": Target illusion." is absolutely hilarious. I reluctantly concede it probably shouldn't be printed, but it's cool :) For that matter, it could say "Target illusion gets +3/+3 and gains flying UEOT" and it would be funny :)
I gave it flying which does indeed make sense. Was thinking of a card somewhat like this: Grounded in Reality Target Illusion loses flying and isn't an Illusion until end of turn. Very specific though so maybe "target creature loses flying and the Illusion subtype UEoT" would be better. For the blue on blue matches
Target mounted mount, mounts another target mounted mounts mount. Buffalo. Also slightly odd that as a mount it's no longer a griffin; but you probably don't want to end up with flyspeck in the sutbytpe line too...
I didn't comment; but I do like the idea of creature combinations like this. Don't like the flyspeck effect it has on the cards, don't like dual faced cards... but do like the idea. The basic fiddliness is a bit of a turn off though for a fairly minimal improvement.
Last comment: A mount can hide underneath another creature temporarily in order to evade a killspell. That's pretty odd.
Looks good to me. To be technical, though, if Mount is an enchantment subtype, it is unlikely to also be a creature subtype. I don't see much value in making the creature side a 'Griffin Mount'... unless you have specific rules about Mounts not Mounting mounts. Oh... actually, that could make sense...
You could have it as Enchantment - Aura Mount. Then you could have the nifty Mount Trainer: "Mounted creatures you control get..." and/or "Search your library for a Mount card..."
I agree, this is as good a plan as any. I assume that Wizards knows how much people would appreciate mounts, and they're just waiting for the perfect mechanic before they do it.
I was going to suggest making Mount a different card type on the back, so you could say "Mount - Griffin", since they feel like they don't want to use creature or enchantment to get things done. I wonder if "Enchantment - Mount" instead of Aura, would be acceptable. For this mechanic only, I wish 'enchantments' were really 'enhancements', so that 'Enhancement - Mount' came out naturally.
I like this concept of mounts. Most of them I suspect will be better left as standalone creatures, although the unattachment replacement removes a lot of the risk (if it works in the rules). But nonetheless, great implementation.
"
: Target illusion." is absolutely hilarious. I reluctantly concede it probably shouldn't be printed, but it's cool :) For that matter, it could say "Target illusion gets +3/+3 and gains flying UEOT" and it would be funny :)
I gave it flying which does indeed make sense.
Was thinking of a card somewhat like this: Grounded in Reality Target Illusion loses flying and isn't an Illusion until end of turn.
Very specific though so maybe "target creature loses flying and the Illusion subtype UEoT" would be better. For the blue on blue matches
Two notes:
Shouldn't this card have flying? Most illsuions fly...
I can't resist suggesting a line like "
: Target illusion."
may have to mount as a sorcery ???
Target mounted mount, mounts another target mounted mounts mount. Buffalo. Also slightly odd that as a mount it's no longer a griffin; but you probably don't want to end up with flyspeck in the sutbytpe line too...
I didn't comment; but I do like the idea of creature combinations like this. Don't like the flyspeck effect it has on the cards, don't like dual faced cards... but do like the idea. The basic fiddliness is a bit of a turn off though for a fairly minimal improvement.
Last comment: A mount can hide underneath another creature temporarily in order to evade a killspell. That's pretty odd.
well, we could allow mounts to mount mounts but that could result in some STRANGE looking babies so yeah, that's where I was headed.
Looks good to me. To be technical, though, if Mount is an enchantment subtype, it is unlikely to also be a creature subtype. I don't see much value in making the creature side a 'Griffin Mount'... unless you have specific rules about Mounts not Mounting mounts. Oh... actually, that could make sense...
Kinda somewhat like this ? Making mount a new enchantment subtype? Left it as an enchantment so it doesn't need too many new rules.
You could have it as Enchantment - Aura Mount. Then you could have the nifty Mount Trainer: "Mounted creatures you control get..." and/or "Search your library for a Mount card..."
I agree, this is as good a plan as any. I assume that Wizards knows how much people would appreciate mounts, and they're just waiting for the perfect mechanic before they do it.
I was going to suggest making Mount a different card type on the back, so you could say "Mount - Griffin", since they feel like they don't want to use creature or enchantment to get things done. I wonder if "Enchantment - Mount" instead of Aura, would be acceptable. For this mechanic only, I wish 'enchantments' were really 'enhancements', so that 'Enhancement - Mount' came out naturally.
I like this concept of mounts. Most of them I suspect will be better left as standalone creatures, although the unattachment replacement removes a lot of the risk (if it works in the rules). But nonetheless, great implementation.