| Card Name Reinterpretations: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Title |
|
CardName: Puppet Master #2 Cost: 1U Type: Creature - Human Wizard Pow/Tgh: 1/1 Rules Text: {T}: If you control no Puppets, put a 1/1 artifact creature called Puppet onto the battlefield. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Card Name Reinterpretations None |
History: [-] Add your comments: |
: If you control no Puppets, put a 1/1 artifact creature called Puppet onto the battlefield.
But the token isn't a puppet, it's just named Puppet. Also, shouldn't a puppet master be able to manipulate more than one puppet at a time? This is more of a puppet amateur.
"This is more of a puppet amateur."
That's a short story just waiting to be written...
I would like to see that story :)
And, you know, it's not a "puppets master" :)
I'm not sure of the problem with a name. All vanilla 1/1 creatures have different names and the same mechanics, we accept that some of them are rats and some of them are humans...?
That said, I'd forgotten Puppet Conjurer, so it might be nicer to continue the homunculus theme. In fact, this card probably needs to be more different from that one.
Sorry, I was critiquing the templating. Should be "put a 1/1 Puppet artifact creature token onto the battlefield."
Ah, sorry, you mean, "puppet should be a creature type, not a name"? That makes sense. But magic doesn't usually make one-off creature types any more, that's why I chose to name it (which would be unexceptional as a creature but unusual as a token). I thought having "puppet" in there was necessary, but now I think I was wrong, I think I could go with a construct or homunculus type instead.