It doesn't say for free, so it isn't for free. I feel that exile has always been within whites comfort zone and yes manipulation of spells in this manor could be seen as a blue effect. Regardless I feel that it fits red/white well enough to be justified within a tribe. This card should probably be an uncommon but its still just a prototype. Could make the effect stronger and take away the re-castability of the exiled spell. That would make wording it easier and cleaner as well. Things to consider I suppose.
Well. Seems really strong and yet unreliable. Having 2 cards with the same name is rare (meaning that this won't happen a lot of the time, especially in draft). Now I have to ask, can you cast the spell or do you cast it for free?
Casting it for free is overpowered. It's a free spell, and you get a benefit. The "cost" of having the card in exile for a turn is negligible.
The ability to cast it while still paying the cost is still pretty powerful. It either locks you into using your next turn to cast the card or losing it(from not casting it).
I like the gumption on making the next big mechanic but it would need changing. Not to mention that this effect seems kinda blue to me. I realise that Abbot of Keral Keep did a similar thing but Abbot is mostly run in Blue/Red decks.
You could word it differently and have retreat be on non-creature things as well. kinda like how exalted is put on other things. That being said, it its for the red/white tribe, I really don't think the mechanic fits. Maybe if the ability it only triggerable when attacking, then it would. If you do that, it would be fair to have one target per retreat effect. Just some food for thought.
How so Izaac? First you need to take a bunch of instances of life loss, then this creature needs to die. Then you need to cast veteran general and if you change it back to have the -1 then all the tokens die. So it doesn't combo at all. Swarm is only for the number of +1/+1 counters on it not its power or what not. Maybe talk more about this tomorrow.
Yeah, players might be a little weirded out by dealing damage to their own creatures instead of their opponent. That could prove to be a major problem with the mechanic, but I'm not convinced that's a likely scenario. Especially not for our playgroup which I imagine would be hugely enfranchised players looking for a new experience.
But absolute worst case scenario everyone plays with this as a combat only mechanic, which should be fine.
Have you ever met an emu? They're the most "angry army person" animal there is. Crazy vicious.
But if you would prefer a different tribe that's fine, flavour really isn't my area.
Edit: Okay, I think I've approached this the wrong way, instead of trying to justify my decision I should be explaining my vision for this as a whole. I never intended for the ability to be mostly about dealing damage to your own creatures, that was just the most controversial part so it got talked about the most.
I'm thinking 3 or 4 combos at common, 1 twin bolt style card and some creatures that etb to ping something. 2 or 3 combos at uncommon, like a rolling thunder variant and a good ol' fashioned prodigal sorcerer.
This is worded strangely. Why can you use one creature with retreat to let a different creature with the same ability retreat. Also It's a little unclear.
Is this only meant to work one time each combat? If so I'd recommend "After blockers have been declared you may remove this creature from combat and untap it, you can only use one retreat ability each turn"
If you're allowed to retreat multiple times each turn "After blockers have been declared you may remove this creature from combat and untap it".
I can't imagine any functionality where this wording is correct.
2016-08-16 08:13:59:
Izaac
edited a mechanic in Rileria
It doesn't say for free, so it isn't for free. I feel that exile has always been within whites comfort zone and yes manipulation of spells in this manor could be seen as a blue effect. Regardless I feel that it fits red/white well enough to be justified within a tribe. This card should probably be an uncommon but its still just a prototype. Could make the effect stronger and take away the re-castability of the exiled spell. That would make wording it easier and cleaner as well. Things to consider I suppose.
Well. Seems really strong and yet unreliable. Having 2 cards with the same name is rare (meaning that this won't happen a lot of the time, especially in draft). Now I have to ask, can you cast the spell or do you cast it for free?
Casting it for free is overpowered. It's a free spell, and you get a benefit. The "cost" of having the card in exile for a turn is negligible.
The ability to cast it while still paying the cost is still pretty powerful. It either locks you into using your next turn to cast the card or losing it(from not casting it).
I like the gumption on making the next big mechanic but it would need changing. Not to mention that this effect seems kinda blue to me. I realise that Abbot of Keral Keep did a similar thing but Abbot is mostly run in Blue/Red decks.
NEW CARD, let me know what you think.
New card. Just overriding the old one to get it off the list.
Nice catch...
Card doesn't say where the +1/+1 counter go...
Alright I'll edit it down. Had to make sure that you couldn't consume the creature multiple times (without the legendary frog I made ofc)
Oh yeah. I meant for it to be an attack only thing. I'll reword it now.
Sorry I think I was meant to keep typing and got distracted. Can't remember what I was going on about so forget it.
You could word it differently and have retreat be on non-creature things as well. kinda like how exalted is put on other things. That being said, it its for the red/white tribe, I really don't think the mechanic fits. Maybe if the ability it only triggerable when attacking, then it would. If you do that, it would be fair to have one target per retreat effect. Just some food for thought.
How so Izaac? First you need to take a bunch of instances of life loss, then this creature needs to die. Then you need to cast veteran general and if you change it back to have the -1 then all the tokens die. So it doesn't combo at all. Swarm is only for the number of +1/+1 counters on it not its power or what not. Maybe talk more about this tomorrow.
Yeah, players might be a little weirded out by dealing damage to their own creatures instead of their opponent. That could prove to be a major problem with the mechanic, but I'm not convinced that's a likely scenario. Especially not for our playgroup which I imagine would be hugely enfranchised players looking for a new experience.
But absolute worst case scenario everyone plays with this as a combat only mechanic, which should be fine.
Have you ever met an emu? They're the most "angry army person" animal there is. Crazy vicious.
But if you would prefer a different tribe that's fine, flavour really isn't my area.
Edit: Okay, I think I've approached this the wrong way, instead of trying to justify my decision I should be explaining my vision for this as a whole. I never intended for the ability to be mostly about dealing damage to your own creatures, that was just the most controversial part so it got talked about the most.
I'm thinking 3 or 4 combos at common, 1 twin bolt style card and some creatures that etb to ping something. 2 or 3 combos at uncommon, like a rolling thunder variant and a good ol' fashioned prodigal sorcerer.
You don't need the "if the creature became exiled" rider. If a target no longer exists the ability will fizzle.
Try "Exile target creature card in a graveyard that died this turn, put x +1/+1 counters on this creature where x is that creatures power."
Sweet flavourtext btw.
This is worded strangely. Why can you use one creature with retreat to let a different creature with the same ability retreat. Also It's a little unclear.
Is this only meant to work one time each combat? If so I'd recommend "After blockers have been declared you may remove this creature from combat and untap it, you can only use one retreat ability each turn"
If you're allowed to retreat multiple times each turn "After blockers have been declared you may remove this creature from combat and untap it".
I can't imagine any functionality where this wording is correct.