Cycle of 'Pure' creatures

[Norm4eva]

It seems logical (or at least very interesting) to me to give spells a bonus if their controller spent strictly monocolored mana on them, thus channeling a 'purer' version of that spell or creature.

Enough talk meh..

Purist Monk (real cardnames pending)
2W
Creature - Human Monk

If you spent only W to play -this-, it has +1/+1 and has vigilance.
2/2

Purist Alchemist
2U
Creature - Human Wizard

If you spent only U to play -this-, it has flying and can't be the target of spells or abilities.
2/2

Purist Zombie
2B
Creature - Zombie

If you spent only B to play -this-, it has +2/+2 and "At the beginning of your upkeep you lose 1 life."
2/2

Purist Goblin
2R
Creature - Goblin

If you spent only R to play -this-, it has +1/+0 and haste.
2/2

Purist Beast
2G
Creature - Beast

If you spent only G to play -this-, it has +1/+2 and trample.
2/2

This would be like 'the common cycle' or something, obviously the concept wouldn't have to stick to creatures.  Thoughts?

Current wording:
Lightblood Monk
2W
Creature - Human Cleric

Purity - If you spend only W to play this spell it comes into play with a Purity counter and gets +1/+2 and has Vigilance.
2/2

Dreamblood Alchemist
2U
Creature - Human Wizard

Purity - If you spend only U to play this spell it comes into play with a Purity counter, has flying and can't be the target of spells or abilities.
2/2

Deathblood Zombie
2B
Creature - Zombie

Purity - If you spend only B to play this spell it comes into play with a Purity counter and gets +2/+2 and has "At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life."
2/2

Flameblood Goblin
2R
Creature - Goblin

Purity - If you spend only R to play this spell it comes into play with a Purity counter and gets +1/+0 and has first strike.
2/2

Lifeblood Hornix
2G
Creature - Beast

Purity - If you spend only G to play this spell it comes into play with a Purity counter and gets +1/+1 and has trample. (.)
2/2

edited: for typos
edited: implemented changes (switched G and W p/t bonus; gave R first strike)
edited: for better namage
edited: for even better namage thanks to Orlove
edited: to keyname Purity for the counter issue and whatnot.
edited: ability word instead of keyword

[Tenebrozo]

The black one can be consistently a 4/4 with Dark Ritual. Also, I think the green one seems a bit overpowered for limited, specially for a common.

[Norm4eva]

The Black one can consistently be a 4/4 in formats that haven't banned Dark Ritual, which are generally formats that see better plays than "1st turn bad Juzam, go".  I doubt it would cause trouble.
Green might be a bit big for Limited, but I've always been of the opinion that running less than 2 colors in Limited is generally suicide (and keeping a hand with a single color at hand is almost as bad).  Still you might be right and if I hear more about it I will change the tune of the card.

[combo_dude]

You should probably clarify the wording - at the moment it's not immediately obvious that it's asking you to pay RRR (for example for a spell) to give it the bonus, as opposed to exactly one red mana. Something like "if you only used [color] mana to play {this}, {this} gets..." is probably better.

And yeah, I'd be a little wary of these in Limited, although the usual lack of mana-fixing available probably makes them OK. I can't say I agree with the 2+ colour idea - mono-black was regularly drafted in OLS drafts, as well as OTJ (although that was a little different due to Torment), but I think we're balancing this set enough so that a mono-colour drafting strategy shouldn't (I won't say "can't") be viable.

[stolen]

These would have to be at least uncommon, probably rare.

I like the idea.  Nice job.

[Zelc]

You may also want the ability to be "If you used only M to play ~this~, ~this~ comes into play with a Pure counter.  If ~this~ has a Pure counter, ~this~ gets benefit."  That way, the players don't have to remember whether or not they used only M to play the cards.

[combo_dude]

Makes sense. I agree with Zelc and stolen - that's a better wording (although you still haven't said anything about mine, I'm sure you can merge the two wordings together), and they are too powerful and not simple enough to be common. I think they could pass for uncommon though.

[Jacob Orlove]

You could always just give each of these "morph WWW" or whatever. It preserves your exact functionality (except name + color), without all the clutter.

That suggests to me, though, that you might want to change these so that the base isn't 2/2 for 3.

Edit: never mind. I forgot how morph works because of Type 4. :(

[Ephraim]

Giving them Morph doesn't exactly yield the same function, since then you have to play plus {R}{R} to get the added benefit. I think the purpose behind these is for them to be 2/2 creatures when you pay more than one colour of mana to cast them and a bonus of some sort if you paid only one colour of mana to play it. That said, without making them significantly more powerful than they are, you could give all of them pretty much the same wording -- "If only one color of mana was used to pay ~this~'s cost, <insert bonus here>." That means that if you generte colourless mana and use it to pay for these, it doesn't ruin the bonus. It's probably a non-issue in limited, where the power of these is most questionable. In general, I think these would be fine rares. If you were to up the mana cost by ...they'd be weak. Don't do that. (Consider that if the green one costed {G}, it'd just be a bad Argothian Swine.)

These are definitely fantastic in mono-colour decks, but the fact that they comprise a cycle means that no one colour gets an unfair advantage. The red one seems to be a little bit underpowered to me (I find Haste unimpressive). I'd rather see it get +1/+0 and first strike. Likewise, I'd rather see the green one only get +1/+1. I definitely like the flavour of the blue one, since it's weaker, but more tricky than the others.

[Norm4eva]

So if these could pass off as uncommons, would certain changes be made?  Like is a 3/4 with Vigilance worthy of uncommon status (think Razor Golem, which would be functionally similar but common AND nonwhite?)  Is there something 'whiter' than Vigilance possibly?  Likewise will the U one be too tiny or the Red one too horrible?  Or should I just accept that most cycles generally have 'the playable card' followed by its imitators?  :P
Implemented certain changes.

[Norm4eva]

Okay..... Hope these names suck less.
I really want this to aim for the uncommon slot because if I can get away with these I wouldn't mind conjuring up a rare cycle (not necessarily a creature cycle at that, Purecasting could apply to any feasible card type)... if it's even warranted.  Are these valid as uncommons?

[Jacob Orlove]

How about the following:

Lifeblood
Flameblood
Deathblood
Dreamblood
Lightblood

[Norm4eva]

OhthankgodforJacob.  AEtherblood sucks so bad.
Edit then.

[Zelc]

I'd really consider using a counter to denote whether or not you paid the "ACC" for these creatures.  Otherwise, we get into trouble with stuff like memorization.  It would also make it clearer what would happen if these things were Astral Slided out.

For example:
Turn 3, you have 2 swamps and a mountain in play.  You tap them to play a Deathblood Zombie.  Next turn, you draw a swamp, and you tap the 3 swamps for another Deathblood Zombie.  Your opponent Stone Rains one of your swamps.  You then draw another Deathblood Zombie, and play it with BBR.  This would be an incredible headache if you had to memorize which Zombie had the benefit in the middle of the game (especially if it drags on) while working through combat scenarios and such.  A counter would simplify things very much.

[Norm4eva]

I'll concede that that's logical.  Change of template um.... NOW.

[stolen]

Or you could just assume that people are smart enought to use some system to remember which ones were payed with pure mana, rather than complicating the card by adding a counter clause, or, even worse, introducing a new keyword mechanic.  (Unless "Purity" becomes a set theme, which would be pretty cool--like Invasion, except it encourages people to play with only one color  :shock: )

[combo_dude]

Yeah, there's a system. It's called putting counters on a card. Even if the relevant counters are +1/+1 counters. If there's a way around memory issues without making the card look truly hideous (which a "counter" clause would not) then they avoid them.

[Norm4eva]

I was steered towards keywording it because by giving one specific kind of counter, you can avoid mixing +1/+1 counters with +X/+X counters.  Also it feels like a nice theme to me and if others saw fit could be easily picked up on.

[Norm4eva]

24 hour clock.

[Norm4eva]

I was wondering what happened to this.  NECRO! *poof*
Is this idea still any good??  I know that Type 2 is chock full of shocklands and whatnot but I really like the idea of extoling the virtue of 'purecasting' spells.

[parallax]

Type 2 is also full of 3/3's for two mana. These are balanced enough.

I would like to see them all get +1/+1. Then, you can use +1/+1 counters to solve memory issues.

Example:

Lightblood Monk
2W
Creature - Human Cleric
2/2
When Lightblood Monk comes into play, if only was spent to play it, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
Lightblood Monk has vigilance as long as there is a +1/+1 counter on it.

[Anusien]

You need the counters.  There's almost no way to make something permanantly gain abilities without putting counters on it.  If you want, put a Purity counter on it, and then say "Has <foo> as long as it has a Purity counter on it."  Then we can make purity test jokes.

[Norm4eva]

The current wording ones (in bold) have Purity counters, so done and done.

[Anusien]

I read that, and it's not explicit.  You need a definition for the CR update on how Purity works.  I'm not sure these 5 alone deserve a new keyword.  I'd much rather see it as an ability word like Sweep (to link the cards together without requiring a keyword, since you have to spell everything out).

You have a lot of space, so why not say:
Purity -- If you paid only C to play this, it comes into play with a Purity counter on it.  This has <foo> as long as it has a Purity counter on it.

[Norm4eva]

Oh, I see what you're saying now.  Caaan do.