| Link's Unplaced Cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
|
CardName: Aigoren, the Guardian City Cost: Type: Legendary Land Creature - Plains Wall Pow/Tgh: 0/4 Rules Text: ({t}: Add {w} to your mana pool.) Defender Aigoren, the Guardian City isn't a creature unless you're the defending player and at least one creature is attacking. Whenever five or more creatures attack, Aigoren gains indestructible until end of turn and can block any number of creatures this turn. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Link's Unplaced Cards Rare |
History: [-] Add your comments: |
: Add 
to your mana pool.)
Awesome! That type line :D
I know, it's way too long! :-P
Removed "City" from typeline and dropped toughness to 4.
Final ability changed from static to triggered
Isn't a creature unless one or more creatures are attacking you.
Simpler
The creatures could also be attacking one of your planeswalkers, in which case they may not be attacking "you" but you're still the defending player, because you still need to be the one in charge of making blocking decisions.
Speaking of which, if you depict this as being a city on Zendikar that's home to a certain indigenous tribe, it could be Legendary Land Creature - Plains Wall Kor.
As SadisticMystic noticed, the wording was very intentional.
... I think the type line is long enough, don't you?
"Aigoren, the Guardian City isn't a creature unless you're the defending player and at least one creature is attacking."
"Aigoren, the Guardian City isn't a creature unless a creature is attacking you or a Planeswalker you control."
They're the same length, but the second one is a lot more standard template. I don't see a functional difference.
It doesn't need to have defender if it's never a creature on your turn
The current wording was influenced by Kazuul, Tyrant of the Cliffs, which likely predated common explicit references to planeswalkers in rules text. I prefer it because it allows the card to continue to function at its highest capacity should there be more attackable permanents added to the game, but under the current rules the are fairly identical.
But what about the FLAVOR, continuumg?
I forgot that card existed.
I play it in my red EDH deck.
I play it in my monored modern control deck. It's not a very good deck.
It's still a fun card.