Whitecap Eidolon

[Ephraim]

Whitecap Eidolon

Creature -- Spirit
2/1

~This~ can't attack unless defending player controls an Island.

Thanks to KrmtDFrog, I was reminded of another aspect of blue upon which I have not yet touched: Islandhome (or, at least, the modern incarnation thereof.) I'm not positive of the power level of this card. It seems like something that might be an auto-include in Fish and would be decent in limited, but which might not see play in many constructed formats. Obviously, discussion is necessary, since a 2/1 for one mana has a lot of potential, regardless of restrictions placed upon it. I initially contemplated giving it a higher mana cost and another ability, but I realized that this was a fine starting point.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Whitecap Eidolon

Creature -- Spirit
2/1

~This~ can't attack unless defending player controls an Island.

[Trollstorm]

I get the eidolon part, what's the whitecap part got to do with anything?

[dandan]

I would add at least

'This can't block unless the attacking playet controls an Island'

I would strongly consider making it a Basic Island too.

Is Islandhome a keyword that has already been ditched? Killing the spirit if you lose your islands is another balancing factor.

[Ephraim]

@Trollstorm:
whitecap: A wave with a crest of foam.

@Dandan:
Islandhome is no longer used. The last cards to have it were in Weatherlite or Fifth Edition, whichever was most recent. Being unable to attack unless defending player controls and Island has been the analogous ability since then.

In general, I'm getting mixed signals about this card. After I came up with the mechanics of the card, I shared it on the irc channel and had it ripped apart for being too weak. Dandan believes that its too strong. If nothing else, I submit for consideration that Hammerhead Shark is a 2/3 for with the same attacking restriction. It is clear to me that this is the better card, by far, but it also yields some insight into how large of a drawback WotC thinks this is. Without the restrictive ability, a 2/3 creature either costs {G} (Elvish Warrior), {R} (Hurloon Minotaur), or {W} (Regal Unicorn).

[Laurie Cheers]

This creature cannot attack most of the time. Does anyone play with Razorgrass Screen?
To be worthwhile this thing would have to be a decent blocker like Hammerhead Shark is; 2/1 really doesn't cut it.

How about switching the ability around?
"If defending player controls an island, ~ cannot attack"?
All right, with the current stats this would be insane for a blue creature. But something like that concept.

Maybe "If/unless defending player controls a forest or mountain, ~ cannot attack?"

Hey, what about "Unless defending player controls a land with the same name as a land you control, ~ cannot attack"?

[Ephraim]

Part of what influenced the design of this card is that it will be a solid, blue creature in Vintage, where everybody plays Islands. However, that is also the place where a 2/1 for is likely to have the least impact, which is good, because it's a bargain. On the other hand, if it's a pure sideboard card in limited and doesn't see play in any constructed format, that's okay, too. Islandhome and variants thereof have always been that way, but it hasn't stopped WotC from printing them.

[dandan]

I stated it was too strong because in Type I it is usually a 2/1 for U with no drawback. Mtenda Lion and Skyshroud Elite are reasonable benchmarks although it is reasonable to say that Blue shouldn't have as good creatures as Green. The Lion sucks against Blue but is good against anything else (insofar as it is a Savannah Lion), the Elite are good if the opponent has a non-basic which is a fairly similar occurence to having an Island in Type I (in fact more common). The Elite was used and would be used if Stompy / Gr beats were serious contenders in Type I. Giving Fish a 2/1 hardly seems fair if Green doesn't get one without strings (Jungle Lion - note to Wizards ALLOW PORTAL!!!).

Forget blocking (indeed that was one of my suggestions) we are talking about a 2 power 1 cc creature, that is an aggro creature. Stop comparing it to 2 cc creatures. the well-named card Dandan gives you a 4/1 for UU that can only attack players with Islands, 2cc also gets you a Boa, Shade, Reaver, Dryad, hell even a Tog (not THE Tog). Dandan has cropped up as a sideboard card in Blue dominated metagames from time to time (the fact that it generally trades with anything if it blocks is a bonus). 1cc is very very different to 2cc and a 2/1 for 1 mana is far far better than a 2 mana 2/3.

How about A Mtenda Lion/Naf's Asp variant?

Whitecap Eidolon
 
Creature -- Spirit
2/1
If ~this~ attacks, defending player may pay B, R, G or W to have it deal no combat damage this turn

This allows it to attack more often but may result in it doing damage less often. Fish might actually like a creature that causes opponents to tap their lands! Flavourwise it would need a reason why it is weak outside a purely Island environment but I think the above is actually a stronger card than was originally proposed but strangely enough I don't see it as too strong (years of experience of trying to use Mtenda Lions and Naf's Asp perhaps?).

[Laurie Cheers]

Interesting drawback.

What about "Whenever an opponent plays a spell, ~ gets -2/-0 until end of turn"?

[dandan]

I was trying to keep it in flavour with the initial proposal, a 2/1 for U that is only good against Blue. My suggestion is stronger against the field (as it can at least attack against non-blue mages) but still has a severe drawback to prevent it being a Blue Savannah Lion. The drawback would actually be interesting in an aggro-control deck like Fish where the opponent paying mana to prevent damage dovetails nicely with Daze and Spiketails.

[Jacob Orlove]

Fish wouldn't play this, since it doesn't have evasion.

[dandan]

Neither does Voidmage Prodigy and in addition he costs 2 mana which is an overloaded lump on the Fish mana curve. A 2 power creature puts a much faster clock on an opponent than a 1 power creature. I would certainly test the card I suggested in Fish although I admit I am not certain it would make the final cut. To me, that is a sign of a balanced card. I don't like cards that scream 'Put 4 of me in deck X automatically'.

Would Fish like a better card than Voidmage Prodigy? Yes.
Is this such a card? Maybe.

My suggestion is also far more interesting in terms of deck construction and player interaction than the original card but I think it keeps the essence of the card (a 2/1 for U that is strong versus Islands and not strong versus other lands).

[Ephraim]

I'm not opposed to going the Mtenda Lion route, ie:

Whenever ~this~ attacks, the defending player may pay , , , or . If that player does, prevent all combat damage that would be dealt by ~this~ this turn.

I'd like to get some other opinions on that, though. In some ways, this seems  a little bit stronger than it was, since it can now attack non-blue decks (meaning it'll be better in non-Vintage formats), but it's also kept in check in those formats. I guess my biggest objection is that it's almost totally neutered in Type 1, since nobody plays mono-blue anymore.

[Jacob Orlove]

That would be *really* weak. I like the islandhome derivative a lot better.

[Ephraim]

I'm going to call for more opinions on this. I've got two opinions right now: one that says this is okay and one that says it's overpowered. Personally, I think that it's strong, but not unreasonably so. I think the Islandhome-like restriction is a worthy drawback, not to mention more interesting by merit of how little it means to Vintage. Not that this would probably see Vintage play, alas, but such is life.

[dandan]

I think an Islandhome version is perfectly balanced but your original suggestion didn't have the full Islandhome drawback of dying if you control no Islands. This is very important (indeed it was one alternative I suggested) as dropping this on turn 1 risks a Wasteland or Stripmine ruining your day.

The bad Mtenda Lion version is certainly better than the Islandhome version outside of Type I. Even so it might be weak enough to make it a 2/2.

I don't consider the original suggestion too strong in general but it would be wrong to give Blue a 2/1 for U in Type I for a number of obvious reasons EVEN IF IT ISN'T BROKEN BY TYPE I STANDARDS. I'd have problems at all with a version with Islandhome.

[Ephraim]

And I'm opposed to full out Islandhome on the general principle that it doesn't exist anymore.

[dandan]

I use the term Islandhome for clarity as everyone recognises what it means. I am not 100% sure that it is officially 'retired' and even if it is we could
1. Still use it as a recognised Mtg keyword
2. Not use the term 'Islandhome' but put the relevant rules text on the card.

It appears that your objection is not about the creature dying if you control no Islands but about the use of an old Mtg keyword. If so, is option 2 acceptable?

[Jebus]

The Island Home ability has been retired and is no longer used.

Dandan
{U}
Creature -- Dandan
4/1
Dandan can't attack unless defending player controls an Island.
When you control no Islands, sacrifice Dandan.

[dandan]

I believe I am familiar with the card but I can't remember an official announcement about 'home' being retired. Whilst it is always good to see the magnificent dandan

just showing an old card hardly proves that the keyword is 'retired'. In addition it is common practice here in the CCF to use old Magic keywords (like Fading, Kicker, Buyback) that Wizards have also declared as block-specific and so unlikely to see the light of day again.

P.S. It took me about 5 years before I noticed the fish, I'd thought that Dandan was a type of boat!!

[Ephraim]

That's not just the old card text. That's the official text of the card according to the Oracle card reference. Furthermore, the last card to use the "When you have no islands" penalty was Manta Ray, which was printed in Weatherlight. Since they've printed and used a similar ability since then (the one I have proposed for use on this card), we may assume that they like some of the aspects of Islandhome, but wish to retire the older variant of it.

[Jebus]

I printed the Oracle text to Dandan to point out that although it had Islandhome at one point, it no longer does.  The point is, Islandhome isn't in the oracle.  It has been removed from all cards.

It has gone the way of bury.

It's even in the CompRules

Islandhome (Obsolete)
Some older cards were printed with the term islandhome, which means “This creature can’t attack unless the defending player controls an Island� and “When you control no Islands, sacrifice this creature.� Cards that previously had islandhome now simply have the two parts of islandhome written out without using the keyword.

[Ephraim]

Sorry, Dandan, but nobody else has raised any objections to this and I don't think that it's as overpowered as you believe it is. I'm going to initiate the 24 Hour Clock (if nothing else, to get more opinions)

[Jacob Orlove]

I still say it's fine.

[dandan]

I don't see the current version as broken just slightly too strong in the context of Type I (although 1 card being too strong doesn't mean it can find a strong deck of course). In Type I it is a 2/1 for 1 mana in the colour that is meant to be the weakest for creatures, against 90% of opponents.

I am clearly in the minority though and I agree we shouldn't wait for 100% approval before finishing cards as often there will never be 100% agreement. My opinion has been noted, not ignored and so I have no problem with this card being finished (River Boa, Nantuko Shade or Spiritmonger would never have got past me!!)

[Jacob Orlove]

Keep in mind that type 2 currently has a 2/1 artifact wall for 1, and that no creature that takes more than one turn to win the game is going to break t1.

[dandan]

I think it is reasonable to assume that this would be able to attack a lot more than the 2/1 wall making the suggested card considerably better than the 2/1 wall. Showing that a card is considerably better than a Type II card is not a reason for including it, rather the reverse.
In addition the fact that a creature is not broken enough to break Type I is not a reason to allow it. Imagine a 0/1 Phid for U. That wouldn't break Type I but would be wrong.

In any case, my objections are merely that this is slightly too strong in one format, the format where creatures are less important than any other format. I cannot and will not dig my heels in on this card especially as there are already stronger cards that have been added. I do, however reserve the right to think that Blue shouldn't get a 2/1 for U in Type I that has the drawback that it can't attack against MUD decks.

IMHO this is how this card should look

~This~ can't attack unless defending player controls an Island.
When you control no Islands, sacrifice ~this~.
Cycling 2

This gives the creature a blue 'ability' and allows you to get rid of it if unneeded as well as giving some sort of symmetry to Green's Wild Dogs, Skyshroud Elite and Rogue Elephant (2/1 with cycling, dependant on opponent's land, land and sac)

Please view my objection as slight and go ahead, you are not going to convince me to agree but I won't disagree too loudly.

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]