0 mana enchant creature

[rvs]

This came up in a discussion I had with Limbo about his Skateboard equipment, and how it can be costed fairly.

Now, I'm sure we all remember Matt's 1/1 0-mana Zombie, so I figured at first that something similar could be done with equipment or an enchant creature. Equipment is pretty good, and Shuko proves that I can't make a 0-mana equipment that does anything. But what about Enchant Creature? They are inherently bad and I suppose risky, so how good can it become?

So:

Too Good
0
Enchant Creature
Enchanted Creature gets +1/+1 and First Strike
~this~ is white

Probably, the first strike is pushing it, but what about the +1/+1?

[rvs]

current wording:
Iron Grip
0
Enchant Creature
Enchanted Creature gets +1/+1
Enchanted Creature gains First Strike if it is red or white
~this~ is red and white

[asmoranomardicodais]

It would be fair at:

+0/+2
or
+0/+1 and first strike MAYBE

Otherwise, your right; it is Too Good as it is.

[The Atog Lord]

Zero-mana cards are almost always awful. Yes, I know, there are the Moxen and their friends. But later cards, such as Kobolds, Ornithopers, and the 0cc  equipment, have been fairly limited in their power. So unless they have some drawback, these enchant creature spells would probably have to be fairly weak.

The other issue is that the card, if without any colored cost, can be played in any deck. So, now we have a means of augmenting a creature, devoid of any colored requirement, which can be played in any deck. This sounds like we're just trying to color-lace what ought to be an artifact. Because the enchantment per se might as well be an equipment which cannot be re-equipped and which is buried if the creature it is on leaves play.

So, we have two potential problems with the card proposed above: a 0cc spell without any drawback will almost certainly be weak beyond playability, and the fact that it is an enchantment and not an artifact will feel forced because of its lack of colored cost or colored flavor. So, a solution would be to combine the restriction on the card with the card's color's flavor.

Here are a few ideas, either of which would solve the above problems. I could see a cycle of these, one in each color.

Version (a)
Battle-Worn Lance
0
Enchant Creature
As an additional cost to play ~this~, tap an untapped white creature you control.
enchanted creature gains +1/+1 and has First Strike.
~this~ is white.

Version (b)
Soil-Planted Pike
0
Enchant Creature
As long as you control a Plains, enchanted creature gains +1/+1 and has First Strike.
~this~ is white.

Version (c)
Lance of Truth
0
Enchant Creature
As long as enchanted creature is white, it gains +1/+1 and has First Strike.
~this~ is white.

[Bram]

I hate these Kobold templates. Can't you just try to ake them good by 'priest of gixing' them?

Not Too Good
W
Enchant Creature
As long as you control a Plains, enchanted creature gains +1/+1 and has First Strike.
When ~this~ comes into play, as W to your mana pool.

[EDIT] Thanks Machinus. I think I broke it

[Machinus]

I hate these Kobold templates. Can't you just try to ake them good by 'priest of gixing' them?

Not Too Good
0
Enchant Creature
As long as you control a Plains, enchanted creature gains +1/+1 and has First Strike.
When ~this~ comes into play, as W to your mana pool.

Don't you want that to cost W? Haha.

[rvs]

I have no problem with the Priest-of-Gix idea, but that's not the point of the thread.

Seeing as how we can make a 1/1 for 0, what's stopping us from making a +1/+2 for 0, or a +1/+1 and first strike? Enchant Creatures are inherently more horrible then creatures, so this thread wants to explore where the limit is.

@The Atog Lord: there's no reason to name something equipment when it doesn't use the properties of equipment, but instead chooses to be an enchant creature.
Also, during OLS limited for instance, every color used Zombie Cutthroat, not just black. I don't see the fact that I made this white as opposed to artifact (which doesn't happen for enchant creatures) for 0 as an argument to change it around.

[dandan]

I don't think +1/+1 plus First Strike is too much however making an effectively colourless First Strike enabler goes against the flavour pie. As such the 'colourless' CC means that the power level needs to come down a touch. Seeing as it is First Strike you are adding, the toughness boost is actually often irrelevant and giving +1/+0 First Strike has become a classic White thing. As such I think +1/+0 First Strike is the best option here.

(I initially thought that +1/+1 and First Strike was too powerful. However I realised that I wouldn't put it in any constructed deck I have [and missing the cut in Type II monowhite highlander decks is a good indicator that a card is not too strong] and isn't exactly a bomb in Limited)

[rvs]

Hmm... so if Dandan thinks First Strike is ok, it must be doable!

[dandan]

I used to be one of the people pushing the limits of power, now I'm the benchmark for safety!

To be honest, can anyone here say that this is now too powerful when Equipment gives +2/0 for 1 mana?

[Ephraim]

As an enchantment, the only precedence for these combined abilities (+1/+x and first strike) has appeared on red cards. See: [card]Crown of Fury[/card], [card]Flaming Sword[/card], and [card]Lightning Reflexes[/card]. [card]Wings of Aesthir[/card] also granted +1/+0 and first strike, along with flying, for , but it's even older than the other three cards I mentioned. In any case, Wizards seems to see this ability pair as primarily red (not that it actually matters, when the spell costs .) Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that this ability should not be free. It should cost two mana and should have some other small bonus tacked on to the spell. Without the additional bonus, it might be safe to cost this at one mana. Then it starts to look like an enchantment version of Hundred-Tallon Strike, which seems okay to me.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Maybe, have its casting cost be WR, and have it add two colorless when it comes into play? It's kinda free, and that seems to make it fair.

[Limbo]

Maybe, have its casting cost be WR, and have it add two colorless when it comes into play? It's kinda free, and that seems to make it fair.

That is actually not the point of the card. The idea is: what effect on a creature enchantment can we get away with with a casting cost of 0.

[Bram]

Well, definitely not the proposed one. For 0 mana, either a power bonus or first strike, but certainly not both.

[Matt]

The difference between this and Faces In The Dark is that a "vanilla" 1/1 is not something associated with any particular color, whereas first strike is definitively white and red.

[Norm4eva]

I like 'Doable' but it might be appropriate to include an 'if you control a mountain or plains' for the simple fact that is isn't an Equipment card, it's an enchant creature and as such stems from magical roots.  It's not like I'm scared of a first turn BoP + Doable or anything, but it can't just float around the color wheel like that, at least not at that price.  It's okay if it's free, but not if it's unchained.

[Machinus]

Creature enchantments are horrible! They have to be a lot better than equipment for them to be playable. Rancor is the best enchantment there is and that is played in ONE deck in vintage, and not even all the time either. Shuko gives +1/+0 for 1 mana, so this could easily be +1/+0 for 0 mana. Your guy still gets fired/swordsd/kegged anyway, except now you lose 2 cards instead of 1 if you had played shuko.

Creature enchantments already have serious drawbacks (colored mana, -1 card advantage) by their very nature, so they can be better than equipment for the same cost.

[Norm4eva]

Yeah man, they're terrible, I agree.  But being terrible and being a 0cc creature enchant that's clearly either white or red aren't mutually exclusive.  Since Equipment was introduced, there's a template for things like this that are 'colorless'.  I have to contend that, if you want it to operate the same way in multiple decks, make it an Equipment.  Otherwise it's an enchantment spell, and spells align with color.  It's been established that this is very much white or red in nature, and it's 0cc which means it acts like an artifact, everyone can play it.  Whether everyone should is a different topic of discussion, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can't call it a cheesecake.
Either way it's not a huge deal.  No one really plays enchant creatures anyway, and this'll definitely get 2-for-1'd in play, if only because it should.  That's just my thoughts on the subject of free spells.

[rvs]

The difference between this and Faces In The Dark is that a "vanilla" 1/1 is not something associated with any particular color, whereas first strike is definitively white and red.

It was still a Zombie that is primarily black. Maybe Ephraim has a point that as an enchantment this should probably be red, but like Limbo said, the point of this thread is to find out where the line is in terms of the power a creature enchantment must have for 0 mana. (And in the process, it'll probably establish a benchmark where any creature enchantment can be in terms of power level).

[dandan]

OK so make it

~this~ is white and red

In practical terms that makes it slightly worse (can't enchant Prot Red, could be BEBed, etc). I think we have to look at Bonesplitter as a benchmark and take off some mana (equip) as Equipment is generally better than Enchant Creature and +2/0 is generally better than +1/0 and First Strike.

In pure power level terms +1/0 and First Strike for 0 is not a card I would play in any constructed deck. I might put it in a double strike deck but it is only +1/0 in such a deck anyway (and Shuko would probably be better, in any case I'd have 4 Bonesplitters).

Regarding the colour pie, I see the point although First Strike is hardly limited to Red and white anyway, only Blue has had no significant First Strikers (Green and Black have Elvish Archers and Black Knight amongst others). I'd have no problems with the First Strike being conditional on you controlling a Plains or Mountain/ a White or Red creature / enchanting a non-Blue creature for flavour purposes although I do not think this needs any drawback to balance its power level.

I think we need focus - this thread is about what a 0cc Enchant Creature could look like - it cannot be Equipment or have any other CC. If you disagree with the concept, say so.

[Matt]

OK so make it

~this~ is white and red

No, you're missing the point. It's not about what color the card IS, it's about what decks can play it. I happened to like black the best for Faces, but it could have easily been a 1/1 goblin or a 1/1 soldier or anything. You could play Faces in a white deck if you wanted, but that's okay because a vanilla 1/1 is still something white can get. First strike is not something that just any color can get.

It might help to imagine this gave +1/+0 and flying. It still wouldn't be constructed-playable but it would be more obviously a design mistake because flying is not something you just hand out - it's a very firmly colored mechanic.

[rvs]

Ok Matt, so what do you propose? What abilities are free for all according to you?

[Matt]

I don't know that any keyword abilities are. Nothing comes to mind. I think if you just gave it +1/+1 that might work - it's technically green but it's not unheard of for other colors to get that kind of thing. In some respects +1/+1 is better than first strike anyway - see Hand of cruelty vs. Black Knight.

[Norm4eva]

OK so make it

~this~ is white and red

No, you're missing the point. It's not about what color the card IS, it's about what decks can play it. I happened to like black the best for Faces, but it could have easily been a 1/1 goblin or a 1/1 soldier or anything. You could play Faces in a white deck if you wanted, but that's okay because a vanilla 1/1 is still something white can get. First strike is not something that just any color can get.

It might help to imagine this gave +1/+0 and flying. It still wouldn't be constructed-playable but it would be more obviously a design mistake because flying is not something you just hand out - it's a very firmly colored mechanic.

Could I assume, Matt, that given the opportunity to remake your card, you would have simply given it creature type - Human?  After all, it's been established that Humans are capable of being aligned with any color thus far.  Thus the creature type would have no bearing on issues of color, and every color has vanilla 1/1s at their disposal.

[Matt]

No, because I just plain like it being black. Also I had the awesome name and flavor text, and the flavor text was long so I know I had to use it on a card with little rules text. It fits together well enough that there's no good reason to change it. If I'd had a similarly awesome flavor text referencing something non-black, it probably would have ended up non-black. But I didn't.

From a purely mechanical viewpoint there was no reason it couldn't have been any other color; it just didn't turn out that way.

[Jacob Orlove]

Just giving +1/+1 is probably reasonable. I certainly can't think of any "unaligned" mechanics, unless you want to steal something from the artifacts.

[Ephraim]

Is the penalty of this being a creature enchantment sufficiently harsh to merit this being free, as compared to Leonin Scimitar, which costs to cast and to equip? I could also point to Capashen Standard, a favourite of mine. It has a cycling variant, but otherwise, it's a plain +1/+1 enchantment for .

[rvs]

Is the penalty of this being a creature enchantment sufficiently harsh to merit this being free, as compared to Leonin Scimitar, which costs to cast and to equip? I could also point to Capashen Standard, a favourite of mine. It has a cycling variant, but otherwise, it's a plain +1/+1 enchantment for .

Even though you are correct, those 2 both suck ass. As Dandan mentioned, a good standard is probably Bonesplitter, which this definately does not beat.

[Matt]

A good name would be something about preparing for a battle by training ahead of time...something like that.

The other cards to compare it to, besides Shuko and Leonin Scimitar, are Battlegrowth and Ashnod's Transmogrant.

[dandan]

I think this needs First Strike to make it interesting, plain old +1/+1 makes this weak and dull.

OK so make it

~this~ is white and red
Regarding the colour pie, I see the point although First Strike is hardly limited to Red and white anyway, only Blue has had no significant First Strikers (Green and Black have Elvish Archers and Black Knight amongst others). I'd have no problems with the First Strike being conditional on you controlling a Plains or Mountain/ a White or Red creature / enchanting a non-Blue creature for flavour purposes although I do not think this needs any drawback to balance its power level.

No, you're missing the point. It's not about what color the card IS, it's about what decks can play it. I happened to like black the best for Faces, but it could have easily been a 1/1 goblin or a 1/1 soldier or anything. You could play Faces in a white deck if you wanted, but that's okay because a vanilla 1/1 is still something white can get. First strike is not something that just any color can get.
It might help to imagine this gave +1/+0 and flying. It still wouldn't be constructed-playable but it would be more obviously a design mistake because flying is not something you just hand out - it's a very firmly colored mechanic.

I think this needs First Strike to make it interesting, plain old +1/+1 makes this weak and dull.
I have inserted the ret of my post, so you can see I did not miss the point of the objection - I went to the trouble of suggesting not one, not two but three ways (5 is right out - Monty Python)  of balancing it from the colour pie aspect.
I think giving the First Strike if a White or Red creature is enchanted is the most logical solution.