Wow. 3-for-1 card disadvantage? I remember Acceptable Losses was really, really bad and that was just 2-for-1. I think this should be at least -5/-5 -- or preferably, I think Algebra needs something of a redesign to not be such painful disadvantage.
I know you can give up a 3-drop and a 0/1 token, but even that is pretty painful and seems very unlikely to be worth an extra -1/-1.
Since this isn't a hard field-wipe and totally situational 4 cost seems appropriate.
Alternatively, to make the card feel more red the second portion could be "Then, ~ deals X damage to each creature, where X was the artifact creature that was destroyed's toughness." Or something similar, because the wording on that (and the current version) is probably off.
I think both those changes is too much. I like the all-upside version of "doesn't untap unless you bounce a land you control", but I think that should still ETBT. Alternatively, ETB untapped but either bounce or sac is good too.
Um... it removes an opponents land every turn. This is "Drop this turn 2; win", not underpowered! (Turn 1 they can get around it by just skipping a turn; which is still ridiculously strong.)
So I assume the second clause is supposed to be returning one of your own lands? It's quite nice, but not ridiculous, later on when you have enough mana, and using ETB lands.
I'd change it to be enter untapped; doesn't untap unless you return a land you control.
I knew I wanted this mythic to be a creature. Originally it was going to a djinn, but then it felt weird not having flying (although I already made one). I still liked the idea of being powered-up by burning an opponent (or yourself) as that seemed pretty magical. I didn't want another grounded efreet, and the marid haven't really been characterized in green, so I thought I'd make some kind of animal and such would be okay (since animals have had all kinds of odd abilities). I didn't want to give the creature trample and though hexproof worked better to give the creature protection when it's going in for the swing (or potentially block). Scorpion was the first creature that came to mind, so I gave it deathtouch fit. Deathtouch can also be relevant for when the creature isn't big I think. I did consider two other creatures: caracal (cat) and goat, but I wasn't really feeling either one at the time. Additionally neither would make sense having deathtouch. Now I guess I could have made this a manticore.
Very odd combination of abilities though; doesn't really seem to have a theme. Obviously deathtouch for a scorpion makes sense, but then it could also be really big which doesn't normally combine; first strike again feels scorpiony, but why does it gain hexproof? It just feels kinda "My trigger activates? Throw the kitchen sink at them!"
Reduced toughness to 7
I was worried -4/-4 might be too good removal at common as well as raising the cost higher than what I wanted.
Wow. 3-for-1 card disadvantage? I remember Acceptable Losses was really, really bad and that was just 2-for-1. I think this should be at least -5/-5 -- or preferably, I think Algebra needs something of a redesign to not be such painful disadvantage.
I know you can give up a 3-drop and a 0/1 token, but even that is pretty painful and seems very unlikely to be worth an extra -1/-1.
Having trouble with the name. I want to convey the idea that someone is so troubled by a problem that it's taking a toll on their life.
Changed from sorcery to instant
Since this isn't a hard field-wipe and totally situational 4 cost seems appropriate.
Alternatively, to make the card feel more red the second portion could be "Then, ~ deals X damage to each creature, where X was the artifact creature that was destroyed's toughness." Or something similar, because the wording on that (and the current version) is probably off.
I think both those changes is too much. I like the all-upside version of "doesn't untap unless you bounce a land you control", but I think that should still ETBT. Alternatively, ETB untapped but either bounce or sac is good too.
Um... it removes an opponents land every turn. This is "Drop this turn 2; win", not underpowered! (Turn 1 they can get around it by just skipping a turn; which is still ridiculously strong.)
So I assume the second clause is supposed to be returning one of your own lands? It's quite nice, but not ridiculous, later on when you have enough mana, and using ETB lands.
I'd change it to be enter untapped; doesn't untap unless you return a land you control.
Indeed; my point was deathtouch is relevant on small creatures. This is aspirationally 8 power or more - not small!
Nothing wrong with it as it is really; it just feels kinda "grab bag of abilities" rather than "Here is a thing, that makes sense as a singular thing"
I knew I wanted this mythic to be a creature. Originally it was going to a djinn, but then it felt weird not having flying (although I already made one). I still liked the idea of being powered-up by burning an opponent (or yourself) as that seemed pretty magical. I didn't want another grounded efreet, and the marid haven't really been characterized in green, so I thought I'd make some kind of animal and such would be okay (since animals have had all kinds of odd abilities). I didn't want to give the creature trample and though hexproof worked better to give the creature protection when it's going in for the swing (or potentially block). Scorpion was the first creature that came to mind, so I gave it deathtouch fit. Deathtouch can also be relevant for when the creature isn't big I think. I did consider two other creatures: caracal (cat) and goat, but I wasn't really feeling either one at the time. Additionally neither would make sense having deathtouch. Now I guess I could have made this a manticore.
Yow. Powerful!
Very odd combination of abilities though; doesn't really seem to have a theme. Obviously deathtouch for a scorpion makes sense, but then it could also be really big which doesn't normally combine; first strike again feels scorpiony, but why does it gain hexproof? It just feels kinda "My trigger activates? Throw the kitchen sink at them!"