| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#MagicTheGatherer
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
Using him to pump your creatures, while it may seem redundant at first, can have merits depending on the card you intend to morph your guy into (I just used three different words to refer to creatures WHATS WRONG WITH ME). It can be used to bypass certain drawbacks of cards like Avatar of Discord (3 mana, 5/3 flyer, when it arrives you discard 2 or it goes boom, but morphing a thing into it bypasses this). The fact that Tedd's ability doesn't require colored mana is a big plus to this tactic, which is also very difficult to counter (Tedd himself on the other hand...). Quirky and workable, but not spectacular.
The alternative, shrinking your opponent's duderoonies? I don't think it's balanced as it can be used as incredibly cheap mass removal with one-turn wonders like Spark Elemental. They're very cheap, can deal enough damage on their own to be a viable win condition, and a deck revolving around them would only need minor alterations to accomodate Tedd. Then again, I could be overestimating the tactic, as I only play casually.
"if you know what i mean."
It's not balanced, and it's not worded right. Since I see a lot of people, yourself included, commented on the balance in your MtG blog, I'll just comment on the wording.
First wording issue: "equal to" is superfluous in context. You want "Reveal a creature card in your hand with converted mana cost X." Not egregious.
Second wording issue: The way it's worded, it asks you to pay at the resolution of the ability, because the clarification isn't there to make it a quality of the ability's cost. You've put it in the right order, but it really should be worded "This ability costs {2} more for each time you have played it this turn." Unless you intended it to only cost {2} more total, regardless of how many times you've played it.
That said, I like the concept, copy cards are my favourite kind of cards. And I think you should try to make some more cards... maybe some commons first though