The most common way the ability would be worded is with an intervening if-clause and the trigger condition in the beginning:
> At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control seven or more Children, draw a card.
Without intervening if-clause (you know, like what you have right now :) ) is also okay - it's a slight functional difference, but generally not an issue. (FYI: With the if-clause in the end you don't need the seven Children until the resolution of the ability e. g. you could put this on the stack and activate the ability in response to create the last Child - with an intervening if-clause you better have the seven Children before the upkeep even begins!)
More relevant though is that unless you have a good reason (usually to avoid ambiguity or something IDR) you put the trigger condition in the beginning - that way a player can parse the condition immediately and skip the rest if the condition is irrelevant to them (right now). It also helps to have the trigger signal word as early as possible in the ability ("When"/"Whenever"/"At" as the first word of the ability is great if all you want to know is whether the ability is affected by Panharmonicon).
Changed wording on the first part. I'm not sure if it should be what it is currently or "Draw a card at the beginning of each upkeep if you control 7 or more children." Also, drawing cards was a theme of this block (I used hand size to represent money), so that may be why this drew cards.
Changed wording on the first part. I'm not sure if it should be what it is currently or "Draw a card at the beginning of each upkeep if you control 7 or more children."
I never made anything about Eluim's setting clear. Well, it should be clear that Eluim is an artifact set, so a card interacting with artifacts makes sense. Lady Reomna created a device Lady Reomna's Petriwombto rapidly create children, attempting to develop one whose spark would ignite under forced duress in the petriwomb Abort Test. Lady Reomna was the wife of Reyles (the general of Eluim's military). Lady Reomna's petriwomb did work, but the planeswalker whose spark ignited Ialma, the Curious also destroyed the petriwomb, killing Lady Reomna.
Anyway, that's why Lady Reomna makes child tokens.
Those are some powerful children. They can go toe-to-toe with Imperial Lancers, presuming there are no dinosaurs around (though, admittedly, they lose fights to Sanctuary Cats.)
I'd use 0/1s. But I figure you already thought about that and decided 1/1 was fine.
Mmm, white is the army colour; so an ability that triggers on having an army of is reasonable. Children as a tribe is... kinda odd, but sure, ok. Here we have a child lord.
If anything, I'd question the second ability - it might do nothing; it might be affinity-for-artifact-child-army-doom.
It's not quite the same NWO problem as Samite Healer. There, the problem was that it could affect any of your opponent's creatures, and you had to run through every permutation. At least here you know that it's a straight-up +0/+2 to all your opponents' equipped creatures.
It's an interesting NWO problem. Technically, this is complexity creep. In practice, though, how often are you going to have two equipped creatures? I mean, yeah, that happens often enough. But maybe not enough for it to be a true complexity problem?
That said, I got to agree with SecretInfiltrator. "Equipped creatures get +0/+2" is a pretty easy fix...
Yeah, definitely a red flag for combat complexity and groundstallyness.
It's got a hoop to jump through, but once your sheep have jumped that fence (and you manage to stay awake) you've got a super-samite.
Still, blah blah, some proportion do need to exist with the red flag. It's just gonna be an annoying eye to keep out "All my equipment also grants +0/+2"
ability was too similar to (((Vocal Supporter)))'s, except this had no restriction and unnecessary drawback of not untapping during the next untap phase (or was that a stealth plus for Unfathomable Experiments?) New ability is top-downish but still going for the idea of the original card. The damage prevention is supposed to be clothes made from the sheep's wool preventing damage.
I would make the second ability cost 3UU without the tap. It will look nicer and there are very few times when you want to tap to mill instead of tap to draw cards. This lets you have both if you can afford it.
Hmm, I'll probably drop the damage on the second option to 3. 2 mana seems to hefty for the first option.
Would the following be an alternative way to word the card.
Choose 1:
•Deal 1 damage to target creature or player.
•Sacrifice an artifact. If you sacrificed an artifact this way deal 3 damage to target creature or player.
As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, you may sacrifice an artifact.
CARDNAME deals 1 damage to target creature or player. If you sacrificed an artifact to cast CARDNAME, it deals 4 damage to that creature or player instead.
Also I'd probably raise this to 2 mana or drop it to 3 damage.
The most common way the ability would be worded is with an intervening if-clause and the trigger condition in the beginning:
> At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control seven or more Children, draw a card.
Without intervening if-clause (you know, like what you have right now :) ) is also okay - it's a slight functional difference, but generally not an issue. (FYI: With the if-clause in the end you don't need the seven Children until the resolution of the ability e. g. you could put this on the stack and activate the ability in response to create the last Child - with an intervening if-clause you better have the seven Children before the upkeep even begins!)
More relevant though is that unless you have a good reason (usually to avoid ambiguity or something IDR) you put the trigger condition in the beginning - that way a player can parse the condition immediately and skip the rest if the condition is irrelevant to them (right now). It also helps to have the trigger signal word as early as possible in the ability ("When"/"Whenever"/"At" as the first word of the ability is great if all you want to know is whether the ability is affected by Panharmonicon).
Changed wording on the first part. I'm not sure if it should be what it is currently or "Draw a card at the beginning of each upkeep if you control 7 or more children." Also, drawing cards was a theme of this block (I used hand size to represent money), so that may be why this drew cards.
Changed wording on the first part. I'm not sure if it should be what it is currently or "Draw a card at the beginning of each upkeep if you control 7 or more children."
Yes, I do regret giving white a draw engine.
I never made anything about Eluim's setting clear. Well, it should be clear that Eluim is an artifact set, so a card interacting with artifacts makes sense. Lady Reomna created a device Lady Reomna's Petriwombto rapidly create children, attempting to develop one whose spark would ignite under forced duress in the petriwomb Abort Test. Lady Reomna was the wife of Reyles (the general of Eluim's military). Lady Reomna's petriwomb did work, but the planeswalker whose spark ignited Ialma, the Curious also destroyed the petriwomb, killing Lady Reomna.
Anyway, that's why Lady Reomna makes child tokens.
Yeah, not sure what I originally intended.
Those are some powerful children. They can go toe-to-toe with Imperial Lancers, presuming there are no dinosaurs around (though, admittedly, they lose fights to Sanctuary Cats.)
I'd use 0/1s. But I figure you already thought about that and decided 1/1 was fine.
Mmm, white is the army colour; so an ability that triggers on having an army of is reasonable. Children as a tribe is... kinda odd, but sure, ok. Here we have a child lord.
If anything, I'd question the second ability - it might do nothing; it might be affinity-for-artifact-child-army-doom.
The first ability is weirdly worded and atypical for white.
Beg your pardon?
It's not quite the same NWO problem as Samite Healer. There, the problem was that it could affect any of your opponent's creatures, and you had to run through every permutation. At least here you know that it's a straight-up +0/+2 to all your opponents' equipped creatures.
It's an interesting NWO problem. Technically, this is complexity creep. In practice, though, how often are you going to have two equipped creatures? I mean, yeah, that happens often enough. But maybe not enough for it to be a true complexity problem?
That said, I got to agree with SecretInfiltrator. "Equipped creatures get +0/+2" is a pretty easy fix...
Yeah, definitely a red flag for combat complexity and groundstallyness.
It's got a hoop to jump through, but once your sheep have jumped that fence (and you manage to stay awake) you've got a super-samite.
Still, blah blah, some proportion do need to exist with the red flag. It's just gonna be an annoying eye to keep out "All my equipment also grants +0/+2"
Well, what do you want now?
I wanted tap abilities on the cards, most likely.
continuumg provided you with the wording this card would have in the wild.
Any reason you want the modal version (which comes with some drawbacks)?
Vocal Supporrter and Whitewool Sheep also both deserve to be red-flagged with their activated abilities, so are not ideal commons.
Have you considered something static like "Other creatures you control get +0/+1." like a small Veteran Armorer?
ability was too similar to (((Vocal Supporter)))'s, except this had no restriction and unnecessary drawback of not untapping during the next untap phase (or was that a stealth plus for Unfathomable Experiments?) New ability is top-downish but still going for the idea of the original card. The damage prevention is supposed to be clothes made from the sheep's wool preventing damage.
Missing "Enchant creature" also modified the wording
upped toughness to 2 and fixed woriding
For each creature named ~ you control?
I would make the second ability cost 3UU without the tap. It will look nicer and there are very few times when you want to tap to mill instead of tap to draw cards. This lets you have both if you can afford it.
Reduced cmc by 1.
Hmm, I'll probably drop the damage on the second option to 3. 2 mana seems to hefty for the first option.
Would the following be an alternative way to word the card.
Choose 1: •Deal 1 damage to target creature or player. •Sacrifice an artifact. If you sacrificed an artifact this way deal 3 damage to target creature or player.
As an additional cost to cast CARDNAME, you may sacrifice an artifact. CARDNAME deals 1 damage to target creature or player. If you sacrificed an artifact to cast CARDNAME, it deals 4 damage to that creature or player instead.
Also I'd probably raise this to 2 mana or drop it to 3 damage.
correcred typo
dropped +0/+5 to +0/+2 and increased power by 1.
upped power by 1
typo clean-up