|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Jan 13, 2005 3:33:52 GMT -6
Æther Raider Casting cost: 2  Creature - Phantom Power/toughness: 2/2 When Æther Raider deals combat damage to an opponent, you may pay 2 . If you do, exile Æther Raider and target artifact or creature that opponent controls. : Return Æther Raider to play under your control. Use this ability only if Æther Raider is exiled. |
|
Disco Bandit
Dragon
How's that for a slice of fried gold?
Posts: 348
|
Post by Disco Bandit on Jan 19, 2005 14:36:26 GMT -6
urrrg, headache from coolness...
|
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Jan 23, 2005 21:25:47 GMT -6
I just thought it would be really cool to make a creature that can return itself from the removed from game zone. But that would be pointless if it didn't have a way to end up there in the first place, so I came up with this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Feb 16, 2007 1:30:09 GMT -6
This is still one of my favorite cards that I've made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Feb 21, 2013 0:10:51 GMT -6
I fixed this card up a bit. For some reason, the Æ symbols all got replaced by question marks, so I changed them back. While I was at it, I decided to update the language from "removed from the game" to "exiled."
And then I decided "well, why not go ahead and bring him a little more in line with the power level of modern cards?" So I reduced the cost of his ability by 1 mana, and then had his return ability bring him straight back to play rather than back to your hand. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron Sengir on Feb 25, 2013 7:21:08 GMT -6
Love the card and what it does. One minor thing is you may want to change the text to something like, "When Æther Raider deals combat damage to a player, you may pay 2 . If you do, exile Æther Raider and target artifact or creature opponent controls." It may be that I'm really tired, but to me someone may interpret that to mean you exile the Raider and something else you control where as I think its supposed to have your opponent exile something right? |
|
|
|
Post by Maraxus of Keld on Feb 25, 2013 22:54:04 GMT -6
You are indeed interpreting the card correctly. I think it's clear enough, but the change is easy to make so I might as well just change "player" to "opponent."
|
|
