For my first card of the day, I would like to show one of my
favorite designs.
Sorry for the lack of art.
It has been hard for me to find a good Minotaur picture without it being
attacked.
The original idea came while I was making a joke set of all
the Jesus jokes on the web. I apologize if
you are offended as I don’t mean to be sacrilegious.
Sometimes my ideas come from the strangest of sources.
This feels extremely powerful, but not quite certain, would require testing. Also I believe the wording should be "Target opponent gains control of a creature you control: Add X mana, in any combination of that creature's colors, to your mana pool, where X is that creature's converted mana cost."
ReplyDeleteIf it's not required, just adding colorless or red mana would also make the wording a lot simpler. "Add X red mana to your mana pool, where X is that creature's converted mana cost."
Flavor wise, I do think making it just red feels more like the creature is being sold into slavery and is more strait forward. I do like your wording better, thanks to the comas, and I will change it later today. The big question is, flavor wise, are a players creatures slaves to begin with, so you wouldn't need to target them, or do they becomes slaves when you target them? The simple question is, a creature or target creature in the cost?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to keep the flavor that the Slaver Driver enslaves the creatures, so he does target (so Shroud matters). I changed the mana produced both for simplicity and because, flavor wise, you shouldn't get full value for enslaving a creature.
ReplyDeleteDeclaring targets as the cost of an activated ability? I don't know how you think this makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteThe rules might have to be tweaked to make it work, but targets in costs would instantly resolve and could not be responded to. Would need more play testing to see if becomes unfair.
ReplyDeleteFor it to be printed by wizards, the name would have to change and the "target"s would have to change to "a"s.
Delete