Green ought to have a 1G creature that sacrifices itself to allow its controller to search his library for a basic forest and put in into play untapped.  Kind of like Sakura-Tribe Elder, but just basic forests instead of any basic land, and put into play untapped instead of tapped.

Green ought to have a 2G Wood Elves-like creature that has an evoke cost of 1G.

ORIGINAL TEXT:

Ohran Venom

Artifact
Give yourself 3 poison counters: draw a card.

***

Thought it might be fun to tempt people with this.  You can get up to 3 cards for only 2 mana, but you'll put yourself in a precarious position if your opponent is prepared...

ORIGINAL TEXT:

Repeat

Instant
Copy target activated or triggered ability. You may choose new targets for the copy.

***

Comments:

Like Twincast, but for activated and triggered abilities instead of spells.

Only costs because the spell that counters activated and triggered abilities (namely, Stifle) only costs (preserving the same copy/counter cost equivalence that exists between Twincast and Counterspell).

I've never heard that.  I would be quite surprised if that were actually so.  Especially in light of this ruling on High Tide, which is viewable through Gatherer:


I assume that lands that a card like Cultivate (or Harrow) puts into play after you play High Tide are included within the definition of "lands that you gain control of this turn."

ORIGINAL TEXT:

Cultivate

Instant
Search your library for up to two basic land cards and put them into play.  If you do, then sacrifice a land and shuffle your library.

***

Comments:

I like Harrow.  It's a strong card for green.  I especially love that it's an instant that puts land into play untapped.  There aren't enough of those, in my opinion.

Harrow's big drawback (the one that keeps it from being played, I think) is that you must sacrifice a land as a part of the casting cost.  The fear that Harrow might be countered, causing the loss of a player's land without any benefit to the player, might keep many a player from playing Harrow.

I propose to fix that drawback with this card. 

This is the kind of card that I might try in a High Tide deck with a green splash.

I scanned the master list, and Horticulture was the closest thing that I could find.  It is quite a bit different.  I have duplicated the text below for comparison:

Horticulture

Instant
As an additional cost to play Horticulture, sacrifice a nonbasic land.
Search your library for two basic land cards and put them into play tapped. Then shuffle your library.

I think that I can fix that.  I can let all of the players "recruit" slivers when Pheromite Sliver comes into play:

Pheromite Sliver

Artifact Creature – Sliver
0/0
Sunburst
When Pheromite Sliver comes into play, each player reveals a card from the top of his library for each color of mana used to pay Pheromite Sliver's cost.  Each player puts all Sliver cards revealed from his library this way into his hand and the rest on the bottom of his library.

I want it to work with Reins of Power and other cards that gain control of your opponent's permanents only until the end of turn.

I'll change it to trigger at the end of the turn instead.  It doesn't matter to me that the other alternative win conditions trigger at the beginning of the upkeep.  I have no pressing need to be ultra-consistent with those cards. 

Plus, making it trigger at the end of the turn will make it more powerful (can win on the same turn that you play it), which is good, since jro thinks that it is underpowered and "win more."

I changed it to trigger at the end of the upkeep so that it would work better with Reins of Power.

I'll think about that.

Verbal warning for violation of Rule 4, Lack of Content (spam).  -DA

Yeah, I think that I like that.

Ah.  OK.  Maybe we should remove the existing World Enchantments from the Master List, then...

Just this last one, and then we can stop. 

Seriously, though, some of the other (I dare say most) existing "win the game" cards are kind of gay (no offense to the homosexuals out there) and pretty much unplayable.  Test of Endurance is OK.  Chance Encounter is a joke.  Epic Struggle truly is "win more."  I've never even seen someone try to win with Mortal Combat (maybe some dredge deck could do it).  As for Battle of Wits, I don't think that someone can really make a good deck with that many cards in it.

When they printed "The Cheese Stands Alone" as "Barren Glory," I was intrigued.  I like alternative win conditions.  They shake things up and allow players to be more creative.  Sometimes, either getting your opponent to 0 life or decking him becomes rather mundane.

But imagine this:

You have Complete Infiltration in play.  On your opponent's turn, he plays four spells and Empty the Warrens, putting 10 1/1 goblin creature tokens into play.  He ends his turn, expecting to wallop you on his next turn.  At the beginning of your upkeep,  you play Reins of Power, taking control of all 10 of your opponent's goblin tokens.  You win.

Or imagine this:

You play Complete Infiltration.  Then you play Shared Fate.  You draw and play lands and other permanents from your opponent's library until you have 10 of your opponent's permanents in play.  You win.

There are more ways to gain control of large numbers of your opponent's permanents than you imagine, I think--and in some of these ways, you would not necessarily have won the game anyway.

Also, as some posters have recognized, there are some cards that merely exchange control of your permanents with those of your opponent.  These cards are usually cheaper than the outright "gain control of your opponent's permanent" cards.  I could possibly see a deck with these "exchange" cards that could make good use of Complete Infiltration.

Hm.  Maybe I'll make such a deck and play it as though Complete Infiltration cost 0 and had split second, as you suggest.  I'll see how it does.  If it does well, you won't object to leaving it with 0 cost and split second, will you?

Hm.  I was unaware.

Well, in that case, I could make the card even more interesting by making it a 0/0 that comes into play with a +1/+1 counter on it for every color of mana used to pay its cost.  That might be too much for one card, though.

Well, I'm open to suggestions.

Whatever we do with these, I want to make sure of one thing: That players will WANT to play with all four in the same deck.  That means that, whatever these end up being, they probably shouldn't conflict with each other when they are all in play together.

Fair enough.  At , it's still much better than Venser's Sliver!

That would be much easier to achieve.  Too easy, IMHO.  Also, Blue is more about gaining control of others' permanents than giving control of its permanents to others (I know, Donate, but still).

Maybe we should come up with a better word than "infiltration."  Maybe "defection"?  Like "Massive Defection"?

REVISED TEXT:

Pheromite Sliver

Artifact Creature – Sliver
0/0
Sunburst
When Pheromite Sliver comes into play, each player reveals a card from the top of his library for each color of mana used to pay Pheromite Sliver's cost.  Each player puts all Sliver cards revealed from his library this way into his hand and the rest on the bottom of his library.

***


ORIGINAL TEXT:

Pheromite Sliver

Artifact Creature – Sliver
2/2
When Pheromite Sliver comes into play, reveal a card from the top of your library for each color of mana used to pay Pheromite Sliver's cost.  Put all Sliver cards revealed this way into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library.

***

Goblins have Goblin Ringleader.  Elves have Sylvan Messenger.  Why shouldn't Slivers have something like this?

The twist is that it gets better when you use more colors to pay for it.  I think that this is appropriate for slivers, since slivers come in all kinds of colors (and the really powerful ones are all five colors).

What is Pheromite?  It's the fantasy metal version of pheromone (which attracts other creatures of like kind).  Why the metal version?  Because of its mana cost, this pretty much had to be an artifact creature.  I think.

Why does it cost ?  You need to have the ability to pay up to 5 mana for it in order to take full benefit of its ability.  Plus, I think that a 2/2 artifact creature should probably cost at least 3 mana.  Why is it 2/2?  Because Goblin Ringleader, Sylvan Messenger, et al. are also 2/2.

How about this instead:

"Artifacts are all colors."

It still works with Wash Out (though you'd name a color rather than "artifact"), and it has some precedence in the form of Transguild Courier.

Also, I think that the name should have "prism" instead of "cube" in it, since it deals with colors, and "cube" doesn't have much of anything to do with colors.

I think you're right.  I think that this can be costed as low as .  Controlling 10 of your opponent's permanents will in most cases be a difficult feat.  If anyone disagrees, please let me know.

As far as the "that you do not own" language goes... could there be a problem with players saying that they just borrowed a card from a friend, and therefore do not "own" it?  Probably not.  The rules could dictate that you are deemed to "own" any card that was at any time in your library or sideboard.

REVISED TEXT:

Complete Infiltration

Enchantment
At the end of your turn, if you control 10 or more permanents that you do not own, you win the game.

***

ORIGINAL TEXT:

Complete Infiltration

Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control 10 or more permanents that your opponents own, you win the game.

***

Comments:

I thought it would be fun to create a win condition that was based on card "ownership."  Card ownership is a factor that is sometimes considered on cards.

This could be a good combo with Reins of Power, and could give Blue a good way to encourage opponents not to overextend.

I suppose that it could be a combo with Shared Fate also.

Actually, I think that this card is more in the spirit of what Blue is about (controlling opponent's stuff) than the current Blue "you win" card, Battle of Wits--which nobody really takes too seriously.

Blessing of the Guilds:

http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?topic=33537.0

They are similar, it is true, but then, they ARE similar creatures flavor-wise.  And they do have subtle differences that are based on their creature types.  I think I like them as they are now.  They work well together.

Also, I don't know that they would need to be rare.

Also, they are similar to each other in kind of the same way that the "One" cycle creatures (Doubtless One, Heedless One, Nameless One, Reckless One, Soulless One) in Onslaught are similar to each other.  If that cycle saw print, then there's nothing wrong with this one.

As for your proposal to make them cost , does anyone second that?

I hereby initiate the 24 hour clock.

I hereby initiate the 24 hour clock.  Over three days have passed since my last revision of the cards.

It seems like a good card, but I'd probably play Mulch before I played this.

ORIGINAL TEXT:

Cumulocade

Instant
Play Cumulocade only on an opponent's turn.
If Cumulocade is played before your first turn, Cumulocade costs less to play.
Put into play two 1/1 cloud elemental creature tokens with Flying, Defender, and "Sacrifice a cloud elemental token: Your life total becomes 5."
Storm

****

The intent is to help the player to survive some kinds of very fast storm combo decks.

EDIT:

I had an alternative idea:

Horseman of Pestilence

Legendary Creature - Insect Horseman
2/2
Flanking
All creatures that do not share a creature type with Horseman of Pestilence get -1/-1.

Horseman of Famine

Legendary Creature - Spirit Horseman
2/2
Flanking
All creatures that do not share a creature type with Horseman of Famine get -1/-1.

Horseman of War

Legendary Creature - Soldier Horseman
2/2
Flanking
All creatures that do not share a creature type with Horseman of War get -1/-1.

Horseman of Death

Legendary Creature - Zombie Horseman
2/2
Flanking
All creatures that do not share a creature type with Horseman of Death get -1/-1.
Sacrifice Horseman of Pestilence, Horseman of Famine, Horseman of War, and Horseman of Death: Remove all permanents from the game.  Play this ability only at any time that you could play a sorcery.

***

Comments:

The problem with the previous versions is that there was not much of a reason to play with all Four Horsemen in a deck.  With this version, there is: For each of the Four Horseman you get into play, your advantage becomes unquestionably more pronounced.

Also, this version maintains traditionally "black" abilities on these black creatures, so there's less problem with "color bleed."

I costed these at because, while having similar abilities to Night of Soul's Betrayal and Ascendant Evincar, they are definitely  stronger than the former, which costs , and very probably weaker than the latter, which costs .

I retained the original idea of being able to invoke Apocalypse by sacrificing all four.

Comments/suggestions?

I really want to keep the "help blue & white" aspect of the card.  I'll make it cost more.

Sounds like an interesting combo/deck idea.  I like it.