|
CardName: General Feng Cost: {3}{R} Type: Legendary Creature - Horse Human Pow/Tgh: 2/4 Rules Text: After combat, if General Feng dealt combat damage to a player, reduce that players life to a maximum of 10. Flavour Text: For Pony! -- Richard (Warlock) Set/Rarity: Multiverse Design Challenge Rare |
History: [-] Add your comments: |
For Challenge # 060:
Pony! Max HP debuff, small AOE, easy to solo, using leech life.
Um, I may be slightly obsessed with an mmo ;) But fine, it's a resource. Reduce max hp... that's actually a really interesting idea for a creature. I've not seen one that does that. Very nice for an aggro deck. Let's go with that. Was thinking red-green from the colours; but we'll go pure red. And I eschew creature type Centaur. cmc... let's say.. 4?
random flavourtext was: --Nature enlightens even the lion Although her kitten is mightier than even the drug – Cinyma Quounve Sagemind
Forget that; I'm mocking an mmo; let's draw on "Looking for group"
The max 10 is a bit like Sorin Markov but I agree it should also be on a red creature, I like it a lot.
I'm not sure when it's balanced, but this seems plausible: if you're doing well, you hopefully need this on turn 5, but if you've stalled out the first few turns, this can suddenly put you back in the game.
It's like the other half of Hidetsugu's Second Rite :)
Um. The heretofore unsuspected existence of the rite makes me think "Oh, crap. Probably need to change the number then."
But maybe this is a case where I should let people live the dream. It's a "Two card and they couldn't block or counter" combo. So maybe it's safe?
It's good to consider, but I think it's fine. The two cards will only coexist in modern, and they both cost four, and if it's too good wizards have already shown themselves willing to ban modern combos which are too good. And as you say, just the tantalising possibility is awesome :)
I find it strange you would think this is good for an aggro deck. Looks to me that you want this to be for a mid-range deck that doesn't plan to swing until round 5. But, yeah, cool card. I'm not sure what happens to an opponent who got hit by this and was at 20. Are they at 10 now, or 8? I'm pretty sure that's a solvable problem, though. Maybe trigger at end of combat.
Mm; yeah, I guess "At end of combat" is the most sensible way to do it.
And, uh, I guess my aggro decks are a lot less aggro than yours. (Even assuming no blocks: T2 19, T3 16, T4 12... So a turn 5 10 isn't missing the curve by much. Actually; I wonder if I could re-word this to make it 'their maximum life is 10'; which would hit, um, the zero healing decks out there. Never mind.)
I think the current wording takes you to 10: I think "if" is equivalent to "when", so the trigger happens after the damage. But I agree making that obvious would be a lot better, and avoid some feel-bad: I think I feel disappointed if this takes them to 10, even if that's quite good.
explicitly make it happen after combat; to prevent "But it goes to 10 and then hits you for 2 so you're on 8!" style arguments.
"After combat" isn't even a trigger condition.
Players who are used to seeing lots and lots of triggers on their cards, as Del Laugel has noted is a deliberate trend, will have no problems understanding "Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, if that player's life total is greater than 10, that player's life total becomes 10." They might add a reminder of (The life total changes after damage is dealt.) if it's meant for a core set or something, but that's how the ability would be phrased.