Solid Green Common

[dandan]

Lets go for one of those Green common slots

Gnarled Treant
G2
Creature - Treefolk (could be Beast after renaming)
THIS has power and toughness equal to the number of Forests you control
*/*
'His bite is worse than his bark.'

Uktabi Wildcats without Regeneration (-1 mana) and powered up because Wildcars were bad (-1 mana). Coiling Woodwurm was */1 with * equal to the total number of Forests in play for G2 and that was hardly earth-shattering. This probably has less power but more toughness than the wurm.

IMHO I see no problem in giving monogreen decks fat creatures when they have a bunch of Forests.

Latest version

Gnarled Treant
G2
Creature - Treefolk (could be Beast after renaming)
THIS has power equal to the number of Forests you control
*/3
'His bite is worse than his bark.'

Changes
*/3 - Matt

[combo_dude]

I think this is too good for a common. They don't like 3/3s on 3 mana with no drawback - even Trained Armodon has GG in its casting cost.  Perhaps it should be 1/0 with +1/+1 for (each forest in play - 1) at 3G? That's probably still too good for the common slot though.

Basically, they seem to prefer this mechanic (Wildcats, but also Treefolk Seedling in the base set) - where the power and/or toughness depends on basic lands controlled - at uncommon or rare.

Also, I like the flavour (I'm English, therefore the word "flavor" does not exist) text, even though it's a little obvious...

[Ephraim]

Cards like this aren't powerful because of how big they are when they come out. They're powerful because of their potential late game impact. A 3/3 for 3 isn't terrible. It's not particularly more powerful than Trained Armodon in that respect, because it requires that all three of your lands be forests to work out that way. On the other hand, if you get this when you have five forests on the table, then it's a 5/5 for 3. That's too good, even for green.

It's all well and good to say that Coiling Woodworm sucked, but I can't really see making a strictly better card and then saying it should be common. You could also compare your creature to Blanchwood Armor - the armor's an enchant creature with the same casting cost and essentially the same ability. Being an enchant creature, it's almost worse than your creature by default and it's uncommon.

[Jacob Orlove]

Cards like this aren't powerful because of how big they are when they come out. They're powerful because of their potential late game impact. A 3/3 for 3 isn't terrible. It's not particularly more powerful than Trained Armodon in that respect, because it requires that all three of your lands be forests to work out that way. On the other hand, if you get this when you have five forests on the table, then it's a 5/5 for 3. That's too good, even for green.

It's all well and good to say that Coiling Woodworm sucked, but I can't really see making a strictly better card and then saying it should be common. You could also compare your creature to Blanchwood Armor - the armor's an enchant creature with the same casting cost and essentially the same ability. Being an enchant creature, it's almost worse than your creature by default and it's uncommon.

This is worse than the armodon on turn 3, because its casting cost is basically GGG for a turn 3 3/3. It's also not as scary as the armor, because the armor can come down on an evasion/trample guy and very quickly win the game.

However, Ephraim's main point, that this gets too big after turn 3, is correct. Raising the casting cost is definitely necessary.

However, if you were designing this card to have a single green in the CC, then you've failed, because in terms of green commitment, this is about as heavy as you can get. It's like how nightmare won't see play outside of mono-black decks, despite costing only 5B.

[mouth]

Changing the cc to 1GG isn't particularly effective, because it only gives the appearance of a decrease in power. However, calling it an Uncommon and making it 1GG is enough of a reduction for me. It's still unta-powerful, but not splashable in limited, and hey, it increases the potential for a Mono-G block constructed deck, methinks.

[DEA]

the treant name is very much in flavour of the ability
keep it treefolk

[OPColby]

Let's make it GGG, and make it have trample, but you've gotta pay GG or GGG during your upkeep to keep it alive.  Let's also make it an uncommon.  

I'm totally into narrowness.

For a more broad, more simple card, let's do this:

Whatever Treefolk (I like treefolk for the card)
GGGG (or 1GGG)
Creature -- Treefolk
*/* the *'s are equal to the number of forests you control.

Late game, he's huge, but he's slow now, and really not that great when he first comes out.  A 4/4 for 4 mana is good, sure, but it's not fantastic, like Ravenous Baloth or something.

I think the first dictates an uncommon or rare, (preferably uncommon,) while the latter should certainly be a common.

A definitely cool rare ability would be something like:

Hungry Treefolk
G
Creature -- Treefolk
*+2/*+2 the *'s are equal to the number of forests you control, plus 2.
During your upkeep, sacrifice a forest, or bury Hungry Treefolk.

tap to make target land a forest permanently.

While you're sacrificing forests, your opponent is gaining them.  Yay!

[dandan]

OK, there seems to be broad agreement that the CC is cosmetic because G2 is little better than GG1 (go, ahead pay G2 for a 1/1!) There is no need for an ugly CC (GGG). I gave it a CC of G2 because it is simply unnecessary to make it GG1 or GGG.

Is this too good early? Again a broad consensus that it isn't. GGG for a 3/3 or GG1 for a 2/2 or G2 for a 1/1 isn't that great. It does mean that monogreen could have a 4/4 attacking on turn 4 but is that too good for THE 'creature colour'? (Or in the new colour pie the 'fat-creature colour')

Late game? If you have 5 Forests out this is a 5/5. Casting it when you have 5 or more lands out makes its CC less important. So basically the problem is only when you cast it 'early' and it survives to the late game AND you are playing monogreen. It still doesn't have any evasion at all and any casual player will tell you that fat without evasion sucks.

In Limited this sucks, in Draft this might be good if you force monogreen although look at any number of Black cards recently printed to see how good a card can get if it needs mono or heavy colour commitment, in Constructed this is only good in monogreen and isn't earth-shattering there!

I think it would suck badly in the G3 slot as it would have to compete with real fatties. IF you really need to tweak it for power reasons (which IMHO you don't) then making it a */3 makes it better early and weaker later on than the current version.

[Matt]

I have my hesitations about */* (recall that 2/* guy from Saga, who wasn't terrible by any means) but */3 would be definitely fine.

[dandan]

I can live with */3 and it does solve the power level question. It also fits in well with Green's fine tradition of 2/3, 3/3, 4/3, 5/3 and 6/3s.

I assume the fixed toughness can allow it to get that common slot....

[Ephraim]

I still have to protest. This is still strictly better than Coiling Woodworm, which was Uncommon. I really do trust Wizards' judgement on matters like this - putting a card like this in a common slot is going to upset play balance, somewhere. TMD's set isn't going to have the benefit of exhaustive development and playtesting, like real Magic sets do (If it will, let me know, guys). I think we'd be wise to take advantage of the research WotC has already done.

[combo_dude]

I concur. It just isn't a common mechanic. The card is now balanced, but not something to go in the common slot. Ephraim is right.

[dandan]

This isn't strictly better than Coiling Woodworm, that had power equal to the number of Forests in play, not merely under your control. This has far less potential to have a huge Power but it has a far sturdier Toughness. Last time I looked constructed was all about creature Power.

If you trust Wizards judgement you might remember a certain 5/5 common Green creature a while back. Is this guy more unbalancing than the mighty Derm?

[combo_dude]

It's the mechanic itself I have an issue with - I think that it is inherently uncommon, from a flavour point if nothing else. At least the mighty Derm (which I agree was too good) could be justified as being a common enough monster; you don't get too many walking, talking, growing-at-a-really-alarming-rate trees. Power level's fine for common, but the mechanic isn't.

[dandan]

A good point, well made. OK I'll give up on it being a common and call the old 24/72 hour clock thing (-24 hours for Jacob)

[Matt]

Closed and added.