That red activated ability is so out of line. Two mana repeatable removal on an already really efficient creature with another mass removal ability and evasion?
The non-Druid version is already better than Rampant Growth, which itself is on the top end of the effect - sometimes replaced with strictly worse versions.
As such this seems to be placed well at three mana.
I suppose if you wanted, you could make it even more obsequious by saying something like 'non-Juggernaut' or 'non-Wall', or whatever other creature suits your fancy. It's going to catch changelings all the same.
I am updating this and other cards in the set to be non-Shapeshifter. That won't really affect play for this set and should cancel out worries about changeling most of the time (since that would make thoose interactions require at least a third card).
The mere fact that it's even possible to scry your entire deck means this shouldn't be printed, imo. Caring about number of creature types should only be used for bounded results
As a side note, there are abilities that don't go out of control (usually) when you scale them. Give a creature +0/+X, for example, is meaningful when it's the difference between +2 or +3, but doesn't wig out at +261 without shenanigans. Likewise with exiling cards from a single player's graveyard, or put a +1/+1 counter on up to X target creatures. There's more.
I think you're right that in the grand scheme of things, this might not see play in tier-one 60-card land. Maybe not until people are already main decking against lots of legitimate flying threats. (Combo-control decks are admittedly funny and might play this combo out on turn 12 to win the game. But it's a maybe.) I'm also pretty sure it would be banned anyways, for the same reason that Shahrazad andSensei's Divining Top is banned. It's rife for abuse when intentionally stalling in a tournament. But that's only important if that bothers you. Like I said, I like the card. And if it works within the internal logic of your set, then I don't see a problem with it.
It's 1 damage now. My head wasn't where my fingers were while typing the edit description.
": 2 damage to a creature" to ": 2 damage to any target" (edit description here trimmed for convenience)
That red activated ability is so out of line. Two mana repeatable removal on an already really efficient creature with another mass removal ability and evasion?
Also the edit notes say " reduced to ",but it now costs .
A cost of or seems right.
Misspelled berserker
reduced to
added "in addition to its other types"
Honestly unsure what to cost because 1U seemed too high but U too low, so I tacked on flash and hoped for the best.
The non-Druid version is already better than Rampant Growth, which itself is on the top end of the effect - sometimes replaced with strictly worse versions.
As such this seems to be placed well at three mana.
Is three the right mana value for this, or should it be two?
I suppose if you wanted, you could make it even more obsequious by saying something like 'non-Juggernaut' or 'non-Wall', or whatever other creature suits your fancy. It's going to catch changelings all the same.
Non-Shapeshifter. Very clever. ;)
added non-Shapeshifter clause to avoid changeling issues.
added the non-Shapeshifter to avoid changeling problems
I am updating this and other cards in the set to be non-Shapeshifter. That won't really affect play for this set and should cancel out worries about changeling most of the time (since that would make thoose interactions require at least a third card).
The mere fact that it's even possible to scry your entire deck means this shouldn't be printed, imo. Caring about number of creature types should only be used for bounded results
As a side note, there are abilities that don't go out of control (usually) when you scale them. Give a creature +0/+X, for example, is meaningful when it's the difference between +2 or +3, but doesn't wig out at +261 without shenanigans. Likewise with exiling cards from a single player's graveyard, or put a +1/+1 counter on up to X target creatures. There's more.
I think you're right that in the grand scheme of things, this might not see play in tier-one 60-card land. Maybe not until people are already main decking against lots of legitimate flying threats. (Combo-control decks are admittedly funny and might play this combo out on turn 12 to win the game. But it's a maybe.) I'm also pretty sure it would be banned anyways, for the same reason that Shahrazad andSensei's Divining Top is banned. It's rife for abuse when intentionally stalling in a tournament. But that's only important if that bothers you. Like I said, I like the card. And if it works within the internal logic of your set, then I don't see a problem with it.