I think this'll be fine. It's not like it's a very playable card in most circumstances, and the double blue means it's not easily splashable in most limited decks.
I think he meant that the illusionary pit itself doesn't actually hurt them - its their reaction ie: falling over that does the damage. You could have fun with this an reword it "Target creature with Horsemanship deals 3 damage to itself" you know, because it believed the illusion - hehe
Yes, if blue is anti-horsemanship, this is obviously fine (they reprinted prodigal sorcerer in time spiral). Personally I'd prefer it if it were a more blue-feeling effect (even "exile"), but I don't think that's actually necessary.
And FWIW, an illusuory pit trap might well hurt them -- a horse falling over I don't think ends well for horse or rider...
YES, this totally violates the modern color pie. BUT if Blue is going to be the anti-horsemanship colour then it needs cards like this - just as Green has Plummet and Leaf Arrow (which this is shifted to blue & horsemanship). Besides, as the flavour text says, its not REAL damage, its all in their own heads.
Alternate flavor text was "Lets see you ride full tilt into a pit of sharpened stakes and see if the first thought through your head is Its not real, it's just an Illusion"
Poster child for blue Anti-Horsemanship.
This is simply a colour and keyword shift of Gravity Well from Rise of the Eldrazi.
The flavour text shows how blue mages would deal with horsemanship - dampening or removing their speed to make them less of a threat.
Should I bump this to a rare to lessen the impact on Horsemanship?
I have decided to leave horsemanship as originally created. As white normally has cheap & good flying creatures and will also get similar Horsemanship creatures, for this set flying will be restricted to UBR (in that order) except again, for one or two white cards (Angels have to have Flying, its just one of those things). Green will have Reach and, conversely Blue will get anti-horsemanship abilities (bled into White for flavour purposes).
Exactly. But there's a lot more cards that interact with artifacts: it seems liquimetal coating + shatter isn't as powerful as it looks at first sight.
I wouldn't expect any problems (if anything I'd think it might not be useful, but it probably has some combination). Probably the best uses are (i) making a land snow for snow mana (ii) giving Ronom Hulk protection from something (iii) activating one of the "if you control at least" wizards. But most of the time you'd be better off playing with a snow permanent. (You might even make this snow itself, even that's probably not too strong with the wizards who are quite good, but investing a card specifically to turn them on is a big investment.)
Hm. On reflection, I agree with both: that is, I think that, in general, horsemanship would be more interesting as "can only be blocked by creatures with flying and horsemanship" (since there's still room to make horsemanship creatures stronger than flying creatures typically are) but also, Alex is right that it would be bad to change the existing horsemanship creatures[1]. (Which doesn't really help.)
[1] OTOH, I'm pleased to hear some people have made casual horsemanship decks. Next is banding :) [2]
[2] Quote from saturday: "Remind me how this works? I can block or not block the whole set of creatures, but their controller can decide how damage is divided between them?" "No, it's not that complicated. It's just that creatures blocking it get -1/-1"
Mm. A conditional cantrip creature for 1 mana is a lot more interesting. I think it'd be fair for 2 (although Elvish Visionary exists); at 1 it seems pretty strong... except that you have to have enough sorceries or instants to make it worthwhile.
I like the deals to itself.
Ooh, the damage-to-itself is a pleasing idea. More normally white (Repentance) or black (Kiku's Shadow), but the flavour works okay in blue.
I think this'll be fine. It's not like it's a very playable card in most circumstances, and the double blue means it's not easily splashable in most limited decks.
I like the flavour.
I think he meant that the illusionary pit itself doesn't actually hurt them - its their reaction ie: falling over that does the damage.
You could have fun with this an reword it "Target creature with Horsemanship deals 3 damage to itself" you know, because it believed the illusion - hehe
Yes, if blue is anti-horsemanship, this is obviously fine (they reprinted prodigal sorcerer in time spiral). Personally I'd prefer it if it were a more blue-feeling effect (even "exile"), but I don't think that's actually necessary.
And FWIW, an illusuory pit trap might well hurt them -- a horse falling over I don't think ends well for horse or rider...
YES, this totally violates the modern color pie.
BUT if Blue is going to be the anti-horsemanship colour then it needs cards like this - just as Green has Plummet and Leaf Arrow (which this is shifted to blue & horsemanship). Besides, as the flavour text says, its not REAL damage, its all in their own heads.
Alternate flavor text was "Lets see you ride full tilt into a pit of sharpened stakes and see if the first thought through your head is Its not real, it's just an Illusion"
Poster child for blue Anti-Horsemanship.
This is simply a colour and keyword shift of Gravity Well from Rise of the Eldrazi.
The flavour text shows how blue mages would deal with horsemanship - dampening or removing their speed to make them less of a threat.
Should I bump this to a rare to lessen the impact on Horsemanship?
I have decided to leave horsemanship as originally created.
As white normally has cheap & good flying creatures and will also get similar Horsemanship creatures, for this set flying will be restricted to UBR (in that order) except again, for one or two white cards (Angels have to have Flying, its just one of those things). Green will have Reach and, conversely Blue will get anti-horsemanship abilities (bled into White for flavour purposes).
Yes it would, and it was always meant to be I just miffed. Now it is. Thanks guys.
Wouldn't this make more sense as a snow artifact?
Exactly. But there's a lot more cards that interact with artifacts: it seems liquimetal coating + shatter isn't as powerful as it looks at first sight.
Ah, yes. Then this would function like Liquimetal Coating did for Metalcraft.
I wouldn't expect any problems (if anything I'd think it might not be useful, but it probably has some combination). Probably the best uses are (i) making a land snow for snow mana (ii) giving Ronom Hulk protection from something (iii) activating one of the "if you control at least" wizards. But most of the time you'd be better off playing with a snow permanent. (You might even make this snow itself, even that's probably not too strong with the wizards who are quite good, but investing a card specifically to turn them on is a big investment.)
Hm. On reflection, I agree with both: that is, I think that, in general, horsemanship would be more interesting as "can only be blocked by creatures with flying and horsemanship" (since there's still room to make horsemanship creatures stronger than flying creatures typically are) but also, Alex is right that it would be bad to change the existing horsemanship creatures[1]. (Which doesn't really help.)
[1] OTOH, I'm pleased to hear some people have made casual horsemanship decks. Next is banding :) [2]
[2] Quote from saturday: "Remind me how this works? I can block or not block the whole set of creatures, but their controller can decide how damage is divided between them?" "No, it's not that complicated. It's just that creatures blocking it get -1/-1"
this loves a scry orPonder effect to be played before it is cast to stack the top card ensuring it works.
Mm. A conditional cantrip creature for 1 mana is a lot more interesting. I think it'd be fair for 2 (although Elvish Visionary exists); at 1 it seems pretty strong... except that you have to have enough sorceries or instants to make it worthwhile.
Reverted it back to original idea, was worried it'd be too strong at just .
Ha. Yes, it's worse than Merchant of Secrets, which is in turn worse than Sea Gate Oracle.