| Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
|
CardName: Bearskin Cost: {2} Type: Living Artifact - Equipment Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: {1}{G2}: Attach Bearskin to target creature. Activate this ability only when you could cast a sorcery. Equipped creature is a 2/2 Green Bear Creature. (Living weapons enter the battlefield attached to a new 0/0 token) Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Community Mashup Set Rare |
History: [-] |
: Attach Bearskin to target creature. Activate this ability only when you could cast a sorcery.
Pneumonic Tentacles + Caller of the Claw
Hm. Equipment for an artifact-creature only, +4/+4 for 4/2. And a flash elf that replaces all your dead stuff with bears.
Sadly, my wording would need 'creature (in addition to its other types)' as well as '(this ability unattaches ~ from its current target, and attaches it to target creature an opponent controls; use this abiltiy only as a sorcery') or something like that. Take it as read; I prefer conciseosity. (I'm constentatious!)
You're not likely to want it on your own stuff, often - but it does have some utility; and it makes it a nicer "Artifact that anyone can use but green likes" rather than "Green artifact, why isn't this an enchantment?"
Huh, bearskin isn't a card yet. Name getto!
This card needs more fours. A 4/4 bear? Living... equip... Oooooh. (At this point, I add that 'living' variant clause)
An extra bear (once you move this onto something else) is flavour that is worth the cost in words, I think. How do you acquire a bear skin? First.. acquire a bear...
But now I have a cost problem.
for a vanilla 2/2 is already pretty hot; this is that AND a mild nerf-bat-smaller-boost. So it really needs to cost more. 
probably; but let's be agressive and charge 3.
Green can pay 
for a 2/2 and the nerf, anyone else can get 4 power for 5. Probably fair enough. A shame I can't keep the bear cost. I guess I can upcost the green half; for flavour - it's minor enough to not hurt too much.
So. A cursed shapechangers cloak. (I'd add "Curse" to it somewhere, but it's already too wordy as is) Rarity thinking: Instinct says rare. Number of words says "Print a different card, or rare I guess if you must". Complexity way beyond common; plausibly beyond uncommon. Splash? Yeah. Could even go as high as mythic if I have a named shapeshifter in the set to take ownership of it. Could be as low as uncommon depending on world. Impact? It's kinda sorta removal, and it's certainly a good chunk of creature - high uncommon. Taken together, I reckon rare.
g1->1g Also add an 'or' that isn't needed; but reads nicer.
Other directions I could have gone: Disco elves. Elves that sell artifacts that fell off the back of a cart. Elves that produce white mana, then black mana. then white again...
There's also a lot of space to explore with artifact-creature-only equipment - you could make a modular that wasn't rampantly broken! And "My dead stuff becomes" sweepers could be good too. Perhaps an elf who buries your dead (back to library? Exile? The flavour there is odd, nowadays though) to bring out a bunch of artifacts?
Y'know? This card tickles me. Unless someone gives me a good reason for it being completely broken, I'm adopting it into my "The dwarves burned down llaonwar" set.
MaxDymond: [14:51] Probably needs a little work on templating
MaxDymond: [14:53] You can't do "Equip to opponent's creature" for example as Equip has its own baggage
MaxDymond: [14:53] Concept is interesting
MaxDymond: [14:53] I would just say "Equipped creature is a 2/2 green Bear" and give it Living Weapon
MaxDymond: [14:57] And "
: Attach this to target creature an opponent controls. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery"
MaxDymond: [14:58] They really need to come up with a rules term which means "only when the stack is empty"
Vitenka: [14:58] Yeah, I know that different words are probably needed. Ijust wanted to avoid it and presume that equip got fixed ;)
Vitenka: [14:59] Oooh, so you CAN do it during opposing turn, but not in response to stuff? That would be a good term.
Vitenka: [15:00] I think you're right from a card pov; it ought to be just living; I went 2/2+2/2 beacause the mash demaned a 4. Probably a sensible thing to change back though. Thanks.
stupid wordy template thing :(
use hybrid mana to make the first clauses shrink, and bring back a grizzly-bear-type cost while I'm at it. But now colourless would have a cost of 3+3 for the effect; so shrink the initial cost to bring it back to 5. But now it's only a single 2/2 bear so really it wants to be even cheaper - but I can't make it cost less than two to cast! Which means.. I don't know what it means. Reduce the attach cost? But then it loses the flavour. Live with it being expensive? It's not like green is supposed to get cheap removal, anyway. And turning your opponents creatures into things is more blue's schtick. Ah lump it for now.
(missed a comment there about Abusing reminder text omission on rares too... and it seems I can't edit comments associated with an update.)
let's pretend the rules team agreed to make 'living' a reminder textable thing, like legend.
let's pretend the rules team agreed to make 'living' a reminder textable thing, like legend.
before making a new type, you should ask if it really deserves a new type and can't be done with a keyword. in this case, obviously not, since you turned the keyword Living Weapon into a type.
Well, the alternative is to have no reminder text for "Living Weapon" at all, and it's hardly an ever-green keyword.
what does reminder text have to do with types? and how does your excuse justify turning a non-evergreen keyword into a type, which are supposed to be evergreen? even basic lands have reminder text and they're as evergreen as it gets.
Pure cardspace argument; if I put "Living weapon" in the rules box, there isn't room for the reminder text without it becoming flyyspack text.