View Single Post

Thread: MTG Share your Card Designs II

  1. - Top - End - #388
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Are you gaslighting me? This is a serious question.
    No, you are consistently misrepresenting my argument.

    In that post, YOU argued that REMOVING COUNTERS == PREVENTING COUNTERS... And you argued that it was functionally the same a few more posts.
    I argued that black could remove +1/+1 counters by using -1/-1 counters, and I explained how this could be done in a way that functioned mostly similarly to just preventing counters.
    I never argued that removing counters was the same as preventing counters, actually I've several times outright stated that it doesn't, yet you somehow choose to focus on the one place where you can kinda twist it to claim that I did.

    From a mechanical perspective, there aren't much justifications. Black can already remove any number of counters and the article notes it as sole color for removing counters. Which is flawed. R&D drifted on it, so it's hard to say where they are right now, but it seems that white can prevent counters and black can prevent some counters.
    Being able to prevent +1/+1 counters gives no basis for assuming they can prevent any other kind of counter. Especially not since I have already explained why it makes sense that they can prevent +1/+1 counters.

    From a flavor perspective, black would be a color that would allow you to dump your poison onto others, or manipulate it in a similar fashion. Not necessarily prevention, but in essence the same or worst.
    I think Gauntlet sufficiently explained how black's relation to poison would be.

    And I've explained, Melira was before that article, Blightbeetle, Suncleanser, and Solemnity are after.
    And whether Melira is still within the color pie of green can be discussed, but we have no evidence that she's within black just because a black creature also prevents some kind of counter.

    Well, here is why I did. I didn't want corruption to be parasitic, I wanted to make sure that if you are adding corruption on yourself, it's a minor tradeoff, not a 99% free tradeoff.
    Adding corruption to yourself is indistinguishable from just paying life 99% of the time, so why even use corruption on yourself as a mechanic?

    In my book, the damage is part of the design space. Sure I give some design space up, but it is worth it for the flavor and interactivity.
    We're not arguing against the damage, we are arguing against the "life gain prevention".
    How is it more interactive?

    Also, I was responding to your claim "corruption=1 damage in counters" was parasitic.
    It's not. Not in any sane* way of defining it.
    That's not what I ever claimed. I claimed "20 corruption=lose the game" was parasitic.

    I've explained multiple times what my problem is, please address it.

    And I know why I'm doing it that way. Because it's meant to show how the Inquisition burns people and their instruments - that's the flavor. But even on a most basic mechanical level (modulo flavor), no one else found this problematic. Well. Almost no one
    I'm not sure why a purge can completely atomize a physical object but do nothing to a magical aura, when being anti magic is kind of what inquisitions are about.
    Does your limited environment actually require this? From what I have seen it isn't a

    Congratulations. I wrote down Kaladesh by mistake, I meant to write Alara. In Kaladesh, they became deciduous.
    There were actually 3 before Alara, 2 of them castable with only colorless mana, and the third from time spiral. So it's safe to say that before Alara colored artifacts weren't really a thing. Then in Alara they made a decision, and they made sure to actually go by that decision, designing loads of colored artifacts because they were now able to.

    This is not that, at all. You're not doing something new and interesting. You're doing something that exists already but you're doing it slightly differently than how it is ussaully done, and that is sometimes fine, but I think in this case it begs the difference, why not do it like it's usually done?
    White occasionally gets exile target artifact or enchantment on common, you can do this with your set mechanic, that's a neat common to put into your set. Why do you need to shake it up more?

    I still have the problem with "They never did it, so they will never do it" mentality. R&D shifts their position all the time.
    I don't have that mentality. I'm saying that if you want to do something unorthodox you're gonna need to think about how you do it, and maybe more importantly, why you do it. What implications does this have? Is there maybe a reason they haven't done this?

    I don't see you trying to answer these questions.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2019-12-06 at 03:54 AM.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature