First draft of what's probably an impossible card - a five color planeswalker that isn't broken. Was going to make it useable as your commander as well, but theres enough text already. Also played around with giving 5 loyalty abilities but again, room.
Initial thoughts?
The reason Dance of Many doesn't copy tokens is because the oldest wordings were very terrible and the errata/Oracle text reflects a reproduction of its function rather than its fundamental concept.
Design is form and function. Just reproducing the form without understanding the purpose is weak design. The form is a result of old rules/minds not handling it to well if a Dance of Many token becomes a copy of another Dance of Many token. Since this new design does explicitly aims to eliminate "token creation shenanigans" the whole reason "nontoken" would be introduced into the wording is gone.
It's now a form without purpose.
To avoid accidentally copy-pasting wrong cardnames it is advisable to use ~ rather than cardnames. The character is automatically replaced with the name of the current card in rules text.
You correctly put the enchantment type into the "except" clause of the copy-ability, because you realize copying would overwrite the card's types otherwise. You seem to miss that the copying also overwrites abilites.
The triggered ability defining the upkeep cost would be overwritten as this becomes a copy. It should also be moved into the "except"-clause.
Dance of Many can't copy token creatures, which I think is why Camruth left non-token on his version of the card ("Choose target creature card" infers that the Dance can only target things that are cards.)
I think what Camruth was trying to say is that he streamlined Dance of Many. Instead of DoM making a token creature that's a copy of something, and the enchantment or the token going away if their counterpart hit the bin, which meant that with the copy trigger on the stack that you could get a bonus creature with a well-timed Boomerang or Time Elemental activation... instead of that unintuitive madness, the enchantment becomes a copy of the creature. Which is pretty normal now, but cards changing types wasn't a thing in The Dark.
Though, for what it's worth, I'd probably get rid of non-token on Dance of Forms. I understand wanting to keep the enchantment as close to the original as possible, but this is just a clause that will trip people up for no clear advantage.
Two editing notes: "You" isn't capitalized. And the second paragraph reads "Dance of Many" instead of "Dance of Forms".
Is "nontoken" really necessary? Cloning a token will usually not be any more problematic - they are more often than not the easier thing to copy.
The first ability is worded as a replacement effect and those cannot target; hence "target creature" should be "any creature on the battlefield" following the lead of granddaddy Clone.
I can see it working; kinda wants a different graident shading to reflect it's mostly green and only a bit white.
Has worse memory problems than it looks like though; usually you would exile the plains underneath it to remind you - but land gets stacked like that anyway, so you could easily accidentally make from this - by forgetting that the plains is exiled.
Not even 'forgetting'.
On the downside - it's pretty specialised, isn't it? If you've got a way to untap a small number of lands, it's useful. Otherwise, just plaing a forest instead seems to be just as good?
So... is that assymetry intentional where this always produces at least one green mana? I'm not on the up and up with the set's themes. Is that playing into it?
First draft of what's probably an impossible card - a five color planeswalker that isn't broken. Was going to make it useable as your commander as well, but theres enough text already. Also played around with giving 5 loyalty abilities but again, room.
Initial thoughts?
OK I think this is all formatted correctly now
The reason Dance of Many doesn't copy tokens is because the oldest wordings were very terrible and the errata/Oracle text reflects a reproduction of its function rather than its fundamental concept.
Design is form and function. Just reproducing the form without understanding the purpose is weak design. The form is a result of old rules/minds not handling it to well if a Dance of Many token becomes a copy of another Dance of Many token. Since this new design does explicitly aims to eliminate "token creation shenanigans" the whole reason "nontoken" would be introduced into the wording is gone.
It's now a form without purpose.
To avoid accidentally copy-pasting wrong cardnames it is advisable to use ~ rather than cardnames. The character is automatically replaced with the name of the current card in rules text.
You correctly put the enchantment type into the "except" clause of the copy-ability, because you realize copying would overwrite the card's types otherwise. You seem to miss that the copying also overwrites abilites.
The triggered ability defining the upkeep cost would be overwritten as this becomes a copy. It should also be moved into the "except"-clause.
Dance of Many can't copy token creatures, which I think is why Camruth left non-token on his version of the card ("Choose target creature card" infers that the Dance can only target things that are cards.)
I think what Camruth was trying to say is that he streamlined Dance of Many. Instead of DoM making a token creature that's a copy of something, and the enchantment or the token going away if their counterpart hit the bin, which meant that with the copy trigger on the stack that you could get a bonus creature with a well-timed Boomerang or Time Elemental activation... instead of that unintuitive madness, the enchantment becomes a copy of the creature. Which is pretty normal now, but cards changing types wasn't a thing in The Dark.
Though, for what it's worth, I'd probably get rid of non-token on Dance of Forms. I understand wanting to keep the enchantment as close to the original as possible, but this is just a clause that will trip people up for no clear advantage.
Two editing notes: "You" isn't capitalized. And the second paragraph reads "Dance of Many" instead of "Dance of Forms".
Is "nontoken" really necessary? Cloning a token will usually not be any more problematic - they are more often than not the easier thing to copy.
The first ability is worded as a replacement effect and those cannot target; hence "target creature" should be "any creature on the battlefield" following the lead of granddaddy Clone.
a rough try at reducing the complexity of Dance of Many by eliminating the token creation shenanigans.
yes its specialised, was just playing around with an idea though, not a 'finished' card by any standard.
I can see it working; kinda wants a different graident shading to reflect it's mostly green and only a bit white.
Has worse memory problems than it looks like though; usually you would exile the plains underneath it to remind you - but land gets stacked like that anyway, so you could easily accidentally make
from this - by forgetting that the plains is exiled.
Not even 'forgetting'.
On the downside - it's pretty specialised, isn't it? If you've got a way to untap a small number of lands, it's useful. Otherwise, just plaing a forest instead seems to be just as good?
This is not a set, just a dump for random ideas that may make their way into a set in the future or may not.
So... is that assymetry intentional where this always produces at least one green mana? I'm not on the up and up with the set's themes. Is that playing into it?
It needs to say "untapped Forest or untapped Plains" then to avoid ambiguity
whatever land you exile has to be untapped
you cut down the forest to make a plain then you replant the plain with trees to make a forest - simple
So the Forest has to be untapped, but the Plains doesn't?
That doesn't seem like new growth to me.
turned into a DFC obviously
because its been done before? Plus it was just an idea that i didn't want to forget
Why not "
: Add 
, 
, or 
."?
looks cleaner that way, thanks
You don't need the 'face up under this card' for the ability to work.