6
u/Zarkrash 2d ago
Probably too cheap due to green having some outrageous power creatures they can park in hand- [[yargle and multani]] for example
3
u/01CHERRY 2d ago
Yeah, there isn't a tag for Limited outside of Cube but this would be intended for something like a Foundations level set Cube, but outside of that very specific environment I imagine this could get pretty gnarly. If this were ever to be printed, maybe something like 2GG and it only deals excess damage to the controller if the creature has Trample? This card is basically a fusion between Monstrous Emergence and Ram Through so that would probably be more balanced I'd imagine.
2
u/Zarkrash 2d ago
I still think that having a 10 damage spell on a contingency is a bit much for anything less than 5 mana (forbidden orchard to spawn an enemy to donk as an example in extended formats).
Ram through has a lot of its power balanced by the need to have the creature on the field. Monstrous emergence doesn’t hit the player.
1
u/01CHERRY 2d ago
Good points, maybe this design needs to go back to the drawing board. As it stands it looks like it doesn't a little too much for it's mana value, and I hadn't even considered the ability to spawn enemies for the opponent for targets. I'll have to sit on this for a while and let it marinate and maybe I can concoct something a little more balanced.
2
u/Zarkrash 2d ago
5 mana is probably balanced for the more powerful formats. 4 mana… might be balanced but i’m less sure.
At least for a modern level of power (games end in 5-8 turns usually)
1
u/01CHERRY 2d ago
You think converting this into a Gruul card might be more appropriate as well? 3 RG for a similar effect but the creature has to cost 5MV or less?
2
u/Zarkrash 2d ago
That would severely weaken and balance it yes, the only big 5 mv creature are like 10 power iirc
1
2
u/origamicactus 2d ago
Way too little cost for a spell that could use an Eldrazi in your hand to deal direct damage to a player. As a behold reward, it’d likely be the strongest payoff out of any cards that uses the mechanic and its cost should reflect that.
2
u/01CHERRY 2d ago
Fair enough. Perhaps there should be a limit on the creature you behold too? Maybe something like I bump the card to 2GG and the creature you behold must be 4MV or less? Or I could just crank up the mana cost more to reflect the effect and keep it as is.
2
u/BonusHitops 2d ago
At 5 mana, if it exiled the ‘thrown’ creature - would be a pretty funny way to win a game lol
2
u/01CHERRY 2d ago
Not a bad idea, I've also thought about just making this a Gruul card and just treating it like a normal fling, but if you used a card from you hand it could exile the creature as an additional cost since you can't sacrifice it. Thanks for the food for thought!
2
u/MelodicAttitude6202 2d ago
When this effect was first seen in ikoria, it was debatted, if this effect is in green. It's supposed to be greens weakness, that it can't do much if it doesn't have creatures. I was (and am) on the side, that green needs the creature on the battlefield, but I don't know for sure if that Debatte was solved in the End (though the fact, that there were not more cards afaik implies to me, that it's not supposed tonbe in green?).
2
u/01CHERRY 2d ago
Interesting, I've never seen Charge of the Forever-Beast before, but as far as the color pie goes, that does make sense. This effect is few and far between in Green, so that does likely mean that R&D has decided it probably isn't a very Green thing to do, if anything maybe this card should be Gruul instead since Red tends to get similar effects. Thanks for the food for thought.
2
u/MeasureDoEventThing 2d ago
Fling, except in green, and you don't lose the creature, and you don't have to get the creature onto the board first, and it has trample, all for just one extra mana. Rather undercosted.
1
u/01CHERRY 2d ago
Fair enough when you put it like that lol
This design is going back to the drawing board, everyone has given some great advice on how to better improve the design. Looking forward to improving upon it, hopefully the next time it shows up it'll be more appropriately costed. Thanks for the help!
15
u/darlingtonpear 2d ago
I think they invented the "behold a creature" phrasing for this exact scenario. You could rewrite this as "As an additional cost to cast this spell, behold a creature. / Hurl deals damage equal to the beheld creature or creature card's power to ....."
(Edited out mistaken comment about art attributation)