So the intention is to hit opponents, how should that be worded?
I'm guessing something "Each opponent chooses two. A player may select the same modes as another player, but can't select the same mode twice themselves" would alleviate the issue of worrying about modes already chosen.
The name will be changed when the rest of the card is changed.
It doesn't hit opponents. It only makes opponents choose. Big difference.
I also notice that I missed that there is no text allowing an opponent to choose a mode already chosen - the modal template requires a lot of effort to be made to work like Torment of Hailfire. Which is why Torment of Hailfire doesn't use it.
Concept- those who dream and never work to make their dreams reality upset that others grow around them.
I like sets having cards that contradict or oppose themes in the set. However, I wonder if this may be too pushed, and the ability should require a payment of or when the trigger occurs.
Removed ",: For each player, look at the top two cards of their library, put one into their graveyard and the other on the bottom of their library. If a non-creature card was put into a graveyard this way, ~ becomes a Scout UEOT. If a creature card was put into a graveyard this way, ~ becomes Rogue UEOT. Whenever ~ attacks, you pay . If you do, exile target card from a graveyard and gain 3 life." Was a 2 drop 2/2. Effectively a new card.
Early on in this design, I forgot one key feature- this is supposed to be the green mythic for both Scouts and Citizens, not Rogues. I feel the ability does not reflect Citizens of Washikow in any way. A new design must take the place of this card.
I thought the semi-Fatesealing (Fateseal-inspired? Fateseallike?) ability felt mythic. The problem was making the creature fell green. Green can exile cards from the graveyard. We don't want a strictly better Scavenging Ooze, so I thought lifegain would be okay. The trigger was forced, when it could just have been an activated ability like Scooze though.
Mill and draw are at the core of Rogues for this set. This was a top-down design. Compared to the cards you mentioned (I was not aware of them and did not research before making this card), I would gladly alter stats to have this card be fine. Heck, I think it could be 2/2 right now, since the upside is small and conditional.
Yeah, I didn't know what a good Wizard bonus was that wasn't burn, because burn gets boring. Adding mana is in the Shaman area this set area too, being the only other thing I thought of.
I hate how much of the word count is used to temporarily change the creature type of this - and then the card itself doesn't even use it.
The abilities are also at odds with one another - you'd need vigilance or something to both use the attack trigger and the activated ability in the same turn cycle.
If this at least had "Then untap ~ if it is a Rogue Scout", except that's a pay-offfor a still very convoluted setup.
I also don't see this as mythic. The attack trigger is less impressive than what Scavenging Ooze does, especially since it is an attack trigger. And the activated ability would be scary (beyond what I would advise) if it could fateseal, but basically milling two cards, but you don't get to mill them both is really, really unimpressive.
On the flavor-front it's also not clear why a Lorekeeper is a Rogue Scout rather than e. g. a Druid Shaman.
The card has many ideas that don't really come together for me.
Fixed wording, thanks dude1818
"For each opponent, that player chooses two -
That player sacrifices a creature.
That player discards a card.
That player loses 3 life."
"[-1]: Exile a land from a graveyard. If you do, add ." to "[+1]: Exile target card from a graveyard. If a land card was exiled this way, add ."
So the intention is to hit opponents, how should that be worded?
I'm guessing something "Each opponent chooses two. A player may select the same modes as another player, but can't select the same mode twice themselves" would alleviate the issue of worrying about modes already chosen.
The name will be changed when the rest of the card is changed.
It doesn't hit opponents. It only makes opponents choose. Big difference.
I also notice that I missed that there is no text allowing an opponent to choose a mode already chosen - the modal template requires a lot of effort to be made to work like Torment of Hailfire. Which is why Torment of Hailfire doesn't use it.
The upside is that it only hits opponents. It's basically Torment of Hailfire fixed at X=2
Name's taken though: Grief
So in a four-player free-for-all you just lose 18 life?
Shouldn't there be an upside?
Concept- those who dream and never work to make their dreams reality upset that others grow around them.
I like sets having cards that contradict or oppose themes in the set. However, I wonder if this may be too pushed, and the ability should require a payment of or when the trigger occurs.
I considered just having Warriorwork (see Victorious Strike ) on this instead of the conditional damage to the creature's controller.
Removed ",: For each player, look at the top two cards of their library, put one into their graveyard and the other on the bottom of their library. If a non-creature card was put into a graveyard this way, ~ becomes a Scout UEOT. If a creature card was put into a graveyard this way, ~ becomes Rogue UEOT. Whenever ~ attacks, you pay . If you do, exile target card from a graveyard and gain 3 life." Was a 2 drop 2/2. Effectively a new card.
Early on in this design, I forgot one key feature- this is supposed to be the green mythic for both Scouts and Citizens, not Rogues. I feel the ability does not reflect Citizens of Washikow in any way. A new design must take the place of this card.
I thought the semi-Fatesealing (Fateseal-inspired? Fateseallike?) ability felt mythic. The problem was making the creature fell green. Green can exile cards from the graveyard. We don't want a strictly better Scavenging Ooze, so I thought lifegain would be okay. The trigger was forced, when it could just have been an activated ability like Scooze though.
Mill and draw are at the core of Rogues for this set. This was a top-down design. Compared to the cards you mentioned (I was not aware of them and did not research before making this card), I would gladly alter stats to have this card be fine. Heck, I think it could be 2/2 right now, since the upside is small and conditional.
Yeah, I didn't know what a good Wizard bonus was that wasn't burn, because burn gets boring. Adding mana is in the Shaman area this set area too, being the only other thing I thought of.
That Wizard bonus feels really weird.
Unimpressive next to Pulse Tracker and Thornbow Archer.
Is that a theme for black/Rogues in this set?
I hate how much of the word count is used to temporarily change the creature type of this - and then the card itself doesn't even use it.
The abilities are also at odds with one another - you'd need vigilance or something to both use the attack trigger and the activated ability in the same turn cycle.
If this at least had "Then untap ~ if it is a Rogue Scout", except that's a pay-offfor a still very convoluted setup.
I also don't see this as mythic. The attack trigger is less impressive than what Scavenging Ooze does, especially since it is an attack trigger. And the activated ability would be scary (beyond what I would advise) if it could fateseal, but basically milling two cards, but you don't get to mill them both is really, really unimpressive.
On the flavor-front it's also not clear why a Lorekeeper is a Rogue Scout rather than e. g. a Druid Shaman.
The card has many ideas that don't really come together for me.
2 life to 3 life