CPA Set - Finalize cards

[Mooseman]

OK I'll start this thing off (since my card is first in line and it was my idea)

Card Name: Abandon the Search
Color: W
Cost: 2W
Type: Enchantment
Pow/Tgh:
Rules Text: 2: Whenever a card is put into an opponent's graveyard, remove target card in that graveyard from the game.
Why would the term "Whenever" be included in an ability with an activation cost. My suggestion:
Whenever a card is put into an opponent's graveyard, you may pay 2. If you do, remove target card in that graveyard from the game.

Flavor Text:
Rarity: C
Artist:
Number: 1/186

This was my attempt at anti-dredge/GY recursion. I think that the rules text should be " Whenever a card is put into an opponent's graveyard, you may pay 2. If you do, remove target card in that graveyard from the game."

With the 2 mana cost to run this it shouldn't be able to be abused to easily and give the anti-dredge/recursion faction an other bit of ammunition.

Anyone else with any thoughts, yeah or nay?

 

[reco5151216]

Think it sounds like a fair card. But I know little.

 

[Ransac]

I agree with your re-wording. It just didn't make any sense before to have a paid activation cost for an optional ability.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Mooseman]

Okay then Card #1 done, let's move on:

Card Name: Ardent Altruist
Color: W
Cost: 1WW
Type: Creature - Human
Pow/Tgh: 5/6
Rules Text: Whenever a creature an opponent controls would be dealt damage, prevent one of that damage.
Flavor Text:
Rarity: C
Artist:
Number: 2/186

Should this be only combat damage or any damage? I'd go only for combat damage, this will stop things like Pestilence and the like. Is that what was meant?

 

[Limited]

I meant it to stop all damage; it makes it a bit more risky..

 

[Ransac]

I like Limited's intent best. It can make for some fun times.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Mooseman]

Ok, it stays as is. Card #2 is done

Card Name: Audacious Knight
Color: W
Cost: 1WW
Type: Creature - Knight
Pow/Tgh: 4/4
Rules Text: First Strike (This creature deals damage before creatures without First Strike.)
Whenever ~ attacks, defending player may put a creature card from his or her hand into play. If he does, that creature blocks ~ this turn if able.
Flavor Text:
Rarity: C
Artist:
Number: 3/186

I like this card, but should the opponent get to keep the creature they put into play? Maybe, sac it at EOT? or return it to owners hand?
The draw back is enormous early in a game, when I can drop a 6 or 7cc fattie when Audacious Knight attacks on turn 4.

 

[Limited]

Maybe it shouldn't have first strike? This doesn't leave a lot of creatures that your opponent can actually put into play..

So, we could consider making it a 4/4 without first strike..

Thoughts?

 

[DarthFerret]

I like that idea. Get rid of the first strike, raise the toughness by one, and leave the opponents creature in play. It is a risky manuever, but could be used well in a discard based theme.

 

[Ransac]

I disagree. I think that the first strike works well with the card.



Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[DarthFerret]

I think if you leave the first strike, then the opponents creature should be returned to thier hand (I do not think it should be sac'ed, or RFG)

 

[Ransac]

Why does it have to sac, return, OR remove from game? Why not just have the creature coming into play blocking, end of story? It may or may not survive. Suppose there's a Blasoderm in hand. Suppose there's a Nekrataal in hand? Suppose there's a Dwarven Pony in hand.

Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Limited]

Dwarven P-p-p-pony??!! I hadn't thought of that.

But I actually missed Moosemans proposal to not leave the opponents' creature in play; I am totally against that! I really like the idea that, if an opponent does have a creature that can kick your Knights ass, he should be rewarded by keeping it.

I just figured that it already quite easy to break by playing a lot of instant removal and discard, allowing for some swift beating down. Changing it to a 4/4 without first strike, means that an opponent gets the opportunity to chump with a 2/2 and finish it with a shock. Plus, it makes the card itself less vunerable (by changing its toughness from 3 to 4) outside of combat, but by removing first strike it becomes more vunerable during combat..

 

[Ransac]

It may be easy to break with discard, but it's white. You'd have to combine enemy colors to achieve that. Adding another color to break a card doesn't warrant a fix to me, at least not right now in this stage.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[Mooseman]

How about making it a 4/4 with first strike?

 

[Limited]

Deal.
4/4 first strike.
If it turns out to be overpowered, we'll know during playtesting.

 

[Mooseman]

Card Name: Courier Spirit
Color: W
Cost: 1W
Type: Creature - Spirit
Pow/Tgh:
Rules Text: Flying (This creature can't be blocked except by creatures with flying.)
Target opponent gains control of ~: Gain five life
1/1

Flavor Text:
Rarity: C
Artist:
Number: 4/186

I think we agreed to change this to:
W: Target opponent gains control of ~: Gain five life

Gaining 5 life for 3 is great deal and this will be a staple in all white decks..... Is that a bad thing? No, It's a good thing......

 

[Ransac]

Eh, I like the original wording. It kinda plays off of that "self-inflict" idea we were tossing around.


Ransac, cpa trash man

 

[DarthFerret]

I still think the second wording is better. There should definately be the W cost to perform it. Other than that I like it!

 

[Mooseman]

Eh, I like the original wording. It kinda plays off of that "self-inflict" idea we were tossing around.

I'm missing the self-inflict part of this..... but, then I am dense at times. Basically the original wording would be:
0: Target opponent gains control of ~: Gain five life

The change would be to require W as a cost. Otherwise both players would just keep giving each other control of the creature and gain 5 life...... seems like an infinate loop, well not really, but the game could go on and on and on...........