#cfac 29

@amtgplayer:

What’s funny is that, when I looked at this piece, both parts of it reminded me of Valorous Stance. Therefore I decided to make a variant of Valorous Stance.

Confrontation would be an Entwine-like mechanic which flavorfully represents the conflict between a Human faction and a non-Human faction on a plane like Innistrad or maybe FRF Tarkir. The design space may be somewhat small (must be on modal spells that can reasonably target either/both your creature or/and your opponent’s creature), but I believe it’s not hard to make one or two cycles out of it.

I agree that it’s quite a small design space, though it may be worth keywording for a few cycles; this feels like a keyword for a supplemental product rather than a main set, though that’s not a bad thing. 2W sounds fine for the costing: my gut reaction for cards like this is “cost it more than it would if you could only choose one, but less than you would if you could always choose both.” 1W is the former and I’d say 3W or maybe 2WW is the latter, so 2W sounds like a good compromise.

Thanks for the submission! Two points!

@nyx-fleece-bamf:

So as a fan of Dark Souls and Bloodbourne, I decided to go and make an “against all odds” type enchantment for all the knightly types out there. And what says chivalric, boisterous, knight-errant better than Don Quixote W/R? I decided to make an enchantment that supports knights, a oft-looked over type like Warrior, or Wizard that has some support, but not much. And I think that should be rectified.

Well now I want a windmill-fighting card.

I like the design. It may be a tad complex, and a bit too powerful: I would tag a mana cost to giving it the buffs, and maybe remove the one from getting a token. If I didn’t reduce the cost, I would say make the token bigger: 1/1′s are the realms of soldiers, and Knights should be slightly larger. And the vigilance in the top ability is pointless, because your creature is already attacking. I would shorten it to just +2/+0 and indestructible.

Thanks for the submission! Two points!

@acting4life97:

Took a step back to some simpler design this week. The flavor of more knights on a team making it easier to take down whatever foe they may be facing seemed to be a good way to take this card, but I wanted to use it in a way that incorporated the creature type idea. This kill spell may be somewhat situational, but if the whole set was designed around medieval type mythology such as that portrayed in the art, I think it would see plenty of use.

We do have past removal spells that targeted a specific creature type, so that’s not out of the question. I’m not a huge fan, though: it’s just so likely to be dead in a lot of situations. I would prefer a card that for example, tapped a creature, but if it was a Demon or Zombie, destroy it.

Affinity for Knights is also an interesting concept, but I would be hesitant after it’s been so broken in the past. I would probably put this at 2WW, because if the “affinity for knights” part is going to be relevant, there have to be a lot of knights, and if there are a lot of knights, this card gets really cheap.

Thanks for the submission! Two points!

@keyla-lovely:

The art isn’t Innistradi in nature, but the first thing I thought when I saw this art was a Champion of the Parish after being killed and raised again, still with some semblance of what his purpose once was.

I suppose it does have that type of stance/feel about it. Part of me wishes there was something more “zombie” about it other than being a higher-costed version of Champ. Perhaps also having Diregraf Colossus’ ability to get counters for the zombies in the graveyard, in addition to what it currently has?

Thanks for the submission! Two points!

@noyan-dar:

I couldn’t decide between Zombies and Knights so i went with both. Thematically it sorta works as if the presence of the giant lich dude turns other knights into zombies and zombies into knights, hence the vigilances and deathtouches. I was considering hybrid mana instead of straight-multicolour but it would make it too easy to use in both decks.

You would also have the mess of a Black creature with vigilance and a White creature with deathtouch if you went with hybrid, so I’m glad you didn’t. I like cross-over tribal cards, and I think tribal-leaning blocks definitely need them to allow color pairs to coexist properly. It seems appropriately costed and flavorful for the art.

Thanks for the submission! Two points!

@magicarasa:

Righteous Stand is a bit of stretch as far as white removal goes but it targets creature types that are predominately black, all monsters that white sees as inherently evil threats to the world and worthy of destruction.

I think this falls flavorly into “preemptive justice” and mechanically for “removal with restrictions” for White, so it seems fine to me on that front. I’m less of a fan of hyper-niche removal, but I suppose a set with this in it will be loaded with targets. At the point that it reaches, though, there’s almost no reason for this to not be “destroy target black creature” (outside of the bonus challenge, of course).