Community Mashup Set: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
CardName: Firecat Mascot Cost: {2}{R} Type: Creature - Cat Flagbearer Pow/Tgh: 2/2 Rules Text: Flagbearer Whenever Firecat Mascot takes damage from a source other than a creature, that source deals 2 damage to target player. Flavour Text: Mew? {Boom} {Argh!} Mew? {Boom} {Argh!} - Goblin Marching Song Set/Rarity: Community Mashup Set Rare |
History: [-] |
Chandra's Outrage + Soul of the Machine
Wow; the jump from 3 to 4 damage is expensive, isn't it? (Even including a discount for a random 2 damage to the fod)
So a straight up zap spell, and an artifact punishment. (Which is itself already a mash)
And had to restart; so now I've got Albino Pride-Master in the neighbouring window. Hmm. A cat-lord bannerette.
Well; red DOES get to destroy artifacts directly, so the obvious mash is either Electrostatic Bolt or Detonate. Which kinda already exist.
Red never really got a gloomalike; its hosers were land destruction/nerfing.
So let's go with the "Shoot me and I shoot you back" part.
And ugh; flagbearer text is flyspeck3, isn't it.
I hereby declare "While choosing targets as part of casting a spell or activating an ability, your opponents must choose at least one Flagbearer on the battlefield if able." to be reminder text, and thus safe to omit from a rare.
omit "reminder text"
No, I think the Flagbearer rule is somewhat necessary.
A rare such as this uncommon?
I can see the argument that Boldwyr Intimidator's static ability should be reminder text. Not so sure about the flagbearer text, but eh.
Yeah, it's particularly notable that 3 damage goes as low as 1 mana, and has many variations at 2 mana, but 4 damage only even gets to be 3 mana if it's all red (Flame Javelin), otherwise it needs a drawback (Char).
Hm. Wizards changed the walls rule from a creature type to a keyword. I think it's a bad idea if, eg. shapeshifters automatically have to carry around the flagbearer rules or coward-warrior rules...
I know, I know. But the rules text got reralllly tiny; so allow me this indulgence for the sake of the flavour text :)
And; uh, I thought I made this rare. My bad.
Apart from that; is the card ok?
You're right, sorry, we should actually look at the card and not just quibble about templating :)
Yeah, that looks pretty good to me. I don't know about strength, but it's probably fine, since people are probably going to not cast spells until they can kill it with one.
I assume it might change between "is dealt non-creature damage" or "is dealt non-combat damage" or "becomes the target of a spell or ability" since they're all approximately equivalent.
Well, I was thinking also the red player can abuse it a bit; dealing it one point of damage to amplify that into two to a player (or just using it to convert creature-only damage to player damage, since creature-only tends to be cheaper) but you can't convert much that way without slapping on a Slagwurm Armour or similar; so it seemed like it would be "Fun, maybe, if you can pull it off" rather than obviously abusive.
Actually, not to drag away from the card anymore than needed, I don't see a problem with Flagbearer being a keyword like Defender. I sure as heck didn't see the fact that this card was a Flagbearer on first pass or second pass.
Kind of strange when you think about it... I know I've had this discussion before on Multiverse where I'd prefer creatures that punish other players for doing something by dealing damage to be white... it makes double-sense with flagbearers. The idea wouldn't work for many people, though.
But it should at least be a keyword, if not spelled out. I didn't even check the creature type until you mentioned it; if it's not in the rules box, it's not relevant!
Well; it WAS on the card until the first edit; where it moved to the comment; but sure. Can probably fit one line for a keyword.