|
CardName: Benalish Farmhand Cost: W Type: Creature - Human Druid Cleric Pow/Tgh: 1/1 Rules Text: Sacrifice Benalish Farmhand: Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn. Symbiosis 1 (When this creature dies, you may put 1 growth counter/s on target creature you control.) Flavour Text: Benalish settlers quickly learned that in order to grow their crops, they would need to learn from Otaria's custodians. Set/Rarity: Otaria Forever (Ideas) Common
Benalish Farmhand
 Sacrifice Benalish Farmhand: Target creature gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
Symbiosis 1 (When this creature dies, you may put 1 growth counter/s on target creature you control.) Benalish settlers quickly learned that in order to grow their crops, they would need to learn from Otaria's custodians.
1/1
|
Code: CW01 History: [-] Add your comments: |
Nod to Diligent Farmhand.
Would be cleaner if the +1/+1 and the growth counter had to go to the same target. Event then, it's probably a bit much for a NWO common.
Hmm... this is an interesting quandry. I noticed that you're going for 'play a lot of counters, be rewarded' in this set, but I hadn't noticed multiple different counter types in the same set. In theory, that's considered bad form. In practice, you could always point to Timespiral block and say "It didn't seem that big a deal over there." I mean, Timespiral was confusing, but I don't think that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Personally, I like the idea of 'counters tribal'. But only if it's a whole thing, and not if a few weird counters were popping up in common for no specific reason.
You get what I'm getting at? I guess what I'm saying is that if there's no reason why you couldn't use +1/+1 counters for everything, then why not use +1/+1 counters for everything? Or growth counters for that matter... I haven't really looked at the file... is there a reason why one must be used over the other? Besides power level issues that you could easily fix with altering casting costs to accommodate?
I feel like you might have misread the card, I haven't used +1/+1 counters anywhere in the set.
Ah! Vitenka, you mislead me! (also, I am a fool. Please ignore my ignorance.)
Sorry. (The +1/+1) and (The growth counter) not
(The +1/+1) and (the growth) counter.
And yes, good work on avoiding mixing counter types. But this is still "At instant speed: Any creature I control has +1/+1 ueot, and any creature I control gets a growth counter, and that probably triggers a lot of other stuff" Quite complex for a common.
agree with you, but my defence for now is that new keyword mechanics get treated differently to typical rules text when evaluating commons. in his recent DTW podcast on red flagging MaRo mentioned how 4 lines of rules text was a threshold for a flag, but reminder text was handled differently. I think the fact that the +1/+1 ability is a one-off means its simple enough, and honestly the truth of the matter is that this set is too complex to be considered a true WotC-style product. I'm aiming for it to a certain extent, but the inherent issues with counters means that its close to impossible to avoid board complexity.