Everyone's doing it 2.

stefant · Joined: 09 Sep 2006 Posts: 14

How bout this then -
1G (Blah.)
Enchantment
Decay X (When (Blah.) comes into play, pay an additional X. Put X decay counters on (Blah.) At the beginning of your upkeep remove one decay counter from (Blah.))

Remove two decay counters from (Blah.) Add one mana of any colour to your mana pool.

lennin · Guest

a mechanic called decay on a green card, sounds kinda oxymoronic if u ask me

kobisjeruk · Joined: 04 Jun 2007 Posts: 44

decay play a bit too much like fading from nemesis
Re: Saproling Burst / Parallax Wave

and it got negative connotation(sp?) as mentioned by the guy above

try again man

Jacois · Joined: 05 Sep 2004 Posts: 429

That,card,is,fucking,terrible.
it,should,cost,0,at,most!

Die_t · Joined: 18 Jul 2007 Posts: 15

Wow Jacois, that's a little uncalled for.

Yea, You should probably just call it Fading, or it doesn't even need an ablity name. Just make the cost, X1G. Also, with it being green, you should probably make it, "remove one counter..."

Two counters is a lot for one mana. To get one mana out of it, you have to pay 4? then 6 to get 2...and so on.

Reminds me of a weak Pentad Prism.

Kaesh · Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 225

pst, it's called vanishing now :B

i agree with jacois on that it should just cost X (pay x only with green mana)

rockshard · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 111

How much would this card have to cost to be too good?

With Pentad Prism in mind, I agree that the card should either cost X, or it can cost X1G and you can remove one counter and not two.

And there is nothing wrong with making a redundant keyword. Wotc does it, so why can't we? Besides, his is a bit different since you have to pay mana for it. (jank I know, but I still)

Kaesh · Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 225

My mistake - I thought it removed only one counter. There is no way to make it playable in any format if it removes 2 counters for 1 mana.

MaksymG · Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 174

hmm very well done from a flavor viewpoint in regards to naming this mechanic "decay", the more mana (constructive magic) you put into the creation of the permenant the more time it his until it decays, grats

Avata · Joined: 03 Dec 2006 Posts: 370

rockshard · Joined: 24 Jun 2007 Posts: 111

Yea I was impressed that they remade Fading as Vanishing. So I guessed the reason they did that was because with Fading, you would forget that the card was a Fading card on the last turn since it had no counters on it. When you say that the templating on it was horrible, I am guessing you were either referring to that, or perhaps the fact that you had to do math to find out how many turns it stays in play. (although it makes more sense with summoning sickness since then fading X comes to mean it can attack X times) I will always think Fading has at least one advantage tho from the fact that it uses less counters. (imo counters are jank.)

When I mentioned redundant keywords, I was thinking that Evoke (Shriekmaw, the Lorwyn prerelease card) felt exactly like Channel from Saviors of Kamigawa.

But comparing them now, I see they are very different. And I realize Evoke is kinda cool and I like it now. :P

Anyway, as for Decay.

This is apparently Vanishing in which you have to pay mana for each counter.

Cards with Decay in that case have to be really quite powerful to be worth it.

Basically the only way to make Blah decent would be to let you remove one counter from it to produce mana and to make it cost no more than X. And if you only had to spend one green mana on X, that would be good.

Or it could be a colorless card (an artifact) that cost X, that would actually be a pretty nice card.