­Chandra's Outrage + Soul of the Machine

Wow; the jump from 3 to 4 damage is expensive, isn't it? (Even including a discount for a random 2 damage to the fod)

So a straight up zap spell, and an artifact punishment. (Which is itself already a mash)

And had to restart; so now I've got Albino Pride-Master in the neighbouring window. Hmm. A cat-lord bannerette.

Well; red DOES get to destroy artifacts directly, so the obvious mash is either Electrostatic Bolt or Detonate. Which kinda already exist.

Red never really got a gloomalike; its hosers were land destruction/nerfing.

So let's go with the "Shoot me and I shoot you back" part.

And ugh; flagbearer text is flyspeck3, isn't it.

I hereby declare "While choosing targets as part of casting a spell or activating an ability, your opponents must choose at least one Flagbearer on the battlefield if able." to be reminder text, and thus safe to omit from a rare.

No, I think the Flagbearer rule is somewhat necessary.

A rare such as this uncommon?

I can see the argument that Boldwyr Intimidator's static ability should be reminder text. Not so sure about the flagbearer text, but eh.

Yeah, it's particularly notable that 3 damage goes as low as 1 mana, and has many variations at 2 mana, but 4 damage only even gets to be 3 mana if it's all red (Flame Javelin), otherwise it needs a drawback (Char).

Hm. Wizards changed the walls rule from a creature type to a keyword. I think it's a bad idea if, eg. shapeshifters automatically have to carry around the flagbearer rules or coward-warrior rules...

I know, I know. But the rules text got reralllly tiny; so allow me this indulgence for the sake of the flavour text :)

And; uh, I thought I made this rare. My bad.

Apart from that; is the card ok?

You're right, sorry, we should actually look at the card and not just quibble about templating :)

Yeah, that looks pretty good to me. I don't know about strength, but it's probably fine, since people are probably going to not cast spells until they can kill it with one.

I assume it might change between "is dealt non-creature damage" or "is dealt non-combat damage" or "becomes the target of a spell or ability" since they're all approximately equivalent.

Well, I was thinking also the red player can abuse it a bit; dealing it one point of damage to amplify that into two to a player (or just using it to convert creature-only damage to player damage, since creature-only tends to be cheaper) but you can't convert much that way without slapping on a Slagwurm Armour or similar; so it seemed like it would be "Fun, maybe, if you can pull it off" rather than obviously abusive.

Actually, not to drag away from the card anymore than needed, I don't see a problem with Flagbearer being a keyword like Defender. I sure as heck didn't see the fact that this card was a Flagbearer on first pass or second pass.

Kind of strange when you think about it... I know I've had this discussion before on Multiverse where I'd prefer creatures that punish other players for doing something by dealing damage to be white... it makes double-sense with flagbearers. The idea wouldn't work for many people, though.

But it should at least be a keyword, if not spelled out. I didn't even check the creature type until you mentioned it; if it's not in the rules box, it's not relevant!