Along the Demon Fodder / Wurm Fodder lines you could specify another type—something that's always big/expensive—and reduce its cost.
The serve very different roles. I'm drawn more the demon/wurm version since it tells a better story.
Cool Card Design of the Day
In general I think this should be [Big-Creature-Type] Fodder. Sacrificing this to cast more Goblins is a little weird flavorfully, but being able to reduce the cost of Dragons/Wurms/Leviathans/etc. is cool, and works well mechanically.
ReplyDeleteUnassuming Buffalo {2}{G}
Creature - Ox
Wurm Fodder (You may sacrifice this to cast a Wurm spell for up to {2}{G} less)
2/3
Right; ideally a mechanic like this would be in a tribal-oriented environment built around a small/large pairing, which would work much like Onslaught blocks creature/class system.
DeleteI think that this also needs to learn from Devour and Offering before it and provide some additional incentive to offset the card disadvantage. Something as simple as providing a +1/+1 counter may be enough, and reinforce the concept of feeding the larger creature.
Demon fodder on a black Cleric would make sense.
ReplyDeleteDragon Fodder! ...oh wait, that's a card.
ReplyDeleteI like it, but I think you could template it better:
ReplyDeleteSacrifice this creature: Add its mana cost to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast spells that share a creature type with it. Mana costs include color.
You can just call it "Fodder" this way.
I like it! Why does this reduce the cost of spells instead of just adding mana to your mana pool?
ReplyDeleteGoblin fodder (You may sacrifice this permanent to add 1R to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast a Goblin spell.)
You could even do "only to cast Goblin spells" which is quite exciting. And that helps with the card disadvantage, Metaghost talked about.
Looks like we could go two ways with this.
ReplyDeleteAlong the lines of the card presented, we could have a Fodder keyword that lets you sacrifice your creature to add mana to your pool that can be spent however you like on creatures that share a type with it.
Along the Demon Fodder / Wurm Fodder lines you could specify another type—something that's always big/expensive—and reduce its cost.
The serve very different roles. I'm drawn more the demon/wurm version since it tells a better story.
Blood pet would be a fine color shift to red. Limiting the mana to a specific type/color just seems like more of a headache than its worth.
ReplyDelete