See Passion Rouser for the beginning of this conversation. Here we have "no untapped creatures" popping up. A very confusing sentence which seems necessary with this creature. Why? Well, if the card said "if you only control tapped creatures" and someone killed the Spellscorcher in response, the second ability wouldn't go off. You don't control all tapped creatures, because you don't control any creatures. That doesn't play well with player expectations.

Conversation continues on Smash and Smash

Minor templatey quibble - I would be tempted to use an "instead" here: "~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player. If you control no untapped creatures, ~ deals 2 damage to that creature or player instead."

You know, that was my first thought. But then I considered "Then, if you control no untapped creatures, deal an additional damage to that creature or player." to be a bit more new player friendly. Now, I'm not so sure. And I assume some players would expect the 'instead' line, so I'm going to replace it with your suggestion.

I think this wording is sensible, as is the design and the interpretation of the theme.

I also think it's potentially sensible to have two or three different kinds of effect that reward you for going all-in. Although I reserve the right to change my mind on that if it turns out to be more fiddly than it's worth.

Maybe reverse it?

­: Deal 3 damage to target; if you control any untapped creatures, deal 1 instead

Same effect, but makes players go "Wow. PUNCH, right on the.. oh wait... hmmm..."

I think it might be better to have the cards read "This card kinda sucks, but secretly it's awesome!" instead of "This card is awesome, but secretly it sucks!" But, that's one man's opinion.

I think I'm with jmg here. Generally Wizards print cards as 0/0 with "~ has +1/+1 for each thing you control" rather than 10/10 with "~ has -1/-1 for each thing you don't control".

Good example of "all tapped". I agree with listing the bigger number as a bonus.

We should have this at uncommon or rare. I'm not sure whether to leave it with the "if you control no untapped creatures", or make it a "damage equal to its power to target" card so it can indirectly benefit from the other pump effects?

Either seems a reasonable option. A 3/3 Spikeshot Goblin would already be pretty board-dominating, so I think there aren't actually many sensible sizes for that; you'll note that even recent sets' 4-mana 2/2s that repeatedly ping for 2 need some kind of sacrifice or depletion of resources to do it, even if that's quite minor as on Hatchet Bully. So perhaps you have more flexibility with the "if you control no untapped creatures" version.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to say, I assumed the "equal to its power" would be dropped to 1/1 (with whatever CMC and activation cost), so the increase in power mattered, I wasn't going to suggest ping-for-3.

In fact, I was surpised to see such a big pinger to start with. I quite like it, but its unusual, since you can't really use the power and the activated ability at the same time.

I would like to see some creature with an activation of be in 'all-tapped red' common or uncommon slot. It certainly doesn't have to be this one, though.

­Viashino Fangtail was a very solid card; for that matter, so was Kamahl, Pit Fighter.

Good point. I'd assumed that the cost would have to be higher than that for something like Viashino Fangtail for it to be printed, and then it would be too expensive for what it was, but I was wrong, Viashino Fangtail looks very good, and by extension, the cost for Spellscorcher is also fine.