Lusterang Errant-P/T? I'll assume it is a 1/1. Immortality definitely seems white, while blue generally likes to redefine what immortality is. That said, the functional differences between this and say, Gustcloak Runner are very small. That said, there is a certain flavor to this.
Tinsteel Automation 4
Artifact Creature - Golem
~ gets +1/+1 and flying as long as you control a blue permanent.
~ gets +1/+1 and haste as long as you control a red permanent.
2/2
It is all but impossible to separate how much a transgender might be so due to outside influences (such as social norms) or internal influences (such as genes). Correction, it would be possible but likely unethical. It's ultimately a matter of concern of whether anyone should have any control over whom, or how, you choose to love someone. I say no.
Sheer Crowd- for flavor concerns, why does this card look for a source, as opposed to a creature? A creature would feel more "crowd"y. Likewise, I get the feeling there is some rather nasty way to break this card if its a "source". As it stands, I would just change it to a creature.
Waking Spiritguide 2UU
Creature- Human Mystic 2/2
You may choose not to untap ~ during your untap phase.
T, Discard a card from your hand: Put a 2/2 spirit token with flying into play. If ~ becomes untapped, remove it from play.
Wording issues on the second ability. Also concerned about balance. Should the spirit be bigger but grounded...or is it fine as is?
Courier - might want to playtest it, although I think it might be better to cost it at 1U. It does help filter lands out of your hand after all and it can always attack. (1U at 1/2 maybe). Faeries and merfolk seem to be very blue in the MTG universe. Spirits as well. I'd have to see the set.
Vinetrellis Powder 1G
Enchant Creature
~ may only enchant creatures with flying.
Whenever enchanted creature attacks, its controller sacrifices it.
Discard a land card from your hand: Put ~ from the graveyard into your hand.
Several issues. Wordings, as always. But is this card green? I was thinking it might be G/B but I'm not sure. The idea of the card, is that this powder hangs in the air and causes creatures which fly through it to lose it essentially.
Floral Overbloom- This is a very slow way to generate mana or to destroy over lands. Why not make it require only 2 flower counters plus that you control if any lands are destroyed or not. So you can combo pretty well. I mean, if someone destroys this, the counters are useless without another enchant in play. Or perhaps, it could destroy those lands if they became tapped (sort of like they explode as they give too much energy at once?)
Power Cascade 3UU
Instant
Choose any number of counters in play, and remove the rest from the game. You may redistribute the chosen counters over any number of target permanents in play.
Wording issues are usually my biggest problem. I also have no idea how to cost it. Perhaps if its too weak/strong I could just make it swap around counters you control at sorcery speed. Maybe it just needs a cost adjustment?
Seems weak, surprisingly. Tolarian Winds rarely ever say play itself, and it was an instant in a color that perhaps was landscrewed or what have you more often. Especially since this card lets your opponent do the same. The problem of course is that you lose a card from your hand to do this. Perhaps a "Draw a card." or two after all that?
Oakenmage Adept 1GG
Creature-Elf 1/2
1G, T, Sacrific a forest: Put a 3/3 green treefolk token into play tapped.
Simple card, though I don't know if he is too powerful or not. I'm working on his bigger cousin.
Necra Battle Mage - The first kicker seems fine, nothing extraordinary. I actually think the second ability should be buffed. The stat bonuses are not that impressive considering the additional cost, and BG doesn't seem to suggest flying or haste. Make it a bit beefier perhaps, like +5/+5 and trample. It may seem a bit much but this guy can only be played at sorcery speed anyway.
Phantasm (testname) 3UU
Creature- Phantom 2/1
1U, T, Discard a card from your hand: Put a token into play that is an exact copy of Phantasm.
1U: Phantasm can't be the target of spells or abilities.
I agree, the question could be made more complex, but i think VC had some wisdom here (:D), ultimately it comes down to whether or not it should be included altogether.
No, it doesn't. That almost nullifies Tapper's post. I really don't care at all if creationism is taught in a history class but in a science class I care a huge deal. It doesn't ultimately come down to this at all.
The American public can never understand how senators can appear to have seemingly contradictory stances on the same issue. The answer is that the senate is like its own little game. Sometimes a senator may vote on a bill with very little knowledge of what it is (which happens fairly often, given the volume of stuff the senate sees), or might vote based on who was on the committee that looked at it, may not like specific details of it, may be part of a deal to get other legislation of theirs passed, etc. None of which can be covered in any 2 minute spot in a debate. We value experience yet it often opens up candidates to attacks over their past voting records ("flip-flopping" ring a bell?). It's better for a candidate to NOT have senatorial experience I think or be just barely in (as Obama is).
I can agree with this...but ONLY if they don't have children. It seems really awful to me that some parents just smoke around their kids who are not old enough to choose whether or not they want to take up this awful habit and lose so many years off their lives.
Why don't we just ban alcohol in homes with children too since the "violent, abusive alcoholic dad" stereotype can't exist without alcohol?
Parents have a lot of control of their children and rightly so. They can opt to home school, expose them to racist ideology, and let them do a lot of things we might not look at favorably. Not only would you run into problems enacting such a law (it would be extremely unpopular) but it would be extremely hard to enforce. And if you eliminate the home, where are smoking parents supposed to go if they can't even smoke outside their homes?!
It happened before you even posted that....lol There wasnt really any other outcome for a thread like this was there?
Like most people on smoking related threads, I didn't read the thread before posting *sad face*
@ Bryspoon/Evil Duck: That is why scientific is in quotation marks.
What does it matter if someone is a smoker or not? It should be legal anyway (and marijuana too, but that is a different matter). Yes, its a tremendously non-productive and unhealthy thing to do to yourself but the government really shouldn't have a say on that. I mean sugar, alcohol, salt, etc. are all substances you can ingest that are harmful to yourself after all.
But, that "secondhand smoke". Aw, at least in the privacy of your own home, that is your own business. What other spheres you may be allowed to perpetuate your smoke is an issue entirely for the other thread.
*dons Third eye*
I'm sure the usual people who point out the "scientific" evidence that marijuana smoke is more hazardous than tobacco smoke will show up. In which case it will be countered by comparing marijuana to alcohol in terms of short-term effects. Someone will mention prohibition and how well that worked and then thread will end.
*removes third eye*
Tinsteel Automation 4
Artifact Creature - Golem
~ gets +1/+1 and flying as long as you control a blue permanent.
~ gets +1/+1 and haste as long as you control a red permanent.
2/2
Waking Spiritguide 2UU
Creature- Human Mystic 2/2
You may choose not to untap ~ during your untap phase.
T, Discard a card from your hand: Put a 2/2 spirit token with flying into play. If ~ becomes untapped, remove it from play.
Wording issues on the second ability. Also concerned about balance. Should the spirit be bigger but grounded...or is it fine as is?
Vinetrellis Powder 1G
Enchant Creature
~ may only enchant creatures with flying.
Whenever enchanted creature attacks, its controller sacrifices it.
Discard a land card from your hand: Put ~ from the graveyard into your hand.
Several issues. Wordings, as always. But is this card green? I was thinking it might be G/B but I'm not sure. The idea of the card, is that this powder hangs in the air and causes creatures which fly through it to lose it essentially.
Power Cascade 3UU
Instant
Choose any number of counters in play, and remove the rest from the game. You may redistribute the chosen counters over any number of target permanents in play.
Wording issues are usually my biggest problem. I also have no idea how to cost it. Perhaps if its too weak/strong I could just make it swap around counters you control at sorcery speed. Maybe it just needs a cost adjustment?
Oakenmage Adept 1GG
Creature-Elf 1/2
1G, T, Sacrific a forest: Put a 3/3 green treefolk token into play tapped.
Simple card, though I don't know if he is too powerful or not. I'm working on his bigger cousin.
Phantasm (testname) 3UU
Creature- Phantom 2/1
1U, T, Discard a card from your hand: Put a token into play that is an exact copy of Phantasm.
1U: Phantasm can't be the target of spells or abilities.
It's been a while, I don't remember my wordings.
No, it doesn't. That almost nullifies Tapper's post. I really don't care at all if creationism is taught in a history class but in a science class I care a huge deal. It doesn't ultimately come down to this at all.
Why don't we just ban alcohol in homes with children too since the "violent, abusive alcoholic dad" stereotype can't exist without alcohol?
Parents have a lot of control of their children and rightly so. They can opt to home school, expose them to racist ideology, and let them do a lot of things we might not look at favorably. Not only would you run into problems enacting such a law (it would be extremely unpopular) but it would be extremely hard to enforce. And if you eliminate the home, where are smoking parents supposed to go if they can't even smoke outside their homes?!
Like most people on smoking related threads, I didn't read the thread before posting *sad face*
@ Bryspoon/Evil Duck: That is why scientific is in quotation marks.
What does it matter if someone is a smoker or not? It should be legal anyway (and marijuana too, but that is a different matter). Yes, its a tremendously non-productive and unhealthy thing to do to yourself but the government really shouldn't have a say on that. I mean sugar, alcohol, salt, etc. are all substances you can ingest that are harmful to yourself after all.
But, that "secondhand smoke". Aw, at least in the privacy of your own home, that is your own business. What other spheres you may be allowed to perpetuate your smoke is an issue entirely for the other thread.
*dons Third eye*
I'm sure the usual people who point out the "scientific" evidence that marijuana smoke is more hazardous than tobacco smoke will show up. In which case it will be countered by comparing marijuana to alcohol in terms of short-term effects. Someone will mention prohibition and how well that worked and then thread will end.
*removes third eye*