| Snap: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Info |
|
CardName: War Griffin Cost: 2WW Type: Creature - Griffin Mount Pow/Tgh: 2/2 Rules Text: Flying First Strike {W}{W}: Transform War Griffin and attach it to target non-mount creature. Flavour Text: Back side: CardName: War Griffin Cost: Type: Enchantment - Mount Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Enchant Creature Mounted creature gets +2/+2 and has Flying and First Strike. If War Griffin would become unattached from a permanent transform it. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Snap Uncommon |
Code: History: [-] Add your comments: |
Enchantment – Mount
I like this concept of mounts. Most of them I suspect will be better left as standalone creatures, although the unattachment replacement removes a lot of the risk (if it works in the rules). But nonetheless, great implementation.
I agree, this is as good a plan as any. I assume that Wizards knows how much people would appreciate mounts, and they're just waiting for the perfect mechanic before they do it.
I was going to suggest making Mount a different card type on the back, so you could say "Mount - Griffin", since they feel like they don't want to use creature or enchantment to get things done. I wonder if "Enchantment - Mount" instead of Aura, would be acceptable. For this mechanic only, I wish 'enchantments' were really 'enhancements', so that 'Enhancement - Mount' came out naturally.
You could have it as Enchantment - Aura Mount. Then you could have the nifty Mount Trainer: "Mounted creatures you control get..." and/or "Search your library for a Mount card..."
Kinda somewhat like this ? Making mount a new enchantment subtype? Left it as an enchantment so it doesn't need too many new rules.
Looks good to me. To be technical, though, if Mount is an enchantment subtype, it is unlikely to also be a creature subtype. I don't see much value in making the creature side a 'Griffin Mount'... unless you have specific rules about Mounts not Mounting mounts. Oh... actually, that could make sense...
well, we could allow mounts to mount mounts but that could result in some STRANGE looking babies so yeah, that's where I was headed.
Target mounted mount, mounts another target mounted mounts mount. Buffalo. Also slightly odd that as a mount it's no longer a griffin; but you probably don't want to end up with flyspeck in the sutbytpe line too...
I didn't comment; but I do like the idea of creature combinations like this. Don't like the flyspeck effect it has on the cards, don't like dual faced cards... but do like the idea. The basic fiddliness is a bit of a turn off though for a fairly minimal improvement.
Last comment: A mount can hide underneath another creature temporarily in order to evade a killspell. That's pretty odd.
may have to mount as a sorcery ???