Lava Golem

[Ephraim]

Lava Golem

Artifact Creature -- Golem
0/6

: Add or remove a magma counter from Lava Golem.
Lava Golem gets +1/-1 for each magma counter on it.

***

This card came from the name. I wanted to figure out what exactly such a golem would do. The answer, I decided was that it would flow. Thus, I used flowstone as a model for its ability. Instead of granting only temporary bonuses, however, this golem has to be "heated up" every time you want it to change and then solidifies again afterward. My only concern with this, I guess, is that the magma counters are functionally +1/-1 counters. Is that okay?

Mechanically speaking, I am not sure whether or not this should come into play with counters on it or not. I'll leave that up to discussion.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Lava Golem
{5}
Artifact Creature -- Golem
0/6

Lava Golem comes into play with 3 +1/-1 counters on it.
{1}{R}: Add or remove a +1/-1 counter from Lava Golem.
When Lava Golem is put into a graveyard from play, it deals damage equal to its power to target creature or player.

[Matt]

You could do this:

: Add or remove a +1/+1 counter to Lava Golem.
Lava Golem gets -0/-2 for each +1/+1 couner on it.

Or would that be too nutty?

[Norm4eva]

I think as long as the actual counters aren't +1/-1 then it's fine.  WotC's reasoning for not using -1/-1 counters is because of cards like Phantom Centaur and keeping things clear and separate.  If Phantom Centaur has 3 +1/+1 counters and two -1/-1 counters and someone has Power Conduit in play there's memory issues waiting to happen.  If that same Centaur has two +1/+1 counters and ends up somehow getting your card's magma counters, who cares?  They don't do anything unless they're on your card.  I think your wording is pretty straightforward, or at least better than Matt's.
Whether or not it needs counters when it CIP is another story.  Including the casting cost it takes 6 mana to make this swing for damage; it takes 10 mana to make this a 3/3.

[Godder]

Perhaps charge counters? They seem to be the standard these days, and have applications with other cards as well.

Beyond that, I like the card itself – it's a nice top-down design.

[Ephraim]

Perhaps charge counters? They seem to be the standard these days, and have applications with other cards as well.

Beyond that, I like the card itself – it's a nice top-down design.

I specifically avoided charge counters, since I didn't want this to be easy to power up/down with Coretapper, Power Conduit, etc.

I think as long as the actual counters aren't +1/-1 then it's fine.  WotC's reasoning for not using -1/-1 counters is because of cards like Phantom Centaur and keeping things clear and separate.  If Phantom Centaur has 3 +1/+1 counters and two -1/-1 counters and someone has Power Conduit in play there's memory issues waiting to happen.  If that same Centaur has two +1/+1 counters and ends up somehow getting your card's magma counters, who cares?  They don't do anything unless they're on your card.  I think your wording is pretty straightforward, or at least better than Matt's.
Whether or not it needs counters when it CIP is another story.  Including the casting cost it takes 6 mana to make this swing for damage; it takes 10 mana to make this a 3/3.

I don't quite think that's the issue. I don't think there's any way for other cards to get this card's magma counters (Quicksilver Elemental, I guess.) I think the issue is when a creature can generate ambiguity on itself. Suppose this creature were to acquire some +1/+1 counters from elsewhere. It would be just as difficult to distinguish between +1/+1 counters and magma counters as it would be to distinguish between +1/+1 counters and +1/-1 counters.

[Matt]

Which my version solves nicely, I might add!

[Ephraim]

Which my version solves nicely, I might add!

You're a weiner.
Seriously, though, although your idea does solve the problem, it's also incredibly weird. I reckon it's worth a shot, though. It seems really stupid, but it's probably the most printable wording, right now.

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[dandan]

As worded I can kill this by adding 6 +1/+1 counters (Champions Green dragon anyone?) That is too weird.

Aren't there a number of other cards that you have to remember values for? And since when did Rasputin and Clockwork Beast become too hard to understand? We should try to use only +1/+1 counters but I think there can be exceptions and this looks like a good case for exception to this rule. You really shouldn't be able to kill stuff (except by popping them like one or two artifacts) by making the bigger.

[Matt]

Did dandan just call something too weird?

[Norm4eva]

That's a good point.  Bounty of the Hunt shouldn't turn into Snuff Out.  It's also really awful with Modular.
I like the magma counter thing.  If for no other reason than I can play this card and use the word 'magma' over and over, like Dr. Evil.  "I shall add another counter of liquid hot magma to my Lava Golem.  Muhahaha"

[dandan]

Did dandan just call something too weird?

The fact that I take that as a compliment suggests that you have a point.

I still think that +1/-1 counters make more sense than a rules fudge that allows you to kill this creature by pumping it up. Having said that I find the idea of an Enchantment that causes death if creatures grow strangely appealling (obviously another card, another thread).

[Ephraim]

I actually found it rather appealing that an opponent could kill this by throwing +1/+1 counters your way. I mean, let's be honest here, folks. Cards associated with +1/+1 counters are often bad, especially when they're cards that add counters to target creature. If an opponent pops Jugan, do you really think they're going to kill Lava Golem? If an opponent can put enough counters on it at once to avoid just getting excess counters removed, then they'd be a whole lot better off just pumping up one of their own creatures.

[dandan]

I agree that it is an interesting concept but I don't think it is right for this card.

[Nibble]

I agree that it is an interesting concept but I don't think it is right for this card.

Agreed. I understand the flavor of the golem heating up too much until it just melts entirely, but +1/+1 counters from any other source have nothing to do with the 'heating up' aspect. Take Battlegrowth, for instance. My take on Battlegrowth is that your creature is gaining experience in combat to become a more skilled fighter. But here, your golem's improved skill in battle can suddenly cause it to collapse?

[Norm4eva]

When you throw something at lava, the result seems like it would be... more lava.  Not less lava.  Lava melts everything, at least in the Magic world.  Swords, hats, mongrels... whatever +1/+1 counters are made of, they probably melt.  Thus the Lava Golem is huger.
This is all a lot of silly logic that is just trying to avoid the strange situation of counters not doing what they're supposed to.  That's sort of the fundamental issue I think; +1/+1 counters work on everything else, except this ONE guy that magically gets tinier.

[Ephraim]

He doesn't get tinier. He gets more and more fragile. He gets so hot that he can no longer maintain enough cohesion to be considered a creature and simply disperses as a no-longer-animate puddle of molten rock.

[asmoranomardicodais]

I REALLY think you should go back to your original wording. I like the flowstone thing, and the card is now MORE confusing because of the +1/+1 counters, as opposed to less, which is the entire point of using +1/+1 counters.

[Ephraim]

It's confusing at first glance, but I don't think it's at all difficult to figure out how this card operates. Yes, it's confusing just what the counters do, but there's little to no danger of this card acquiring counters with different names now, even if somebody does something crazy like put it in an Arcbound deck.

[dandan]

Couldn't this erupt/explode if it gets so many counters that it dies? At leasts we could see why it died. Magmasaur was pretty cool in its own way.

[Ephraim]

You mean explode/erupt in a way that deals damage? I suppose I could, but I don't know if it could be an artifact creature anymore. Doesn't that seem like it's infringing a little bit too much on red's territory?

[Nibble]

I was going to cite Bosh as an example of an artifact creature doing direct damage, but then remembered his activation cost included . Silly Type 4 messing with my mind.

Eph, you realize you've made a card featuring lava (in name and concept) and a flowstone ability, and only now you're worried about infringing on red?   It would actually be kind of interesting if the ability cost was changed to , because it'd make it so that only red mages have the power to heat up the golem, while everyone else just gets a hunk of stone, which makes a lot of sense. I think it can still exist as it is, but you're right that adding a direct damage element would be too much for all colorless mana.

[Matt]

I think colorizing the mana cost of the ability and having it do damage is a GREAT idea. We already have some 'blue' artifact, maybe they could form a cycle.

[Ephraim]

I am going to increase the mana cost to or and give it the ability, "When Lava Golem goes to the graveyard, it deals damage equal to its power to target creature or player." I will modify the ability that adds or removes counters to cost .

[dandan]

Now you've made it overcosted.

Honestly, would a Red mage pay 6 plus 6RRRRRR to deal 6 damage to something?

4 mana for a 0/6 Artifact creature with the potential for offense is fine (see Walking Wall). Paying 1R to flowstone this and allow it to go out in a blaze of glory seems OK to me. Or are we worried about the Firebreathing combo? 

[Ephraim]

I'll lower the cost again. I forgot when I was making the changes that the red mana addition wasn't just relevant to the direct damage ability. It means that to any other colour, this is just a 0/6 creature. On the other hand, looking at this a second time, I really don't like that. Bosh, for example, isn't useless in an off-colour deck. He is a huge creature. I think I could make this creature strong and still be okay with it if I instead changed the activation cost of the add/remove ability to " or ." Would this still be okay with a mana cost of with that?

[asmoranomardicodais]

If you wanted to make it more wacky, you could do this:

1R: Add a +1/+1 counter
1U: Remove a +1/+1 counter

Flavor-wise, it's cool, because the red mage heats it up, and the blue mage can cool it down again. Also, it's neat that with red mana you can only send towards killing itself. Being two colored also means that sometimes it'll be played as a wall without a way to pump it up, and sometimes it can only be used to get more and more aggressive. Lastly, having two color activation costs make it easily on the curve at 4 casting cost.

[Matt]

Oh man, the heat/cool thing is awesome.

[Ephraim]

I don't really like where this is going. I had wanted this to be a fairly simple creature that had a flowstone-like abiility, except that it didn't wear off at the end of the turn. I was okay with adding a coloured activation and a burn ability, but now the discussion has drifted toward adding a second coloured activation, which really takes this card beyond what I wanted it to be. I'm going to cost it at and leave the single activated ability at a cost of , but I'm going to have it come into play with 3 +1/+1 counters on it.