Amused to Death - Why even bother with a qualifier at all. You have a may; "Whenever you clash, you may have the winning player lose 2 life." Somebody, somewhere, may want to make themselves lose the life. Why stop them?
Cup of Wonder - Looks tame, but good overall.
Jack-In-The-Green - I think this would be red in the modern color pie. You're sacrificing long term resources (your graveyard and threshold) in order to get a short term benefit (mana), which I think Wizards has been trying to shift over to red.
Okay, people, winning clash is not as hard as people think, particularly against the control decks with the high cost cards. You should outright win roughly 1 in 4 times.
Many of the best decks are playing 25+ lands (Sonic Boom, Mannequin, Pickles). If you're playing truly aggressive red, you're probably running about 23 (maybe less). This means, just on the strength of lands being revealed, you'll have at worst a 37/144 chance of automatically winning in these matches. This is a little over 25%. Factor in actual cards and it goes up to roughly 1 in 3.
So, you can reasonably expect to win the clash one game in every match.
But it gets better!
Roughly one in three clashes you lose are going to be to revealing a land card. As you plan to be playing aggro, dumping a land off the top of the deck will be a good play a reasonable majority of the time. It's hard to assign a good number to "a reasonable majority," so I'll just go with 50% of the time you will be glad to ship that land off.
Aggro decks are far more draw dependent than control ones; control decks happen to run card drawing spells with the explicit purpose of making the top deck a bit less critical, something red aggro does not. It can reasonable be assumed then that you are benefiting more from the clash in the early game than your opponent in aggro on control.
So, taken as a whole, an aggro deck will benefit noticeably from playing a clash creature on turn 2 roughly 50% of the time. The other 50% they will simply end up with a 2 power goblin for 2, which isn't inspiring but also doesn't suck.
So, take your pick as to how ineffective Clash is.
Hive Salvage :2mana::symb::symb:
Tribal Enchantment - Sliver
All Slivers have ":symtap:, Sacrifice this permanent: Return target Sliver card from your graveyard to play." "We found that killing one was the easy part. Keeping it dead, now; that was quite a bit harder. - Merrik Aidar, Benalish Patrol
Next: Vast challenge again!! Nahh, just kidding. Take a random creature card and somehow adjust it so that it can now be a non artifact creature. Use abilities, flavor, anything. BTW Animated artifacts ala Darksteel Brute are not acepted.
Er... do you mean to take a random creature and produce a non-creature artifact? Because as is, it's not making a lot of sense to me...
(Oh, and sorry for the super hard to random up thingie. I'd just gotten about ten different green sorceries before prompting for it...)
Teachings of the Firemind
Legendary Artifact
Whenever you draw a card, ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
:symu::symr:, :symtap:: Draw a card. It has a foreword written by the guildmaster himself; coincidentally, the rest of the book was cut in editting.
Next: Take a random creature and make a Legendary version of it.
Okay, so I've been bouncing around ideas for mechanics, and the idea that's most interesting me at the moment is one I call Mindbreak. So far, I've concepted three different versions of it that are only loosely related, but I'd appreciate some feedback on them to see which people like most.
First Version: Mindbreak N - (When you play this spell, any player may discard a card with converted mana cost N or more. If they do, counter this.)
And alternative would be to make it Mindbreak N - [EFFECT] and just make it "If they do, [EFFECT]" instead of "If they do, counter this." The plus side of this is that it really increases that whole "player interactivity" thing, which I like. The downside is that, well, it's a drawback. Keywording a drawback doesn't seem like super fun happy times to me, particularly since I'd want it to show up at common.
Second version: Mindbreak N - (As an additional cost to play this spell, you may discard a card with converted mana cost N or more. If you do, put a copy of this spell on the stack. You may choose new targets for the copy if applicable.)
Same deal with an alternative (Mindbreak N - [EFFECT], and replace copy with [EFFECT]), although I'd prefer the copy in this case. My main issue with this is A) Inherent card disadvantage in using it and B) Would it make sense at common? A) shouldn't be so bad since the copying will either make up for the card loss (think: copying a destroy effect) or do what I like most about this version, which is encourage you to think in terms of short term tempo vs. long term card advantage. I think it would be okay at common, but I want some feedback on that. Things I like about this version: Super reverse compatible. All kinds of things like to be discarded, put into the graveyard, or played with large graveyards.
My third version is the one I like the least, but I came up with it while trying to think about ways to get around card disadvantage while keeping the spirit of the mechanic.
Version Three: Mindbreak N - (As an additional cost to play this spell, reveal the top card of your library. If it has a converted mana cost N or higher, put a copy of this spell on to the stack. You may choose new targets for the copy if applicable.)
Obvious alternative with [EFFECT], of course. I don't like how this fails to play with the graveyard, but I do like how it feeds off the top card of the library, which is somewhat reverse compatible and relatively unexplored design space.
Anyways, just want some feedback on the mechanics. If I'm way off base on all three and they're all stupid, feel free to let me know that, too. Mechanics are definitely my weakest point for card design, and I'm always looking for some good advice on them.
Seryss, Hivemistress :symw::symu::symb::symr::symg:
Planeswalker - Seryss
+1: Put a 1/1 colorless Sliver creature token into play.
-2: Search your library for a Sliver card, reveal that card, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
-8: Until end of turn, all Sliver creatures get +1/+1 for each other Sliver in play.
Loyalty: 7
Depends on whether you want to abuse it with something like Meekstone. Also, -1/-1 still kills things based on toughness with the original wording.
Your wording should work fine, but switching power and toughness is almost the same and much simpler.
I don't actually think his wording does work. At least, not without some extensive revamping. It doesn't matter what you assign damage "to." A creature goes to the graveyard as a state based effect when the total damage assigned to it is equal to or greater than its toughness. I mean, you could edit that game rule on the card, but then it loses the symmetry of the abilities since it would not be phrased at all similar. =/
EDIT: Just saw the clarification.
"Each creature with power less than its toughness becomes X/X, where X is that creature's toughness.
Each creature with toughness less than its power becomes X/X, where X is that creature's power."
You could always aim for less clever and more works...
"Switch each creature's power and toughness."
Wording should actually work, since that's what Mannichi does until end of turn. May need to add a qualifier to clarify the ability, like "As long as ~ is in play, switch each creature's power and toughness."
Well, "good" is relative and whatnot. All I know is I'd like to see it in Limited. ; )
Coalition Pathmage :1mana::symw::symu:
Creature - Fox Wizard
:symtap:: Target creature with power less than the number of basic land types among lands you control is unblockable and gets +1/+1 for each basic land type you control until end of turn.
1/1
Next: Make a Tribal card using a random creature for the type and a random noncreature card for the effect.
Against the Odds 3WGG
Legendary Enchantment (R)
If a creature you control would be put into a graveyard from play as a result of combat damage, instead put a +1/+1 counter on it.
I'm not even sure there is a way to word this that would work under the current rules. The combat damage doesn't put the creatures into a graveyard; statebased effects put the creature into play as a result of having an amount of damage (generic, it isn't tracked after the fact if it's combat or not) equal to its toughness. Not only that, but this creates some nasty loops, although that may be intended (Your 1/1 blocks a 4/4. It would die, but instead gets a +1/+1 counter and becomes 2/2. Then it would still die, since the damage was never removed, and gets a +1+/1 counter instead. This will repeat until it gets 5 toughness and stops dying).
Saurian Roar :1mana::symr:
Tribal Instant - Lizard
Target creature can't block this turn.
Lizardcopy (When you play this spell, put a copy of it on the stack for each Lizard you control.) Even the bravest of men tremble when Old Chomper roars.
Flametongue Frenzy :1mana::symr:
Tribal Enchantment - Kavu Aura
Enchant Kavu
When Flametongue Frenzy comes into play, it deals damage equal to enchanted creature's power to target creature.
Enchanted creature gets +1/+0.
Stir the Storm
:symu::symu:
Instant
When Stir the Storm is put into your graveyard from play, return it to your hand.
Cycling :1mana::symu:, Discard a card
Maybe I'm missing something here. How does an Instant trigger a "goes to graveyard from play" ability? It can't even exist in play.
Cup of Wonder - Looks tame, but good overall.
Jack-In-The-Green - I think this would be red in the modern color pie. You're sacrificing long term resources (your graveyard and threshold) in order to get a short term benefit (mana), which I think Wizards has been trying to shift over to red.
Enchantment
If you would draw a card, draw two cards instead.
Whenever you draw a card, you lose one life.
Many of the best decks are playing 25+ lands (Sonic Boom, Mannequin, Pickles). If you're playing truly aggressive red, you're probably running about 23 (maybe less). This means, just on the strength of lands being revealed, you'll have at worst a 37/144 chance of automatically winning in these matches. This is a little over 25%. Factor in actual cards and it goes up to roughly 1 in 3.
So, you can reasonably expect to win the clash one game in every match.
But it gets better!
Roughly one in three clashes you lose are going to be to revealing a land card. As you plan to be playing aggro, dumping a land off the top of the deck will be a good play a reasonable majority of the time. It's hard to assign a good number to "a reasonable majority," so I'll just go with 50% of the time you will be glad to ship that land off.
Aggro decks are far more draw dependent than control ones; control decks happen to run card drawing spells with the explicit purpose of making the top deck a bit less critical, something red aggro does not. It can reasonable be assumed then that you are benefiting more from the clash in the early game than your opponent in aggro on control.
So, taken as a whole, an aggro deck will benefit noticeably from playing a clash creature on turn 2 roughly 50% of the time. The other 50% they will simply end up with a 2 power goblin for 2, which isn't inspiring but also doesn't suck.
So, take your pick as to how ineffective Clash is.
Tribal Enchantment - Sliver
All Slivers have ":symtap:, Sacrifice this permanent: Return target Sliver card from your graveyard to play."
"We found that killing one was the easy part. Keeping it dead, now; that was quite a bit harder. - Merrik Aidar, Benalish Patrol
Er... do you mean to take a random creature and produce a non-creature artifact? Because as is, it's not making a lot of sense to me...
(Oh, and sorry for the super hard to random up thingie. I'd just gotten about ten different green sorceries before prompting for it...)
Niv-Mizzet, the Firemind (Almost too easy)
Teachings of the Firemind
Legendary Artifact
Whenever you draw a card, ~ deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
:symu::symr:, :symtap:: Draw a card.
It has a foreword written by the guildmaster himself; coincidentally, the rest of the book was cut in editting.
Next: Take a random creature and make a Legendary version of it.
First Version: Mindbreak N - (When you play this spell, any player may discard a card with converted mana cost N or more. If they do, counter this.)
And alternative would be to make it Mindbreak N - [EFFECT] and just make it "If they do, [EFFECT]" instead of "If they do, counter this." The plus side of this is that it really increases that whole "player interactivity" thing, which I like. The downside is that, well, it's a drawback. Keywording a drawback doesn't seem like super fun happy times to me, particularly since I'd want it to show up at common.
Second version: Mindbreak N - (As an additional cost to play this spell, you may discard a card with converted mana cost N or more. If you do, put a copy of this spell on the stack. You may choose new targets for the copy if applicable.)
Same deal with an alternative (Mindbreak N - [EFFECT], and replace copy with [EFFECT]), although I'd prefer the copy in this case. My main issue with this is A) Inherent card disadvantage in using it and B) Would it make sense at common? A) shouldn't be so bad since the copying will either make up for the card loss (think: copying a destroy effect) or do what I like most about this version, which is encourage you to think in terms of short term tempo vs. long term card advantage. I think it would be okay at common, but I want some feedback on that. Things I like about this version: Super reverse compatible. All kinds of things like to be discarded, put into the graveyard, or played with large graveyards.
My third version is the one I like the least, but I came up with it while trying to think about ways to get around card disadvantage while keeping the spirit of the mechanic.
Version Three: Mindbreak N - (As an additional cost to play this spell, reveal the top card of your library. If it has a converted mana cost N or higher, put a copy of this spell on to the stack. You may choose new targets for the copy if applicable.)
Obvious alternative with [EFFECT], of course. I don't like how this fails to play with the graveyard, but I do like how it feeds off the top card of the library, which is somewhat reverse compatible and relatively unexplored design space.
Anyways, just want some feedback on the mechanics. If I'm way off base on all three and they're all stupid, feel free to let me know that, too. Mechanics are definitely my weakest point for card design, and I'm always looking for some good advice on them.
Draw Attention :1mana::symg::symg:
Sorcery
Convoke
All creatures able to block target creature this turn do so.
Next: Take three different instant or sorcery cards from the same color and make a charm out of them (as in Piracy Charm or Midnight Charm)
Planeswalker - Seryss
+1: Put a 1/1 colorless Sliver creature token into play.
-2: Search your library for a Sliver card, reveal that card, and put it into your hand. Then shuffle your library.
-8: Until end of turn, all Sliver creatures get +1/+1 for each other Sliver in play.
Loyalty: 7
I don't actually think his wording does work. At least, not without some extensive revamping. It doesn't matter what you assign damage "to." A creature goes to the graveyard as a state based effect when the total damage assigned to it is equal to or greater than its toughness. I mean, you could edit that game rule on the card, but then it loses the symmetry of the abilities since it would not be phrased at all similar. =/
EDIT: Just saw the clarification.
"Each creature with power less than its toughness becomes X/X, where X is that creature's toughness.
Each creature with toughness less than its power becomes X/X, where X is that creature's power."
That looks vaguely like it works.
"Switch each creature's power and toughness."
Wording should actually work, since that's what Mannichi does until end of turn. May need to add a qualifier to clarify the ability, like "As long as ~ is in play, switch each creature's power and toughness."
Well, "good" is relative and whatnot. All I know is I'd like to see it in Limited. ; )
Coalition Pathmage :1mana::symw::symu:
Creature - Fox Wizard
:symtap:: Target creature with power less than the number of basic land types among lands you control is unblockable and gets +1/+1 for each basic land type you control until end of turn.
1/1
Next: Make a Tribal card using a random creature for the type and a random noncreature card for the effect.
I'm not even sure there is a way to word this that would work under the current rules. The combat damage doesn't put the creatures into a graveyard; statebased effects put the creature into play as a result of having an amount of damage (generic, it isn't tracked after the fact if it's combat or not) equal to its toughness. Not only that, but this creates some nasty loops, although that may be intended (Your 1/1 blocks a 4/4. It would die, but instead gets a +1/+1 counter and becomes 2/2. Then it would still die, since the damage was never removed, and gets a +1+/1 counter instead. This will repeat until it gets 5 toughness and stops dying).
Tribal Instant - Lizard
Target creature can't block this turn.
Lizardcopy (When you play this spell, put a copy of it on the stack for each Lizard you control.)
Even the bravest of men tremble when Old Chomper roars.
Next: Nightmare!
Tribal Enchantment - Kavu Aura
Enchant Kavu
When Flametongue Frenzy comes into play, it deals damage equal to enchanted creature's power to target creature.
Enchanted creature gets +1/+0.
Next: Rat!
Maybe I'm missing something here. How does an Instant trigger a "goes to graveyard from play" ability? It can't even exist in play.