This is a Wug

[CubJay]

The flavour on this card is a very niche joke, but the mechanics work in black-border so here's a Wug.

---

Wug
Creature - Beast
: Search your library for a creature card named "Wug," and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.

"This is a wug. Now there is another one. There are two of them. There are two ____."
-Dr. Jean Berko Gleason

3/3

---

Playable or nah?
(if y'all are curious what it's a reference to, it's sort of the mascot of linguistics research. Wikipedia entry on the wug test.)

[spacemonaut]

That is cute and I love the joke in its colors.

It's probably playable. See cards that search for other copies of themselves: they're usually 2-3 CMC creatures with 1-2 power and toughness that put the rest of their own copies into your hand to cast later. This is a higher rate than that: 3CMC and 3/3. This behaves similarly, giving me access to cast another Wug anytime (for as long as this one stays alive).

It's got two major drawbacks: First, it's a 3 color card and that's difficult to hit on curve in draft. Second, because it's uncommon I'm unlikely to draft two of them. (That's why cards that do this tend to be common. Or, if they're targeted at Constructed, they're Rare.) However if I manage those things, this is a nice reward.

In constructed I feel like it would be make-or-break based on the strategies available to it.

Have you considered making it instead create a token copy of itself instead?

---

P.S.: You might want to check out mtg.design given its rendering is better:

[void_nothing]

A part of me wants this card to say "a creature card that shares a name with this creature" instead for the wombo combos.

To me - a literary historian - a wug is something else entirely but I like a good linguistics joke as much as anyone.

[CubJay]

It's got two major drawbacks: First, it's a 3 color card and that's difficult to hit on curve in draft. Second, because it's uncommon I'm unlikely to draft two of them.

Have you considered making it instead create a token copy of itself instead?
P.S.: You might want to check out mtg.design

I'm guess the main reason I didn't think to have it make a token is that, as a top-down design, there should only be a handful of Wugs in play. From a mechanics standpoint too, making a token is more powerful, and it would probably have to tap. I guess the best way to have it produce tokens but avoid letting it devolve into packrattery would be to say something like "activate this ability only if you don't control any other Wugs." Even then, the fact that the token could still make tokens if you kill the original makes it kinda scary for limited. As for rarity, I figured it had to be at least uncommon because of the colour requirements. That does mean it probably won't come up in draft though, which I didn't consider. I guess if the set had just the right amount of fixing you could lower the rarity.

Anyway, thanks for the tip on mtg.design. Cardsmith's formatting is indeed wack.

A part of me wants this card to say "a creature card that shares a name with this creature" instead for the wombo combos.

Oh heck ya.

To me - a literary historian - a wug is something else entirely but I like a good linguistics joke as much as anyone.

Huh! Thanks for the Today I Learned.

P.S. my original design had "Bands with other creatures named Wug" but that's probably pushing the boundaries of black border magic just a wee bit

[Krishnath]

It's got two major drawbacks: First, it's a 3 color card and that's difficult to hit on curve in draft. Second, because it's uncommon I'm unlikely to draft two of them.

Have you considered making it instead create a token copy of itself instead?
P.S.: You might want to check out mtg.design

I'm guess the main reason I didn't think to have it make a token is that, as a top-down design, there should only be a handful of Wugs in play. From a mechanics standpoint too, making a token is more powerful, and it would probably have to tap. I guess the best way to have it produce tokens but avoid letting it devolve into packrattery would be to say something like "activate this ability only if you don't control any other Wugs." Even then, the fact that the token could still make tokens if you kill the original makes it kinda scary for limited. As for rarity, I figured it had to be at least uncommon because of the colour requirements. That does mean it probably won't come up in draft though, which I didn't consider. I guess if the set had just the right amount of fixing you could lower the rarity.

Anyway, thanks for the tip on mtg.design. Cardsmith's formatting is indeed wack.

A part of me wants this card to say "a creature card that shares a name with this creature" instead for the wombo combos.

Oh heck ya.

To me - a literary historian - a wug is something else entirely but I like a good linguistics joke as much as anyone.

Huh! Thanks for the Today I Learned.

P.S. my original design had "Bands with other creatures named Wug" but that's probably pushing the boundaries of black border magic just a wee bit

Hey, Bands with Other is a perfectly valid black border mechanic, it may be an 11 on the storm scale, but it is still a black border mechanic. :laugh:

[TearsOfTomorrow]

A part of me wants this card to say "a creature card that shares a name with this creature" instead for the wombo combos.

To me - a literary historian - a wug is something else entirely but I like a good linguistics joke as much as anyone.

I support this, mainly because Wug is now my favorite thing in the history of all things, and I therefore want it to be as shenanigan-y as possible. Let's start a religion #Wugism

[spacemonaut]

I'm guess the main reason I didn't think to have it make a token is that, as a top-down design, there should only be a handful of Wugs in play. From a mechanics standpoint too, making a token is more powerful, and it would probably have to tap. I guess the best way to have it produce tokens but avoid letting it devolve into packrattery would be to say something like "activate this ability only if you don't control any other Wugs." Even then, the fact that the token could still make tokens if you kill the original makes it kinda scary for limited. As for rarity, I figured it had to be at least uncommon because of the colour requirements. That does mean it probably won't come up in draft though, which I didn't consider. I guess if the set had just the right amount of fixing you could lower the rarity.

I hear you. That all makes sense.

This just came to mind:

WUG, T: Create a token that's a copy of Wug. This ability costs 1 more to activate for each other creature you control that shares a name with Wug.

When you have two WUGs out this costs 1WUG for either to activate it. You can activate both together, going up to four WUGs for 2WWUUGG.

The cost constraint means a person's probably not going to create more than 4 of these.

It doesn't look quite as nice though.

[italofoca]

I think the first version is very simple and elegant, and it's a power house in slower formats like standard. If it sticks, it's free CA and a growing board for a creature that is on curve.