I 100% agree that this card isn't all that flashy for a rare, and thought the same thing when I made it. This is one I for sure want to come back to. I really want this card to feel like a mythical creature that is hunted to near extinction.
The initial idea was to completely overload it with on-death effects and then create a hunter token for your opponent. I ran out of in color/flavor ways to generate value off of this card though.
I'll keep workshopping this one to add more effects and give an opponent a creature.
This card was actually the first suggestion of a friend who is now participating. That being said, we both facepalmed when we realized what you said is 100% true. Updated card to reflect this, although it feels a little weak now.
Although I can see this flavored black, I think it still fits my identity for white well. White in this set is about the law, sheriffs, prisons, and in this case, executions. I think the art might be throwing a black vibe. I want white to have some cheap conditional removal, but with the exile theme, this might not be necessary. I'll workshop this card a bit more.
Hi Tahazzar, good catches here. I just wanted to get out a really ugly sketch of this walker before I forgot. These are all good syntax suggestions, and I'll be sure to add them soon.
Hi Tahazzar, I initially chose 6 because it's a reference to the 6 billion double dollar bounty on Vash's head. You are right that this is an obscenely good sac engine target though. It's also susceptible to abuse through the legend rule, which makes me nervous. I want the main use of the card to be a value on sacrifice target, so maybe I'll bump this to 5 or 6 mana.
That seems pretty nutty, like compare it to, idk, say Darksteel Myr. A 1/1 indestructible for that cost is already quite good and bounty 6 is incredibly powerful. Say you play this on turn 3, sac it with some sac engine and next turn you can play some 9 or 10 drop.
I would suggest making it and lowering the bounty to 4.
These types of plus loyalty abilities tend to be worded as "Up to one target" so that they can be used even when there isn't a target for them. This seems especially notable as it would not only prevent increasing the 'walker's loyalty but also prevent the generation of treasure tokens.
-3 needs to specify the source that deals damage.
Should the ultimate grant those Bandits haste? It seems a bit weird to drop a bunch of them and then take two combat phases without attacking with them (unless some of them have haste).
As a general note, subtypes, such as "Bandit", should be capitalized in rules texts.
That wording doesn't work - the fought creature doesn't die during the resolution of the card but rather after it because of (lethal) damage as a state-based effect. See Time to Feed as an example of how in one way this can be handled.
While this is a strong card, it has none of the "flashiness" nor complexity of a rare. I would suggest uncommon, and would also be tempted to test it out at common to see if it's even an issue there.
That seems like an impenetrable defender, especially at common in limited. Maybe make it "As long as the equipped creature is attacking, it gets +4/+0 and has first strike"?
Increased mana cost
Updated Rules text for clarity.
I 100% agree that this card isn't all that flashy for a rare, and thought the same thing when I made it. This is one I for sure want to come back to. I really want this card to feel like a mythical creature that is hunted to near extinction.
The initial idea was to completely overload it with on-death effects and then create a hunter token for your opponent. I ran out of in color/flavor ways to generate value off of this card though.
I'll keep workshopping this one to add more effects and give an opponent a creature.
This card was actually the first suggestion of a friend who is now participating. That being said, we both facepalmed when we realized what you said is 100% true. Updated card to reflect this, although it feels a little weak now.
Equipped creature now only gets effect when attacking, and lowered equip cost by one.
Another good catch here. Simple fix, updated rules text to be a bit more clear.
Updated Rules text for clarity.
Although I can see this flavored black, I think it still fits my identity for white well. White in this set is about the law, sheriffs, prisons, and in this case, executions. I think the art might be throwing a black vibe. I want white to have some cheap conditional removal, but with the exile theme, this might not be necessary. I'll workshop this card a bit more.
Hi Tahazzar, good catches here. I just wanted to get out a really ugly sketch of this walker before I forgot. These are all good syntax suggestions, and I'll be sure to add them soon.
Hi Tahazzar, I initially chose 6 because it's a reference to the 6 billion double dollar bounty on Vash's head. You are right that this is an obscenely good sac engine target though. It's also susceptible to abuse through the legend rule, which makes me nervous. I want the main use of the card to be a value on sacrifice target, so maybe I'll bump this to 5 or 6 mana.
That seems pretty nutty, like compare it to, idk, say Darksteel Myr. A 1/1 indestructible for that cost is already quite good and bounty 6 is incredibly powerful. Say you play this on turn 3, sac it with some sac engine and next turn you can play some 9 or 10 drop.
I would suggest making it
and lowering the bounty to 4.
These types of plus loyalty abilities tend to be worded as "Up to one target" so that they can be used even when there isn't a target for them. This seems especially notable as it would not only prevent increasing the 'walker's loyalty but also prevent the generation of treasure tokens.
-3 needs to specify the source that deals damage.
Should the ultimate grant those Bandits haste? It seems a bit weird to drop a bunch of them and then take two combat phases without attacking with them (unless some of them have haste).
As a general note, subtypes, such as "Bandit", should be capitalized in rules texts.
That wording doesn't work - the fought creature doesn't die during the resolution of the card but rather after it because of (lethal) damage as a state-based effect. See Time to Feed as an example of how in one way this can be handled.
While this is a strong card, it has none of the "flashiness" nor complexity of a rare. I would suggest uncommon, and would also be tempted to test it out at common to see if it's even an issue there.
That seems like an impenetrable defender, especially at common in limited. Maybe make it "As long as the equipped creature is attacking, it gets +4/+0 and has first strike"?