| Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
|
CardName: Village Flamegiver Cost: {2}{R} Type: Creature - Elemental Shaman Pow/Tgh: 1/2 Rules Text: Whenever you cast an instant or sorcery spell, you may pay {2}. If you do, target creature gets +2/-1 until end of turn. Flavour Text: Closer to the fire. My children, how they danc'ed. Set/Rarity: Community Mashup Set Uncommon |
History: [-] |
Mountain + Village Balmgiver
Huh, so turn a +1/+2 that grows without limit, and can copy that growth onto something else temporarily - red.
Well, where green gets growth through counters - red gets Firebreathing.
Red also gets +X/-X representing beserk-fury, or outright 'being on fire'. Could do that.
Flavourwise... it looks like it siphons magic and then spreads it around. Some kind of monk.
Red monks... don't really exist. Not even red clerics. Huh. Blank slate there. Oh right! Red gets shaman instead.
They largely get to deal direct damage. So maybe handing out 'on fire' works. Yeah' we'll do that.
Probably does need to be a 3-cost, don't want to make it too easy to just zap all of an opponents creatures. And niftily, although it's not a size red gets all that often; it works well that it can set itself on fire (once) and be a 3/1.
Make 'instant or sorcery' because red more often triggers on that than off 'any spell', add some flavour to taste.
Red Monks: Abbot of Keral Keep, Monastery Swiftspear et al.
Red Clerics: Priest of Iroas, Priest of Urabrask, Harsh Mentor et al.
It's mostly a matter of setting. I feel the creature type was tied to the aspiring keyword, so ditching both of them together feels right.
Since a red instant or sorcery might very well be removal this can be quite nasty. I personally would probably have gone for +2/+0 or +2/+1 on this.
There is also the idea that prowess can very much be seen as a red pendant to aspiring - restricted to instant/sorcery, uses no mana, growth temporary rather than permanent.
Hmmm. Something of a different theme there; though it could work.
I kinda like that 'on fire' can be used here as "Pay 2 extra, your direct damage deals one more"; it doesn't feel like an unreasonable use.
I think it would be fine if it was just scaling up the damage, but the fact that you can split the damage of the spell and the triggered abilirty over multiple targets is worrying me.
Thing is you often have an uncommon that let's you pay some mana for a little direct damage, but usually the trigger condition is something that is less likely to cause direct damage itself e. g. "Whenever you cycle a card" etc.
But instants and sorceries in a deck that plays red? Quite likely to be burn already and now turning 2-for-1.