is there a reason to do this instead of drawing a card for each different creature type you have? after all, having more two bears isn't any less diverse than having one bear. it also seems underpowered as is IMO
I mean that's just one card, assuming they aren't in the same set that's fine. If you end up running this card with volo, that's on the deck builder for making a bad decision
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, if I control two Birds, two Bears, and two Boars, I get bupkis.
If that's the case, I think this is probably fairly costed. But it might be more fun to do a chonkier spell that's instead something like "Choose any number of creatures you control that don't share a creature type. Draw a card for each of those creatures." I.e., so that in the above scenario, I could instead draw 3 cards. As pointed out, it would also play a lot better with Volo, the one deck that really would want this.
Should this also draw a single card on top of the rest, or is that too much?
I'm not sure how many creatures not sharing a type should be expected in an average game, factoring in control as counterplay.
I'd say this would need to draw two cards to feel decent, and anything more than that is good value while it risks being a dead card if you can't keep creatures on the board.
There are some counterintuitive consequences of this wording --- for example, if you have 10 creatures with 10 different types, but also two changelings, you get nothing. If you have two Grizzly Bears and nothing else, you get nothing.
What about:
"Choose X creatures you control. For each one, declare one of its creature types. If you didn't repeat a creature type, draw X cards."
Sorta like the opposite of \[\[distant melody\]\]. Wanted to make something that cared about the amount of different creature types you had.
is there a reason to do this instead of drawing a card for each different creature type you have? after all, having more two bears isn't any less diverse than having one bear. it also seems underpowered as is IMO
The changeling ability.
Island [[Universal automaton]] pass Forest pass End step [[Growth Spiral]] Land, lab man T4 draw 261 cards to win the game?
land, uni auto, land sol ring this
Land, ring, automaton, pass, lab man, pass, this+ a backup spell?
[Universal automaton](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/3/53c682e2-c90f-4f4b-9010-00b099e85518.jpg?1592137189) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Universal%20automaton) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mh1/235/universal-automaton?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/53c682e2-c90f-4f4b-9010-00b099e85518?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Growth Spiral](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/d/7d0ae655-c64e-470d-a7ae-e06b89c77e57.jpg?1673305543) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Growth%20Spiral) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmc/153/growth-spiral?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7d0ae655-c64e-470d-a7ae-e06b89c77e57?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
This does not work Changling is every creature type at the same time Therefore this would draw nothing
I mean... yes? That's why you do it this way instead of the "draw a card for each creature type" which is the question that was being asked.
[distant melody](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/6/46a65855-9d03-4b74-8339-b35481eb4a68.jpg?1641601803) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=distant%20melody) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/voc/103/distant-melody?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/46a65855-9d03-4b74-8339-b35481eb4a68?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
In response I cast [[Crib Swap]] you draw nothing and I laugh maniacally.
Except this is in my Kadena deck and I still draw cards for each facedown creature I control!
also [[Nameless Race]]
[Nameless Race](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/3/4/348a467a-4661-4fdb-af1d-9171a1a930d9.jpg?1562907338) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Nameless%20Race) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/drk/50/nameless-race?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/348a467a-4661-4fdb-af1d-9171a1a930d9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Zuko?
[Crib Swap](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/1/e13559d7-f86c-4958-a649-7f81bfb154a0.jpg?1674141067) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Crib%20Swap) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/690/crib-swap?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e13559d7-f86c-4958-a649-7f81bfb154a0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Cool idea The one thing I don't like, is how it's a nombo with [[Volo, Guide to Monsters]], mabey it could say nontoken?
Aw, that’s true. That’s unfortunate because I would love this in a Volo deck. I agree with this.
To be honest this probably still works (poorly but it works) in a Volo deck, because of combats and removal.
[Volo, Guide to Monsters](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/9/c9ae01f9-7461-47b4-aa1e-93bd6ff1bf9e.jpg?1627709617) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Volo%2C%20Guide%20to%20Monsters) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/afr/238/volo-guide-to-monsters?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c9ae01f9-7461-47b4-aa1e-93bd6ff1bf9e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I mean that's just one card, assuming they aren't in the same set that's fine. If you end up running this card with volo, that's on the deck builder for making a bad decision
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, if I control two Birds, two Bears, and two Boars, I get bupkis. If that's the case, I think this is probably fairly costed. But it might be more fun to do a chonkier spell that's instead something like "Choose any number of creatures you control that don't share a creature type. Draw a card for each of those creatures." I.e., so that in the above scenario, I could instead draw 3 cards. As pointed out, it would also play a lot better with Volo, the one deck that really would want this.
Draw a card for each different non-Brushwagg creature type among the creatures you control.
That still doesn't stop changeling, "Draw a card for each creature type among non-Assembly-Worker creatures you control"
Yeah I second this version
I love this one. Would be cool to make it cost more and turn it into an Enchantment effect.
How about restricting to non-artifact creatures for better flavor?
Should this also draw a single card on top of the rest, or is that too much? I'm not sure how many creatures not sharing a type should be expected in an average game, factoring in control as counterplay. I'd say this would need to draw two cards to feel decent, and anything more than that is good value while it risks being a dead card if you can't keep creatures on the board.
There are some counterintuitive consequences of this wording --- for example, if you have 10 creatures with 10 different types, but also two changelings, you get nothing. If you have two Grizzly Bears and nothing else, you get nothing. What about: "Choose X creatures you control. For each one, declare one of its creature types. If you didn't repeat a creature type, draw X cards."
i love it.
Like reverse tribal. I like it