Looking through my files, I found this first design, apparently meant to be a high-variance card with a short window of vulnerability.
That's pretty confusing, so let's just walk through exactly how it works. If I play this and you Murder it, it dies. If I play this and Giant Growth it, next turn it'll be a 3/2 with shroud. If I play it and we each cast those spells, whoever cast theirs last wins. There's something interesting there, but mostly this'll just feel bad a lot and confuse people. So let's reverse it.
I'd playtest them before forgetting the ideas completely, but this seems to have been an exploration into unhelpful design space. That said, I do like Hermit of Whitecopse better than Jetting Glasskite.
I think you have something here. I find it an interesting use of +1/+1 counters as it effectively marks the use of its ability, enabling you to make an effect that is basically "counter the first spell that targets ~" in a way that works in a paper game. That bring said it looks a little clunky in Magicese.
ReplyDeleteMaking it a keyword helps hide the clunky Magicese:
DeleteHermit Gnoll
1G
Creature - Gnoll - Common
Aegis (Whenever ~ becomes the target of a spell or ability, if ~ doesn’t have a +1/+1 counter on it, counter that spell or ability and put a +1/+1 counter on ~.)
2/2
We've made a worse undying.
DeleteI'm not sure I love this as a keyword mechanic (though your templating is better than what I pictured), but I think its a little unfair to call it worse undying. Its like saying hexproof is worse indestructible. They have their pluses and minuses. Not sure sure in what context would cause a need for this kind of effect to be keyworded, itd probably have to be a flavor thing.
DeleteI think I would only make this counter opponents stuff as it feels unintituive that it would counter yours to me. It feels like giant growthing it only for it to accidentally counter your spell wouldn't be uncommon. Its not like shroud where it couldnt be the target at all.
Kraul Harpooner is an uncommon 3/2 for 1G with two relevant abilities. Pretty sure you could print a 3/2 hexproof for 1G at uncommon without too many problems, and Strangleroot Geist is a pretty good precedent. That said, you'd probably want this to trigger off your opponent's spells rather than both players. Or maybe
ReplyDeleteWhitecorpse 1G
Creature - Gnome (R)
Whenever a spell or ability targets whitecorpse, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
As long as Whitecorpse' power is 5 or less, it has indestructible.
2/1
That version is basically a 2 mana 2/1 indestructible with upside, which I don't think is appropriate.
DeleteThere might be layer issues here too, but I'm not sure. Some wonky stuff happens when you grant abilities based on P/T I think.
Witcorpse 1G
DeleteCreature - Gnome (R)
Whenever a spell or ability targets ~, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
As long as ~ has 5 or more power, it has indestructible.
2/1
I don't think a two mana 2/1 indestructible is all that out of bounds. After all, Wizards has printed bears with protection from a color sense Alpha, and indestructible is worse than protection of your opponent is playing the relevant color. 5 power or less at least prevents pumping/enchanting the creature into a major threat.
DeleteIt's not necessarily great to compare to a design philosophy that has been scrapped. The reason those cards were "OK" (and they're deemed not OK anymore) is because they weren't always at their best.
DeleteA two mana 2/1 indestructible is very strong, horrendously unfun to play against, and a very bad design decision. Darksteel Myr is about as strong as I want my indestructible creatures to get.
Maybe. All the more reason to make it conditional, right? Small, cheap roadblocks seem fine at rare, or in sets where there exists a higher number of ways to kill it like Infect and -1/-1 counters.
DeleteStaring at these designs too long is reminding me a bit of Ambiguity
ReplyDeleteI think somehow incorporating Hexproof or Indestructible instead of countering the spell would make things easier to read.
Heh. Good point.
Delete