Please login to comment
I'll partially agree with DeinoStinkus that this keyword doesn't seem necessary as a keyword. I mean down the line it's a net gain to refer to combat-specific triggers as a keyword, but unless it gets evergreen or evergreen-like, I don't see the point. It needs to be on the level of Landfall to make much sense.
I had a section about the dangers of a mechanic that shares a generic trigger but is bound to a certain function - like Duelist seems to be for the benefit of the Duelist creature or its controller, but there are creatures like Hamlet Captain and Savvy Hunter which doesn't seem to flavorfully fit the duelist function despite sharing its trigger.
Omnath, Locus of the Roil doesn't have landfall printed on it, but most will call it landfall when explaining it.
Another thing is; I absolutely have to disagree about the name. A duel emphasizes the combat between two individuals. Actually it goes as far as being an arranged fight between two individuals with matched weapons. If you include more people it is a skirmish or on a larger scale a battle. Additionally you want to reward attacks that doesn't necessarily have to be blocked, which doesn't result in a duel (or skirmish). This doesn't seem like a duelist perspective, unless you're figuring the attacking creature duels the player/planeswalker it attacks, who are helpless to actually defend themselves.
If it was me, I would focus on the act of taking action, because that is what this mechanic checks for. If your creature is engaged in combat, they are either attacking or blocking. If not, they are passive. From that place of logic, you could call it Initiative or Take Action. You could derive the name from a mindset or characteristic that thrives in combat/conflict, like Battlelust, Combatant, Fighter, Aggression (aggression seems more like an attacker but a defender can just as well be aggressive and seek out a fight).
September 18, 2020 10:15 a.m.
I stand corrected. I haven't read up on Teysa enough it seems. Thought it was specific enough to only allow die-triggers to function.
September 17, 2020 1:59 p.m.
I think it would be a better proposition to make the spells cost 1 of the main color (e.g. black for Grixis) and then a hybrid of the ally colors. Then focus the spell's effects on the main color's interaction with the allies to design them.
Also I believe MaRo has said that tribal non-creatures will not happen again. It caused a lot of interaction ruckus.
I have to disagree Boza about what is within the color pie for each shard. The grixis one is mainly black, but red does sacrifice and can use that to remove creatures, with say Goblin Grenade or Fling. Blue however... is a long stretch to have do either of these, so perhaps the idea of a hybrid shard spell is not particularly interesting as the color pie sets too many restrictions, unless you straight up copy what the Shards have been doing in the Alara block - e.g. Grixis doing reanimation for a turn.
Unless the OP changed the cards since your posting, I think it's unfair to compare the Naya one to Finale of Devastation. For X = 2, you get to find a 4 CMC or less creature and put into your hand. Then for the rest of the turn your creature cards costs less.
What I find iffy is the combination of X spells with something that benefits casting other spells - like the Jund one granting your other creature spells Devour 2... The scaling of the card works directly against its other benefits. That just seems like bad design, even if it is intended as a conscious choice between scaling the effect and taking advantage of the sub-effect.
The Jund one is certainly still within green's color pie. Mycoloth is mono green with Devour. Green can create a lot of tokens. Usually it depends on something else like Avenger of Zendikar, but they do get a few odd X spells Gelatinous Genesis or Sylvan Offering.
I agree about both the Esper and Bant ones having little hold within Blue's slice of the color pie. Blue can create tokens, but usually not in bulk without depending on a 3rd party.
September 16, 2020 8:41 a.m.
September 16, 2020 8:17 a.m.
Genocide as a term describes the intentional act to destroy a people. That kinda seems strange when included on a spell dealing with thoughts/memory?
Also I agree with smackjack that this seems like a effect.
Perhaps it could just deny the casting of spells with CMC X or less until your next turn? That would be pretty powerful. It is borderline to compare with an extra turn spell, so perhaps it should just be ?
September 15, 2020 10:45 a.m.
This seems really interesting, but also pretty narrow. You'd need a critical mass of matching CMC between auras and creatures you can get into the graveyard.
May I suggest a revised version that is more flexible?
Amdael, Dire Auramancer
Legendary Creature - Troll Shaman
Aura cards you control have "As an additional cost to cast this spell, you may pay . If you do, as this spell resolves you may return target creature card with converted mana cost less than or equal to X plus the converted mana cost of this aura from your graveyard to the battlefield and attach this aura to that creature."
An alternative wording of the ability:
Aura cards you control have "As you cast this spell you may pay the mana cost of target creature card in your graveyard reduced by the mana cost of this aura. If you do, as this spell resolves return that creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield and attach this aura to it."
This was actually more difficult to create than what I intended. Initially I wanted it to basically become Animate Dead with an additional cost attached to it equal to the difference in CMC between the aura and the creature. However that idea was kinda screwy as is the text on Animate Dead.
It does provide some benefits over the OP's suggestion
- For one you can use a Holy Strength to resurrect Elesh Norn, Grand Cenobite with a mana investment.
- Basically as long as you have an aura, you can play any creature from your graveyard. Yes, that makes Rancor or Flickering Ward extremely beneficial in this deck. However you're also playing an aura centric deck, that naturally sets you a bit behind.
- You don't require a very metrical combination of creatures and auras to make it function, so it opens you up to experiment more with auras. Auras in general is not favored in Magic, so I think we can afford them some flexibility here. I get that one of the OP's points was that restrictions makes people creative. I fear it makes the deck type too narrow to only include mid-costed auras and low costed creatures. My revisions are not hindering that tactic as the cost reduction is still the same, you just have a higher ceiling.
- It's one package - meaning one Counterspell takes care of the whole lot. It also means you can effectively reanimate creatures that cannot sustain themselves, say Force of Savagery, as there's no time in between the creature entering and the aura attaching, where state based actions are checked and would kill the Force.
- A flaw; there's no target when reanimating as it happens during resolution - so no interaction, no exiling the target in response. Can just be seen as an upside that you wont have paid the cost of the creature for nothing. The alternative wording I made fixes this flaw, but that also opens it up to so much vulnerability. Suddenly a Scavenging Ooze becomes an unlimited Essence Scatter for .
- A flaw; to simplify the design I made the additional cost which means you can bypass color requirements/intensity. The alternative wording I made should solve this problem - if you cast a Aura and intent to cast a creature, you still need to pay as the aura can only reduce the generic mana cost in this instance. The problem is that this wording makes it a LOT more complex to fully understand.
September 15, 2020 10:28 a.m.
I agree that the +1 should not have Fight attached OR it should be a minus ability.
The -4 is incredibly weak. Compare it to Garruk, Caller of Beasts who reveals top 5 and puts ALL creatures revealed into your hand. And that's a +1 ability... He is also 6 CMC but this one is 3 colors against Garruk's green.
What if you turned the two abilities around?
Different take Show
Champions of Might
Legendary Planeswalker - Garruk & Huatli
+2: Look at the top five cards of your library. You may reveal a land card or a creature card from among them and put it into your hand. Then put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.
-1: Choose one:
- Create a 3/3 green Dinosaur Beast creature token with Trample.
- Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control.
Then you may have that creature fight target creature you don't control.
-8: You get an emblem with "Whenever you cast a creature spell, copy it twice." (A copy of a permanent spell becomes a token.)
The card advantage ability is now only one card per activation, to accommodate it being a +2 and due to the fact that the -1 ability is still very very powerful.
The -1 now has two modes: We create a body that can fight, or we strengthen a body to fight. Initially I had the -1 as "put two +1/+1 counters on target creature" but I figured with the rest of the kit, it would be too strong. It would also make the point of creating a new body less appealing except as a body when none was available.
It could be considered to have the last line read: "Then you may have any number of creatures you control Fight target creature you don't control."
Thus a pile on solution could be beneficial, but it costs you some bodies, as each creature fighting takes the same amount of damage - unlike say an upside down Living Inferno.
For purely removal, it makes the most sense to make a new 3/3 as that is +3 damage. However it will also most likely cost you those creatures if the Fight target has 3+ power.
For sustain you'd want the +1/+1 counter to make the creature survive the Fight.
The ultimate is reworded slightly to take advantage of the new wording from Lithoform Engine where copies of permanent spells becomes tokens. This makes the copy portion use the stack and makes it possible to counter spell the tokens or in any way manipulate those copies while they are on the stack. Additionally they enter the battlefield one at a time, instead of the two tokens simultaneously. The current wording is a triggered ability where the tokens bypasses the stack, except for a Stifle (which could also be used to counter both the copies under the new wording I think).
September 15, 2020 9:16 a.m.
Black doesn't get exile this cheap, even with downside. If you would give it to them, the color would take over some of White's main strengths. The downside is mostly negligible based on the format.
In Commander you have 40 life to take from, so if the opponent gets to achieve a high power creature where this is your only removal choice, you're in trouble. But in 99% of cases, it just costs you a small amount of life, which black happily does in so many other aspects of the color.
In Standard you'll only target stuff that doesn't cost you too much - but the alternative is often to take the combat damage to the face. If the meta is dominated by big power creatures, you run destroy removal, and possibly this as SB if WotC decides to make a stronger Bronzehide Lion.
In Eternal formats you SB it against creatures where the cost is negligible or where it disrupts your opponent's combo.
Also... Tragic Slip exists and that is how Black usually does removal that bypass indestructible, but it is conditional when it's this cheap.
Black is usually tied at 4 CMC for unconditional exile removal, as seen in Eat to Extinction, Gild, Deadly Rollick. The last one having a conditional situation where it's free, specifically for Commander.
White is and should be the king of cheap flexible exile, or it loses one of its few strengths.