Red enchantment

[GoblinGame]

Long Fuse?(sorry for lack of a better name, im new to this.)
RRR
Enchantment
Fading 3
When ~this~ leaes play deal 10 damage to target creature or player.
Patience is key

Ive always liked the premise behind goblin bomb, but flipping has never been my style, so here is my version of it. I started out with the cost at 1RR but because it is 10 damage I wanted no possibility of splashing white or green for enchantment destruct. Perhaps the damage should be lowered to 8 just incase of disk but I think 10 is not to bad for 4 turns and RRR. I don't know if this is needed for the set that is being put together or not, just looking for some feedback on it. what do you guys think?

Current wording:
Delayed Detonation
Enchantment
2RR
Fading 3
When ~this~ leaves play, if you sacrificed it because you could not remove a fading counter, deal 10 damage to target creature or player.
If the fuse weren't so long, you'd never find somebody willing to light it.

[Matt]

It's possible to word cards such that they only trigger when they fade away, rather than on merely leaving play. This would allow you to lower the cost from RRR. You might want to do a search for threads made by Ocifer, who has always been fading's biggest proponent here.

[Ephraim]

It may be important that you do word it as such, since this is an automatic ten damage. Typically, you'd want to give something like this fading to give your opponent an opportunity to get rid of it, himself, before the time runs out. As it is, trying to disenchant this results in ten damage. Also, red has Misguided Rage, plus there's Claws of Gix, an artifact. The way this is written, the fact that it has fading would almost be inconsequential in a deck designed to abuse it.

[GoblinGame]

Now that you mention it, that seems a lot better. Thank you for the advice.  I looked up ocifers threads and the one about training seemed the most useful to my situation, but I didn't want it to trigger just when the last counter was removed. I also thought about "When ~this~ leaves play if there are 0 fading counters on it..." But your oponent has a turn where it is at 0 counters so if they were to destroy it on that turn they would still take the damage. Any other suggestions, or you do think this will be good? Oh and does anyone have some better flavor text? As red does not seem like a very patient color and it would be akward for that to be on a red card.

[Ephraim]

The training enchantments were mine. And now that I think about it, there really isn't a solid wording for an effect that occurs when a card "fades away." I ran into the same problem when I created those enchantments.

Your wording seems as good as any, for the time being. It's a tricky enough issue that we night need a rules guru to help us write/template it.

As far as flavour text, how's this:

If the fuse weren't so long, you'd never find somebody willing to light it.

[Jacob Orlove]

I have no idea how balanced this is. It's probably fine, because it's so slow, but 10 damage is a whole lot.

[MrZuccinniHead]

How about:
Unstable Explosive
Enchantment
1RR
Fading 3
During you upkeep, ~this~ deals damage equal to its fading counters to target creature or player.
When ~this~ leaves play, if you sacrificed it because you could not remove a fading counter, deal 4 damage to target creature or player.
If the fuse weren't so long, you'd never find somebody willing to light it.

I thought it might be cool to divy up the damage a little to 3-2-1-4.  The 4 is the big bang at the end.  The total is still 10, but now you can better divide the damage up amongst targets , and thusly, making it more playable.

[Matt]

I think we should reserve 'Unstable Explosives' for another card, because that's a really awesome name and I don't like this card much (though I'm half-serious here).

Also, that last version is probably too complicated/long of text.

Does this really do anything Booby Trap didn't?

Lastly, the fading wording looks awkward - perhaps it could be worded such that it gained counters and exploded when there were enough on it?

"At the beginning of your upkeep, put a fuse counter on ~this~.
When there are three fuse counters on ~this~, sacrifice it. If you do, deal 10 damage to target creature or player."

[GoblinGame]

Having it deal damage every upkeep equal to the number of fade counters does not seem very much like a bomb...It doesn't "mini" explode a bunch of times it goes BOOM once and its big. Although Matt the adding fuse counters is something I thought about but steered away from it because it just seemed to much like goblin bomb. Although this is my first crack at making a card, so it could just be that it is a not so good idea. Which I am totally ok with because im bounb to make mistakes at something im just starting.

[Ephraim]

Now that I think about it, this is already very similar to Goblin Bomb and it is ridiculously better. There's only the smallest chance that Goblin Bomb will ever explode without outside intervention. The same goes for Booby Trap. This is a sure thing, if you invent three mana and wait a few turns. Think about it, if you assume one mana per turn, this could detonate on the seventh turn. That's still two turns earlier than Searing Wind can be played. Granted, this can be disenchanted in the meantime (one reason that MrZuccinniHead's suggestion should be avoided, since it makes this even better). However, in limited play, where this is liable to the be most dangerous, it's not always possible to draft or play enchantment destruction. That makes this card an absolute devastator in limited.

[GoblinGame]

Could have it deal 10 damage to both players to even it out, or perhaps have some way to destroy it, perhaps you could sac a land or 2 to destroy it?

[Jacob Orlove]

Neither Goblin Game nor Searing Wind are cards that anyone would reasonably consider even playable. The fact that this is better is, for the most part, irrelevant. However, this may indeed be too strong in Limited. 2RR seems like a much safer cost, without overly compromising the strength of the card. As a rare, that would pretty much be fine for limited.

[Ephraim]

I agree that they're unplayable, but they're both benchmarks for cards that deal ten damage at a shot. They might be valuable indicators that Wizards does not think that any serious card should be able to deal that much damage.

[GoblinGame]

Cost changed to 2RR.

[GoblinGame]

24hour clock starts now.

[Matt]

Needs a better name.

[Ephraim]

I suggest Delayed Detonation

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]