I assume this is meant to be "All your creatures have..."?

On the one hand, six life is a lot.

On the other - a common one-drop that pumps everything? That's already too good; letting it fetch moreis just scary.

Turn 1, Swamp, this, spend 18 life, get four on board. Every creature gets +16/+16. "you got a shock?"

Mal is right. Because the wording is "All creatures get +1/+1 for each card named Clotter on the battlefield" this guy comes down as a 2/2. If a player did as Mal suggested - getting 3 more onto the table turn 1 by paying 18 life - he'd have 20 total power on the board.

I actually kind of like the idea behind this card, but I think it needs some serious revising.

sure thing. I am fine making it rare, but only if we decide it fits. It is either common or rare to me. (if you ask i dont know why)

But first, i think you misunderstand (or I wrote it wrong): -If you have 3 Clotters on board, all creatures have +3/+3

So actually your combo is unplayable: it would be: -Turn 1 swamp, play this, pay 18 life, get 3 more out. You have 4 -All creatures have +4+4 on the field.

Ooh wait, now I get it. The clotters ALSO get pumps... Ah I might have a solution. Sorry

better?

Um - as written; it's still giving a stupidly large boost.

Say you go fetch two extra ones. Each clotter looks, see "There are 3 things named clotter; so I give everything +3/+3" - and there are three things doing that. So you're pumping +9/+9

Which is ridiculously powerful!

...even if it only gave +3/+3 total; it's still powerful for the cost. And printing a rare "You can have 50 of these in your deck" is just incredibly money-grubbingly rude. (I mean, that doesn't really apply to a custom set, but still).

shit. Okay, still needs a nerf. Should i just nerf the power, or add a disadvantage to playing them?

Depends on exactly what you're trying to do with this card - what niche are you aiming at?

Some ideas: * If it's supposed to be an aspirational "wow, I could do that?!" card - put in a hoop to jump through. Instead of just paying 6 life, make it only if this deals combat damage. Or, maybe even "When you take damage, you may..." So now you have to leave yourself open (most self-damage is losing life, though there's a few comboable cards... which is a good thing, make people come up with the cobo, they feel clever) - and then you still get that occasional game where you get to say "And now my everything is +9/+9 and I crush your dreams. I crush them so hard." without it being stupidly overpowered and doing that every game. Ideally the hoop you jump through should fit the rest of the set theme, whatever that is. * You could make it a smaller effect. Maybe UEOT instead of every turn? That way it would be a one-shot huge boost and... that's still too good, probably. Remember, any life you have left at the end of the game, is wasted. So if I can pay 18 life to deal my opponent 20 damage, I should. (Though keeping some life back in case of surprises is part of the reasoning too.) Still, it means a single Healing Salve or chump-blocker becomes a counter, and while strong and a thing opponents would need to worry about, it's maybe something they can deal with.

Just ditching the search would... hmm. It probably wouldn't do anything, actually. Because why wouldn't you just make a deck of 18 lands and 42 of this? So probably the hoop-jump needs to be on activating the boost, rather than on getting them into play.

You could just make them a lot more expensive - having to wait till turn 6 to get the first one (and then the other 3) would remove most of the objections.

i think it would be VERY flavorful to have it be when you take damage.

This set is based around Biology, and this card is based of Blood Clots (yes im in grade 10, and am loving science, this was the inspiration for this set xD)

better?

Huh, that's not quite what I was thinking of - and it would seem to have a timing issue.

Unless you DO find a way to deal yourself damage, the only time you get the boost is after your opponent hits you. Which is, well, too late in the turn for the boost to usually be useful. Sure, there are things it would combo with (anything that sacrifices and deals damage equal to power would be wonderful, for example) - but it's too late to block. And you'll not get to use it on attack, either.

My intent had been to tie the 'pay 5 life' bit to the damage bit. That sort of "I'm hurting, so I hurt more and it's a big risk but dooo eeet" thing feels very black.

I think that and the cost would cover it; without also needing UEOT shenanigans (or "until end of your turn" which would fix most of the timing problems)

But get other opinions and decide yourself. you don't want to make my set, you want to make yours :)

you're very right! attacking is supposed to be possible! Thank you for the help!

hmm but I don't think I want to do the pain for pain, maybe ill change it up

howzit now?

Hmm; discard cards (mind pain) instead of paying life. You'll rarely get to use it a truly broken number of times. So that's good. And a significant cost. You've dropped the "May have any number in your deck" - that does erase the most ridiculous deck. Which is a bit of a shame.

And it's boosting opponents creatures as well as yours - is that intentional?

I think the wording "take damage" is neater; but that's a niggle.

Oops, i want it just for your guys, also i will change it to take damage, as that might work better for combo-pieces.

And sure ill put back in the any number, i like the ridiculous combos myself :D

I mean, the main issue with this card was primarily the fact that both of its actual abilities are redflagged to all hell and back at common. Adjusting them/making them harder to abuse doesn't solve that issue.

Thing is; this part "You may have any number of cards named Clotter in your deck" really REALLY wants it to be a common.

This has a lot of text, non-standard abilities, global pump and really doesn't belong at common at all. It even triggers the red flag for being problemtic in multiples.

There is no connection between "You may have any number of cards named Clotter in your deck" abilities and being common, because - Guess what! - rarity matters in Limited and you have no four-of restriction in Limited that I am aware of - you get as many as you open/draft.

That was a major idea behind ripple and name mechanics in Coldsnap - being an attempt at a rare triple small-set draft.

It also mechanically seems like a bad fit in black now that the life payment is gone as well. Also underpowered? If this can change as much as it did between two versions, maybe this should re-calibrate entirely.

I actually liked the ability of Clotters to pump each other more than pumping non-Clotters (at least if this remains black, but also in general), so I'd go with something like that.

You do have the option to create tokens instead of tutoring stuff from the libary and save a ton of text space as well as simplify the ability to a straightforward action. Both help to bring down the rarity to maybe uncommon.

I feel a key aspect of having many copies in the library is that you need to draw them and combining that with a tutor ability removes the most intriguing difference to just making tokens, so how about

Clotter Creature - ??? (rarity) A deck can have any number of cards named ~. Whenever you are dealt damage, you may put a card named ~ from your hand onto the battlefield. ~'s power and toughness are each equal to the number of creatures you control named ~. X/X

If you lose the last ability and instead put a static power/toughness, I could see this as a white common if not the most simple one - Squadron Hawk-style. Otherwise I wouldn't go below uncommon and black could be fine.

If it's a self-replicating creature that pumps other creatures I basically would call rare a minimum.

I think it needs to be rare (if pumps everyone )or uncommon (if pumps itself, which I think i'll go for...), but i dont like how much you changed the card with that idea... so i probably will do something difffernet.

Also: """There is no connection between "You may have any number of cards named Clotter in your deck" abilities and being common, because - Guess what! - rarity matters in Limited and you have no four-of restriction in Limited that I am aware of - you get as many as you open/draft."""

is something you said, and actually there kind of is, because yes, in limited there is no playset rule of 4, but you forget how more likely it is to get more of these at common rather than at rares! So yes, commons are easily the most abundant, and i think therefore have a link to the any number rule.

Hmm, i am gonna make it uncommon, pump itself, and yes, i think it will become a tokenmaker of self

i like this.

If you have things, please say, but i think ill keep it liket his.

But i need one more thing: what creature type to use???

I like the creature type it currently has: Devil. It's been historically black as well as red and is whimsical enough to fit the flavor of an annoying thing that propagates and gets out of hand.

On another note this could be cheaper again with the new functionality. Since you now are more restricted in creating additional copies and pay a real cost, you could easily slash that mana cost in half.

Btw: It's not the text that affects only Constructed though that's causing you to want this at a lower rarity. It's the text that makes multiples play better together. Correct conclusion, but from the wrong premise.

good point, the mana cost can be halfed now!

Thanks all for your time and work with me on this card, only about 300 or so more to correct! xD