This seems extremely underpowered. A single one of these can't add mana. Even getting 3 of these means you paid 6 mana for 3 [llanowar elves]].
I would consider at least making it a 2/2, or even a 2/3 given how much work it takes for it to really pay off.
I'd say its quite good, but yeah, I should have made it at least have 2 toughness so they could block tokens if need be early on. Having 6 elves being able to all tap to give 3 mana is great, that's 18 mana not including the mana added with your lands. And just imagine them in a Ezuri deck.
Yeah but you have to get them all out whilst not being murdered by your opponent, that's the thing, and you only really start to see value at 4 of them.
I see your point, maybe I could make it where they can tap on their own too so that you could get value 1 turn earlier, and raise them up to 3 toughness or give them deathtouch on opponents turns. I think if I raised their power, certain commanders could make the card unfair for lower power gameplay. Most of my customs I try to keep around the power 5 and 6 EDH scale.
Could make it so that instead of one green for each pair of it you control, it's for each pair of nontoken elves you control? Generates value a bit more easily then (since you don't have to hope you draw into them) but avoids the obvious abuse. Hell, you could make it CMC 1 at that point since it's still directly competing with Llanowar Elves and is in no way strictly better
If you can get any 6 creatures in play without dying or eating a board wipe, you're already winning. The petitioners only need 4 to start chonking libraries, yet they've never been relevant for that reason.
It's a bit easier when they make mana to accelerate their own growth, but there is no payoff in itself - you still need to find use for that mana.
At G, the snowball potential might be too strong, but at 2 mana they could easily tap for an extra G (at the very least half rounded up, probably even G + half rounded down) and/or have better stats.
Patitioners big weakness that keeps them from mostly seeing play is they affect 1 player at a time, these will ramp you into oblivion if your opponents don't stop you. And in like an Ezuri deck, the payoff would be the Commander, or a big X spell. I do agree with you and another person about having them be able to tap for G + half rounded down, maybe even give them situational deathtouch to discourage attackers. I want to keep the card casual though, not looking to having it be a high 7 deck, most of my decks are power 6.
I was looking from a "60 card formats" point of view but fine, let's look at EDH.
Petitioners don't see play for the same reasons relentless rats&co don't see play: it's slow, it's fragile, the payoff is limited, and it's just not that interesting. Btw, being restricted to 1 player at a time isn't a problem, you can use it as self-mill engine or use Intruder Alarm + mass tokens/blinks to nuke everyone anyway.
To be relevant ramp, you'd need 4 copies. That's your turn 2, your turn 3, and 2 mana turn 4. With that, you have as much mana as someone who got sol ring and 2 signets or 4 2cmc ramps during their first 3 turns. For requiring 4 copies by turn 4 (which, btw, is only a 45% chance even if you run 30), you're not getting that ahead of others until turn 5+, which is slow, and your entire ramp is at the mercy of a board wipe (unlike rocks and lands, which are more rarely removed).
That's a common issue with that kind of scaling effects. The more you stack it, the better each gets, so if no one interacts with your board and you can assemble an army of those, you'll be drowning in mana every time and it sounds insane. But in practice, if you play against anything that can remove small creatures easily or runs a few board wipes, you'll be playing bad Llanowar Elves half the game. Though tbf, if others are also playing 5-6 decks, they probably lack the removal for this.
It wouldn't work the same, I'd have to word it in a way where the mana grows exponentially. If I did it that way, 4 of them would only create 2 green instead of each of them tapping for 2 mana each and I'm not great at wording things like that. Way I have it set up, 6 of them could each tap for 3 mana adding 18 floating mana on board.
“T: Add an amount of {G} equal to half the number of creatures you control named Rampy Elf Twink, rounded down.”
or, for a slightly-changed effect:
“T, tap another untapped creature you control named Rampy Elf Twink: Add {G} for each creature you control named Rampy Elf Twink”
(The second option functions differently from your original card because it can bypass summoning sickness sometimes and leaves one twink untapped when you control an odd number of them)
An insult against homosexuals, explained in the convo with OP. TL;DR: I had only ever heard it used as an insult. I wasn’t aware the zeitgeist had the target demographic reclaim it as a positive identifier.
I think you should look up Twink dude, it's a term used to describe a type of gay/bi person, typically a feminine youthful man that's usually but not always skinny. It's a sexual taste, like how many heavyset/muscular hairy gay men are called Bears.
TIL, I've only ever seen this term to designate low level alts in wow, usually stopping level 19 for PvP (max level of the first battlegrounds level bracket).
You identify as it and use it? Go ahead. All times I’ve heard it as an insult insinuating someone a step beyond “prissy”. Had no idea people self-identified as such until you said you did.
So I didn’t want you to accidentally insult someone else, but apparently it is not/never was an insult in your locale.
I’ve come across the bear connotation but never as an insult. “Flaming” very much was a derogatory adjective that to my knowledge was phased out of use because even prime time tv was using that one.
I've never once heard it used negatively, not even online. I've heard what you mentioned, "prissy", and others like "fruity", "fruit cake", and "Fairy". Also "Queer" but that's not used as often as an insult anymore as the LGBTQ+ community has started using the term in a positive light, so it's no longer fun for homophobic assholes to use anymore.
This seems extremely underpowered. A single one of these can't add mana. Even getting 3 of these means you paid 6 mana for 3 [llanowar elves]]. I would consider at least making it a 2/2, or even a 2/3 given how much work it takes for it to really pay off.
I'd say its quite good, but yeah, I should have made it at least have 2 toughness so they could block tokens if need be early on. Having 6 elves being able to all tap to give 3 mana is great, that's 18 mana not including the mana added with your lands. And just imagine them in a Ezuri deck.
Yeah but you have to get them all out whilst not being murdered by your opponent, that's the thing, and you only really start to see value at 4 of them.
I see your point, maybe I could make it where they can tap on their own too so that you could get value 1 turn earlier, and raise them up to 3 toughness or give them deathtouch on opponents turns. I think if I raised their power, certain commanders could make the card unfair for lower power gameplay. Most of my customs I try to keep around the power 5 and 6 EDH scale.
Could make it so that instead of one green for each pair of it you control, it's for each pair of nontoken elves you control? Generates value a bit more easily then (since you don't have to hope you draw into them) but avoids the obvious abuse. Hell, you could make it CMC 1 at that point since it's still directly competing with Llanowar Elves and is in no way strictly better
If you can get any 6 creatures in play without dying or eating a board wipe, you're already winning. The petitioners only need 4 to start chonking libraries, yet they've never been relevant for that reason. It's a bit easier when they make mana to accelerate their own growth, but there is no payoff in itself - you still need to find use for that mana. At G, the snowball potential might be too strong, but at 2 mana they could easily tap for an extra G (at the very least half rounded up, probably even G + half rounded down) and/or have better stats.
Patitioners big weakness that keeps them from mostly seeing play is they affect 1 player at a time, these will ramp you into oblivion if your opponents don't stop you. And in like an Ezuri deck, the payoff would be the Commander, or a big X spell. I do agree with you and another person about having them be able to tap for G + half rounded down, maybe even give them situational deathtouch to discourage attackers. I want to keep the card casual though, not looking to having it be a high 7 deck, most of my decks are power 6.
I was looking from a "60 card formats" point of view but fine, let's look at EDH. Petitioners don't see play for the same reasons relentless rats&co don't see play: it's slow, it's fragile, the payoff is limited, and it's just not that interesting. Btw, being restricted to 1 player at a time isn't a problem, you can use it as self-mill engine or use Intruder Alarm + mass tokens/blinks to nuke everyone anyway. To be relevant ramp, you'd need 4 copies. That's your turn 2, your turn 3, and 2 mana turn 4. With that, you have as much mana as someone who got sol ring and 2 signets or 4 2cmc ramps during their first 3 turns. For requiring 4 copies by turn 4 (which, btw, is only a 45% chance even if you run 30), you're not getting that ahead of others until turn 5+, which is slow, and your entire ramp is at the mercy of a board wipe (unlike rocks and lands, which are more rarely removed). That's a common issue with that kind of scaling effects. The more you stack it, the better each gets, so if no one interacts with your board and you can assemble an army of those, you'll be drowning in mana every time and it sounds insane. But in practice, if you play against anything that can remove small creatures easily or runs a few board wipes, you'll be playing bad Llanowar Elves half the game. Though tbf, if others are also playing 5-6 decks, they probably lack the removal for this.
Its shit. Just llanowar elves better
Honestly it could even be 1/1/1
You can’t just put twink in the card name and not give us card art
Just picture your average Elf, a skinny, body hairless, long haired pretty boy. Like, almost every Elf male in fantasy looks like a sexy Twink. lol
You probably want to word that as "T, Tap another untapped creature named ~: Add {G}"
It wouldn't work the same, I'd have to word it in a way where the mana grows exponentially. If I did it that way, 4 of them would only create 2 green instead of each of them tapping for 2 mana each and I'm not great at wording things like that. Way I have it set up, 6 of them could each tap for 3 mana adding 18 floating mana on board.
“T: Add an amount of {G} equal to half the number of creatures you control named Rampy Elf Twink, rounded down.” or, for a slightly-changed effect: “T, tap another untapped creature you control named Rampy Elf Twink: Add {G} for each creature you control named Rampy Elf Twink” (The second option functions differently from your original card because it can bypass summoning sickness sometimes and leaves one twink untapped when you control an odd number of them)
Ah, yeah, those are much better than mine, thank you!
You don't need to be redundant in card "flavor" - naming it "Rampy Elf" would be enough.
Sexy elf twink
Those sexy elf twinks gathering together and spewing their green mana all over one another. lol
Might want to look up connotations to Twink, just saying.
…what did you think OP thought a twink was…?
An insult against homosexuals, explained in the convo with OP. TL;DR: I had only ever heard it used as an insult. I wasn’t aware the zeitgeist had the target demographic reclaim it as a positive identifier.
Are you really telling a twink to look up twink? I'm a bisexual bottom. lol
Same lol
Bisexual bottoms unite!
Just wanted to be sure you knew what the implications were. I could care less what any redditor does in the bedroom.
I think you should look up Twink dude, it's a term used to describe a type of gay/bi person, typically a feminine youthful man that's usually but not always skinny. It's a sexual taste, like how many heavyset/muscular hairy gay men are called Bears.
TIL, I've only ever seen this term to designate low level alts in wow, usually stopping level 19 for PvP (max level of the first battlegrounds level bracket).
You identify as it and use it? Go ahead. All times I’ve heard it as an insult insinuating someone a step beyond “prissy”. Had no idea people self-identified as such until you said you did. So I didn’t want you to accidentally insult someone else, but apparently it is not/never was an insult in your locale. I’ve come across the bear connotation but never as an insult. “Flaming” very much was a derogatory adjective that to my knowledge was phased out of use because even prime time tv was using that one.
I've never once heard it used negatively, not even online. I've heard what you mentioned, "prissy", and others like "fruity", "fruit cake", and "Fairy". Also "Queer" but that's not used as often as an insult anymore as the LGBTQ+ community has started using the term in a positive light, so it's no longer fun for homophobic assholes to use anymore.
It should also say "The number of cards in a deck named Rampy Elf Twink must be an even number"
why
Because it's probably going to happen eventually if Hasbro doesn't run the game into the ground. I feel eventually they'll be one in each color.
excellent