Weekend Art ChallengeGreetings, artisans! Click through to see this weekend's art and the design requirements for your single card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, and everyone is encouraged to give feedback. You may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times, though only the version rendered will be included in the review, if someone volunteers to render the cards.
Design a common green creature for this art to help mitigate an imbalanced Limited environment that otherwise favors black over green.
A Scenario: Development has found that B-x decks are beating G-x decks 65% of the time. They believe that the combination of Catacomb Slug and Giant Scorpion—which are necessary for the rest of the environment—are too good at stopping green's Runeclaw Bear and Rumbling Baloth. Often the cards green would use to overcome these problems are trumped by black's discard and removal.
Jay, in what sense is black favored over green? This hypothetical scenario feels a bit too vague and sorta reads like "design a pushed green creature that compels players to disregard black signals". Which could be interesting, but doesn't feel very realistic.
ReplyDeleteI'd take it as implying that the Limited-environment-excluding-this-card has black a bit too strong and green a bit too weak. Or possibly saying that in the LEETC, matchups between green and black decks go to the black deck a bit too much.
DeleteThe developer in me feels compelled to point out that printing a pushed Green common (or a Green common that sepcifically hoses Black in some way) is a bad solution "Green is too weak and Black is too strong."
DeleteThe best solution is probably something like "The best removal spell in Black at Common is Flatten, so we'll sprinkle an extra common/uncommon 5 toughness creature in each other color," but that is ultra context dependent.
I really like straight development challenges, but I think this one is too vague to meaningfully answer without more information.
I've added context. See above.
DeleteBeautiful, thanks!
DeleteThanks, Jay!
DeleteThick-shelled tortoise 4G
ReplyDeleteCreature - Tortoise C
When thick-shell Tortoise dies, put a 3/3 green Tortoise creature token into play.
3/5
Flavor Text: "The hardest part is just breaking the shell"
DeleteI like this design a lot. From a design Aesthetics point of view, I think I like 3/5 turns into 3/1 better. It is more like the shell is gone.
DeleteThat's fair, possibly we can make it 3/4 with a 3/1 token and push it to 4 CMC
DeleteI think 3/5 and 3/1 at 5 is probably correct (and agrees with the Meandering Turtleshell precedent about turtle size!) Keep in mind we know there is already a 4 mana 4/4 in the set at common, and we don't want our commons bumping against each other (this is actually one of the hardest parts of design/development!)
DeleteSeems a little much at common, perhaps; this reads like a decently high pick uncommon to me. It's a cool card though, and bounces off the Slug while threatening to kill it with a pump spell while dropping a token if they do kill it in response, which can set up the whole situation again as a 3/3.
DeleteI think 3/5 that dies to a 3/1 can be done at Common only just barely and only if there are enough answers floating around for a 3/1 that don't involve cards (like tokens, Catacomb Slugs, etc). More properly, it is probably an Uncommon, but unlike a lot of submissions, I could see this one getting pushed to Common.
DeleteSo this is the submission itself:
ReplyDeleteSporeback Troll 3G
Creature - Plant Troll (c)
G, Sacrifice a Forest: Regenerate target green creature.
3/2
Nettle trolls that become too attached to their grottoes become intrinsic parts of their local ecosystem.
Heavy handed smooshing of Tel-Jilad Lifebreather and Trolls of Tel-Jilad, presuming that the problem is purely on field.
If the issue is more discard based, a green Dodecapod might be more necessary - which comes with the advantage of potentially just putting a Hill Giant that happens to become a 4/4 against certain decks. But that probably needs to be uncommon to avoid swinginess.
If the issue is life loss mechanics, something like Golgari Brownscale could be a good solution, but that requires Dredge to be a mechanic in the set itself which feels like a poor idea given modern design and the issues it created in Standard as a whole.
Sacrificing lands to activate effects is something that Magic used to do all the time, even at common. It was a major theme in Prophecy, and in Kamigawa block. Seeing those two sets named together, you can guess where this is going.
DeleteSacrificing lands to activate creature abilities at common hasn't been done since Kamigawa (that I could find), and I think the reason is that it baits new players into making poor decisions, and often doesn't feel good even when it is the right decision. The design technology has a place, but I think the place is properly splashy Rare cards like Aggressive Mining and Hammer of Purphoros.
Also, I think "Regenerate target creature" is too board warping of an effect for common under NWO. I'd even be surprised to see it at Uncommon actually.
Just a note, this name is already taken.
DeleteAlso feels more like an uncommon, and since it can't brawl with either of the two creatures that profitably I'm not sure if it solves the problem, since it has to bin a land to trade with the Scorpion and to even survive VS the slug. Of course you can use the ability to protect other dudes, but I'm worried that it's not being super helpful against the problems (although the regen can help VS the removal spells).
DeleteI would just like to note that this card was submitted BEFORE context was added and, in the context given, this card actually a terrible design for the round.
DeleteSuppose it's back to the drawing board. A Hand of Silumgar with Hexproof and Deathtouch sounds a bit too heavy handed of an answer, even if it works at common.
Lumbering Shaleshell
ReplyDelete4GG
Creature - Beast
CARDNAME has hexproof as long as it's not attacking.
5/6
Obviously there's no way a 5/5+ hexproof creature can be common, but I think we need more situational hexproof. The idea is, this dodges a lot of common black removal (everything sorcery speed, most things toughness based, etc), making green better and black worse. But it's not broken because you can't just keep hammering with it against any deck.
I'm not sure if that's ok for common -- maybe it needs an activation cost instead?
I'm not sure it's enough to tip the balance -- one big creature is a green common staple, but I don't know if it's enough to improve green overall. But if it's pushed more it would feel too format defining.
You could have a color-hoser, but wizards are moving away from those.
And the picture just screamed "large creature with defensive ability" :)
Ok, if we're fighting 2/6s not 5/3s better make that 6/5 not 5/6.
DeleteDodging removal not discard may or may not be enough, but I think if we have an anti discard spell it should be added to a different creature (replace the 4/4?)
Is menace allowed in green?
DeleteNo, wait, I'm a fool. What's a good answer to discard, AND to removal? AND to 2/6s AND to 1/3 deathtouches?
Call of the Herd!
Two tokens for the price of one puts you up a card against any of the above, and are enough to keep attacking through any of the creatures. It's only bad against decks full of 4/4s and that won't be black.
However (a) we might not be playing with flashback (b) it might be too strong for common and tip the balance the other way (c) the art isn't an elephant.
If any of those are true, our second best option is probably two tokens at once like Maul Splicer or Horncaller's Chant, but pushed to take the place of a 5/5 or 6/6. Something like:
Twin Shaleshells
Sorcery
4GG
Put two 3/3 green beast creature tokens OTB.
"What's the only thing worse than one shaleshell? It's behind you, that's what it is"
It could even be 3GG in the right set. Or maybe single-green so it's easier to splash in G/X decks.
It's a shame it loses the anti-discard effect of flashback. But OTOH, I think it's a plus that you immediately attack with all the power -- eg. Call of the Herd is slower if you need two creatures to break a stall. If I can think of something balanced, I might tack on an anti-discard effect.
Keep in mind Call of the Herd is rare.
DeleteThis is a mono-colored Courser's Accord though, so it should fit fine at Common. Courser's Accord did not do well in its original format, but I think part of that was because the whole format was built around answering Centaur tokens (3/2s for 2 and 3/4s for 3 and 3 power first strikes and everything were everywhere).
Still, I think this card does not do a good job of addressing the real issue, which is that the Green deck is losing in board stalls with Black. Adding two 3/3s to a stalled board on turn 7 or 8 when you get to 6 lands is rarely going to unstall the board.
This can block both problem creatures fairly well (the Slug extremely well), but it feels like the attacking side of your board is maybe more the problem in this scenario. The opponent with the black deck is likely using those to clog the ground while attacking you with some other thing (other evasive guys, spells, etc),. I suppose this is OK at pushing damage since one gets to sneak past a single Slug while the other bounces and threatens a pump spell, but if they ever have two or Slug plus another creature or even 1/1 token it starts looking a lot worse.
Delete@Tommy Thank you for development comments. OK, I agree.
DeleteI searched for preprints of this card, but screwed up the search and forgot about Courser's Accord :)
It does look like some sort of evasion plus some sort of protection may be necessary, but there's been a few submissions along those lines and I don't have any ideas for how to do it better yet.
Other ideas, Vines of Vastwood to fight removal and punch through high-toughness creatures? (And indirectly fight discard, since if they're spending targeted discard on your 1-mana spell, they're not taking your creature.)
DeleteFight, with pump or card draw, to give card advantage and remove blacks (assumed) stall-breaking evasive creatures?
Or a creature that itself is cheap with death touch? Maybe with another card advantage ability added?
DeleteIt could have deathtouch only while attacking to reduce its attractiveness outside stall breaking.
OK, I keep coming back around to this after reading more of Tommy's analysis. Now I think, I was wrong to try to follow modern design guidelines in downplaying colour-matters. We WANT something that is swingy in a particular direction, so if we can be sneaky and say "can't be blocked by creatures that have [some characteristic overrepresented in black]" that might be superficially nicer. But if we just say "can't be blocked by black" that does the job, and makes it clear even to new players, this might be a card they need in in that case.
DeleteLet's try:
Moldproof Shaleback
2G
Creature - Turtle Beast
CARDNAME can't be blocked by black creatures.
3/2
This is designed to break board stalls with black specifically, without being too high a pick otherwise. If necessary, we could make the 2/1 version to be a lower pick, or the 4/3 version to be more effective, but the art isn't smaller than 3/2 even that is pushing it, and 4/3 evasion would probably be TOO swingy. And it would have to replace one of the existing standard green creatures, this can replace a three-drop (or even just have that line of text added).
It doesn't specifically fight removal and discard, just that if you have this AS WELL as green's 6/5 and maybe an orchard spirit, there's that many more targets and more decks will run out. (In fact, should I have considered printing orchard spirit?)
I like the way it fits the art while being a really simple card, even though it's a bit small for it.
I chose "can't be blocked by" instead of protection because protection is a lot more complicated, and would usually be uncommon. However, if this is insufficient, it could add "can't be the target of black spells" or "prevent all damage that would be dealt to this by black sources" or "protection" -- I wouldn't normally print that at common, but if it's needed to balance the environment, then it must be ok.
Developers, am I getting closer here? :)
I definitely considered this exact design, I think this is a good choice. It still eats removal spells, but you're happy with their removal spell trading for your 3 drop. Making it bigger makes it worse at doing its job, I think.
DeleteGreen doesn't get many 3 mana 3/2s these days so that is a little weird, but I don't really love making it a 1GG 3/3 or whatever.
That leaves two basic issues:
1) Is this ability Green? It is somewhat like Swampwalk, so one could argue it from that point of view, but at best I can get this to a "maybe." This is really not how Green is supposed to interact with creatures. I doubt Mark Rosewater would like it.
2) Development has made the very specific decision to abandon landwalk and intimidate and pullback protection specifically because it does not like the fact that certain cards get better against certain decks just because of the color they are playing. I have a hard time believing that they are going to like this slight variation on that.
Slight Counterargument to point #2: This is slightly better than Intimidate and Landwalk because just about every deck will be able to block it with something. Still, the powerlevel does swing based solely on the opponent's color.
My Verdict: If we are going to put the word "Black" in the answer, this is probably exactly the card I want to print. I hope we can find a card that does not do that, though.
Thank you again for analysis! Yes, that's about what I thought.
DeleteI agree, if we can do it without mentioning black that would be better, but I thought we have to do that, since basically what we do want is a card specifically stronger against black. And also, if it's OBVIOUS, it makes sure players will actually realise it can help them if they're not winning.
I mentally justified "can't be blocked by black creatures" as being like swampwalk but less so, in a future where swampwalk and protection are definitely not used, but colour-relevant abilities occasionally are. IIRC all colours got that in the Raven's Run Dragoon cycle, but not otherwise.
But I agree, a green-er way would be nice. Hm, taking that literally, how about:
Swamp Crasher
Creature - Beast
2G
3/2
When ~ is blocked by one or more black creatures, it gets +3/+3 and gains trample UEOT.
I think I prefer the previous card (evasion) as my submission for now, but I'm leaving this one here while I think on it.
Or, maybe a provoke ability? Would that help let other creatures through?
Or, still brainstorming, I wonder about a +something/+something aura, with a totem-armor-like ability or a "return to hand" ability (but costed less aggressively than Rancor). Would that help break a stall in a more green way? But I'm, not sure it could be strong enough and still common.
Wandering Wolfdad 2G
ReplyDeleteCreature -- Wolf
Creatures with power less than ~ can't block it.
3/1
I think this is basically the correct answer to this challenge, though I'm not buying that art as a wolf.
DeleteI went with "Wolfdad" because it was a tribute to Wandering Wolf. I agree it should really be a Beast or something.
DeleteI like this answer a lot, although it still dies to the removal/discard with no added value. I suppose coming down on 3 is less of a problem with regards to the modern common removal design philosophies than a lot of these presented cards though; you've likely got in for a good chunk before they can kill it unless there's a plethora of cheap -1/-1 effects.
DeleteValue and card advantage aren't really things Green does at Common. What Giant Scorpion and Catacomb Slug do is render low drops irrelevant so that bigger (and presumably rarer) threats can get blanked with removal spells. This is a low drop that doesn't play so nicely with that plan.
DeleteObviously it won't swing the matchup by 15%, but if you make a single common that does that, you are doing something very, very wrong.
So the problems we seem have are that the high toughness and deathtouch on those two creatures are blanking a lot of green's common ground beef, but anything on a creature that turns this around gets hit by a removal spell or hit by discard? So we need a creature that's resilient to removal and/or discard, that can do at least something to punch through those big ground blockers.
ReplyDeleteGranite Greenshell 4G
Creature - Turtle (C)
Trample
Scavenge 5GG
4/4
The trample lets it threaten pump spells through the Scorpion, and it has enough toughness to brawl with the Slug and threaten combat tricks to kill it. Removal kills it, but then you can scavenge four counters onto a different ground guy and let that brawl over the Slug instead, and it also helps to make it resilient to discard; the 7 cost scavenge should be achievable if this is a format where the Slug is a strong card.
This is very clean, and very Green. Comparing this to the other Scavenge cards, I do think the costing is a bit too aggressive, as a 4G 4/4 Trampler is already pretty close to on curve.
DeleteIt is so beautiful as is, though, that I hesitate to suggest tweaking any of the costs.
My only issue is that this works in the hypothetical scenario if Scavenge is already a part of the set, in which case the hypothetical scenario seems unlikely to have occurred.
DeleteOr should we assume that this wouldn't have the actually Scavenge keyword, just identical rules text? (Does that happen often?)
It's certainly possible that this could just be an "5GG, Exile ~ from your graveyard" trigger; although that's getting a little clunky at common in a set without the actual keyword, it's not out of the realms of possibility IMO.
DeleteResilient Mosshusk 4G
ReplyDeleteCreature - Turtle Beast (C)
Hexproof (This creature can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.)
6/2
It's been around for hundreds of years and it certainly isn't going to let you change that.
This Venusaur can trade with either problematic creature while staying safe from removal spells, thus clearing the way for your other critters. It's trade off or take 6, which seems like a win-win for G-x in limited.
Feedback appreciated as always.
I worry that one for oneing with something as low calibur as a Catacomb Slug isn't going to get the job done. Even if you trade with a Scorpion you're still at mana disadvantage.
DeleteOf course, it is optimistic to assume it will trade with either of those instead of their Walking Corpse.
I agree Hexproof has some promise, but it isn't going to get past the ground clogging. Perhaps a Giant Growth variant that also grants Hexproof?
Inspired from metaghost down below, this
Delete2G
Menace, deathtouch
2/1
would be uncommon, yes?
And how do we feel about
5G
Hexproof
Trample
6/3
?
Though Giant Growth plus hexproof sounds good as well.
As I said in my own post, Green Menace is already something that seems likely to be hyper-tertiary — once you add deathtouch you've pushed the design well into black.
DeleteNotionally (i.e. according to Word of MaRo), Menace is going everywhere Intimidate went before. There are 38 cards with intimidate; 4 are green, 2 of them mono-green, one of which grants it to all your green creatures. (Not generally something a color can do with a tertiary ability.) The other two are green/X. (1 RG and 1 BG) Every instance is an uncommon; the mono-green are times it was leaning blackish. (Phyrexian green in Scars, and a Werewolf in Innistrad.)
DeleteWhile the flavor of Menace is even weirder in white and blue than Intimidate was, I'm inclined to think it's a more natural fit for green, in that it never prohibits creature combat but goes well on Big Threatening Beasties and dares you to gang-block against the Giant Growth color.
I like the Hexproof Trampler.
DeleteBut is Hexproof trampler common? And is it any good against Giant Scorpion anyway?
DeleteMenace feels weird on green given that it's the primary color of "Can't be blocked by more than one creature."
DeleteDoes hexproof trampler make green too good, given that it shuts off not only black removal but the majority of non-black ways to interact with creatures? (Being able to Giant Growth in response to just-big-enough blockers, unlike a shrouded creature, is not insignificant.)
It is fine that the card is still bad against the scorpion. We don't need to shut down Black completely.
DeleteI don't think a 6/3 Hexproof Tranpler for six would even see main deck play often, but I could be wrong. The amount of power it has with combat tricks does lead to more swingyness than I want.
Love the flavour text here.
DeleteI think I'm going to stick with Mosshusk as I originially had it (even the design is resilient):
DeleteResilient Mosshusk 4G
Creature - Turtle Beast (C)
Hexproof (This creature can't be the target of spells or abilities your opponents control.)
6/2
It's been around for hundreds of years and it certainly isn't going to let you change that.
The 2 toughness makes it enticing to trade with the Slug which I think ends up better for the green player.
While hexproof trampler is really good (and still maybe not main-deckable) it is swingier than I'd like and should probably reside at uncommon for its swinginess, in addition to the amount it will hit for as well as trading off with things, not to mention combat tricks.
I am sticking with the Mosshusk, though I wonder how this design works or doesn't:
2G
Deathtouch
When ~ dies draw a card.
2/2
I think the Mosshusk is a fine solution.
DeleteThe other card your propose is, for my taste anyway, too much of an automatic two for one. Even Gravedigger is up to Uncommon these days, and I think this is much better than Gravedigger.
I've been thinking about the Hexproof problem. Protecting your creature from one-for-one removal should be the goal of Hexproof, but in practice it is either a total Stop-Sign for playing the game, or it's a weirdly aggressive constructed ability.
ReplyDeleteWe've seen Punisher Hexproof (Ashenmoor Liege; Thunderbreak Regent etc...) a few times, and I think that's a great ability. It's interactive, encourages decision making, and it can, in theory, protect your creature. The problem with it is the same problem with Punisher mechanics of all sorts, the decisions are rarely hard. Your opponent does the thing that makes the most sense, and you takes their licks.
Black pushes against other colors, especially Green, by cutting away your resources. If we want to punish that, we can't do things like gaining life, because then you're just converting resources and your opponent will be able to choose what they'd prefer you have. Punish with card advantage.
I was aiming for a common, but I missed. Still wanted to share what I made though.
Hoary Shellback 2GG (Uncommon)
Creature - Turtle
Sacred (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability an opponent controls, it is sanctified until end of turn.)
When CARDNAME dies, if it was sanctified, return another target card from your graveyard to your hand.
4/4
The scenario was added while I was writing this. I assumed the problem was one-for-one removal, and consciously made a card that is trumped by deathtouch so that Black would have outs. Since the challenge is now sort of the opposite, I might come back and try again, but I do like what I made.
DeleteNote the challenge asks for a Common.
DeleteI agreed with all your logic, but I thought it was going to lead to "can't be the target of spells or abilities an opponent controls unless they discard a card"..?
Delete@Tommy Like I said, I think I'm gonna resubmit. I thought that my design was worth sharing, but it didn't quite land for the original challenge, on top of that the challenge got more interesting while I typed this up.
DeleteSanctified is interesting.
DeletePart of me just wishes we could reprint Kodama of the North Tree at uncommon and call it a day.
ReplyDeleteAttempt at a submission:
DeleteCharging Colossodon 4G
Creature - Beast (C)
You may have CARDNAME assign its combat damage as though it weren't blocked.
5/3
Sort of a Green Lava Axe.
DeleteThis effect has shown up on a common on one card that I can find, and that was a 2/2. This has a bit too much of a "The game is just over now" feel to it for a common for me, but I might be convinced. This is definitely an interesting ability for the challenge though!
Would a 3/3 get the job done?
It would, but is this art a 3/3?
DeleteI was trying to avoid either a 4-drop or a 4/4 statline, because Rumbling Baloth is in the set.
I think it'd be fair to suggest that you are offering a replacement for Rumbling Baloth. Like... if the Bear and the Baloth are getting outclassed, make 'em classy.
DeleteLichenous Troglydon
ReplyDelete3GG
Creature - Fungus Beast (C)
4/3
Menace
When CARDNAME dies, draw a card.
This is a bit dubious, hinging on the assumption that Menace will see some use on mono-green cards similarly to how Intimidate was applied.
Beyond that, it's basically a green Messenger Drake.
Messenger Drake sure was an awfully weird Common.
DeleteI can't remember M14 well enough to know why printing Messenger Drake made more sense than Kingfisher/Runewing.
Delete(This is definitely a blunt instrument, but so was Pelakka Wurm!)
Yeah when I saw it I thought "Wow, Blue must have been struggling," but then Blue was far and away the best color in M14, which was probably one of the most lopsided formats we have seen color-wise in years. Whatever they thought they were doing, it worked out poorly. Of course, as it happened, Messenger Drake wasn't one of the best Blue commons in that set, but that probably says more about the development of that set than it does about Messenger Drake.
DeleteThis is strong, but the Menace and card advantage on being removed is a good answer to all angles of this problem. Is it a green answer though? I can buy both parts showing up on slightly off-kilter green cards separately (that knight for WW with Intimidate existed in Innistrad, after all, and green likes to tie its draw to creatures), but both at common is maybe a bit too much.
DeleteI think Menace will see significantly more use on monogreen cards than Intimidate did. It's more in-flavor. I'd guess it will average one uncommon per (two-set) block. And this art looks like a green card, and one that fits the effects pretty well.
DeleteI think 3GG for a 4/3 with Menace is already a very fine common without the drawing a card. I think the drawing a card is too much for Common (and I don't think I like the design better with it).
DeleteNot that you can't hold such an opinion, but I do think it's hard for us to assert precisely what is or is not a Common in this scenario, as developmental goals such as this can lead to Undergrowth Shambler just as easily as it leads to Nessian Asp.
DeleteBy which I mean: Nessian Asp was one f'd up Common. And one that I presume was dictated by pressures put on green decks by all the Voltrons and that Bestow Wind Drake.
There are complexity restrictions we need observe, and some things might exhibit an obvious power level that raises eyebrows...
But ultimately, I think the greatest strike against the initial proposal is that I still wonder how likely Green is to get Menace, especially when we consider Charging Rhino.
I definitely agree a lot of things can be Common in the right circumstances. Usually when they play to a central theme of the set in an important way. I think a last minute developmental balance tweak to improve the B vs G matchup is a poor place to spend those complexity/power points. Also, I think developers are learning (after repeatedly getting it wrong) that great Commons are not good for the game. People who draft a lot just grow to hate them. I've rarely seen as much hatred for a card as I've seen for Wingsteed Rider, it really could have been uncommon.
DeleteThat said, and this may somewhat derail the original conversation, I don't think there was anything wrong with Nessian Asp. It supported the themes of the set well, and was definitely a defining card, but it was not especially threatening. I do think the creative was a bit botched, but I think that was true of Theros as a whole.
As far as this particular design, remember that complexity is only one of many things that get a common red flagged. Generating card advantage is another, and this card generates a ton of card advantage, not just against Black, but against every color. This is a five drop that can very easily trade with another 5 drop and come out a card ahead. Even if this was just a 5 mana 4/3 that drew a card when it died, it would be in the vicinity of Annhilate (a vicinity I prefer to avoid).
With the added evasion, it is also floating around Air Elemental (also solidly Uncommon). I know you compared this to Messenger Drake, but there is a huge difference between 3 power evasive creatures (which occur at Common with some frequence) and 4 power evasive creatures (which almost never do).
For sake of comparison, here are (I think) all of the common Green cards from the past year that generate card advantage: Satyr Wayfinder, Shaman of Spring, Hunter's Ambush, Guardian Shield Bearer, and Pinion Feast. If you look back another year before that, you won't find anything that differs significantly from those.
Lichenous Troglydon (v.2)
Delete2GG
Creature - Fungus Beast (C)
3/3
As long as you have three or more creature cards in your graveyard, CARDNAME gets +2/+2 and has menace.
"The lesser troglydon of Marikir's fetid jungle swamps, as lumbering a carnivore as one could conceive, are grossly protective of the decaying corpses they depend upon for sustenance."
Ohhh that's a very me sort of card. I'd rather give it +3/+3 than +2/+2 and Menace I think. It is worth pointing out, Green has never gotten Intimidate at Common, I don't think it should get Menace at Common, and I don't think the Menace is actually helping with this challenge.
DeleteThe only downside to this (very good) idea is that it is hard to imagine them putting this card in a set without other support, so it is difficult to imagine this being a last minute add unless graveyard stuff was already a theme of the set.
Again, I don't really anticipate Menace being a frequently used green effect (if ever). But as to challenge, the intent of Menace is to avoid trading down with the scorpion or simply being roadblocked by the slug.
DeleteThat said, the contemporary limited philosophy appears to be that every two-color pair has a supported archetype, and the B/G pairing usually has some sort of relationship with the graveyard. Which in some sense is a sideways rationale for putting this form of conditional menace on a green card.
It is a 3 drop, so it can't trade down with the scorpion. I suggested just being +3/+3 so that it eventually gets past the Slug. I think +3/+3 has all the benefits of +2/+2 and Menace without using Menace.
DeleteTrading a more expensive creature for a less expensive creature is "trading down", no matter how minimally.
DeleteOh whoops I'd somehow thought your thing was 1GG (which admittedly would be nuts). The Menace part still makes this feel uncommon.
DeleteWell, the closest analog is Summit Apes. (3G, 5/2, "Kird Ape" menace.)
DeleteI suppose the question is whether you feel it's inappropriate to presumably bend the color pie for a one-off common, or if you rate menace as a more potent threat / more complex concept than I do.
In terms of Tarkir Block Monogreen commons, I would probably rate this in the second tier, below premier commons like:
Aerie Bowmasters
Atarka Beastbreaker
Hooting Mandrills
Stampeding Elk Herd
Whisperer of the Wilds
Wooly Loxodon
In the history of "menace", Madcap Skills was probably the most problematic for limited and Stormblood Berserker perhaps the most (only?) constructed playable; each highlighting how menace tends to diminish in power as the turns pass, unless you're granting it to the whole team (ugh @ Gruul War Chant).
Having never experienced Kamigawa block, I have no idea how powerful Vine Kami might have been.
Oh, to be clear, I don't think it feels Uncommon because of power level per se, I think the +3/+3 might just be a better card.
DeleteHowever, using a tertiary keyword makes you uncommon essentially automatically. Also, and this is more where the "feel" comes in, cards that gain stat boost and keyword under condition tend to be uncommon. From a design point of view, this is almost exactly Dragonshift Idol.
Have a look at commons in modern that use the phrase "as long as" and you'll note they almost all grant either a stat boost or a keyword, with those that grant both tending to be from older sets. The newest three examples are the (very thematic) Griffin Rider, Auriok Sunchaser, and Scrapyard Mongrel (which is from the oddball M15).
So I think [condition] ==> [stat boost] + [keyword] can probably be done at Common on very, very rare occasions, but I can't imagine ever doing it with a tertiary keyword.
Annoyed Terrapoid 2G
ReplyDeleteCreature- turtle warrior (c)
Persist
3/2
Awe shucks. I forgot slug was a problem too...
DeleteAnnoyed Terrapoid 3G
Creature- Turtle Warrior
Wither, persist
2/4
I think both Wither and Persist stand a reasonable chance of coming back, but I think they stand almost no chance of returning together because WOTC already made that set.
DeleteI agree, unless we get something similar to a cross between time spiral and magic origins. (Using older keywords to evoke multiple planes in the same set)
DeleteThis is a tough challenge. I'm going to assume that either trading profitably - or getting past - the two creatures presented is fine.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that both of these problem creatures share is a low power - so that seems like the best 'weakness' to take advantage of.
My first inclination is the following:
Trundling Turtle Beast {3}{G}{G}
Creature - Turtle Beast
Trundling Turtle Beast can't be blocked by creatures with less power than it.
3/5
It moves slowly, but it always reaches its destination.
The problem here is that this seems too easily susceptible to removal - and I'm not willing to just add hexproof to it, as then it becomes difficult to balance well. (Evasion + Hexproof = WARNING)
Here's my current idea, but I see a few problems with it:
Resilient Turtle Beast {4}{G}{G}
Creature - Turtle Beast (C)
{5}{G}{G}: Regenerate Resilient Turtle Beast. It gains hexproof until end of turn.
3/5
Its ferocity arises from its confidence in its durable shell.
I gave it two ways to represent 'defense'. This guy is meant to represent an inexorable force. It can take care of the Giant Scorpion on its own, but for the Catacomb Slug, it'll need a bit more help. It is resistant to removal, so it can be safely pumped to help take care of the Catacomb Slug - but, since it has to have a huge mana investment to do that safely, you still have a strategic decision to face. You can gamble on getting rid of the Catacomb Slug earlier, or you can wait for more mana to protect it and get rid of that Slug.
I think the sizable cost in the activation might help balance this, because of that. If you're waiting until you can protect this and cast a pump spell, you're going to be waiting for a while in most cases. (It would help to know what "cards green would use to overcome these problems" are in the set, though)
Still, I'm not convinced this is totally doable at common. It's a very strong effect, and this is a pretty dang good body. We don't often see creatures that can regenerate with power 3 or more at common.
What do you all think?
The "can't block it" thing is almost exactly my solution, although I made mine a 3/1 instead of a 3/5. I don't like Regenerate at all, and wish they would just get rid of it already.
DeleteThe ability on this card should really be two abilities, having a single ability do both is weird, and very unlikely to be relevant.
I also don't think this is anywhere near Common. It is like a weird Ancient Silverback (which would be a great Uncommon answer to this challenge).
Also, and this is perhaps the most important problem, aesthetically putting Regeneration on a 3/5 is just unattractive, as 3/5's almost never die normally (with the sole exception being Black removal spells). Creatures with regeneration are almost all either small (Pow+Tou <= 4) or have Power > Toughness, and this is why.
Tommy: These are all good points.
DeleteI don't think a single ability doing both is necessarily weird, you just have to use a different flavor for 'regenerate'. It's retreating into its shell, protecting it from spells and letting it heal. You're right that this is probably unclear, though. My original idea was to have it prevent combat damage dealt to it and gain hexproof, but that was wordy and didn't parse well.
I also thought of Ancient Silverback while working on this challenge as well, and for the same reasons you did - I was wondering about whether this should have P>T. The problem is, it's a turtle. Turtles shouldn't have P>T...
Regarding the "can't block it" idea - yeah, it's a fine solution for one half of this challenge. But it's still totally susceptible to removal, and it does nothing to actually remove these creatures from the board. What then?
-
Back to the drawing board with this guy. New approach - instead of avoiding, let's trade.
Hardshell Turtle Beast {4}{G}{G}
Creature - Turtle Beast (C)
When Hardshell Turtle Beast dies, put three +1/+1 counters on another target creature you control.
3/4
Their armored shells are useful both during their lives, and afterwards.
I think this one is doing a lot better. When it's removed or trades with a Giant Scorpion, it gives another of your creatures a huge size boost - enough to take down a Catacomb Slug, hopefully. Seems like it addresses most issues at once.
It does seem very strong, though. Too strong, probably...
Very reminiscent of Vastwood Hydra which turned out to be pretty bad in limited, so I don't think the power level will be a problem.
DeleteAll things considered, I think this is a pretty good answer, though I worry the card is not maindeckable and that most players will not know they are supposed to bring it in against their Black opponents. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I do think it is better to answer this challenge with a low pick card than a high pick one so that we don't put more people into Green.
Tommy: Yeah, the card isn't intended to be super maindeckable. I'm surprised that you don't think it's too amazing, though... I guess it is a pretty crappy body for six-mana up-front, and it has to die to get the bonus.
DeleteYeah, the needing to die to get the bonus is a pretty tough pill to swallow. It could be strong in the right format if a 3/4 is an amazing blocker, but even then it is hard to imagine it being too strong.
DeleteI have a vivid memory of there actually being like a 3/3 for five with this ability in some core set, but I can't find any evidence it existed. Apparently it only exists in my head!
Yeah, I forgot that a dies-trigger is a lot more difficult to trigger than usual, which certainly helps in lowering its power level.
DeleteI think this is fine as-is - as you've noted elsewhere, making the answer too strong would draw too many people into green, and I'd prefer this to be a card that's good in some matchups but not others, rather than a card that's good all the time.
I am tempted to make it a 3/3 for 5, though, just to give it some more symmetry. :P
I do like 3/3 a lot better than 3/4. And yes, my noting the card wasn't great was by no means a complaint. I think 3/3 for 5 is a bit better.
DeleteVenomous Turtle 1GG
ReplyDeleteCreature Turtle C
Deathtouch
Protection from deathtouch (This creature can't be blocked, targeted, dealt damage, or enchanted by anything with deathtouch.)
3/2
I considered Tresserhorn Knight technology, which is almost certainly how this would get templated. Remember they are now in the process of backing off of Protection.
DeleteHow about: "creatures blocking CARDNAME lose deathtouch"?
DeleteIs that common? I like the idea of a creature that hates deathtouch, and it would assuredly be popular with the right audience, it just strikes me as an uncommon.
DeleteIf metaghost's wording is uncommon, then "protection from deathtouch" is certainly uncommon.
DeleteWell, in terms of "rules comprehension", I'm assuming its the sort of thing that reads well but can eventually lead to layers-nonsense that upsets judges.
DeleteAs to power level... it basically dies to anything anyway due to 2-toughness.
The archetypes (from BNG) are the most immediate precedent, but Archetype of Finality isn't especially comparable.
Venomous Turtle 1GG
DeleteCreature Turtle C
Deathtouch
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to Venomous Turtle by creatures with deathtouch.
2/4
I'll give it more turtley stats and a simpler second ability.
This is a lot like Ukud Cobra with a second (small) upside. Low power high toughness deathtouch creatures really stall out boards (like Ukud Cobra) and as a result they tend to get upgraded to Uncommon. Especially with the trinket text, I think this is a nice card that is eminently printable, but is totally uncommon.
DeleteHammer, nail:
ReplyDeleteHardshell Rumbler
2GG
Creature - Beast
Protection from black
3/3
It surely is effective, but I really don't think we are going to see Protection from color at common any time soon.
DeleteIf we're using old keywords, I think Swampwalk would answer the challenge better!
DeleteExcellent point, Tommy.
DeleteUndergrowth Mossback {4}{G}{G}
ReplyDeleteCreature - Turtle Beast (Common)
Trample
GraveCycling {1}{G} ({1}{G}, Exile this card from your graveyard: Draw a card.)
6/4
This isn't really a cycling variant, and we can't really add in a new keyword to fix a last minute development problem.
DeleteAlso, this keyword would be incredibly hard to develop because it is way more powerful than it looks.
Yeah, I know that it isn't really cycling, (It's actually a flashback variant) I just left the bad name I gave to it because that's how I thought to it.
DeleteAnd you're right that it is more powerful than it looks, just like flashback and maybe more.
I've to confess you got me on the "can't add a new keyword now" :) I pondered on the presented problem, but I did not take into account the "real life" context. I will try to find another design.
Gift of the Mossback 3G
DeleteInstant
Target creature gets +3/+3 and gains trample and indestructible until end of turn.
Granting +3/+3 and Indestructible is a bit weird because it is the same as granting +3/+0 and Indestructible in such a high percentage of cases.
DeleteAlso, creatures that flashback as spells is one of my favorite mechanics from my own game, but I think you want to vary the effect more than just having a lot of card draw.
Ops, I posted an old version, it is meant to have hexproof instead of indestructible (and maybe cost 1 less)
DeleteI like that better!
DeleteTicklewood Stumpback {2}{G}{G}
ReplyDeleteCreature - Turtle
Flash
Deathtouch
2/4
I'm not sure how this answers the challenge.
DeleteOff-the-wall and maybe not common, but:
ReplyDeleteMarauding Toughshell 1GG
Creature- Turtle Warrior (Common)
3/3
Effects that say "destroy" don't destroy CARDNAME. (This includes deathtouch abilities.)
I think Matt Tabak would have a conniption. Also "say destroy" is weird, and I'm not sure it includes deathtouch, which really just redefines lethal damage. The reminder text says destroy, but the rules can't care about that.
DeleteIt's a bold design.
DeleteBut I don't even know if this works at all. Surely not a common.
Good points, thanks! Basically this is just the less important half of the indestructible reminder text. But I don't know how well it would work as actual rules text, and I'm definitely feeling some angst about whether deathtouch damage is a 'destroy' effect (as it clearly used to be) or just damage with the special property that it's always lethal.
DeleteIn any case, this isn't a common (and it doesn't go through Catacomb Slug all that well anyway). I'll work on a new design.
OK, new version:
DeleteMarauding Toughshell 2G
Creature- Turtle Warrior (Common)
3/3
4G: CARDNAME fights target creature.
Pushes damage through early, breaks stalemates late. Reliably trades with Giant Scorpion and Catacomb Slug (more or less). Not sure how development will feel about repeatable fight, but at that mana cost (or maybe 1 more) I suspect it'll be OK.
I think there is no way repeatable fight goes at common. Keep in mind that R&D won't even do pinging at common any more, and this is much better than a pinger, eating bears and even Riot Devils all day long.
DeleteHint: You can find all creatures at common in standard with activated abilities at common by using magiccards.info and using the search : f:standard o:":" r:common t:creature .
I think it is really worth going through them and seeing how much they impact the board.
If I was going to do this, I'd try the fight as a kicker effect. 2G 3/3 with Kicker 2G : When ~ ETBs, fight target creature? But I'm pretty sure even that is an uncommon in almost any scenario. Maybe Mold Shambler's stats - 3G 3/3 with 1G Kick-Fight?
DeleteBut otherwise I'd agree with Tommy that repeated-fight is too impactful at common, and possibly too board-controlling for green in general at this power level.
Since fight is clearly acceptable at common in terms of complexity, I see it as just a matter of putting the appropriate limits on the ability-- though I'll belatedly agree that 4G is too easy a requirement. 4GG maybe?
DeleteI admit it isn't an exact comparison, but the common Monstrosity creatures and even Loathsome Catoblepas are as capable or more capable of dominating the board in most situations.
Comprehension complexity is not the issue. Repeatable removal (and most forms of card advantage really) is not done at Common (anymore).
DeleteI might be a bit too literal, but it seems that the problem is that our dudes can't punch through his dudes, and we want something that is resistant to removal.
ReplyDeleteNon Durdle Turtle 5GG
Creature - Turtle
Hexproof
Other green creatures you control get +2/+2
5/5
Remember, the design is supposed to be common.
DeleteI suppose. 7 mana in green does buy you a lot, but the anthem effect is more important than the hexproof, since the listed problem was creatures with too high a toughness.
DeleteNon Durdle Turtle 5GG
Creature - Turtle
Other green creatures you control get +2/+2
5/5
It specifically states green creatures to help nudge people towards playing green.
Anthem effects like this do not typically go at Common, indeed, they are almost always Rare. Common isn't just about it being expensive.
DeleteAlso, keep in mind, nudging people towards Green has the opposite effect desired in this challenge. Green is a bit weaker, so we want fewer drafters fighting over it. That is part of what makes this challenge tricky, if the common we make is too good, more people will play Green after first picking it and it will make the problem worse!
Is that the challenge? I read it as "The format is balanced, except that green has a bad matchup in black," not "Green is a weak color in this format, whose worst matchup is black."
DeleteGreen is almost literally a two to one dog to 40+% of the decks in the format. That alone is enough to make it the weakest color in the format. We do not want to print a common that pulls more people into Green because that would weaken it further.
DeleteThis might be a bit of a stretch for common, but:
ReplyDeleteTrunkshell {3}{G}{G}
Creature - Plant Turtle
Whenever Trunkshell blocks or becomes blocked, regenerate it.
4/3
1) Tangles well with the mentioned problem creatures. 2) Presents a real threat if not dealt with 3) Demands the opponent use removal on it if they ever want it to go away.
As-is, this may improve the nonblack matchups too much. If that seems true, I'd bump the Baloth to a bigger vanilla (Silverback Ape?) and move this to a 2GG 4/2, where most red and white removal can take it out easily.
This ability has Rare written all over it. Making this a 4/2 doesn't make it any less oppressive.
DeleteThe criteria "2) Presents a real threat if not dealt with 3) Demands the opponent use removal on it if they ever want it to go away" sounds like the definition of what shouldn't be at common.
DeleteIf renders haven't been done yet: I meant to change this to just "Whenever ~ becomes blocked" after Tommy's comment.
DeleteCarapaced Charger 3GG
ReplyDeleteCreature - Beast (common)
Trample
Creatures with higher toughness than CARDNAME cannot block it.
5/2
or
Shellfie 5GG
Creture - Beast
Creatures with power 3 or less cannot block CARDNAME
6/7
I have a hard time getting my head around "Creatures with higher toughness can't block" thematically. I also think a 5/2 with this ability is going to be way too swingy, since it is a lot like a 5 power flier for 5. That just isn't leading to satisfying games. Too swingy for common in my opinion.
DeleteShelfie is a bit of a stretch at Common (6/7 is the largest Green creature I remember at Common and it was a Vanilla), and Green tends to only get evasion on small creatures (pow <= 3). The line of text also doesn't seem super natural on a 6/7.
Would just an Axebane Stag reprint do the trick?
Perhaps, but that dies to deathtoutch. :( I guess that they need a way to break through the high toughness and deathtoutch creatures.
DeleteGreen has been getting some evasion of the type of creature with power lower than this cannot block it (which would be WAY more logical of an ability for intimidate). It has however been an ability that is more prone to be given to rares.
I think that the trick for this challenge is to find something that black does (creatures with higher toughness than power) and give evasion/protection from that. Perhaps:
Luring Armadon {2}{G}{G}
Creature Beast
Whenever CARDNAME attacks it must be blocked by all creatures that have a lower power than CARDNAME the defending player controls.
3/3
I definitely agree Green gets some evasion, just almost always either Trample on big things or other variations like the Den Protector ability on little things. There's also the Charging Rhino ability for medium things.
DeleteThis submission is interesting because it lets Green (hopefully) force a burst of damage through past all the black creatures gumming up the ground. I admit the ability feels really cludgy and unnatural to me, but that could just be because I haven't seen something like it before.
Also, I think it reads cleaner if you just hard code it: "Creatures with power 2 or less must block ~ if able."
I don't love that putting this at Common means you can easily have two of them and then people have to sort out how multiple contradictory blocking rules work.
I would try "When ~ attacks, creatures with power 2 or less must block a Beast creature you control if able." to get around the multiples issue. Depends on the lead developer's stance on tribal trinket text, I suppose.
DeleteThat doesn't work so well when we're trying to get our Rumbling Baloths through.
Delete"Must be blocked by a creature with power 2 or less" is more intuitive in multiples.
I am willing to do the renders this week if you wish.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anastase.
DeleteIndestructible and a pump allow us to fight through both the two black creatures and most black removal (-X/-X effects and doom blades).
ReplyDeleteSo this seems perfectly suited to all our requirements.
Unstoppable Might 2G
Instant (C)
Target creature gets +3/+3 and gains indestructible until end of turn.
This is P for Pizza's submission verbatim, except at 1 less mana.
DeleteWasn't the challenge to design a creature?
Deletethat is awkward....
DeleteOk lets try this again:
Unbreakable Shell-Beast 4GG
Creature - Turtle Beast (Common)
3G: CARDNAME gains indestructible until end of turn.
6/3
I have a hard time believing this isn't an Uncommon.
DeleteTangle Hulk?
DeleteI could change the activated ability cost up a little but I think its very format dependent. Another option is making it a 6/1 which suddenly makes it horrific on defense.
Unbreakable Shell-Beast 4GG
Creature - Turtle Beast (Common)
3G: CARDNAME gains indestructible until end of turn.
6/1
Or 3G: regenerate?
DeleteTangle Hulk is a special case for a few reasons. One is that it is from before they started working with Common power levels as they do now. Since development radically shifted its philosophy on what power levels Commons can be, precedents before Theros are not super relevant.
DeleteEqually relevantly, Scars of Mirrodin block had Infect, so they made the choice (I'm not sure it was a good choice) to really push hard mechanics that were bad against infect, such as life gain, indestructible, and Regeneration.
Source for you first assertion? I usually associate modern development with the start of Zendikar Block but it has been a far more gradual process that the radical shift of something like NWO for design.
DeleteInnistrad, Scars and Besieged were both fairly well developed if I remember with both having deep and interesting draft formats.
As for Scars of Mirrodin's pushing of commons your right but this actually happens in every set. Every set is pushed an pulled in different directions depending on the environment. The contrast may have been pushed but remember that some mechanics like phyrexian mana are far less interesting without those counterpoints. Having to re-evaluate how different things work is always a fun part of a new draft environment such as enchantment removal being main deckable in Theros Block etc.
Unfortunately this developmental shift is less well recorded than NWO because it is a developmental shift rather than a design one. To design, Murder and Flesh to Dust are basically the same card.
DeleteSam Stoddard has an article "Developing Commons" you might read. When Zac Hill was on limited resources he talked about some of the shifts. Gavin Verhey talks about development philosophy on his tumblr now and then (though he is offically a designer, he is a lot closer to 50-50 than Mark), and of course Mark relays some bits of development wisdom to his tumblr now and then, like the removal of four mana wraths and one mana mana creatures was first announced there, if I recall correctly.
As to Scars specifically, though it is my favorite block, you can clearly see some growing pains. SOM-SOM-SOM was a little too barebones, and they made some decisions they regretted, like pushing Thrummingbird to Uncommon, leading to a format with a rather narrow number of draftable archetypes (which they expanded well with MBS). Scars is still very much the old school development philosophy in many ways though. Removal like Grasp of Darkness and Arrest and Shatter appearing at Common, for example.
Even in Innistard we see Claustrophobia, Brimstone Volley and Victim of Night popping up. Given how excited drafters were to be able to pay only 3B for Lash of the Whip in Dragons of Tarkir, it is hard to remember that not long ago that effect cost BB.
To make it even more obvious what is happening, listen to set reviews from a few older and a few newer blocks from Limited Resources and listen to the grades that Commons and Uncommons (but especially Commons) get. They used to range all over the place. Doom Blade usually getting an A-, for example. Now a days, it is very rare for Commons to break the C+ level. Indeed, they had to recently rescale their grades so that not all commons would get the same grade, deciding to promote cards like Bladetusk Boar up to B- when previously it would have been considered in the C range.
To put it more concisely, one thing that has happened is that there has been a (very deliberate) sharp reduction in the standard deviation of the power level at Common.
This started with them pulling up the bottom, that is, making fewer and fewer "bad" cards, and you can see this clearly in ISD and M13 (though it was forgotten in AVR, again, I think, because development does not have a clear voice).
Then in RTR and especially THS and especially especially KTK you can see them cracking down on the power level of the best Commons. And not just removal. Gravedigger goes up in rarity to Uncommon, for example (something a lot of people looking at card advantage at common should consider).
I don't think this has settled out yet, as different development teams seem to enforce this differently. There were a lot of complaints about how this was handled in FRF and DTK that I think have some legitimacy.
Snapper Survivor 2G
ReplyDeleteCreature - Turtle Troll
If you control six or more Forests, Snapper Survivor has indestructible.
3/2
I don't see anyone getting to 6 Forests in draft with any regularity. Drafting mono colored decks is usually bad, and I don't like how clearly this sends the message that you should do that (when it is usually a trap).
DeleteGood point. I see three potential options:
Delete"If you control six or more lands, ~ has indestructible."
"As long as there are five or more Forests on the battlefield, ~ has indestructible."
"4GG: ~ gets +2/+2 and has indestructible until end of turn."
Even Darksteel Myr is uncommon, so there definitely isn't a ton of precedent, but I think indestructible isn't out of the question at common. Maybe approaching "Dragon-Scarred Bear", just substituting Regeneration for a more easily-understood effect.
I think something that can gain indestructible might not be out of line at Common, but I think finding just the right combination of cost and power will be tricky, and I definitely wouldn't want the thing gaining indestructible permanently under some condition.
DeleteSnapper Survivor 2G
DeleteCreature - Turtle Troll (c)
2G: CARDNAME has indestructible until end of turn.
3/2
Maybe this is too strong, or maybe it doesn't do enough, but it bounces off of both of the black creatures all day (or as long as you have the mana for it) and protects against about half of black removal (again, with shields down moments). Not the worst pump/aura target, though, and any attempt to work around explaining regeneration to a newer player has to be laudable.
If this is too strong, I don't think it is too strong by too much... maybe the cost needs to be 4 or 5 mana just so that you aren't always swinging. Things will largely depend on how well it blocks. Selesnya Sentry was 6 mana to regenerate because the format was defined by 3 toughness. If our format is defined by 4 or more toughness, this is definitely dooable (at the right Regen cost).
DeleteThis is, by the way, definitely my pick for regeneration replacement. Obviously it isn't R&Ds.
DeleteMoss-shell Shambler [4G]
ReplyDeleteCreature — Turtle Zombie
Hexproof
When CARDNAME attacks, it loses hexproof and gains deathtouch until end of turn.
Death lurks under its shell.
3/3
This doesn't answer the Scorpion.
How about...
Shambling Moss-shell [1GG]
Creature — Turtle Zombie
Deathtouch
Prevent all damage dealt to CARDNAME by creatures with less power than it.
3/2
That seems to work, right? It still can be removed by black removal, but this answers both problem creatures. And I think there's something interesting in that you want to pump its power to save it, rather than to kill things. Might be too odd for a common.
My submission is good against removal and deathtouch, but not so much against discard. It uses a new keyword I suggested should replace regeneration. And it's just an homage to a Common from M13 (Battleflight Eagle). But I like it for this challenge quite a bit.
ReplyDeleteBattlefront Turtle (COMMON)
5G
Creature - Turtle
3/3
Immortality (When this creature dies, return it to it’s owner’s hand.)
When Battlefront Turtle enters the battlefield, target creature gets +3/+3 and gains immortality until end of turn.
Turtles make fine mounts, but they’re too slow to impact frontlines for long.
Compare Battlefront Turtle to Briarhorn and Briarpack Alpha which are uncommon, and Yeva's Forcemage and Battleflight Eagle which are common. I think Briarhorn and Briarpack Alpha make sense as uncommon because Flash makes them combat tricks. +3/+3 is a lot, and pushes the power level of the card, but I hope it's not a deal breaker for common. If so, +2/+3? or +2/+4 are the next choice.
DeleteI don't see Immortality appearing on many Commons. This is the kind of mechanic that leads to games not ending, and they need to end. This card in particular is incredibly strong because every time it dies it gives you another "free" attack.
DeleteThe amount of unfun this will be to play against makes me hesitant to even put this at Uncommon, though at Rare it could probably be a 4/4 and give +4/+4.
As a comparison for how strong cards with Immortality are likely to be, look at Mortus Strider.
DeleteI don't see immortality appearing any more often at common than regeneration either, which is 0-2 cards per set. Regeneration is better than immortality in a lot of ways. Regeneration lets you continue to attack each turn, keep Auras and Equipment attached, it costs less to activate than recasting a permanent, ETB effects are exactly where Immortality has different design space than Regeneration, but I am not suggesting that every creature with Immortality would have some ETB effect.
DeleteI knew about Mortus Strider. Reassembling Skeleton is another example in this design space. These cards both show low CMC cards with Immortality probably shouldn't appear at Common. But that's not an indictment of the mechanic. I think it's a very fair keyword, and expect the commons with it would cost 4 or more. Cards with basilisk-type effects also got miscosted, misdesigned and WotC was afraid to put them at Common as a result until deathtouch.
DeleteRegeneration costs Mana, and if you look at it over time, it cost more and more and more mana over time, and this led to the all important shields down moment. Immorality doesn't have shields down moments.
DeleteAlso note that the largest creature in standard with regeneration at common that can block has power 1. (Deathbellow Minotaur attacks each turn if able and Dragonscarred Bear requires Ferocious).
In short, I don't think a 5G for a 3/3 with Immortality would ever get printed at Common.
Another issue with Immortality, particularly with printing it at Common, is what they call "repetitive game state." Mechanics like Retrace, Buyback, Tutoring, etc have all gotten the axe because games of Magic get boring if the same thing happens over and over. Putting these things at Common is even worse because the same thing happens over and over... and then the same thing happens the next match you play, and the next.
Note how much better a 3/3 with Immortality is than a 3/3 that when it dies you draw a card. It is straight card advantage, which Green (or really any color for that matter) rarely get that at Common. (And repeatable card advantage is worse than just a regular two for one.)
Whatever the replacement for Regeneration ends up being, it won't have an activation cost. That's one of the things WotC dislikes about Regeneration now. So it's fair to criticize the repetitive game state aspect of Immortality, but the shields down element is probably not going to exist in whatever replaces the effect.
DeleteWhen you have the mana available, your regenerating creature might as well be indestructible. There is no point to attacking into it. Regeneration only asks you to hold up one or two mana. It's really cheap. If you have enough mana to recast your immortal creature, there is still a strong incentive to attack, because it's going to cost 4+ mana to recast the creature. It which point you can counter it, it can't attack back, etc.
I can't speak to standard's regenerating creatures with more than 1 power because I designed Battlefront Turtle for a fictitious set with a very particular need. I get what you're saying though. It could very easily be a 2/3 for 5G. I liked square stats, so I went with 3/3 over 2/2. 2/2 is actually less good, because with this design, it means the Turtle will die too often, and the EBT will occur more frequently than preferred.
Thinking about it on my walk I think all your design needs to squeeze into common is to lose Immortality itself. As a general rule, I like the idea of granting/gaining Immortality until EOT better than printing things with it.
DeleteI use "standard" as a wide collection of examples of current R&D philosophy. If a design lies far afield of anything in standard, it probably doesn't fit modern design philosophy (e.g. Earlier when talking about how they used to print 5/3 regenerators at common but they don't now).
Also, R&D loves the shields down moment on regen, they talk about it all day he time, and that is why they keep pushing up the cost, so that is always relevant. Cudgel Troll, I love you, but I think your time is done.
The problem with Regen is it is a pain to teach, is the wrong word for what it does, and has random unintuitive parts like removing it from combat.
The idea of looking at "standard" can be misleading though. The context of its sets is so important. Like this current standard includes Theros block, where all three common creatures in the block had an activated regeneration cost of 2B. and low power. That makes sense in a block that asked you to build a big creature with Auras and Bestow creatures. Tarkir Block has lower regeneration costs, and one 3/2. You pointed out it shouldn't count because it requires ferocious, but the set is designed to help you achieve ferocious, so I don't see that as a reason to dismiss it. Plus, the Block BEFORE Theros Block has a 3 power common regenerator too (Selesnya Sentry). "Standard" isn't always the best baseline.
DeleteI feel bad for Immortality, because I presented it on a 16th generation common. It would be like presenting flying for the first time as Battleflight Eagle. I can think of a ton of other common Immortality designs I would start with before iterating to Battlefront Turtle.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFor example:
DeleteBlack Mummy
2BB
2/2
Immortality
Green Treefolk
2GG
2/3
Immortality
Little Black Vampire
1BB
2/1
Immortality
NAME can't block.
Green Creepy Vines
GG
0/1
Immortality
Whenever NAME attacks, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
Medium Black Vampire
2BB
3/2
Immortality
When NAME enters the battlefield, you lose 2 life.
Green Healer
2GG
1/3
Immortality
When NAME enters the battlefield, you gain 2 life.
Starving Black Vampire
2BB
2/1
Immortality
Haste
Green Watcher
2GG
2/1
Immortality
Vigilance
I like the idea of these all costing double colored mana, in the same way hard counterspells generally do, to keep players from being tempted to splash them. As you said, Immortality is strong in limited, and I think only the dedicated Green or Black player should be able to reap the rewards. Now, if anything, I want to change Battlefront Turtle's mana cost to be similar. (If I remove Immortality as a basline effect, the concept that a creature is riding the Turtle doesn't carry through. Flavor isn't the final say on a card, but here I would prefer to keep it.)
FINAL VERSION:
Battlefront Turtle (COMMON)
4GG
Creature - Turtle
2/3
Immortality (When this creature dies, return it to it’s owner’s hand.)
When Battlefront Turtle enters the battlefield, target creature gets +2/+3 and gains immortality until end of turn.
Turtles make fine mounts, but they’re too slow to impact frontlines for long.
I respect the idea of the mechanic of Immortality, it is clean for sure, and does roughly what it says. I think it suffers from the Cipher problem, of having a design space that is much larger than the development space. I believe they would/should print very few of the Immortality designs you suggest.
DeleteAs far as standard being an example, I agree that things get slightly distorted by the context. However, when talking about development philosophy, going back much further changes dramatically. Go have a look at Innistrad and see just how many commons would just never be common today, or would never be printed today.
Sadly, development doesn't have a Mark Rosewater, so this huge shift in development philosophy doesn't have a name, so it is easy for it to go unnoticed if you aren't a prolific drafter.
And, I should say, it is totally okay to completely disagree with modern development philosophy. One could argue, for example, that no set since Innistrad has come remotely close to its level of greatness, and so perhaps we should go back and look at what has changed since then and undo some of it. There is a lot I love about modern development philosophy, but there are definitely things I think they've overcorrected on, e.g. "What percentage of the time should you first pick a Common?"
My comments are nearly always aimed at current development philosophy and what they do and don't do. It is always a valid response (albeit possibly a dangerous one) to say "They don't print cards like this but they should!"
I'm surprised that you consider it as developmentally challenging as cipher, which was a spell keyword and only had the casting cost as a knob to twist. Plus, every copy of the spell was free to cast. This is a creature keyword, so you have casting cost and power/toughness to play with. Plus, you still have to pay for the copies of the spell each time. Interesting suggestion though.
DeleteMaking a suitable keyword replacement for regeneration doesn't seem as doomy-gloomy as your suggesting anyway. I can't imagine it flies so much in the face of current Dev Design. We just saw Pacifism in Dragons of Tarkir, and Encrust is in M15. Red has Incinerate style burn that exiles. I see easy common options to answer Immortality without warping things much at all.
The games where Immortality comes up will be the longer, grindier games where the fact that you have to pay the mana cost doesn't matter much, so I don't think that is a particularly effective tool. Keep in mind that if development adjusts the cost and pow/tou until no one plays it (as they did with Mortus Strider) that isn't a win.
DeleteIf this were Hex, I'd suggest "When ~ dies, return it to your hand and it costs 3 more to cast," but unfortunately Magic has no way to track how many times you've cast a particular Immortal creature.
I think it is also fine for a creature to have an ability like "2G: ~ becomes immortal until the end of the turn." It is the lack of a shields down interactive moment that makes it so hard to develop.
As far as Regeneration variants go, I don't have any doubt they will find one if they want one. I just don't think Immortality is it. They obviously don't like "cost: ~ is indestructible until EOT," but I don't think they have to deviate too much from that. I don't think regeneration is necessarily even something they do enough that they need an evergreen way to represent.
I totally glossed over the fact that as a hole-filler card, this shouldn't introduce a unique keyword. I was assuming it was early enough in Design and regeneration could be replaced. I feel like a real dummy now.
DeleteI am sure it's too late, but if I hadn't missed the forest for the trees, my non-new keywordy submission would be:
DeleteWar Tortoise
4G
Creature - Turtle
3/3
Hexproof
Whenever War Tortoise becomes blocked, prevent all combat damage that would be dealt to and dealt by it.
I like the update!
DeleteAncient Shellback
ReplyDelete3GG
Creature--Turtle Beast
Creature's with power less than Ancient Shellback's power can't block it.
When Ancient Shellback dies, draw a card.
To me, the toughest part of this challenge is addressing the complex developmental problem with a creature that's printable at common. A reverse Kavu Climber with a very relevant form of evasion seems simple and natural enough, but fills the role well.
Sorry left out p/t. 3GG for a 3/3
DeleteMessenger Drake is such a weird common, but it kind of suggests this might be okay. I'd still lean towards thinking that even if Messenger Drake is really a common (which I somewhat doubt it will be if it is reprinted) that this is two notches above Messenger Drake:
Delete-) The evasion ability is more complicated than Messenger Drake's "Flying"
-) Card draw and the "when dies draw a card" ability are more associated with Blue than Green (it has appeared on 9 Blue Common Creatures and 0 non-Blue Common creatures).
I'm perfectly happy with this at Uncommon though.
Works well. Not sure if it needs the death trigger, actually.
Deletehttps://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9Y5ivaA0M6dNVJIV1JmVjJSZ0k the renders in MSE
ReplyDelete