StP-Guy

[Puschkin]

Leader of the Farmer's Guild
W
Creature - Townsfolk
When Leader of Farmer's Guild come into play, remove target creature you control from the game. Target opponent gets life equal to the toughness of that creature.
4/4
"Join us! We have enough work for all of you! You will never have to use your sword again!"


A Swords to Plowshares on a stick. Only that it plows one of your own guys. And that the opponent still gets the life. I really can't say if he is too small or too big, thats where you guys come in. The name, creature type and flavour text are obviously not serious and up for debate, I don't care abut this. The casting cost and ability should stay, Power and Toughness can be changed to balance the card.


Current Wording
Leader of the Farmer's Guild
W
Creature - Townsfolk
When Leader of Farmer's Guild come into play, remove target creature you control from the game. Target opponent gets life equal to the toughness of that creature.
4/4
"Join us! We have enough work for all of you! You will never have to use your sword again!"

[Matt]

Name suggests legendary?

[wonkey_donkey]

Does this not say, as the card is, "target opponent gains 4 life"? They can just remove this creature itself.

Tom

[Jacob Orlove]

No, you choose the creature. This seems a little strong when you compare it to that one 3/1 regenerator for B with a very similar ability.

[wonkey_donkey]

Sorry, my bad. My first thought was that it's too strong if the opponent doesn't choose, which is why I'd managed to assume the opposite.

Tom

[Puschkin]

Matt, you mean Kjeldoran Dead. Kjeldoran Dead does not give the opponent life, it does not remove your creature from the game and ... is quite unplayable! Thats why I think 4/4 is quite fair. Its card disadvantage. It gives the opponent life. If you ditch a useless small critter in the middle or late game it doesnt matter that the cc is only one mana. In order to make this any good you have to play it asap, within the first three turns. And thats where you can afford to lose a creature the least.

The best/fastest way to play this would be Shield Sphere. No, think, is a 4/4 creature worth a second card and the risk to have this in the openenig hand but not the Sphere? And since it rfg you cant do any tricks with Squees or something like that.

But anyway, if you really think its too strong, I might lower the toughness or even power, but I don't think that it is necessary.

And I said that the name and flavour is totally irrelevant for me in this case, I am open for any suggestions!

[rvs]

Ahh! Yet another combo with Ornithopter!

[Toad]

This is FAR too strong !!! It's quite game over by turn 2 in limited.

[Puschkin]

Are you kidding? The fastest you would have in limited is a 4/4 guy on turn two that ate another of your guys ... and if it gets bounced you are screwed. Yay. If you think that this will be problematic, make him uncommon or even rare. But if you reduce his power and toughness, I know for certain that limited would be the only format this guy would be played in and I think that ist the wrong way to design cards.

Besides, I told you that the card should be balanced by altering power and toughness, if you think its too strong, tell me what you think would be the correct p/t, without this information your post is worthless, Toad.

[Limbo]

I think the best benchmark to compare this with would be rogue elephant. That is a playable 3/3 that eats a forest. I would say that removing a creature AND giving the opponent life in addition to that is quite on par with the elephant.

So maybe 4/4 is a quite strong. However, if made an uncommon or even a rare, I think this can get away with being a 4/4 (3/3 would most certainly be too weak) .

[Ephraim]

That's a fairly reasonable argument in favour of this, Limbo. I hadn't really considered it that way and it definitely puts this card in perspective. I think I agree that 4/4 is still a little bit strong. I'd rather see this as a 4/3. Although it's uncharacteristic for white to give creatures more power than toughness, I think it's important that this card be killable by a variety of single spells, which a toughness of 4 hinders. There has to be the possibility of this card generating big card disadvantage or it really will be too powerful.

[Nefarias]

I don't know if this is overdoing it, but maybe it could RFG all your creatures (with the exception of itself, of course) when you play it. The ideal play for this would still be turn one: 1/1, turn two: this (sans 0cc guys), so it wouldn't change it in that regard. It's still just as strong in the very early game, and just gets progessively worse. That may be nuking it too much, but just a suggestion.

[Matt]

If 4/4 is too much you could make it 3/3 and give it Bushido 1 or Vigilance or something. Bushido, in particular, lets it mimic being a 4/4.

[MrZuccinniHead]

as mentioned above...this is far too powerful in limited cuz limited is about getting ahead of the power/toughness curve and this is just ridiculous.

[Puschkin]

Okay, so we can all agree on that it is perfectly okay in constructed? Good. Now to limited. By the time you can attack with this guy, the opponent will be able to have two 2/2 creatures out if he went first, being able to trade them for ~this~. And since ~this~ also costed 2 cards, the trade is even. If the opponent went second, he would have to let him through once and can gang-block him next turn. Since he got life when ~this~ came into play, this should also be fair. And if you managed to get a 2/3 or 3/3 together with a 2/2, you will lose only one critter.

Honestly, you are exaggerating when you say this is overpowering in limited. I would pick A Wild Mongrel or something like that any day over this guy.

[Jacob Orlove]

I would pick A Wild Mongrel or something like that any day over this guy.

Wild Mongrel was easily the best common in it's set for limited, and possibly the best card period. Saying that this card is worse is not saying much.

Any combat trick + this leaves them open to losing their entire board position. It really is just a little bit too cheap or to big.

[Puschkin]

And the opponent is supposed to have no combat trick or what?

You need this in the opening hand plus another weenie that you can play beforehand plus a combat trick ... maybe I should not have compared it to Wild Mongrel but seriously, the fe times I played limited other things ruled the world like landwalkers, Wash Out, Overrun. Look at cards like Traveller's Cloak. Impact is way greater on limited than this one, its just a creature for heaven's sake, one with buit-in card disadvantage, no combat tricks and no evasion.

Seriously this may be good in limited but far from being the house you claim it to be. Even if, bigger and bolder bombs have been printed so far, call this a "skill tester" if you want but if you deny things like this, I wonder how you can finish any card here at Kard Kreation since all but the most boring ones will either be too strong in limit or in format this or format that.
Not that this was usually my role here, back then I was the one who deemed most cards too powerful what happened, Soul Exchange? ^^

[Toad]

I would probably compare this card with [card]Loxodon Peacekeeper[/card] in term of drawback / power level / mana cost. Loxodon Peacekeeper is obviously far worse than this one but still costs .

And this card comboes fairly well with creatures that can be sacrificed to other abilities with no drawback. At least make the STP effect non targeted to avoid tricks with stuff like Arcbound Ravager or Atog.

[rvs]

I would probably compare this card with [card]Loxodon Peacekeeper[/card] in term of drawback / power level / mana cost. Loxodon Peacekeeper is obviously far worse than this one but still costs .

And this card comboes fairly well with creatures that can be sacrificed to other abilities with no drawback. At least make the STP effect non targeted to avoid tricks with stuff like Arcbound Ravager or Atog.

To be honest though, the possible harm this card can do to limited would depend on the enviroment it is in. I think Toad makes a good argument here in basis of comparison, but I think we can let this slip into the Master List. If we decide to put it in a set, we can either decide then that our specific limited format is equipped to handle this (or just make it U, or even R), or tone it down a bit then.

Sounds like an ok compromise guys?

[Godder]

Perhaps if you added a clause "If you don't, sacrifice ~this~." ?

[Norm4eva]

No need for an 'If you don't' clause; it'll Swords itself if there's nothing else in play on your side.
This talk of how good it is in Limited is really vague; which Limited format are we talking about here, the Master List?  Have a grand majority of us drafted from that set?
I don't think there's anything overbearing about this card; it's card disadvantage and aside from its CIP it's vanilla.