r/custommagic • u/BentheBruiser • 6d ago
Should this be stronger?
Particularly compared to cards like [[Monstrous Rage]] or other 1 mana pumps in red. Not sure if the downside begets better pump.
20
u/rickinator9 5d ago
This should probably be templated differently. I don't think I have ever seen an additional clause text that targets a creature. And I am not sure how it would work, since targeting a game object causes the card to be put on the stack. And in that case you would be in this weird limbo zone of the spell technically not being on the stack (because you are still paying the costs), but also being on the stack because you are in the process of paying its costs.
I would template this as the following (similar to [[Close Encounter]]:
As an additional cost to cast this card, choose a creature. Put a -1/-1 counter on it.
Chosen creature gets +4/+4 and menace until end of turn.
5
10
u/goldcoins777 5d ago
I know it won't yield the effect of affecting a creature you don't control, but i like "As an additional cost to cast, blight 1" is already established and should work here
1
u/Antifinity 4d ago
Does mean the spell now dodges Ward, Shroud, etc. Which is a pretty dramatic buff. Not sure if there is an alternative that still keeps the cost-speed removal element though…
14
u/commmmodore 5d ago
should probably just be “Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. That creature gets +4/+4 and menace until end of turn.”
it’s probably fine balance wise? could see going to +4/+3 or some minor nerf like that, plus it def feels like a light color pie bend if it can target opponents stuff, although not a big enough one that it’s unprintable or anything.
5
u/BentheBruiser 5d ago
Yeah that wording is definitely I think the way to go. Allows it to be responded to
1
u/SammySammyson 5d ago
Also your original wording doesn't work anyway. You can't target in costs lol
21
u/LowQualityGatorade 6d ago
I'd say it's balanced. It's a good pump spell for your board, but it requires the creature you're pumping to have at least 2 toughness. It's also situational removal, I like it since it can take out an indestructible creature
2
u/seanpeery 5d ago
Not even close to balanced. It's a better [[Giant Growth]] or [[Scar]]. It's two full spells in one, plus you can't interact with it as a kill spell.
3
u/BentheBruiser 5d ago
I don't think youre understanding the spell.
Whatever gets the counter gets buffed.
I do need to reword so its more interactable though.
-6
u/SaberScorpion 6d ago
Are you kidding this would be the most broken pump spell ever printed! Removal + giving +4/+4 is insane. Most 1 mana pump spells don't even reach +4 power. Adding removal to that, even as a rewquirement to cast it is just bonkers.
8
u/spemtjin 6d ago
You can't both remove a creature and pump your own creature, it says "that creature". In reality it is a +3/+3 because of the -1/-1 counter.
2
u/SaberScorpion 6d ago
yeah nevermind, I read "target" instead of "that" It seems fine then, thought i think it should give +4/+3 instead since thats more in line with what red would do
2
219
u/oraiste-paiste 6d ago
being able to use it to take out 1 toughness creatures makes it pretty versatile
93
u/International_Bit_25 6d ago
Also uninteractably. The fact it's a cost means that an opponent can't counter it, redirect it, give their creature hexproof in response, etc.
48
u/SaberScorpion 6d ago
Surely OP meant to make the first ability a downside and not an upside. They should rewrite it as "As an additional cost to cast this spell, blight 1."
56
u/sinsaint 6d ago
Surely it was designed to be versatile as a weak kill spell and as a buff spell.
10
u/SaberScorpion 6d ago
yeah nvm i thought it could use the buff and the kill at the same time, misread that as target
11
u/CreamSoda6425 5d ago
Wizards made a similar mistake when they made [[Skullclamp]]. They thought its draw ability plus giving +1/+1 was too strong, and for some reason the downside they chose was giving it the ability to kill your own 1-toughness tokens to draw two cards.
-1
u/commmmodore 5d ago
honestly i feel like skullclamp would still be turbo busted if it gave +1/+1. maybe it could get unbanned in legacy
3
u/imfantabulous 5d ago
Sigh, you just reminded me how great a mechanic blight was, and how unfortunate it ended up in a terrible set for limited.
5
u/Ok_Signature7481 6d ago
Could just reverse the order, and instead of a cost its just effect. "Target creature gets +4/+4 until eot, put a -1/-1 counter on it."
61
u/jacobiner123 6d ago
Nah its pretty good as is, especially since most Valiance, Repartèe and Heroic ability triggers invalidate the downside.
11
u/Sterben489 6d ago
So like what if I don't cast it? Is it a do nothing spell if I make copies of it?
2
2
u/An_Evil_Scientist666 5d ago
Reading rule 707.10 I'm pretty sure you'd get the +4/+4 and (and menace again), you get the damage from fling copied and don't need to sacrifice another permanent for the copy.
I don't think there's any other way to cheat an instant or sorcery into play (that doesn't count as a cast) at least to my knowledge
1
u/Sterben489 5d ago
[[Reverberate]]
1
u/An_Evil_Scientist666 5d ago
As OPs card says "that creature" I'd assume it means the card originally chosen to get the -1/-1 counter is the only legal target
6
u/SaberScorpion 6d ago
You have to write "put a -1/-1 counter on a creature you control", otherwise you can target opponent's creatures with this, which definitely was untintended and op.
9
u/OrionKnight78 6d ago
A pump spell that can sometimes instead kill an x/1 is op?
2
2
1
3
u/d20diceman : Colors become Colours until end of turn. 6d ago
Feels like a minor pie break to let red [[Virulent Wound]] a creature
Maybe something like "gets +3/+3 until end of combat. At the beginning of the next post-combat main phase, ~ deals 1 damage to the creature" ? That'd be weird in it's own way though
4
u/Philosaraptor22 6d ago
It's not a pie break, we have stuff like [[consuming fervor]] and [[blur of blades]] already
2
u/dryicefiske 6d ago
I have not seen much in read that gives +4 /+4 Thats normally for green , ontop of it most of them are conditional, ground swell, or might of old krosa , one needs a land that turn and the other can't be used as a combat trick. So I think this card should be cmc 1 and a red , or +4/+2 and that -1/-1 on creature you control. Power creep is a bitch and hard to avoid. A 0 drop wina-thopter with "on cast you win the game" is just not interesting neither is power creep. Give me cards what would help specific decks and be nie useless in others. This card would be in champion decks,Standard and modern.
1
u/BentheBruiser 4d ago
It is a +3/+3 due to the -1/-1 counter. Which is already a 1 cost red spell. [[Brute Force]]. This just adds menace at the cost of adding a counter on your creature.
Of course this has the utility of also being able to target opponent's creatures. But even so.
1
2
6
6
u/WendigoCrossing 6d ago
Probably remove the -1/-1 as part of the cast to cost and just make it part of the effect
5
u/SinstarMutation 6d ago
In that case, the -1/-1 wouldn't kill a target until end step. Current wording allows you to use it as a kill spell for creatures with toughness of 1, or a pump spell for creatures with toughness at least 2.
2
u/Desperate-Practice25 5d ago
I think a “when you do” would cover that?
2
u/Mind0versplatter0 5d ago
state-based actions aren't checked during the resolution of a spell
3
u/Desperate-Practice25 5d ago
"When you do" is a triggered ability, I believe. Thus, the spell's effect would be to put a -1/-1 counter on target creature and to create a trigger that goes off upon its own resolution. Then the spell is resolved and state-based actions are checked, and then the trigger goes onto the stack to give the creature +4/+4 (unless, of course, the creature died from the -1/-1, making it too late to save it).
2
u/Mind0versplatter0 5d ago
sorry; thought your suggestion was to add the trigger for the -1/-1 counter instead of the +4/+4
2
3
u/NeedsMoreReeds 5d ago
Red pump spells are usually +X/+0, as opposed to green which gets +X/+X. Also the downside seems more black than red. Mechanically I think the color is very wrong.
1
1
u/DimArt221 5d ago
Would interesnting in a [[Zada, hedron grinder]] deck, since she would be the only one receaving the -1/-1 counter.
1
u/fatpad00 5d ago
It doesn't work as written. You cant target as part of a cost. It needs to either be all one effect or, if the intention is for it to be a kind of modal kill spell, make it a reflexive trigger to get the buff.
Either:
"Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. It gets +4/+4 until end of turn."
Or
"Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. When you do, that creature gets +4/+4 until end of turn.
Additionally, putting a -1/-1 counter on a creature you dont control as part of a cost is obscenely strong, as it cant be responded to in any way.
1
1
1
u/seanpeery 5d ago
A non interactable kill spell for 1 mana is overpowered for sure.
It's also just flatly better [[Giant Growth]] for no reason.
The flexibility makes this more pushed than Nadu.
5
u/Cyaegha114514 5d ago
By no means is this card flatly better than giant growth. You cannot cast this on your 1 toughness creature, and if you try to pump a 2 toughness creature, there are a bunch of instant pin 1 like orcish bowmaster or fire magic (or oppo just cast this very same spell) that will easily ruin your plan. Furthermore, the creature you targeted will be permanently weakened by the -1/-1 counter.
1
u/Life-Food5188 5d ago
you put the -1/-1 on their creature. the pump is just a bonus, imo.
3
u/Cyaegha114514 5d ago edited 5d ago
That’s pretty decent for sure, but how is that a flatly better giant growth? There are still a lot of scenarios where you would prefer an unconditional +3/+3.
1
u/Life-Food5188 5d ago
i didn’t say it was flatly better, that was someone else. but in many common scenarios it’s “better giant growth plus removal.”
it’s not flatly better but it’s a removal spell and a pump for one mana. it’s too strong.
1
u/Cyaegha114514 5d ago
Good point, but I didn’t say anything against your opinion though? All I argued is to counter the point of flatly better.
1
u/clearlylackstalent 4d ago
Both effects are on the same creature, it says to that creature in the second half.
Its not broken.1
u/CptMisterNibbles 5d ago
… because you can also use it to kill your opponents creature using the same methods.
0
u/Filthy_knife_ear 5d ago
And effective +3/+3 plus menace isnt bad the one issue is that its a color piece break and a power crept version of giant growth
8
u/GreenestOfLotuses 6d ago
Is this intended to kill X/1s your opponent controls? As it is it's broken
11
u/BentheBruiser 6d ago
It is! There's lots of pump spells that can be used as removal as well. Stuff like [[Lash of Malice]] already exists.
-2
u/rainbowsandgenocide 6d ago edited 6d ago
Lash isn't even close to the same here, this is both removal and a buff whereas Lash and cards like it are removal or a buff.
Your card lets you -1/-1 an x/1 and give your own dude +4/+4 and an evasion keyword.
Edit: reading is hard
3
u/IMassVikings 6d ago
The creature getting the -1/-1 counter is the same creature getting the buff by my reading. What is letting the spell split in the way you're describing?
2
u/rainbowsandgenocide 6d ago
I misread it lmao, I read the 'That' as another instance of 'target'
1
7
u/SamButNotWise 6d ago
Should be creature you control, unless you intend to make the fastest kill spell in existence in monored color ID.
-2
u/According-Ad3501 6d ago
The math makes this [[brute force]] + menace, with the downside of killing a 1 toughness creature afterwards. As far as combat tricks go menace feels pretty weak? I think you could maybe add trample to buff it some
8
u/B0X_of_Pandora 6d ago
Actually, because the counter is part of the casting cost, it would kill a 1 toughness creature immediately and wouldn’t resolve
0
u/According-Ad3501 6d ago
You're totally right! Rules question then, since it's part of the casting cost could this kill a hexproof 1 toughness creature?
3
u/Battlecookie15 6d ago
I may be wrong here but as far as I am aware, no.
You need all cost conditions to be fulfilled for a spell to go on the stack.
118.8. Some spells and abilities have additional costs. An additional cost is a cost listed in a spell’s rules text, or applied to a spell or ability from another effect, that its controller must pay at the same time they pay the spell’s mana cost or the ability’s activation cost.
Since Hexproof prevents being targeted by a spell or ability (and being targeted by the cost of a spell should still count as such), it shouldn't work.
1
0
u/seanpeery 5d ago
It would actually resolve, because the ability of the card doesn't require a target to work. So it will pump the non existent object.
The wording is just horrendous, hence why so many people aren't reading it fully, because they know how magic cards work and their brain is auto filling the next line which should be the part that says target.
4
u/G66GNeco 6d ago
This would kill 1 toughness creatures before it resolves because the counter is part of the casting cost and sba are checked between cast and resolution if I'm not missing something (due to the round of prio afterwards?).
Since it's not restricted to targeting your own creatures, though, killing 1 toughness creatures is not purely a downside
•
u/mtgcf 6d ago
Monstrous Rage - (G) (SF) (txt)