this is a very interesting card. it interacts more with non green or red, is all. eg. Shrink doesnt really shrink it. eg. can be equipped on 0/1. eg. defenders are usually white or blue and they usually have higher toughness than power. eg. morphling -like creatures could be very deadly, as if they weren't tough to kill already.
Among other things, "+X/+0 where X is its toughness" won't take things like +1/+1 counters into account, which plays poorly.
The simple solution is to make it optional: "You may have equipped creature assign combat damage equal to its toughness instead of its power." Then you'll simply choose to take advantage of that option when it makes more sense--which almost always overlaps with what this is trying to say.
@Link: Is the problem that the card asks you to build a deck around it, then denies you that opportunity? Because I can see how that would bug a number of Johnnies.
Perhaps this card would be better served if it said "Equipped creature gets +X/+0, where X is equal to its toughness" and was priced accordingly. That would still give you a chance to build around it, but not make the card useless if you put it on a creature with higher power than toughness.
Yeah, I think I'll have it be a "Build around me" type card.
It's just Doran, the Siege Tower: The Equipment.
I liked the simplicity of your original version better, Angel.
this is a very interesting card. it interacts more with non green or red, is all. eg. Shrink doesnt really shrink it. eg. can be equipped on 0/1. eg. defenders are usually white or blue and they usually have higher toughness than power. eg. morphling -like creatures could be very deadly, as if they weren't tough to kill already.
Among other things, "+X/+0 where X is its toughness" won't take things like +1/+1 counters into account, which plays poorly.
The simple solution is to make it optional: "You may have equipped creature assign combat damage equal to its toughness instead of its power." Then you'll simply choose to take advantage of that option when it makes more sense--which almost always overlaps with what this is trying to say.
@Link: Is the problem that the card asks you to build a deck around it, then denies you that opportunity? Because I can see how that would bug a number of Johnnies.
Perhaps this card would be better served if it said "Equipped creature gets +X/+0, where X is equal to its toughness" and was priced accordingly. That would still give you a chance to build around it, but not make the card useless if you put it on a creature with higher power than toughness.
So why add that last clause? It seems like it makes things too easy.
Yeah, you never see Space Pirates alone.
That sounds excellent.
Cannot attack alone?
Hmm. What would you suggest? I don't want to make it exactly like Nezumi Cutthroat, though that's probably what would make the most sense.
Nezumi Cutthroat thought this needed a slight drawback. Given the 2/2 version is
(Severed Legion) rather than 
, I think that's probably right.
This doesn't let it block creatures with flying, does it?
Eh, It's mainly supposed to be a weapon. Walls are fairly rare, so destroying them isn't very useful.
I don't know. There's not really precedent. I'm not sure if "~ can block creatures that can't be blocked" works or not.
I meant instead of doing what it does, rather than in addition.
I don't think there's room to add that ability, the card is a bit squished as it is.