Reverse Keldon Warlord

[Matt]

Name
<cost>
Creature -- ???
*/*
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to the number of creatures in play that you don't control.

Now, how much would expect to pay for this? I was hoping we could go so low as to cost this at , since it is by definition only good when you're losing. But a lot of special things happen at (Enduring Renewal comes to mind) so it should probably go higher.

Also, is there any particular color that this should be?

[Matt]

Current Wording:

Name

Creature -- Human Cleric
1+*/1+*
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to one plus the number of creatures in play that you don't control.

[dandan]

Beast of Burden is about +1.5/+1.5 PT more than this and that cost a lot. I think you are way way out on the CC, I think GG2 is about right (Green being the creature colour and the colour least offended by other players having stuff). The card is seriously powerful in multiplayer but has to suck in Constructed where the aim is for your opponent to have no creatures (at least no worthwhile creatures).

Of course that would mean that this card is very weak most of the time but it is necessary to balance the fact that it is on occasion a 20+/20+ monster.

If you feel radical, it could cost X where X is the number of creatures you don't control. Then its CC starts at 0 but climbs in multiplayer (but VERY good if cast early enough).

[Matt]

Ah hell, I forgot about multiplayer. Goddamn it. How about I use Skyshroud War Beasts' wording (since that card is on my brain via Alfred's thread in the casual forum) and make it only one target opponent? Then I can keep it cheap, right?

[dandan]

0 is cheap, X can be 0.

My suggestion would make it cost 0-2 in Constructed and 0-50 in multiplayer.

Making it target ONE opponent takes all of the fun away from this card.

[Jacob Orlove]

I think this should be white, not green. And it's okay for cards to be really strong in multiplayer, especially if they're creatures without evasion.

[johnstown713]

What if you made it a 0 CC artifact and then you have to pay say 4-6 mana to make it a creature with trample until end of turn.  It takes off a little of the raw power but makes it good for the turn it attacks.  I think it should be green obiously since I feel green has more to do with creatures and their purpose in play.

Johnstown713

[dandan]

Having though some more about it, X is clearly the best CC.

I think power-wise it could be X-1 but casting costs shouldn't look like that

If you want an alternative (I prefer the X X=creatures you don't control X/X simple version) you could make it

Underdog
X
Creature - ???
X is the number of creatures target opponent controls
During your upkeep you may choose a new target opponent

This is a smaller and cheaper version for multiplayer although as Jacob has pointed out non-evasive creatures aren't a huge problem in multiplayer.

[Matt]

Bump, from beyond the grave!

[dandan]

Looking back I was so right about this costing X.

What's with the WW1 cost? Cleric?

This looks more like a Lhurgoyf or Thallid to me.

Seeing as X would normally be colourless (could be Green IMHO) I guess this be a Beast (as a nod to Beast of Burden) or just plain old Artifact Creature.

[Matt]

I'm not going to make it X.

[Venven]

I thought Reverse Keldon Warlord would be "~This~'s power and toughness are equal to 10 minus the number of creatures in play." but that would be stupidly overpowered in some situations and very difficult to cost... anyhoo.

How about a CIP effect like "When ~this~ comes into play, pay  for each creature in play. If you don't, sacrifice ~this~." or "When ~this~ CIP, you may pay  for each creature in play. For each mana spent this way, put a +1/+1 counter on ~this~." They're both bulky and shred the simplicity of a static effect like Keldon Warlord's, especially the second one. The upside being that it could be a (an?) X/X for . 

On second thought that would be too overpowered. Particularly the first one that still scales as other creature come into play.

[dandan]

This is a monster in multiplayer. I guess you could call this Spiritual Leader as its power grows in proportion to its 'followers'.

IMHO it is undercosted purely because of multiplayer (but overcosted in a duel). I'm not sure why this White creature gains strength from opposing heathen and undead from a flavour point of view.

[Matt]

This is a monster in multiplayer. I guess you could call this Spiritual Leader as its power grows in proportion to its 'followers'.

IMHO it is undercosted purely because of multiplayer (but overcosted in a duel). I'm not sure why this White creature gains strength from opposing heathen and undead from a flavour point of view.

Perhaps it's rising to the occasion?

[Darkenslight]

The name Rising Warlord springs to mind, because it's asking others to join or die.

[GerryMander]

i would like this to be *+1/*+1 so it isn't COMPLETELY useless against control decks.

[Matt]

That can be arranged.

[dandan]

Isn't it traditional to add something to the casting cost when you add +1/+1 to P/T on a creature which is clearly already a monster in multiplayer?

[asmoranomardicodais]

Why do we even care about multiplayer? If this is too good in multiplayer, it will simply go the way of congregate. Duels, whether casual or tournament duels, should be the first priority, and multiplayer cannot ruin a good duel card.

[neppy]

Outside of multiplayer its just a copy of Lost order of Jarkeld

[dandan]

My point exactly, LOoJ cost 2WW and this is far far better.

I could live with it being 1+X/X or X/1+X though for 3 mana. Still a total beating in multiplayer though...........

[Matt]

Jarkeld is also garbage.

[dandan]

This is also very good in Limited, quite possibly too good. It is a full mana cheaper than an existing card and is much more powerful in Limited and Multiplayer and casual, formats that we ARE supposed to care about.

I have no problem with improving LOoJ by 1 mana in Standard, but making something that is a fattie for White for 3 mana in Multiplayer or Limited is not a good idea IMHO.

[asi]

This is also very good in Limited, quite possibly too good. It is a full mana cheaper than an existing card and is much more powerful in Limited and Multiplayer and casual, formats that we ARE supposed to care about.

I have no problem with improving LOoJ by 1 mana in Standard, but making something that is a fattie for White for 3 mana in Multiplayer or Limited is not a good idea IMHO.

This card is in a typical Rare-Spot; rare cards include stuff such as Kokusho, which is extremely good both in Limited and in Multiplayer (I lost to it twice in Limited, and I still don't think it's "unfair"). This card is fine as it is now, I think. Actually, I don't see it being really good or even playable in formats outside of Limited and maybe T2, not even in multiplayer he is that good, as there are a LOT of boardsweepers played there. I think this can be added to the list as soon as it gets some nice name and flavortext.

[Matt]

I do not at all see how this is good in limited. It's only good when you're losing.

[dandan]

Isn't that what they said about Balance?

I see this more of an uncommon rather than a rare. I agree making it a rare would limit any damage to Limited as there are usually far more broken toys at rare.

I would call a 3cc card that is usually a 2/2-4/4 pretty good especially as, as you rightly pointed out, it gets better your opponent is doing. Cards that are better when you are losing or the game is tight are generally better than cards that are better when you are winning.

I know Kicker seems to be hated here but how about?

Rising Warlord
{W}1
Creature -- Human Cleric
1+*/1+*
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to one plus the number of creatures in play controlled by target opponent
Kicker 2
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to one plus the number of creatures in play that you don't control.

[asi]

I would call a 3cc card that is usually a 2/2-4/4 pretty good especially as, as you rightly pointed out, it gets better your opponent is doing. Cards that are better when you are losing or the game is tight are generally better than cards that are better when you are winning.

Rising Warlord
{W}1
Creature -- Human Cleric
1+*/1+*
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to one plus the number of creatures in play controlled by target opponent
Kicker 2
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to one plus the number of creatures in play that you don't control.

I don't like the wording, as the kicker only works in multiplayer and is useless in "normal" play. I still don't see a problem; Beast of Burden is horrible, even in multiplayer. This will die as soon as it becomes a danger when playing with multiple players,.

[Apollyon]

Isn't that what they said about Balance?

I see this more of an uncommon rather than a rare. I agree making it a rare would limit any damage to Limited as there are usually far more broken toys at rare.

I would call a 3cc card that is usually a 2/2-4/4 pretty good especially as, as you rightly pointed out, it gets better your opponent is doing. Cards that are better when you are losing or the game is tight are generally better than cards that are better when you are winning.

I know Kicker seems to be hated here but how about?

Rising Warlord
{W}1
Creature -- Human Cleric
1+*/1+*
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to one plus the number of creatures in play controlled by target opponent
Kicker 2
~this~'s power and toughness are each equal to one plus the number of creatures in play that you don't control.

Dandan, the difference between this and mass removal, such as Balance, is that this doesn't clear the board and get lots of card advantage. Your opponent could easily race you if this was the only thing on your board, especially if they had any fliers.

I would actually be very hesitant to draft this. I don't like playing cards that get better for my opponent having a good board position, outside of mass removal. Especially not one that can be chumped all day. I view this in a similar light to Hunted Horror in that way.

[Matt]

Are you seriously comparing this card to Balance?

Scion of the Wild wasn't very good and it beat the snot out of this in limited. There is no possible way for this to be broken in a two player game.

[Norm4eva]

Shouldn't this have the Pride of the Clouds wording?

"-this- gets +1/+1 for each creature you don't control."

Keeps that ugly X or * or whatever out of the p/t box.

In regard to multiplayer, asmor-etc. is right.  Casual groups have their own weird b/r lists, and Two-Headed Giant can probably deal.
I don't find this overpowered, but is this really a White card?