Gaea's Protector

[Nibble]

Gaea's Protector

Creature -- Beast
4/4

When ~this~ comes into play, sacrifice it unless you tap three untapped Forests you control.


There's been discussion around here lately about needing more beefy creatures, which made me think of how to get a decent mid-size creature, and what kind of drawbacks could help it be aggressively-costed. I know green has been the king of multicoloring in Fifth Dawn, but I've always liked the concept of monogreen, and came up with this idea. Essentially, {G}{G} for a 4/4, but you're restriced to simple Forests, no silly acceleration or nonbasics or anything like that. Three mana for a 4/4 is very strong in limited, yes, but going monocolor in limited is nigh impossible, so it's highly unlikely this will ever hit play on your third turn.

I'd like some input on the power level, and if it needs tweaking or not. Also, I was unsure of how I wanted to template the ability, as there's a number of choices:
    - The original one, modeled after [card]Rogue Elephant[/card]: allows you to play a 4/4 for 0 and have a chance to sac it to effects and such, which could be bad
    - The "additional cost" wording: allows you to use reanimation with no drawback, especially since its CMC is 0, but this probably isn't broken
    - The [card]Phyrexian Dreadnought[/card] wording: most restrictive, but also wordiest and I just don't like it in general

Actually, I'll change it to an additional cost right now, as it makes the most sense to me. Definitely up for discussion, though. And my name and flavor text are fair game as well, of course.


Current Wording:

Gaea's Protector
GGG
Creature -- Beast
4/4

When you control two or fewer Forests, sacrifice ~this~.

Only the purest of her followers shall receive her greatest protection.


Changes:

- Jacob: Wording

[Ephraim]

I don't think that's much of a drawback. Nine times out of ten (10/10 in draft), this is just going to be a 4/4 creature for {G}{G}. It won't make a difference in accelerated formats with lots of nonbasic lands and and artifact mana, but honestly -- it's a 4/4 vanilla creature -- it wasn't going to make a difference in those formats anyhow.

[Marco]

If the converted mana cost is going to remain 0, it needs "Gaea's Protector is green" like the Kobolds.

[Jacob Orlove]

Wouldn't it be easier to make this more like:

GGG
4/4
Sacrifice ~this~ unless you control at least 3 forests

[Nibble]

I don't think that's much of a drawback. Nine times out of ten (10/10 in draft), this is just going to be a 4/4 creature for {G}{G}. It won't make a difference in accelerated formats with lots of nonbasic lands and and artifact mana, but honestly -- it's a 4/4 vanilla creature -- it wasn't going to make a difference in those formats anyhow.

I see what you're saying, but is it a problem? Sure it's basically just {G}{G}, but in draft, that means you either play a dual-colored deck and get an extremely lucky draw to play this third turn, or you attempt to go mono-color, which is difficult to pull off, and usually results in an overall weaker deck. I don't think it'd be a problem, or even a strongly desired pick.


Marco: Nice catch, thanks.


Jacob: I like it. Essentially the same flavor, but it seems much cleaner this way.

[Matt]

Are you that desperate to get around Mana Drain?

[Nibble]

Are you that desperate to get around Mana Drain?

The original idea came completely out of the blue, actually, and I had to consider all the consequences of the land-tap payment rather than mana afterwards. I was actually worried about stuff like Reanimate being able to hit it with no drawback, then I realized that essentially a two-card combo just to get a vanilla 4/4 isn't exactly the most broken play in history. Mana Drain never even crossed my mind until you just mentioned it, although it does make me even more glad Jacob came up with a much better wording.

[Jacob Orlove]

That wording should be "If you control two or fewer forests, sacrifice Gaea's Protector."

[Nibble]

Jacob: Is there honestly any difference? Although, there does indeed seem to be precedent for that style, so I'll go with it.

I was expecting some kind of 'That's too good' response to a 4/4 for three mana; is this really acceptable as-is? I'll bump this for hopefully another bit of discussion before I go for the clock.

[Jacob Orlove]

Edit: I was stealing wordings from upkeep abilities. This should be triggered.

[Nibble]

First: Is it even possible to make this a static ability? I can't find another card that uses an 'If you control x, do y' wording for a static ability.

Second: What's wrong with this being a triggered ability? There's definite precedent for the exact same wording for this ability. See Synod Centurion and Emperor Crocodile.

[Godder]

I looked it up, and this can be a state-based trigger, which is good enough. Basically, if you ever control fewer than three forests, it will trigger, even during the resolution of another spell or ability (e.g. Harrow, Crop Rotation), and be placed on the stack when someone receives priority.

For example:
When you control two or fewer forests, sacrifice ~this~.

If you want it to be a static ability, it would have to be done differently to allow State-based Effects to work. For example, you could make a 4/-2, and give it +0/+2 for each forest you control or something like that.

[Nibble]

24-hour clock.

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]