Vice and Vengeance Design Thread

Thanks for the support!

---

Thanks for the feedback thaneofglamis, I'll try to address everything I can.

Spoils of war
Point 1 - Depends on the order it's done in. If you wait until after combat damage has been dealt, then no, it doesn't trigger spoils of war, however, if you do it before the combat damage step, then your 2/2 does deal lethal damage to the 1/5.
Point 2 - No, because if I remember correctly, state-based actions are checked after the first-strike damage step, which would kill the creature and trigger spoils of war. The remainder of the attack basically fizzles as there's no longer a creature to deal damage to.
Point 3 - I know it's not a great answer, but unless there's some complexity with state-based actions or layers (or similar obfuscated rules mechanics), I don't see any reason that functionality couldn't be changed to make the interaction more intuitive. (Then again, it's currently worded like this because it was the cleanest way I could figure out how to make it trigger off both players and creatures.) (Also just realized that these may have been rhetorical questions to point out the corner-cases of this mechanics, in which case, I misinterpreted your intent there.)

Corrupt
Point 1 - That's actually what I intended to have happen, but I couldn't remember the templating necessary to create that effect.
Point 2 - I understand the concern, but I'm currently making it so the "corrupted" type only appears on creatures that have the corrupt action keyword. You do bring up a good point about the dissonance of a creature with a corruption counter not being corrupted, though. I can drop the type if it's really unbearable, or come up with something that doesn't share the same root as the mechanic.

Cards
:: That common cycle actually wasn't supposed to be a cycle, but I definitely see now how it comes off as one. Or rather, the red, green, and black ones were supposed to be a cycle, but the white and blue one were just happenstance. I'll look into either diverging them or converging them.
:: CB16 - Noted.
:: CB17 - Nonland in the card file, missed that when I typed it up. Will fix after this post.
:: CR18 - Understandable, I'll keep them as is for now, and if it ends up coming up again, either later in this thread or during showcase, I'll change it.
:: CG01 - I get that. My thought process was simply making a creature that you'd use as a mana dork during the beginning of the game, but turned off after you used it 4 times. (Also, with how much stuff targets large creatures in the set, that was a sort-of downside.) It all that still doesn't make it at least bearable, I'll come up with something else in a similar vein.
:: CG07 - According to Mark's latest Nuts and Bolts article, green gets 1 haste creature at common.
:: CA02 - Will change.
:: CA03 - Will make sac cost . (I thought that it was a little too good, but if no one complained . . .)
:: UW05 - But what if I want it to be a bull?   Will make it an Ox instead.
:: UW08 - It's actually a 0/1 (will also fix once this is posted), and only that because I can't think of an easy way to get a 0/0 to stay on the battlefield. If it's still too good, will make it a bit more expensive.
:: UW12 - Noted.
:: UU12 - Noted. Probably will create a punishment for paying the .
:: UU13 - Thank you! Probably one of my favorite designs thus far.
:: UB09 - Just yours. Says that in my card file, but didn't put that into writing. Will also fix once this is posted.

I'm glad you appreciate my advice!
So it does... which is really bizarre, since there's only ever been one common green creature with haste - Uktabi Drake. I wonder why Mark said that.