Created for Challenge # 071. Aiming for 5 abilities that all tie in with attacking and yet have no synergy with each other. I... didn't quite succeed. The red white and green abilities work together, sortof, because damaging blockers means you can trample over for a bit more.

But apart from that: Flying and "can't block" are both different evasion abilities that won't normally work together at all. Evasion (blue and white red) doesn't have much synergy with hurting blockers (red white), trample (green) or surviving combat with blockers (black). Doing the red white ability makes the black one less likely to be needed.

I didn't want to add a cost to each ability because that'd make this work the same way as Jack's Sceptre of the Veil. Here you could theoretically activate all of these abilities in one turn, it's just pretty rare circumstances where there'd be much point.

It's the kind of card that will likely have something to do most combats, but very little chance that combining them would have much point.

(There are a handful of circumstances where combining them would be useful. If the opponent has several ground blockers and 1-2 flying/reach blockers, I could see activating the blue and white red abilities together. Or similarly the blue and then green abilities to trample over their only reach blocker. But, well, there are circumstances where most of the examples of disconnected cards on Challenge # 071's discussion page could work together. I think this is a reasonably good fit for the challenge's terms.)

Hmm, I wonder if the "white" effect of "Target creature can't block this turn" actually isn't white enough? I could easily make it "Tap target creature defending player controls" if necessary. It's just slightly more words.

"Can't block" is most definitely a red ability. Actually, dealing damage to a blocking creature is white, so you could switch those two.

Hm, I was thinking "can't block" wasn't really white but I imagined it was difficult enough to squeeze five abilities onto the card, I didn't want to quibble :) "Tap" is a good idea, although I don't know if it's necessary or not.

I'm not sure how many lines of text is normally ok -- my cards always start as massively, massively, too wordy. This looks squeezed to me, but seems about the same as Obelisk of Alara, and there's no easy way to have five shorter abilities (I'm impressed Staff of Dominion manages it).

Strange wubrg artifact that would most likely end up in two-color decks. I wonder if it would make sense if the card did something like this:

­: Target a creature. If you paid , tap it. If you paid it gains flying until end of turn. If you paid , Regenerate it. If you paid , it can't block this turn. If you paid , it gains trample until end of turn.

Hmmm... probably not.

I did consider jmg's proposed wording, but it's just very weird by comparison with normal templating.

I love dude's point that damaging blockers is white. I'll switch the white and red abilities.

As for wordiness: I don't think this could appear at lower than rare, because of the wordiness, but it is comparable to Obelisk of Alara. (Very much so: even to the extent of having 3 of the 5 abilities wrap onto two lines and the other 2 fit on a single line each. Except in mouseover preview, where the green ability fits on one line. Such a strange bug.)

Ah! Yeah, that makes sense.

I wish there was a word for "gains until end of turn". Most of the time it's obvious from context whether an effect is permanent (eg. on a permanent) or per-turn (eg. on a spell). It would make a lot of descriptions shorter without really being less clear.