Archester: Frontier of Steam: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Mechanics | About Archester

CardName: Chancellor's Conscription Cost: u Type: Enchantment - Aura Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Enchant creature Enchanted creature's controller may choose not to untap enchanted creature during his or her untap step. Whenever enchanted creature becomes untapped, return it and Chancellor's Conscription to their owners' hands. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Archester: Frontier of Steam Common

Chancellor's Conscription
{u}
 
 C 
Enchantment – Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature's controller may choose not to untap enchanted creature during his or her untap step.
Whenever enchanted creature becomes untapped, return it and Chancellor's Conscription to their owners' hands.
Updated on 13 Sep 2013 by MOON-E

Code: CU10

History: [-]

2013-09-01 21:44:47: MOON-E created the card Chancellor's Conscription
2013-09-01 21:45:07: MOON-E edited Chancellor's Conscription

Does this need that "at end of turn" part at the end. It sets up a potential memory issue that could cause problems.

"At the beginning of each end step, if enchanted creature is untapped, return it and ~ to their owners' hands." as found on Angelic Accord?

I thought this card bounced the creature immediately. Should we reword it or change it's functionality to that?

I think we should change it to bounce immediately.

2013-09-13 06:38:07: MOON-E edited Chancellor's Conscription

Changed to bounce immediately.

Is there any reason in particular for this to be a weird Mark of Eviction (which was uncommon)? I guess it lets the creature's controller keep it out if it has a static ability, but that seems like an odd corner case for a common.

The idea is that the opponent has to decide whether they want to give you back the conscription or not. Ideally, you'd play it on one of their tapped creatures not one of their untapped ones...

When I look at this in MSE it seems really wordy for a common. Maybe we should change this to just some variant of Unsummon instead of a combination of Unsummon and Claustrophobia.

on 23 Sep 2013 by The Humanity:

What if it was a Claustrophobia your opponent could kill for 2 mana? Like paying off the chancellor to find another worker.

This is pretty complicated for a common

Wording can be shortened a bit, I think - but it's still quite complicated. And is also cheap removal; even if naff removal, at common, which is a bit of a no-no.

It's not a "no-no". It's the way common removal is meant to be: either cheap and conditional, or very expensive (in this case the former). There's plenty of precedent for that: Mugging, Smite, Viper's Kiss, from the same sets as Angelic Edict and Lash of the Whip. Power-wise this is fine at current standards.

Complication-wise I agree it might be a bit fiddly. I did love Mark of Eviction though, so a worse version at common doesn't seem automatically a bad thing.

It's essentially a conditional, slow Unsummon, not exactly something that is known to commonly break standard (not without a Snapcaster being involved, that is).

I agree this is a bit too complex for common. I'm open to changing it.

on 11 Jan 2014 by Visitor:

Here's a suggestion:

U
Enchanted creature doesn't untap during it's controller's untap step.
2: Return Chancellor's Conscription to its owner's hand. Only any opponent may activate this ability.

What do you guys think of just changing this to a functional reprint of Coma Veil?

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
What is this card's power? Rumbling Baloth
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)