For a cost such as this I would be excepting a design like Khalni Hydra or Primalcrux... or maybe a card like War Elemental(though it was pretty much remade as Cryptborn Horror) or Lich(and its variants)... I guess "extreme" would be the word to describe those last two.
This - and the other CCCC cards of that source post - don't fit into either of those "categories" IMO. They could easily cost 3CC without the design feeling lesser in any way. On the contrary, costs like that would feel much more appropriate for these.
EDIT: Also, from a flavor standpoint, I would be expecting something more... say, "elemental" than some humanoid. Having that intensive mana cost suggest some kind of "pure" manifestation of mana.
"tap a creature" would technically be enough since
Quote from Comprehensive Rules
117.3. [...] A permanent that's already tapped can't be tapped to pay a cost.
covers this, but the template "tap an untapped creature" is well established on dozens of cards and serves as a soft reminder.
Since the work effort is increased only until end of turn, being able to increase it in different turns is not a problem any more than being able to activate Frilled Sandwalla both during your own and an opponent's turn.
Should "an untapped creature" just be "a creature"?
Is it intended that you can do this once in your turn, and then again in the opponents? Ignoring summoning sickness?
Since this doesn't necessarily kills the creature that blocks it, it has a number of cases where it would be better than Triton Shorestalker. This plus a sacrifice outlet, or a potential Zap would make any group attack frustrating... especially since the Anarchist can destroy creatures before damage is dealt.
But yeah, is still probably fine. Even with the tricks, there are going to be plenty of times that Typhoid Rats would have been the better option.
IMO it could cost just a single since in most cases it would function like a Triton Shorestalker. I don't know how I feel about creature destruction in though.
When we really think about it "destroy target blocking creature" in might make more sense than in . already has "destroy target attacking/blocked creature".
Actually, I've played with the idea of destroying blocking creatures in .
Ie. something like
> Cruelty (When this creature becomes blocked by a creature with lesser power, destroy that blocking creature.)
For a cost such as this I would be excepting a design like Khalni Hydra or Primalcrux... or maybe a card like War Elemental (though it was pretty much remade as Cryptborn Horror) or Lich (and its variants)... I guess "extreme" would be the word to describe those last two.
This - and the other CCCC cards of that source post - don't fit into either of those "categories" IMO. They could easily cost 3CC without the design feeling lesser in any way. On the contrary, costs like that would feel much more appropriate for these.
EDIT: Also, from a flavor standpoint, I would be expecting something more... say, "elemental" than some humanoid. Having that intensive mana cost suggest some kind of "pure" manifestation of mana.
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
Source
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
changed colour from "Multicolour" to "Auto"
"tap a creature" would technically be enough since
covers this, but the template "tap an untapped creature" is well established on dozens of cards and serves as a soft reminder.
Since the work effort is increased only until end of turn, being able to increase it in different turns is not a problem any more than being able to activate Frilled Sandwalla both during your own and an opponent's turn.
This is not Aggressive Mining where the effect stacks.
Should "an untapped creature" just be "a creature"? Is it intended that you can do this once in your turn, and then again in the opponents? Ignoring summoning sickness?
removed typo
Since this doesn't necessarily kills the creature that blocks it, it has a number of cases where it would be better than Triton Shorestalker. This plus a sacrifice outlet, or a potential Zap would make any group attack frustrating... especially since the Anarchist can destroy creatures before damage is dealt.
But yeah,
is still probably fine. Even with the tricks, there are going to be plenty of times that Typhoid Rats would have been the better option.
IMO it could cost just a single
since in most cases it would function like a Triton Shorestalker. I don't know how I feel about creature destruction in 
though.
When we really think about it "destroy target blocking creature" in
might make more sense than in 
. 
already has "destroy target attacking/blocked creature".
Actually, I've played with the idea of destroying blocking creatures in
.
Ie. something like
> Cruelty (When this creature becomes blocked by a creature with lesser power, destroy that blocking creature.)