The wither effect is problematic for the same reason -1/-1 counters in general have fallen from favor these dies. Renaming the counter doesn't help at all.

The idea of making the creatures worse to have around seems interesting, but I also feel the -1/-1 effect and the life gain prevention work against each other here.

Would it be maybe better to have a Soul Bleed token instead?

• Fudgeblight (Damage by this creature creates Blight Status on creatures. Enchanted creature's controller can't gain life. At the beginning of that player's upkeep, they lose 1 life.)

More close to the original:

• Fudgeblight (Damage by this creature creates a Blight Status token on creatures. Enchanted creature gets -1/-1 and its controller can't gain life.)

I feel the life better ties together things thematically, and no -1/-1 keeps the 'blighted' creature around to annoy its controller. But at the very least a rule that keeps the "wither" effect to a single -1/-1 per creature might remove some tension from the mechanic.

I got some ideas how these could be used as a cost on your own cards which make it so that Food could power up cards. With that in mind, might something like 'yeast' counters be more appropriate? Would fit with the flavour I think (pun not intended) and while having generally negative associations, could also be seen as beneficial depending on the context.

That also makes me think that 'Thallid' could make an unique appearance here? Dunno.

For example:

> Yeast Thallid
> Creature — Fungus
> At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put an yeast counter on ~. If you do, create a 1/1 green Saproling creature token. (Each yeast counter gives a creature -1/-1.)
> 3/2

Here I kept it so that it can naturally only keep one counter, so that Food usage is likely to spill into life gain, which makes enemy putting these counters on your stuff still relevant.

While I like the general direction, I'm not sure about the extent of this. I got some 'backlash' for just a single common with this mechanic in my set: Estranged Bride. So including it as a set mechanic that completely shuts down the major mechanic of the set seems rather extreme.

Could something like this work?

> Fudgeblight (This creature deals damage to creatures in the form of blight counters, which each give a creature -1/-1. If a player would gain life, they instead [first] remove that many blight counters from among permanents they control.)

It's more interactive and adds a new angle/focus to all that life gaining. It's however even more wordier and also can increase board complexity when Foods can be sacced at instant-speed.

Removing these counters is generally more preferable to gaining life, but I could see nasty cards placing bunch of these counters on noncreature permanents such as lands.

Btw, the set already has jam counters which are quite complicated themselves. I would be wary about including numerous different counters with these sort of mechanics. Even with just these blight counters alone, I would still recommend removing any usage of +1/+1 counters from the set.

You're right!

The keyword has been changed: Now no more creating additional Zombies, but rather preventing opponent's lifegain. So it's basically Infect, but instead of poisoning your opponent, they just can't gain life.

This represents how Fudgeblight corrupts and crumbles Food.

Changed the Dimir archetype "Fudgeblight" ability: Instead of creating a 2/2 Zombie token when a creature with a blight counter on it dies, a player simply can't gain life as long as they control a creature with a blight counter on it.

I thought this'd fit better with all the lifegain going on in the set by other colors, plus there are already a lot of tokens being created by other cards and abilities.

The keyword seems rather complex. Does it really represent the setting? It looks to be indirectly falling for the problem of 'no +1/+1 and -1/-1 in the same block environment issue' I think. Additionally, this seems to be etching on the sort of Sengir Vampire ability issue where tend to play in a rather disappointing manner since they are dependent on your opponent letting them to trigger.

Can easily cost a single and/or be an instant IMO.

Perhaps "Put a +1/+1 counter on up to one target creature" ?

Afaik, you currently can't cast this if there are no creatures on the battlefield - and similarly might be forced to give an enemy creature a +1/+1 counter to ramp out given you have no creatures yourself to target.

Why is this white? Chain Reaction