Primeval Call, green sorcery

[Rando]

Primeval Call
4GG
Sorcery
All creatures loose all special abilities, gain Wall in addition to thier creature types and gain "Tap: add G to your mana pool".


Primeval Call
4GG
Sorcery
Remove all creatures from the game.  For each creature removed this way, that creature's controler puts into play a 0/3 green Wood creature token that also counts as a land.  These tokens have defender and "T: Add G to your mana pool".
This is the forest primeval. The murmuring pines and the hemlocks,
Bearded with moss, and in garments green, indistinct in the twilight...
Evangeline, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

[Rando]

Do I need to include (this effect does not end at end of turn)?

[Laurie Cheers]

Yes, you do.
If that's your intention, shouldn't this be an enchantment? As it is, it won't affect creatures that come into play after you play it...

[wonkey_donkey]

Yes, you do.
If that's your intention, shouldn't this be an enchantment? As it is, it won't affect creatures that come into play after you play it...

My thoughts exactly.

Also, the creature type 'wall' no longer means anything - it's being replaced with the keyworded ability "Defender." Can you make an enchantment that said "all creatures lose all abilities and gain the ability 'defender'" without cocking things up, so to speak? I like the idea of a new humility-esque card, though, and it would seem to be appropriately costed.

Tom

[Laurie Cheers]

Erk... I hadn't noticed the "lose abilities" part...
Humility causes horrible car-crashes in the continuous effect rules. (e.g. when combined with Opalescence or Ambush Commander). It's really not a good idea to make a new version of it.

I suggest:

Remove all creatures from the game. For each creature removed from the game this way, its controller puts a 2/2 green Wall creature token into play. It has defender and "T: Add G to your mana pool".

...but I suppose that's a bit similar to March of Souls.

[Jebus]

*edit* Nevermind, everyone beat me too it.  Was in too much of a hurry.

[Rando]

Jumpin' Jesus do I need to keep up with the times.  So "defender" is an ability?  Do I need to just replace "gain Wall in addition to thier creature types" with "gain defender"?

Removing the creatures from the game and replacing them with tokens may be the better idea.  It would also match the flavor text better, even though the flavor shouldn't be a guide in the card's design.

indistinct in the twilight

I wanted to avoid a Hummility clone, so that's why it's a sorcery.  Any creatues that came in later would be uneffected.

[Laurie Cheers]

Why shouldn't flavour be a guide to a card's design? Some of the coolest cards get designed that way. (Like Form of the Dragon.)

[Matt]

This card does not work, for rules purposes. It's a bad idea to take away abilities, and it's absolutely impossible to take them away without specifying a new power/toughness. I suggest making it:

When Primeval Call comes into play, remove all creatures from the game. For each creature removed in this way, its controller puts a 0/3 green Wood token into play.
Tap an untapped Wood you control: Add to your mana pool. Any player may play this ability.
When Primeval Call leaves play, return the removed creatures to their owners' control.

That's long, but it would fit (just barely). I base this off the Myojin guys in CHK with the divinity counters.

[Jebus]

This card does not work, for rules purposes. It's a bad idea to take away abilities, and it's absolutely impossible to take them away without specifying a new power/toughness. I suggest making it:

When Primeval Call comes into play, remove all creatures from the game. For each creature removed in this way, its controller puts a 0/3 green Wood token into play.
Tap an untapped Wood you control: Add to your mana pool. Any player may play this ability.
When Primeval Call leaves play, return the removed creatures to their owners' control.

That's long, but it would fit (just barely). I base this off the Myojin guys in CHK with the divinity counters.

This would be cool.  But, you should add a clause that removes the Wood tokens if this leaves play (like Day of the Dragons).

[Jacob Orlove]

I love that flavor text, but I'm not sure if that ability fits with it. What about making all basic lands forests?

[Rando]

Are we sure we want to make this a green humility?  I didn't want to make it an enchantment.  However, the majority rules so if that's what you all want, that's what you get.  The concept will still be the same.

In either case, it seems removing creatures from the game and replacing them with tokens is the right way to go.

[dandan]

I suggest we use the word 'lose' to represent the word 'lose' and not its inferior cousin 'loose'. Luckily a sensible version of this card will have neither. We have enough problem with little CoK to play with without loose women.

In addition they is very very close to a Wrath for Green. Is that a good idea?

From a flavour point of view I would prefer Forest tokens rather than 0/3 wall tokens. Is there a good reason why tokens cannot be land?

[Rando]

OK, edited the card.  Now it removes creatures from the game and creates tokens.  For now, they are creature tokens that also count as land.  However, I like the unprecidented idea of making forest tokens.  Can we do this?

[Jebus]

OK, edited the card.  Now it removes creatures from the game and creates tokens.  For now, they are creature tokens that also count as land.  However, I like the unprecidented idea of making forest tokens.  Can we do this?

The rules don't directly support it, but they also don't not support it (I'm not not licking toads...or Toad).

It would require a tweak to the rules, but could be done.

That being said, I don't really think I like the idea of non-creature tokens.  I'm sure WotC would do it one day anyway though.

[Jacob Orlove]

I love that flavor text, but I'm not sure if that ability fits with it. What about making all basic lands forests?

Did you not like this idea?

[Rando]

It's not that I didn't like the idea, it's just that I was going for a big creature control card for green.   I do see that the flavor text I chose would more closely fit a land affecting card.

It may be a more powerful effect for green to have then red (due to green's mana fixing abilities) but what would the cost difference of such a card be when compared to Blood Moon?

[Jacob Orlove]

Actually, forget changing basic lands--that's boring and dumb. Changing nonbasics makes much more sense, especially for green. And green has a precedent for stealing three mana red enchantments. So, have it make nonbasic lands forests, and have it cost 2G or GG.

[Matt]

If you're going to steal Blood Moon, make it 2G. But I really like the flavor of some huge spell that turns everything on the battlefield into a living statue.

[Laurie Cheers]

Hmm... Green doesn't really do creature control though.
It would probably be more in flavour to have this effect on all attacking and blocking creatures; a really vicious version of Fog.