CPA Set - Modification/Delete/Add

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
Let's list the changes we think should be made to the set.


Fluttering Butterflies (2/2 "Flying. Prevent all combat damage attacking creatures would deal to <THIS>. Whenever <THIS> blocks, lose life equal to it's power.")

Change to 1BG and 2/1 as a common or uncommon?

I think the added mana cost (1BG) and that it only works as a blocker may keep it common, but the 2/1 change makes it to vulnerable to Tims.
 

DarthFerret

Evil Sith Weasel
ok...my opinion....1BG and 2/2 = uncommon.

1BG and 2/1 = common.

It all really depends on which way you want to go. Who was the originator of this card?
 

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
DarthFerret said:
ok...my opinion....1BG and 2/2 = uncommon.

1BG and 2/1 = common.

It all really depends on which way you want to go. Who was the originator of this card?
Me. :eek:
 

Limited

Yes, but we won't care
I think, independent of its manacost, the ability makes it an uncommon. He can block anything without dying, and might kill the attacker as well. This costs you two life each time, but you are probably preventing more by blocking.

Considering that it is a flyer in green/black (both colors not renowed for their efficient small flying creatures) I think that being very susceptable to removal isn't that odd. And 2/1 or 2/2 doesn't make a lot of difference to most removal anyway (it might prove a bit more important in limited play).

So why 2/1? It feels more like an insect that way. An annoying bug that would be very easy to swat, but for now its annoying the hell out of you and your Blastoderm.

So why 1BG? I think that paying less for such a great blocker is just unbalanced.
 

Limited

Yes, but we won't care
On the Lumonias, Propitious Angel:

She's too good. The drawback seems nicely balanced, but having a 6/6 flying on the board is really good. Perhaps her mana cost should be 5WW? 5WWW?
 

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
Limited said:
On the Lumonias, Propitious Angel:
She's too good. The drawback seems nicely balanced, but having a 6/6 flying on the board is really good. Perhaps her mana cost should be 5WW? 5WWW?
She is a legend so only 1 at a time, but I can see changing something on her.
Maybe 4WWW or make her a 6/5 @ 3WWW, but it has to be less than the Avatars, since it has no alternate casting cost.
 

Limited

Yes, but we won't care
I thought the drawback of having opponents gain three life would balance it somehow, but vigilance makes sure the Angel does double duty.. 4WWW is more fair.
 

Limited

Yes, but we won't care
Unarmored Combat

If it would be "Enchanted creature loses all activated abilities. It must attack each turn if able", the creature have to attack on its next turn and it be a great card to get rid of cards like Minister of Impediments..

"Enchanted creature must block" turns it into a too reliable removal spell, and "loses all abilities" might be too good at common.
 

DarthFerret

Evil Sith Weasel
Ok, If you leave it as is then I would say it would have to be a rare. If you want it to be uncommon, then I think you should lose the forced blocking. If you want it to be a common, then it would cost an additional 2 colorless and lose the forced blocking.

Once again, I am no expert here, but I think this keeps it game balanced. Now I would like to see which way the originator of this card would take it. Or even a different way to fix it.
 

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
Limited said:
Unarmored Combat
If it would be "Enchanted creature loses all activated abilities. It must attack each turn if able", the creature have to attack on its next turn and it be a great card to get rid of cards like Minister of Impediments..
Then make it uncommon or rare, with just "creature loses all abilities and must attack each turn if able"
The activated ability thing is just a local cursed totem.... I want static, triggered and activated abilities to be turned off, so it's a vanilla creature.
Maybe up the cost.
 

Limited

Yes, but we won't care
Unarmored Combat 1GW
Enchantment - Aura
Uncommon
"Enchantend creature loses all abilities and must attack each turn if able"

This I'd be willing to try.

(It reminds me of Pillory of the Sleepless now, only instead of neutralizing big attackers it neutralizes utility creatures.
 

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
Limited said:
The Varmint was the only card I had that I could use to kill the Dark Guard (who I think is way too good).
Why is this way too good?
As a blocker it's a 0/5 wall with no special abilities.
As an attacker it needs to have RFG lands or it deals no combat damage to a player.
IF it is blocked then it's ability kicks in. For example:
Dark Guard attacks
Wandering Knight and Sack of Bones are assigned as blockers
Target blocker is given first strike......hmmmmm say Knight
Knight does 2 damage to Guard
Guard get +2/+0
Guard and Sack assign damage ..... hmmm Guard assigns 2 to knight
Guard and Knight both die and Sack is still alive.....


Limited said:
I also have no way to deal with the Brunting Wurm (I am so glad you guys talked me out of giving it trample
Now Brunting Wurm is way too good, needs to be a 1/1 or 2/1
Brunting Wurm (4/4, Brunting Wurm gets +X/+X, where X is the total converted mana cost of all creatures blocking it)
 

Ransac

CPA Trash Man
I don't see Brunting Wurm as TOO good. He doesn't have trample and a simple 1/1 can fend it off. Additionally, he's a non-black creature, so basic removal can kill him. His Toughness of 4 does put him out of most burn range, but still.

I'd suggest him to be a 4/3 before we do anything big.

Ransac, cpa trash man
 

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
Maybe 2/3 would be better, since it's ability only kicks in when it attacks......
It's ability would let it walk through some times.
 
Top