Why is miracle any different than hellbent or other things you've told me to not keyword? Because it is hard to do without? I'm confused, but i'll just trust that you're making more sense to everyone else than to me. Will fix
I don't know what this once was, but right now it's just insane. Why does it have so many abilities for one mana?
Also, why has it so many abilities, period? It's a mess.
Does each color randomly get a flying 1-drop that is just also doing a lot of other stuff? Flying 1-drops are actually not bad cards.
You could remove everything but the keywords and have a playable card here, and the other abilities don't really help selling this as a "phoenix".
Well, the triggered ability does, but the activated ability overshadows that actual good thematic design.
The card puts too much weight into assembling a combination of effects onto one card. It would be generally better to sprread around the love a little.
As this is an evasive creature I would remove the tapped ability - it already can deal damage to players by attacking as it is good at not getting blocked.
Now this wants a higher cost or lower saboteur outcome, maybe a 2/1 that keeps everything as it is except for the activated ability that is just too much baggage?
I think the "nontoken" takes out some of the fun - this is not a card that recurs itself. It just happens once by itself, so a safety clause is not that necessary.
It's important to consider though whether this should be an instant or sorcery.
Currently only Chalisan Elder has more than as generic mana in its mana cost - making this card's mana ability incredibly awkward to use.
Also this mana ability is redundant with Chalisan Elder - and once you reach three mana you are already at the top of the curve for Merfolk in this set.
Mana production is not a good ability concept for this card. Is this just about Fishing? How about some Fish token shenanigans?
> When ~ ETBs, create a 1/1 Fish creature token. Whenever a Fish you control dies, you may pay . If you do draw a card.
It would not be beyond reason to mix Merfolk and Fish tribal giving them a Fungus/Saproling relationship. That way a card like Titanic Flood could say "each creature that isn't a Fish or Merfolk".
The cost reduction effect alone is not enough to justify this at rare. See also Stonybrook Banneret, a common.
I certainly don't suggest adding landwalk to this, but it could be more exciting. I could imagine "Merfolk spells you cast and spells you cast that target Merfolk you control mcost less to cast." at uncommon - the lost member of the Daru Warchief cycle.
This is miracle. Miracle needs a lot of rules framework and complicated wording to work. This wording does not accomplish that.
It's a nightmare to accomplish this without the keyword. Either make miracle a part of your set (in which case it should be on more than a single card) or find another execution.
Also quite a few wording issues e. g. alternative costs are worded differently.
Sorry for being terrible at following the dialogue. I get messed sometimes.
I think that idea is super mythical, so I'm not sure how I'd get something like that at rare.
I don't really have place for another mythic, and I definitely never envisioned this card at mythic rarity.
Would it be less powerful/flexible to say Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player sacrifices half the creatures they control, rounded up
It would be strnger against weenie decks, but most decks would suffer less, because a lot of decks wont have more than 10 creatures our on turn 6, also this ability would get worse, while the other one could be stronger because you could power it up, making them sac an ungodly amount of enemies
That's looking impresisve enough to maybe be mythic. Though in practice it'll usually just be "Ok, I guess I block it with these two things, they die, it dies." Which is probably fine.
How this? I kept the cost because I figured this new effect was a bit more punishing. Which may have not been the problem, but also sort of solved the 'No point in blocking this' problem.
Why is miracle any different than hellbent or other things you've told me to not keyword? Because it is hard to do without? I'm confused, but i'll just trust that you're making more sense to everyone else than to me. Will fix
Now this could be Walking Corpse. You know you want it. ;)
I don't know what this once was, but right now it's just insane. Why does it have so many abilities for one mana?
Also, why has it so many abilities, period? It's a mess.
Does each color randomly get a flying 1-drop that is just also doing a lot of other stuff? Flying 1-drops are actually not bad cards.
You could remove everything but the keywords and have a playable card here, and the other abilities don't really help selling this as a "phoenix".
Well, the triggered ability does, but the activated ability overshadows that actual good thematic design.
The card puts too much weight into assembling a combination of effects onto one card. It would be generally better to sprread around the love a little.
As this is an evasive creature I would remove the tapped ability - it already can deal damage to players by attacking as it is good at not getting blocked.
Now this wants a higher cost or lower saboteur outcome, maybe a
2/1 that keeps everything as it is except for the activated ability that is just too much baggage?
That's the Shade ability and putting Typhoid Rats to shame.
Also this is listed as "vanilla creature" on the Front Page which this is not.
I suggest nixing the activated ability. If you need an activated ability putting deathtouch there would make sense.
I think the "nontoken" takes out some of the fun - this is not a card that recurs itself. It just happens once by itself, so a safety clause is not that necessary.
It's important to consider though whether this should be an instant or sorcery.
Another card that is uncomfortably close to Laughing Ghost effectively.
This is really not a blue card effect.
Seems about fine. As a "seer" this could have a class like Wizard or Shaman.
Currently only Chalisan Elder has more than
as generic mana in its mana cost - making this card's mana ability incredibly awkward to use.
Also this mana ability is redundant with Chalisan Elder - and once you reach three mana you are already at the top of the curve for Merfolk in this set.
Mana production is not a good ability concept for this card. Is this just about Fishing? How about some Fish token shenanigans?
> When ~ ETBs, create a 1/1 Fish creature token.
. If you do draw a card.
Whenever a Fish you control dies, you may pay
It would not be beyond reason to mix Merfolk and Fish tribal giving them a Fungus/Saproling relationship. That way a card like Titanic Flood could say "each creature that isn't a Fish or Merfolk".
"it has can't be" should be "it can't be". Your sentence is missing the period.
I assume I'll meet this guy in the recently updated story.
See also the comment on Pearlhunter Merfolk.
The "control" should be "cast".
The cost reduction effect alone is not enough to justify this at rare. See also Stonybrook Banneret, a common.
I certainly don't suggest adding landwalk to this, but it could be more exciting. I could imagine "Merfolk spells you cast and spells you cast that target Merfolk you control mcost
less to cast." at uncommon - the lost member of the Daru Warchief cycle.
Mechanically this card is fine. Design-wise it is troubling that cards that want jewel counters usually don't have a way to gain access to them.
Have you considered making Jewels something different than counters? I could imagine e. g. Equipment/artifact tokens.
This is miracle. Miracle needs a lot of rules framework and complicated wording to work. This wording does not accomplish that.
It's a nightmare to accomplish this without the keyword. Either make miracle a part of your set (in which case it should be on more than a single card) or find another execution.
Also quite a few wording issues e. g. alternative costs are worded differently.
that seems like a much cleaner card
Best part? it synergizes well with tunnelling. I'd splash it into a deck like that
I mean, I'm not feeling it. The complexity added doesn't seem that justified and it isn't playing into any 'plan' per se.
How about this?
>
> 2/5
> Deathtouch, menace
> Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player sacrifices a creature.
Some nice tensions there and it encourages different kind of plays from each player as well.
That is really good idea Tahaz.
Sorry for being terrible at following the dialogue. I get messed sometimes.
I think that idea is super mythical, so I'm not sure how I'd get something like that at rare.
I don't really have place for another mythic, and I definitely never envisioned this card at mythic rarity.
Would it be less powerful/flexible to say Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player sacrifices half the creatures they control, rounded up
It would be strnger against weenie decks, but most decks would suffer less, because a lot of decks wont have more than 10 creatures our on turn 6, also this ability would get worse, while the other one could be stronger because you could power it up, making them sac an ungodly amount of enemies
I'd still keep it a 5/2
Imagine it as a more spike-y Dire Fleet Ravager or Fleet Swallower
That's looking impresisve enough to maybe be mythic. Though in practice it'll usually just be "Ok, I guess I block it with these two things, they die, it dies." Which is probably fine.
Hmmm, what if one just were to run away with that idea?
>
> 5/2
> Trample
> Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, that player sacrifices that many creatures.
It was always "No point in NOT blocking it; with the creature I was gonna sacrifice; since that way I avoid the life loss."
Now, well, even more so - since the only way to sacrifice a small creature and avoid a LOT of lifeloss is to block with that small creature.
But it's also a lot more potential upside to the controller, if they can evade or grant trample or whatever, this could be pulling a lot of weight.
Just a shame it's so wordy to do it.
How this? I kept the cost because I figured this new effect was a bit more punishing. Which may have not been the problem, but also sort of solved the 'No point in blocking this' problem.