MTG Share your Card Designs II

[Ninjaman]

Under Watch - 2WW
Enchantment - Uncommon

When ~ enters the battlefield, create two 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens.

When ~ enters the battlefield, exile target creature an opponent controls until ~ leaves the battlefield.

At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control no creatures, sacrifice ~.

I like that this mechanically utilizes the flavor of the creatures keeping it under watch.

[NigelWalmsley]

Had written about it being better than a forest before you wrote this. I hope you realize that people play basics. This rule exists for a reason.

People play basics because either (in Standard) you can't play a fully non-basic manabase, or because there are things that punish not having basics. I don't think the rule offers enough for the degree to which it shrinks design space.

My problem is that the creature is probably good enough on its own without the adventure, and the adventure just pushes it over the edge.

I don't think that's true. If you were concerned, you could make it something like "White creatures you control", which would make it comfortably worse (in practice) than Benalish Marshal.

So it gives flashback without exiling? And it does so twice? That just might be getting too much value, especially since it doesn't put you at a mana disadvantage. I think it would at least need to say mana cost 2 or less.

It doesn't give you a mana disadvantage if you hit a three mana spell, and it doesn't do anything on its own. I think that's fine. You could make it exile, but I'm not convinced that's necessary.

[Ninjaman]

People play basics because either (in Standard) you can't play a fully non-basic manabase, or because there are things that punish not having basics. I don't think the rule offers enough for the degree to which it shrinks design space.

There are almost never things that punish you for playing non basics in standard, and three color decks can play all special cards if they could.
A lot of things shrink design space, that doesn't need to be a bad thing.

I don't think that's true. If you were concerned, you could make it something like "White creatures you control", which would make it comfortably worse (in practice) than Benalish Marshal.

I'm not saying it's necessarily too strong for standard, but it might be too strong for how wizards want to print this kind of effect.
To be fair Benalish Marshal is really good, it made mono white playable, something Brimaz had failed to do.
It's not that good without the adventure, but I can definitely see it printed like that, and I think a lot of commander decks and possibly some standard decks would play it. The adventure on top adds a lot of value. Unless you counter the adventure or pyroclasm you're not going to get a favorable trade with this.

It doesn't give you a mana disadvantage if you hit a three mana spell, and it doesn't do anything on its own. I think that's fine. You could make it exile, but I'm not convinced that's necessary.

You can choose to hit a three mana spell, you'll want to play this with three mana spells.
It doesn't provide mana disadvantage, it doesn't provide tempo disadvantage, and it's very flexible. That is a card that can very easily be too good. It's even instant speed. It makes it very easy for you to always have the right cards, as you only need one counterspell/removal spell/cheap draw spell/hate spell to have three.

[Man_Over_Game]

Aether Battery
4
Artifact

When ~ enters the battlefield, Manifest the top card of target player's deck.

2T: Gain control of a face-down card and exile it. It remains face-down.

T: Manifest any number of cards exiled by ~. Gain (1) for each card Manifested this way.

(I wanted to make a reference to the old Mana Battery cards, while also adding a new spin to make Morph/Manifest decks more versatile/aggressive)

[Androgeus]

Aether Battery
4
Artifact

When ~ enters the battlefield, Manifest the top card of target player's deck.

2T: Gain control of a face-down card and exile it. It remains face-down.

T: Manifest any number of cards exiled by ~. Gain (1) for each card Manifested this way.

(I wanted to make a reference to the old Mana Battery cards, while also adding a new spin to make Morph/Manifest decks more versatile/aggressive)

What’s the gain control part meant to actually accomplish? You don’t need to control it before exiling it to count it for the second ability.

[NigelWalmsley]

There are almost never things that punish you for playing non basics in standard, and three color decks can play all special cards if they could.

There was one in Standard last year (Field of Ruin). There are at least two things that want you to be playing basics right now (Fabled Passage and Assassin's Trophy). Plenty of three-color decks play basics even when they could play all duals (for example, Jund typically plays one or two of each in Modern).

It's not that good without the adventure, but I can definitely see it printed like that, and I think a lot of commander decks and possibly some standard decks would play it. The adventure on top adds a lot of value. Unless you counter the adventure or pyroclasm you're not going to get a favorable trade with this.

Most of the playable adventures are difficult to get favorable trades with. That's why they're playable.

You can choose to hit a three mana spell, you'll want to play this with three mana spells.

You want to play it in a spellslinger deck, and those don't typically play a high density of three mana spells. In the decks that would want this, it will typically be four or five mana worth of value.

Aether Battery
4
Artifact

When ~ enters the battlefield, Manifest the top card of target player's deck.

2T: Gain control of a face-down card and exile it. It remains face-down.

T: Manifest any number of cards exiled by ~. Gain (1) for each card Manifested this way.

(I wanted to make a reference to the old Mana Battery cards, while also adding a new spin to make Morph/Manifest decks more versatile/aggressive)

The way Manifest works, you don't need the second ability. The player who manifests the card controls it, not its owner.

[Man_Over_Game]

What’s the gain control part meant to actually accomplish? You don’t need to control it before exiling it to count it for the second ability.

Say you have 3 players. Player A has the artifact, using the Exile effect on Player B's Morph. When a face-down card is removed from the field, it's normally flipped face-up. However, there's an extra clause in this card to keep it face-down. Keeping the card face-down means it's not revealed to Player C, but relinquishing ownership to Player A means that Player A can look at it. Additionally, I believe a card that leaves the battlefield normally defaults controller-status to its owner. Otherwise, it'd still be Player B's exiled face-down card, which Player A can't really utilize.

[Androgeus]

Say you have 3 players. Player A has the artifact, using the Exile effect on Player B's Morph. When a face-down card is removed from the field, it's normally flipped face-up. However, there's an extra clause in this card to keep it face-down. Keeping the card face-down means it's not revealed to Player C, but relinquishing ownership to Player A means that Player A can look at it.

You’d be better served just giving the battery “You may look at cards exiled with ~” text ala Bane Alley Broker rather than just crafting a minuscule window for the player to see what card they are actually exiling then have to remember the order things were exiled in.

Additionally, I believe a card that leaves the battlefield normally defaults controller-status to its owner. Otherwise, it'd still be Player B's exiled face-down card, which Player A can't really utilize.

Nope. Control is only a thing that exists on the battlefield (edit: and the stack). See stuff like Gonti for interacting with other players’ cards in exile.

[Ninjaman]

It was shortly discussed previously that blue gets all the stack interaction, and that made me think, if you could expand the color pie to give more colors stack interaction, and perhaps remove a few from blue, what would you do?

I think I would do something like this:
White
Primary:
Secondary:
Counterspells (taxing effects of at most 2, spells and effects that target your stuff, enchantments)
Bounce spells (return a spell to hand or library)
Tertiary:

Blue
Primary:
Counterspells
Commandeer
Bounce spells (return a spell to hand or library)
Secondary:
Counter abilities
Redirection
Fork
Tertiary:


Black
Primary:
Secondary:
Counterspells (Only creatures)
Tertiary:
Redirection
Commandeer (Only creatures)

Red
Primary:
Redirection
Fork
Secondary:
Commandeer (Only instant and sorceries)
Counterspells (Artifacts)
Tertiary:

Green
Primary:
Counter abilities
Secondary:
Tertiary:
Counterspells (stuff that targets your stuff)

There was one in Standard last year (Field of Ruin). There are at least two things that want you to be playing basics right now (Fabled Passage and Assassin's Trophy). Plenty of three-color decks play basics even when they could play all duals (for example, Jund typically plays one or two of each in Modern).

Field of Ruin doesn't punish non basic lands, it just encourages you to play a few basics like Assassin's Trophy and Fabled Passage. I'm talking about standard. Even decks that play three colors usually play a few basics.
My point is that Wizards do not want the only point of basic lands to be that they are basic lands. They wouldn't print non-basics that came in untapped, tapped for one color, and gave you one life when they came into play. It's a design choice, and I think it's a design choice that we have to respect.

Most of the playable adventures are difficult to get favorable trades with. That's why they're playable.

Most adventure's don't have this level of synergy between their two halves.
Most adventures have a creature part that is less playable than Ardenvale Marshal.
Most good adventures have power level to Muster for Battle, (playable card with +1 cmc).
Ardenvale Marshal is both your three drop and your four drop, which means as long as your opening hand has a 2 drop you're always going to have smooth and quite powerful starts. Besides being powerful I think thi will end up being boring to play with and against.

Also it should say other creatures you control.

You want to play it in a spellslinger deck, and those don't typically play a high density of three mana spells. In the decks that would want this, it will typically be four or five mana worth of value.

You only need one three mana spell in your graveyard to recast it twice though.
I'm not sure what gave you the idea that this is only for a spellslinger deck.
I think Grixis or Jeskai control decks would play it. In standard those often play some cmc 3 spells.
I can see it in storm. I could see it in scapeshift.
The biggest weakness for modern is that it doesn't work with Logic Knot.
Four or five mana is still a huge amount of advantage when you consider what flexibility this provides, and how much recursion usually costs.

[Androgeus]

I was bored so I decided to make a opposite Norin.

Niron, The Reckless R
Creature - Human Warrior
Haste
At the begging of your end step, Exile Niron, the Reckless. The next time a player cast a spell, or a creature attacks, return Niron to the battlefield. If it's your declare attackers step, return Niron tapped and attacking.
1/2

[Man_Over_Game]

It was shortly discussed previously that blue gets all the stack interaction, and that made me think, if you could expand the color pie to give more colors stack interaction, and perhaps remove a few from blue, what would you do?

I was actually talking to someone else on the forums about this topic just yesterday. Mostly it was about the fact that Counters provided a great source of mindgames, but still ended up being a toxic inhibitor of interactivity because Blue gets most of the Instant/Flash board-state gain and card draw. So while Blue countered your card, and you're both down a card, Blue will have a chance to draw more cards than you and gain advantage (effectively meaning you'll be unable to play anything until they draw poorly). If you choose not to play anything, Blue can still win by casting something at Instant-Speed.

The solution was effectively this topic: Introduce more Instant-effects for other colors.

Black:
Sacrifice creatures/HP to cast spells with Flash
Counter Creature spells.
Spend Mana equal to nontoken creature's CMC that went to the graveyard from anywhere this turn to create an X/X token, where X is mana spent for this effect.
Spend life to cast a sorcery/instant a second time.

Red:
Creature gains Flash, but dies at the end of your next turn.
Weld: Pay mana to regenerate target artifact.


Green:
Grant temporary Shroud.
Bounce a creature to your hand.
Flash
Morph

White:
Reveal cards from hand/deck
Draw cards

[Ninjaman]

Black:
Sacrifice creatures/HP to cast spells with Flash

I can see this working.

Counter Creature spells.

I fully agree.

Spend Mana equal to nontoken creature's CMC that went to the graveyard from anywhere this turn to create an X/X token, where X is mana spent for this effect.

This seems like a single card rather than a mechanic.

Spend life to cast a sorcery/instant a second time.

I don't see how this helps. This mechanic seems kinda hard to balance, since life is typically the resource most easy to pay.

Red:
Creature gains Flash, but dies at the end of your next turn.

That's only good for defense though, which doesn't really solve the issue. Your point was that blue can flash threats in at instant speed, even thought they don't do it that often, so flashin in something that isn't a threat won't help.

Weld: Pay mana to regenerate target artifact.

Doesn't seem very red, and I'm not sure how it helps the problem.

Green:
Grant temporary Shroud.

They have that with hexproof, which is better.

Bounce a creature to your hand.

Creatures you control, or creatures you own, or something third?

Morph

All colors get morph, it just only shows up as set mechanics because it's reliant on there being lots of creatures with it.

White:
Reveal cards from hand/deck

To do what?

Draw cards

Just straight up? Because white is the color that is worst at drawing cards, so it should probably have a lot of restrictions.

[noob]

I can see this working.


I fully agree.


This seems like a single card rather than a mechanic.


I don't see how this helps. This mechanic seems kinda hard to balance, since life is typically the resource most easy to pay.


That's only good for defense though, which doesn't really solve the issue. Your point was that blue can flash threats in at instant speed, even thought they don't do it that often, so flashin in something that isn't a threat won't help.


Doesn't seem very red, and I'm not sure how it helps the problem.


They have that with hexproof, which is better.


Creatures you control, or creatures you own, or something third?


All colors get morph, it just only shows up as set mechanics because it's reliant on there being lots of creatures with it.


To do what?


Just straight up? Because white is the color that is worst at drawing cards, so it should probably have a lot of restrictions.

Mana cost can be a good restriction.
If it is 2 cards for 4 mana + the casting card then you feel quite bad because you had to pay 4 for one of card advantage.
Or if it is WWW then basically only pure white decks and decks with high amount of colour fixing will be able to play it reliably.

[Ninjaman]

Mana cost can be a good restriction.
If it is 2 cards for 4 mana + the casting card then you feel quite bad because you had to pay 4 for one of card advantage.
Or if it is WWW then basically only pure white decks and decks with high amount of colour fixing will be able to play it reliably.

I think it's bad design to give white card advantage which is exactly like other colors' card advantage, just awful.
Making it very color restrictive definitely won't work either, as very color intensive cards are meant to do things that feel very much like that color, it's not an excuse to do something that isn't in that color at all.

I kind of like what wizards is already doing, where you get to draw cards but you need to build for it, but I think they could make it less restrictive than they currently do.
Bygone Bishop and Mentor of the Meek I think are very good ways to do white card advantage.

[Unavenger]

White feels like it should get effects like collective unconscious and mass appeal, but the only monowhite card with "Draw a card for each" in its text is Sage's Reverie ("...aura you control that's attached to a creature.")

Monowhite cards which draw potentially more than one card include alms collector (Whenever opponent would draw 2+ cards, you both draw 1), armistice (3WW: Draw 1 and oppo gains 3 life), bygone bishop (investigate when you cast creature of CMC</=3), convalescent care (upkeep: if 5 life or lower, draw 1 gain 3 life), Dawn of Hope (On gain life, you may pay 2 draw 1), Inheritance (On a creature dying you may pay 3 draw 1), Kor Spiritdancer (On cast aura draw 1), Mentor of the meek (on creature of P</=2 ETBUYC, you may pay 1 draw 1), Mesa Enchantress (On cast enchantment draw 1), Puresteel Paladin (on equipment ETBUYC), Pursuit of Knowledge (Skip 3 draws, afterwards sac to draw 7), Spiritual Focus (When oppo makes you pitch 1, may draw 1 and must gain 2 life), Sram, Senior Edificer (on cast aura/equip/vehicle draw 1), Stone Haven Outfitter (when equipped creature you control dies draw 1), Survival Cache (Gain 2 life. If you have more than oppo, draw 1. Do it again next turn), and Wandering Champion (When it damages a player, if you control a U or R permanent, you may pitch 1 draw 1).

Of course, not all provide card advantage and some non-drawing spells provide card advantage (such as, potentially, wraths). Common themes, though, include caring about life totals being very high or low, caring about small creatures, and caring about ways that those small creatures can get big.

(EDIT: Others include Oblation (shuffle target permanent, its controller draws 2), Once More With Feeling (Silver-bordered; wheels in addition to other effects), Temporary Truce (Each player may draw 1 or gain 2 life, twice) and Truce (The same thing only at instant speed and more expensive).

[Ninjaman]

Nonwhite cards:

Azlek Enforcer - 1WW
Creature - Azlek Soldier - R
At the beginning of your upkeep, each opponent with more cards in their hand than you exiles one card from their hand and gains 2 life.
2/3

Another Tale - 1WW
Enchantment - R
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may exile a creature you control. If you do, draw a card.

Beacon of Splendor - 2WW
Enchantment - R
At the beginning of your upkeep, gain 2 life. Then if you have more life than all other players, draw a card.

Rebuild From the Ruins - 2W
Enchantment - Saga - R
Return from your graveyard to the battlefield target permanent with converted mana cost less than the number of creatures you control.

Azlek Vault Keeper - 2WW
Creature - Azlek - R
Whenever an opponent draws a card, exile the top card of your library.
When Azlek Vault Keeper leaves the battlefield, return all cards exiled with it to their owners' hands.
1/2

Competence - 1W
Enchantment - U
Instant and sorcery spells you cast that target creatures you control have rebound.

Reforge an Empire - 2WW
Enchantment - Saga - R
I, II, III: Return target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X less from your graveyard to the battlefield, where X is the number of lore counters on Reforge an Empire.

Azlek Detainer - 1W
Creature - Azlek Soldier - U
First Strike
When Azlek Detainer enters the battlefield, when each opponent casts their next spell, counter that spell unless that player pays {1}.
2/1

Call to Aid - 2WW
Enchantment - R
At the beginning of your upkeep reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with converted mana cost 2 or less. Put it onto the battlefield. Put the rest on the bottom of your library in a random order.

Rescue Party - WW
Enchantment - R
When Raiding Party enters the battlefield, exile up to three creature cards from your graveyard.
Whenever a creature you control attacks, return a card exiled with Raiding Party to it's owner's hand.

Forgotten Crown - 1W
Artifact - Equipment - R
Whenever a nontoken creature you control dies, put a legacy counter on Forgotten Crown.
Whenever equipped creature attacks, remove a legacy counter from Forgotten Crown, if you do, return target creature from your graveyard to your hand.
Equip 3
Equip legendary creature 1

Essence Weaver - 1WW
Creature - Elf Cleric - U
Whenever Essence Weaver attacks, you may return target enchantment with converted mana cost 2 or less from your graveyard to play.
1/2

Second Chance - 2W
Enchantment - R
Whenever a creature you control would die, exile it instead.
2W, Sacrifice Second Chance: Return all creature cards exiled with Second Chance to their owners' hands.

Memento Mori - 1W
Enchantment - Aura - U
Enchant Creature.
When enchanted creature dies, return that creature to the battlefield under it's owner's control.

Otherworld Key - W
Artifact - Equipment - R
When equipped creature is exiled, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control.
Equip 1

Commander's Crest - 2W
Artifact - Equipment - R
Whenever equipped creature attacks for the first time each turn, untap each creature you control. After this combat there is an additional combat phase.
Equip - 5
Equip commander - 2

City Planner - 1W
Creature - Human - R
Whenever a land enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, if it wasn't the first land to enter the battlefield under that player's control this turn, you may put a land card from your hand onto the battlefield.
2/2

And a nonboros card for funsies

Raiding Party - 1RW
Enchantment - U
When Raiding Party enters the battlefield, exile the top three cards of your library face down.
Whenever a creature you control attacks, return a card exiled with Raiding Party to it's owner's hand.

[Undyne]

Sadly, I have no art for mine, but here is my card concept: A ¨Reach Tribal¨ Legendary.

Mara, Sky Killer 3GB

Legendary Creature: Elf Archer

Reach, Deathtouch, First Strike

You may cast creatures with Reach as though they had Flash.

Whenever another creature with Reach enters the battlefield, it does damage to target creature equal to its power. If the target has Flying, it loses Flying until end of turn.

2/5

¨Those who fly high are destined to crash. I simply accelerate the process.¨

[-D-]

I was bored so I decided to make a opposite Norin.

Niron, The Reckless R
Creature - Human Warrior
Haste
At the begging of your end step, Exile Niron, the Reckless. The next time a player cast a spell, or a creature attacks, return Niron to the battlefield. If it's your declare attackers step, return Niron tapped and attacking.
1/2

Very nice card. It's a decent rare and the way it returns makes him prime time for either cheap equip or one way pumpers.
------------------

Sadly, I have no art for mine, but here is my card concept: A ¨Reach Tribal¨ Legendary.

Mara, Sky Killer 3GB

Legendary Creature: Elf Archer

Reach, Deathtouch, First Strike

You may cast creatures with Reach as though they had Flash.

Whenever another creature with Reach enters the battlefield, it does damage to target creature equal to its power. If the target has Flying, it loses Flying until end of turn.

2/5

¨Those who fly high are destined to crash. I simply accelerate the process.¨

Seems to do a lot. Otherwise decent design. Potentially interesting as Commander.
------------------

It was shortly discussed previously that blue gets all the stack interaction, and that made me think, if you could expand the color pie to give more colors stack interaction, and perhaps remove a few from blue, what would you do?

Commandeer is an interesting effect. You talked about stack hate effects. I can imagine one stack hate-like effect.

Magic Prohibition W
Sorcery
Until start of your next turn spells can't target spells on stack or players.

Or narrow counters

Magic Prohibition 2W
Instant
Counter other spells that target spells on stack or players.


Honestly, I'd probably add/reuse some other effects that interact with stack. I could see black having a "Exile target spell, you may play it as though it was mana of any color" or a green stack-proof (i.e. This spell can't be targeted by spells while on stack).

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.

And I argued that's bolox. Things colors do depend on flavor and balance (if some card is missing draw, is there a way to add it?).

With that in mind, I disagree how current Color Pie is cut.

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.

And I argued that if you are using counter removal as basis for counter prevention, black has a better claim, based on its slice of the color pie.

Adding corruption to yourself is indistinguishable from just paying life 99% of the time, so why even use corruption on yourself as a mechanic?

I explained, just because something is some part of time similar it's not the same. Also, the list of cards that are affected by dealing damage vs counters is huge. Literally every Spectacle card, ever card that cares about opponent being damaged, lost life etc.

We're not arguing against the damage, we are arguing against the "life gain prevention".
How is it more interactive?

Corruption was always a form of Poison-Lite. It's interactive in the way, you aren't forced to go all-in on corruption or all-in on the damage. You can dish out some damage as corruption.

If I removed the "permanent damage" (without Sudden Death clause) it would be Homeopathic Poison.
If I removed the "sudden death" (but kept permanent damage") clause, it would be just damage as counters. Which is worse against life gain.
I even considered a "at start of each upkeep lose 1 life for each corruption counter", but that got steep quickly. Or at the start of each upkeep lose 1 life if you have corruption counters, which was too weak.
----
If I removed both clauses, it's just some formless shapeless counter. Is it good? Is it bad? Eh.

In my set, you have cards that scale of corruption like "Heal X where X is your corruption" and cards like "Creature gets -X/-X where X is its controller's corruption".
In lieu of positive/negative cards, corruption would be rather vague. It's always supposed to be bad. You trading a relatively worthless resource for it, makes most sense.

That's not what I ever claimed. I claimed, "20 corruption=lose the game" was parasitic.

And I explained why it's not parasitic. It synergizes with damage and damage enabling cards (e.g. that prevent life gain).

In most games it's a pointless goal. Same as only playing hasters. In some games, playing only hasters might pay off, if your opponent plays a bunch of Gingerbrutes like creatures.
In some games, decks could be built around it, but they wouldn't be forced to just play it with corruption.

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

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

And I explained why. Flavor - the inquisition is destroying the scholars/witches and their instruments. Also, it's part of white color pie. And it's relatively balanced.

Your second criticism is valid ("Why have artifact/creature removal in set with few artifacts"). I do have a few artifacts, but nothing close to Kaladesh numbers. This is a worthwhile point. That said, a non-sacrificial Angelic Purge is a possibility.

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.

Because I ran these cards against others, and you're the outlier.

[Ninjaman]

Commandeer is an interesting effect. You talked about stack hate effects. I can imagine one stack hate-like effect.

Magic Prohibition W
Sorcery
Until start of your next turn spells can't target spells on stack or players.

Isn't this just a very bad silence?

Magic Prohibition 2W
Instant
Counter other spells that target spells on stack or players.

The wording would be Counter target spell that targets a player or a spell on the stack.
I like the idea of countering spells that interact with the stack, but feel like it should be green or red since they are the colors that get the most can't be countered.

Honestly, I'd probably add/reuse some other effects that interact with stack. I could see black having a "Exile target spell, you may play it as though it was mana of any color"

That's just a souped up counter spell though, and you probably don't want too much stuff that exiles spells as that might make can't be countered too good.
They would obviously need to be expensive, so you're not giving black cheap counterspells, but you're still giving them universal counterspells.

or a green stack-proof (i.e. This spell can't be targeted by spells while on stack).

I like this, it would fit green very well, as they would both be the color with the least stack interaction, and the color that gets hexproof and can't be countered.

And I argued that's bolox. Things colors do depend on flavor and balance (if some card is missing draw, is there a way to add it?).

No they don't.
White has been lacking card draw forever, WotC are trying to give it some, but it still needs to be white, they can't just shove some random card draw in just because it needs it.
And flavor is very rarely an excuse for letting a color do something it doesn't usually get to do, Form of the Dragon would be one of the exceptions.

With that in mind, I disagree how current Color Pie is cut.

And that's fine, but that's hardly relevant to any discussion about how the color pie is.

And I argued that if you are using counter removal as basis for counter prevention, black has a better claim, based on its slice of the color pie.

I've already said I'm not using counter removal as a basis for counter prevention.
Counter prevention on the opponent's cards might be black, as it is black to siphon power from your enemies, but protecting yourself and your own creatures from getting counters is very much not a black thing to do. It is too protective, and that's something that fits into white, and possibly green.

I explained, just because something is some part of time similar it's not the same.

Most of the time they're the same, that's bad design. You don't waste design space on stuff that usually won't matter.

Also, the list of cards that are affected by dealing damage vs counters is huge. Literally every Spectacle card, ever card that cares about opponent being damaged, lost life etc.

Now you're just naming cards that don't interact with corruption. Making something that is like an existing thing but less interactive is bad design.

Corruption was always a form of Poison-Lite. It's interactive in the way, you aren't forced to go all-in on corruption or all-in on the damage. You can dish out some damage as corruption.

I think the word you're looking for is non-parasitic. Being able to mix it with damage does not make it any more interactive.

If I removed the "permanent damage" (without Sudden Death clause) it would be Homeopathic Poison.
If I removed the "sudden death" (but kept permanent damage") clause, it would be just damage as counters. Which is worse against life gain.
I even considered a "at start of each upkeep lose 1 life for each corruption counter", but that got steep quickly. Or at the start of each upkeep lose 1 life if you have corruption counters, which was too weak.
----
If I removed both clauses, it's just some formless shapeless counter. Is it good? Is it bad? Eh.

The "lose the life at 20 corruption counters" clause is irrelevant so often that it isn't worth the design space. I don't see you actually engaging with this argument.

In my set, you have cards that scale of corruption like "Heal X where X is your corruption" and cards like "Creature gets -X/-X where X is its controller's corruption".

I made cards with that stuff too, corruption being damage is completely irrelevant to that, in fact it is detrimental because it limits how you can use it.

In lieu of positive/negative cards, corruption would be rather vague. It's always supposed to be bad. You trading a relatively worthless resource for it, makes most sense.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase?

And I explained why it's not parasitic. It synergizes with damage and damage enabling cards (e.g. that prevent life gain).

I can't tell if you're missing my point or deliberately ignoring it.
Corruption being damage isn't parasitic, just worthless.
20 corruption=dead is parasitic because in order to take advantage of it you need to focus very heavily on corruption damage.
If your deck deals each in equal amounts then you need to deal 40 damage before the "20 corruption=dead" even becomes relevant, and the amount of times where that is relevant is extremely low.

You're still focusing a part of your design on something that most of the time doesn't matter.

In most games it's a pointless goal. Same as only playing hasters. In some games, playing only hasters might pay off, if your opponent plays a bunch of Gingerbrutes like creatures.
In some games, decks could be built around it, but they wouldn't be forced to just play it with corruption.

That's not a proper comparison at all.
Playing all hasters will matter in most games, as all your creatures will be able to attack the turn you play them. Very rarely will your creatures having haste not matter.
By comparison, 20 corruption=dead will only be relevant very little of the time, and the less you build your deck around it the less it will matter, so in order to matter more than that it will need to be parasitic.

And I explained why. Flavor - the inquisition is destroying the scholars/witches and their instruments. Also, it's part of white color pie. And it's relatively balanced.

If they destroy them why does it exile?

Your second criticism is valid ("Why have artifact/creature removal in set with few artifacts"). I do have a few artifacts, but nothing close to Kaladesh numbers. This is a worthwhile point. That said, a non-sacrificial Angelic Purge is a possibility.

It would fit much better hitting all three, but it should probably be an uncommon. You could decrease the cost then.

[-D-]

Isn't this just a very bad silence?

Yeah, I guess, just the kind of effect I'd like to see. Not necessary on an sorcery/instant card.

That's just a souped up counter spell though, and you probably don't want too much stuff that exiles spells as that might make can't be countered too good.

Yeah, or exile target spell and then cast it as if was any color.

I like this, it would fit green very well, as they would both be the color with the least stack interaction, and the color that gets hexproof and can't be countered.

I'm of two minds on that. Sooner or later they'll make a hexproof, stack-proof creatures and it will be a bitch to deal with.

No they don't.

Ok.

White has been lacking card draw forever, WotC are trying to give it some, but it still needs to be white, they can't just shove some random card draw in just because it needs it.
And the flavor is very rarely an excuse for letting a color do something it doesn't usually get to do, Form of the Dragon would be one of the exceptions.

I don't follow. They don't add draws to white for draw and balance, except they when they do?

Look, I'm not saying they do it often. But they definitely change color pie for balance reasons. One example is the symmetric draw they are planning to add to white, because *drumroll* white has no draws (cantrips not included).

Counter prevention on the opponent's cards might be black, as it is black to siphon power from your enemies, but protecting yourself and your own creatures from getting counters is very much not a black thing to do.

I fundamentally disagree. If it fits black selfish flavor I can see creature immune to -1/-1. E.g.

Spiteful Devil - 2B
Creature - Demon C
Whenever a -1/-1 counter is placed on CARDNAME, instead you lose 1 life.
2/2


And I can definitely see something like:

Chains of Entropy - 1B
Instant - Rare
Counters can't be placed on artifacts and planeswalkers your opponent controls, until end of turn.

Which was my point. Black can prevent counters on permanents in a selfish way.

Most of the time they're the same, that's bad design. You don't waste design space on stuff that usually won't matter.

*Cough* Hexproof from <<INSERT PHRASE>> and <<NO TEXT>>. *Cough*

Now you're just naming cards that don't interact with corruption. Making something that is like an existing thing but less interactive is bad design.

I think the word you're looking for is non-parasitic. Being able to mix it with damage does not make it any more interactive.

Your argument is that 95% it's the same as damage. I'm just listing the ways they aren't the same as damage dealing.
Most things that are good with damage (namely more damage and life gain prevention), are usually good with corruption. Some aren't.

I'm not sure what you mean by non-interactive? They can't be decreased/increased/prevented? Yes they can. Suncleanser and Solemnity already exist.
Anything that interacts with player counters interacts with corruption. Proliferation interacts, Doubling season interacts, etc.

The "lose the life at 20 corruption counters" clause is irrelevant so often that it isn't worth the design space. I don't see you actually engaging with this argument.

20 corruption=dead is parasitic because in order to take advantage of it you need to focus very heavily on corruption damage.
If your deck deals each in equal amounts then you need to deal 40 damage before the "20 corruption=dead" even becomes relevant, and the amount of times where that is relevant is extremely low.

And I said, why I disagree. It was always designed to be mini-Poison.

If the difference in effect is small, the only design impact I see is the complication of the way you count remaining life.

Is a 20 corruption=dead deck possible? Yes. I could see it happening. But it would be a very Johnny deck. You could load it with Doubling Seasons, Winding Constrictors and/or some card that only adds corruption.
Would it be a good deck? No.

Is a 20 corruption=dead (aka Sudden Death) possible? Yup. Play against a life gain deck. This depends on meta.

Playing all hasters will matter in most games, as all your creatures will be able to attack the turn you play them. Very rarely will your creatures having haste not matter.
By comparison, 20 corruption=dead will only be relevant very little of the time, and the less you build your deck around it the less it will matter, so in order to matter more than that it will need to be parasitic.

Not playing all hasters. Only attacking with hasters. Perhaps the Haste is detracting from my point because I had Gingerbrute interaction in mind.
What about a deck, that only plays Vigilance creatures? Does that make Vigilance parasitic, because you made it a choice to only (attack/fill deck only) with Vigilance creatures?

If you are going for a Sudden Death victory, you are essentially playing a Johnny deck, with Johnny-like restrictions.

This discussion makes me think, I could do more to support that type of deck. Something along the line of XR - Deal X damage to any target or Target opponent gains X corruption counters.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase?

Ok, here are some previous examples:

Frothing Leafkin - 1R
Creature - Elf Berserker - C
Frothing leafkin has menace as long defending player has 3 or more ZZZZ counters.
2/2

ZZZZ flame - 2R
Instant - U
Put a ZZZZ counter on target opponent.
ZZZZ flame deals damage to target opponent equal to the number of ZZZZ counters on that player.

ZZZZ Strength - G
Instant - C
As you cast this spell, you may gain a ZZZZ counter.
Target creature gains +1/+1 for each ZZZZ counter on you.

Avatar of ZZZZ - B
Creature - R
As you cast this spell, you may gain a ZZZZ counter.
Power and toughness of this creature are equal to the number of ZZZZ counters on you.
*/*

What is ZZZZ supposed to be? It might be a Scar counter? Or a Fear counter? I think it might be anything.

But if it has a quasi poison effect? Yeah, it sounds like corruption to me.

If they destroy them why does it exile?

It would fit much better hitting all three, but it should probably be uncommon. You could decrease the cost then.

It's mean to invoke images of burning people and stuff to ash. Also, there are some recurring creatures, this would deal with from balance and flavor POV.

Also don't get your reasoning for it being uncommon. At 4W it's fairly priced. If White can get Angelic Purge at (2W) common. For (2) more it can get to destroy without sacrificing a creature.

[Ninjaman]

Yeah, I guess, just the kind of effect I'd like to see. Not necessary on an sorcery/instant card.

It would make a lot more sense on a creature or enchantment. I still think this kind of effect fits better in green than in white.

Yeah, or exile target spell and then cast it as if was any color.

That's effectively an unconditional counterspell, and I'm quite sure we don't want any other color to get those.

I'm of two minds on that. Sooner or later they'll make a hexproof, stack-proof creatures and it will be a bitch to deal with.

There are already three uncounterable hexproof creatures, it's not like the extension to fully stack proof would matter that much.

I don't follow. They don't add draws to white for draw and balance, except they when they do? Look, I'm not saying they do it often. But they definitely change color pie for balance reasons. One example is the symmetric draw they are planning to add to white, because *drumroll* white has no draws (cantrips not included).

They don't just shoe horn it in. They know white needs card draw, so they try to find a white way to draw cards, just like they found a red way to draw cards with impulsive draw. They don't just give them flat out card draw just because they need it.

I fundamentally disagree. If it fits black selfish flavor I can see creature immune to -1/-1. E.g.

Spiteful Devil - 2B
Creature - Demon C
Whenever a -1/-1 counter is placed on CARDNAME, instead you lose 1 life.
2/2

The correct wording is "would be placed".
I think wizards are very mindful about letting black do something it wouldn't normally get to do just by sacrificing creatures/paying life.

And I can definitely see something like:

Chains of Entropy - 1B
Instant - Rare
Counters can't be placed on artifacts and planeswalkers your opponent controls, until end of turn.

Which was my point. Black can prevent counters on permanents in a selfish way.

Your card prevented poison to yourself for life loss to yourself.

*Cough* Hexproof from <<INSERT PHRASE>> and <<NO TEXT>>. *Cough*

Hexproof from colors matter, that's often a reason to play the cards.
This is such a non-argument.

Your argument is that 95% it's the same as damage. I'm just listing the ways they aren't the same as damage dealing.
Most things that are good with damage (namely more damage and life gain prevention), are usually good with corruption. Some aren't.

And most of those usually won't be relevant, and all of the cases you mentioned are stuff that doesn't work, meaning your mechanic doesn't enable anything, it just keeps some stuff from working.

I'm not sure what you mean by non-interactive? They can't be decreased/increased/prevented? Yes they can. Suncleanser and Solemnity already exist.

Suncleanser can only target your opponent, you can't remove counters from yourself, I've brought this up before.
Solemnity can prevent it, but nothing can remove it after you get it.

Anything that interacts with player counters interacts with corruption. Proliferation interacts, Doubling season interacts, etc.

Those are effects you're playing.
You didn't get my point at all.

And I said, why I disagree. It was always designed to be mini-Poison.

And I've explained why that's a terrible design, because it is relevant far too rarely, and you have yet to defend why "20 corruption=dead" is a mechanic that is relevant often enough to waste space on it.

If the difference in effect is small, the only design impact I see is the complication of the way you count remaining life.

You're wasting text in the textbox of cards that might pt that extra text to better use.
But most importantly, it makes players wonder and feel bad when part of the mechanic is never relevant. It's bad design.

Is a 20 corruption=dead deck possible? Yes. I could see it happening. But it would be a very Johnny deck. You could load it with Doubling Seasons, Winding Constrictors and/or some card that only adds corruption.
Would it be a good deck? No.

Then why do you need it as part of your mechanic?
Why does your mechanic need the extra text just to enable a single awful J

Is a 20 corruption=dead (aka Sudden Death) possible? Yup. Play against a life gain deck. This depends on meta.

How many lifegain decks do you see around?
If you deal equal amounts of each they need to gain 20 life for it to mater.
Can it happen? Yes. Does it happen often enough to warrant the design space? No.

Not playing all hasters. Only attacking with hasters. Perhaps the Haste is detracting from my point because I had Gingerbrute interaction in mind.

You wrote playing all hasters. I don't even know what only attacking with hasters means. Does it means attacking with your hasters all the time and your other creatures some of the time, attacking with your hasters some of the time and your other creatures none of the time, attacking with your hasters all the time and your other creatures none of the time, and what then?

What about a deck, that only plays Vigilance creatures? Does that make Vigilance parasitic, because you made it a choice to only (attack/fill deck only) with Vigilance creatures?

No, vigilance isn't parasitic at all, because having some vigilance creatures does not encourage you to play more vigilance creatures. Vigilance isn't synergistic with vigilance.
Corruption is parasitic in that if you want the "20 corruption = dead" clause to matter you want to only deal corruption damage.
Corruption even without the clause is still parasitic, since you want more effects that deal corruption and more effects that get payoff from corruption, it's just a lot less parasitic.

If you are going for a Sudden Death victory, you are essentially playing a Johnny deck, with Johnny-like restrictions.

Then don't use that as part of your design.

Ok, here are some previous examples:

snip

What is ZZZZ supposed to be? It might be a Scar counter? Or a Fear counter? I think it might be anything.

But if it has a quasi poison effect? Yeah, it sounds like corruption to me.

Experience or energy don't do anything themselves either, yet they are very distinct due to how they are used.
I would never make the last two. If you looked at all the cards I made for corruption they gave corruption to the enemy and cared about corruption on the enemy. This is how it feels like a mechanic.

Adding a mechanic that is very rarely relevant just because it has flavor is bad design.

It's mean to invoke images of burning people and stuff to ash. Also, there are some recurring creatures, this would deal with from balance and flavor POV.

Red burns people all the time, that rarely exiles them. When it does it still deals damage first. White exile tends to be either imprisoning something, or literally unmaking it.
If you want to burn people you could just do:
Destroy target artifact, enchantment, or attacking creature.

There's a lot of ways you can do what you're trying to do, I just don't think you've picked the right one.

Also don't get your reasoning for it being uncommon. At 4W it's fairly priced. If White can get Angelic Purge at (2W) common. For (2) more

A sorcery speed Blessed Light that also hits artifacts might have been fine but it shouldn't also have a set mechanic on it.
Angelic Purge was also the only white common I could find that was this general removal, and I think it's only allowed to be that due to providing card disadvantage.

it can get to destroy without sacrificing a creature.

Exile! Don't say destroy when you mean exile!

[-D-]

They don't just shoehorn it in. They know white needs card draw, so they try to find a white way to draw cards, just like they found a red way to draw cards with impulsive draw. They don't just give them flat out card draw just because they need it.

Sure, as I said, balancing AND flavor. They might add some symmetric draw, here and there. Maybe even add something that focus draws something. Or even just a draw if they decide that white, really needs that much help (which seems unlikely, but shifts can happen).

Your card prevented poison to yourself for life loss to yourself.

Are you still about that? I'm pretty sure I mentioned removing it, like weeks if not months ago. It didn't have the right flavor on closer inspection.

Hexproof from colors matter, that's often a reason to play the cards.
This is such a non-argument.

E.g Hexproof from <<INSERT_COLOR>> does not matter approximately 80% of the time when target it. And in-game it doesn't matter 99% of the time, because you can damage it, non-selectively destroy it, or target with an artifact or a non-mentioned color.

And I've explained why that's a terrible design, because it is relevant far too rarely, and you have yet to defend why "20 corruption=dead" is a mechanic that is relevant often enough to waste space on it.

You're wasting text in the textbox of cards that might pt that extra text to better use.
But most importantly, it makes players wonder and feel bad when part of the mechanic is never relevant. It's bad design.

And if Spike was the only person MtG designed for you'd be right.

As I said, it seems like CorruptionDeath™ can be useful as signpost for Johnnies, since going for it, is essentially a self-imposed challenge. I.e. kill the enemy by throwing 20 corruption counters on them.

Corruption even without the clause is still parasitic since you want more effects that deal with corruption and more effects that get payoff from corruption, it's just a lot less parasitic.

I explained why this wasn't the case. On its own it's not parasitic. As a mechanic in the set with cards relying on it is. And that's ok imo. Set mechanic can be parasitic.

Experience or energy don't do anything themselves either, yet they are very distinct due to how they are used.
I would never make the last two. If you looked at all the cards I made for corruption they gave corruption to the enemy and cared about corruption on the enemy. This is how it feels like a mechanic.

Yeah, but that's not corruption flavor. Corruption isn't about yelling that the other is the heretic. It's about accepting bargains that shouldn't be accepted.

And others calling you out on it (while considering the same deals).

A sorcery speed Blessed Light that also hits artifacts might have been fine but it shouldn't also have a set mechanic on it.
Angelic Purge was also the only white common I could find that was this general removal, and I think it's only allowed to be that due to providing card disadvantage.

Yeah, I'm probably removing corruption from it.

Exile! Don't say destroy when you mean exile!

Lapsus calami.

[Ninjaman]

Sure, as I said, balancing AND flavor. They might add some symmetric draw, here and there. Maybe even add something that focus draws something.

Mechanical flavor, yes, not lore flavor. They can make white draw cards if the card feels like a white card mechanically, not if they just reskin a blue card to have white flavor.

Or even just a draw if they decide that white, really needs that much help (which seems unlikely, but shifts can happen).

No, not that. They can stretch white to draw cards in so many ways before going "Eh, just give them divination". Di you see the post I made a little back with ideas?

Are you still about that? I'm pretty sure I mentioned removing it, like weeks if not months ago. It didn't have the right flavor on closer inspection.

Well you didn't present any other way of making black prevent poison counters.
And it's still a design that doesn't feel black. Something doesn't become automatically black just because you sacrifice a creature or pay life.

E.g Hexproof from <<INSERT_COLOR>> does not matter approximately 80% of the time when target it. And in-game it doesn't matter 99% of the time, because you can damage it, non-selectively destroy it, or target with an artifact or a non-mentioned color.

That's just an outright lie.
It's one thing that you have bad opinions, but can you stop saying things that are just blatantly wrong? You're aware Veil of Summer is banned in Standard and Pioneer, right?
It's also worth noting that there are two creatures printed with Hexproof from [color], so it's clearly not a thing they're just doing. It's quite a lot different from being your entire set mechanic.
Fiendslayer paladin had even narrower version of hexproof from [color] and [color], since it didn't work against abilities, and that was relevant when it was in standard. He has also shown up a little in both modern and legacy.

And if Spike was the only person MtG designed for you'd be right.

As I said, it seems like CorruptionDeath™ can be useful as signpost for Johnnies, since going for it, is essentially a self-imposed challenge. I.e. kill the enemy by throwing 20 corruption counters on them.

You could make a card that had the line "Opponents with 20 or more corruptions counters on them lose the game", and that could maybe be Johnny card, but don't make it part of your entire mechanic.
I'm not even convinced that's good for Johnnys. Dealing 20 damage just isn't that exciting. It would actually be way more Johnny if corruption didn't damage, as otherwise you're just playing a regular deck that tries to deal 20 damage most of the time, and that's not what Johnnys want to do.
Something isn't Johnny just because it is janky.

I explained why this wasn't the case. On its own it's not parasitic. As a mechanic in the set with cards relying on it is. And that's ok imo. Set mechanic can be parasitic.

I agree, I didn't say it was too parasitic. Plenty mechanics are somewhat parasitic, and corruption might be a bit more to the parasitic end, but it's probably fine, as long as you don't include a "20 corruption=death" clause.

Yeah, but that's not corruption flavor. Corruption isn't about yelling that the other is the heretic. It's about accepting bargains that shouldn't be accepted.

And others calling you out on it (while considering the same deals).

What you're describing is just black in general. You can achieve that by paying life. You're not really achieving anything new.
You're allowed to call it something other than corruption. Call it torment or whatever.

Yeah, I'm probably removing corruption from it.

Good, though I'd probably still want such a universal answer at uncommon.

[-D-]

Mechanical flavor, yes, not lore flavor. They can make white draw cards if the card feels like a white card mechanically, not if they just reskin a blue card to have white flavor.

Eh, blue had damage prevention once upon a time. Yeah, I mean in Alpha time.

That's just an outright lie.
It's one thing that you have bad opinions, but can you stop saying things that are just blatantly wrong? You're aware Veil of Summer is banned in Standard and Pioneer, right?
It's also worth noting that there are two creatures printed with Hexproof from [color], so it's clearly not a thing they're just doing. It's quite a lot different from being your entire set mechanic.
Fiendslayer paladin had even narrower version of hexproof from [color] and [color], since it didn't work against abilities, and that was relevant when it was in standard. He has also shown up a little in both modern and legacy.

And that's an outright misrepresentation. They didn't ban Veil of Summer because it gave hexproof from X. It was a conditional cantrip, that made spell uncounterable, and gave conditional hexproof from.

And the way it was used (i.e. only against blue/black) it was a cantrip, that made your spells uncounterable, and/or that made an ability your opponent controls be countered.

I agree, I didn't say it was too parasitic. Plenty mechanics are somewhat parasitic, and corruption might be a bit more to the parasitic end, but it's probably fine, as long as you don't include a "20 corruption=death" clause.

Eh, I'll run it by others, but if they don't think it's problematic I'm keeping it.

What you're describing is just black in general. You can achieve that by paying life. You're not really achieving anything new.
You're allowed to call it something other than corruption. Call it torment or whatever.

Sure, but set mechanic can be pushed into other colors. Also it's not as life. It's mini-poison.

---------

Let's talk about something more interesting. MARO talked about designing a potential evergreen Blue/Red keyword. What would you guys like to see?

[Undyne]

Seems to do a lot. Otherwise decent design. Potentially interesting as Commander.

Thanks! I've always loved the Reach mechanic, and since most Archers have it and plenty of Green cards depict Flying creatures being struck down via projectiles, I figured it would be a fun mechanic to have your Reach cards be tricks to remove Flying, helping yourself or others.

[Ninjaman]

Eh, blue had damage prevention once upon a time. Yeah, I mean in Alpha time.

They also had direct damage back then, but that doesn't say anything about how they do stuff nowadays.

And that's an outright misrepresentation. They didn't ban Veil of Summer because it gave hexproof from X. It was a conditional cantrip, that made spell uncounterable, and gave conditional hexproof from.

And the way it was used (i.e. only against blue/black) it was a cantrip, that made your spells uncounterable, and/or that made an ability your opponent controls be countered.

I'm not sure how that is in any way a counterargument to what I said.
One of the reasons Veil of Summer was good was that it gave hexproof from, if you removed that text then it would have seen very little play, and definitely wouldn't have been ban worthy.

You also flat out ignored my point about Fiendslayer Paladin.

Eh, I'll run it by others, but if they don't think it's problematic I'm keeping it.

If they know anything about card design they'll tell you what I told you.

Sure, but set mechanic can be pushed into other colors. Also it's not as life. It's mini-poison.

Colors that don't normally pay life don't suddenly pay life just because it's not actually life. You could do it if you make a set mechanic, but then you could also just make paying life a set mechanic.

And if you plan of doing more stuff with corruption then not all colors would automatically be allowed to pay with corruption, the different colors would be allowed different things with the mechanic, unless paying it was the only thing they did.

Also other colors can pay life.

And yes, it is paying life, with the only exceptions being that your opponent might kill you though lifegain if he plays corruption, and that you can't pay more than 20. If you're playing a deck that puts corruption on yourself against a deck that has no way of giving you corruption, then it's just paying life except you can't pay more than 20. That is bad design for reasons I have gone over a million times already.

Let's talk about something more interesting. MARO talked about designing a potential evergreen Blue/Red keyword. What would you guys like to see?

The coolest thing about that tweet is haste as secondary in green. I like it. I guess it makes sense with riot, just glad that it's pretty much official now.
Is flash in black rather than green also gonna be a new thing, because I'd really hate that. I don't hate that black gets it, but I hate that green loses it.

They tried to make prowess the blue red evergreen at one point, but scraped it for various reasons. I quite liked it, but I don't think players like me were the reason they scraped it, it was more casual players. Prowess is quite complicated compared to the others, and doesn't follow the same design, for instance it's the only one that stacks. It also places way more deck building restrictions.

I saw someone suggest supertrample (cardname may assign damage as though it weren't blocked), which has traditionally been green, but feels very red, and I think it can works a powered down unblockable as well. I'm not sure how it plays in large qualities though, it might just make it too easy to burn out the opponent.

I also saw comments about a power and toughness switching keyword, like "when this creature attacks or becomes blocked, you may switch its power and toughness until end of turn." That could maybe work, but I'm not sure how big the design space is for it. For one thing it doesn't work on cards that have equal power and toughness. Another big issue with this is that pumps and switching is probably too confusing to be keyworded.

I've also seen people saying it shouldn't be triggered, which is a strike against both prowess and switching.

Also I don't think flash should be the blue black keyword, as green should have it too, so I wonder what the blue black should be. I liked the design of skulk, but it probably didn't play that well.

[-D-]

They also had direct damage back then, but that doesn't say anything about how they do stuff nowadays.

Missing the point, here. They changed it. If they changed it before, they might change it again.

I'm not sure how that is in any way a counterargument to what I said.

The same way you can make Oko, Thief of Crowns have a passive Hexproof from White and claim that's Oko is broken. Yeah, it's broken, but not because it has Hexproof from ...
Literally, everything else about it is broken. Also I was talking about permanents. Hexproof is better on non-permanents since it acts as a counter for spells/abilities.

Neither Fiendslayer nor any of "Hexproof from" permanents were broken because it's 99% the same as does nothing. It's not a reactive ability like on Veil of Summer, and it's not a mass hexproof like Veil of Summer.

One of the reasons Veil of Summer was good was that it gave hexproof from, if you removed that text then it would have seen very little play, and definitely wouldn't have been ban worthy.

You are right in the sense, that mass Hexproof is a problem. But a

Veil of Summer 1R
Instant
You and permanents you control have hexproof from blue and black.

Would probably not see ban. But you add a draw a card and your spells are uncounterable, and it will be a problem. I think the draw a card is the biggest offender tbh.

You also flat out ignored my point about Fiendslayer Paladin.

It's not much of a point. Lots of cards see Modern/Legacy play. It just means it's not meant for Draft tier or Draft chaff. And on further scan it was played in 0 Modern and 1 Death and Taxes (Legacy) deck according to MtgTop8.

Colors that don't normally pay life don't suddenly pay life just because it's not actually life.

But colors that don't get Wither, get Wither. Yeah, that makes no sense. Also all colors can pay life.

Also other colors can pay life.

You dropped these.

Also an entire set.

If they know anything about card design they'll tell you what I told you.

Don't toot your own horn too hard. You're not that good.

The coolest thing about that tweet is haste as secondary in green. I like it. I guess it makes sense with riot, just glad that it's pretty much official now.
Is flash in black rather than green also gonna be a new thing, because I'd really hate that. I don't hate that black gets it, but I hate that green loses it.

That's a tumblr post, but I don't think green loses it. Just gets deprioritized.

They tried to make prowess the blue red evergreen at one point, but scraped it for various reasons. I quite liked it, but I don't think players like me were the reason they scraped it, it was more casual players. Prowess is quite complicated compared to the others, and doesn't follow the same design, for instance it's the only one that stacks. It also places way more deck building restrictions.

I saw someone suggest supertrample (cardname may assign damage as though it weren't blocked), which has traditionally been green, but feels very red, and I think it can works a powered down unblockable as well. I'm not sure how it plays in large qualities though, it might just make it too easy to burn out the opponent.

The more I think, the more the solution might be some form of evasion. Blue relies a lot on evasion, and red just like the straight damage. Supertrample could work but feels not very... blue.

I've been thinking something along the line of:
Sneaky - Can only be blocked by creatures with vigilance.

[Gauntlet]

But you add a draw a card and your spells are uncounterable, and it will be a problem. I think the draw a card is the biggest offender tbh.

All the components of the card (Draw, Uncounterable, Hexproof) are required for it to be good. Take any one of them away and it's too niche to see use.

Hexproof from <COLOR> matters more than 20% of the time. Multicoloured cards are a thing, and the cards that actually see play with this mechanic are the ones that deal with colours which are over-represented in the metagame at the current time.

The idea that it's irrelevant most of the time because you'll just answer it with something else is missing the point. Resistance to a colour isn't about being completely immune. If you took 2 extra damage because you needed to wait a turn before you killed something in order to find a removal spell it didn't dodge, was it irrelevant? Or taking a line that makes your mana usage awkward, and so on. It's similar to saying that First Strike doesn't matter, because your opponent didn't block your creature. That's a misread of the situation - your opponent didn't block the creature because it had first strike. In the same way, Hexproof from X on a creature forcing your opponent into a less optimal line of play makes a lot of difference in some matchups. It only changes the game in a minor way, but that line of text has an impact in more than half the games it's played in, I'd expect. Same applies to Veil of Summer - the Hexproof From X line is relevant in >50% of the times when you would play this card.

Your Corruption mechanic would be relevantly different from generic damage/lifeloss in a far smaller percentage of games.

----


For a U/R combat mechanic, the issue is that both colours already have evasion (Flying for U, Menace for R), so overlap there isn't super impressive. I'd lean towards trying to go for something that actually lets a creature win a fight, instead.

This is the idea I've been messing with currently, but I think it might be too complicated for an evergreen keyword.

Adaptable
Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may have it get +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn.

You could have it be 'blocks or becomes blocked' instead, which makes it a bit worse as a clock but harder to effectively block.

[-D-]

Hexproof from <COLOR> matters more than 20% of the time. Multicoloured cards are a thing, and the cards that actually see play with this mechanic are the ones that deal with colours which are over-represented in the metagame at the current time.

Hexproof only matters when targeting. You can damage it or target it with something else. Instant speed (reactive) "Hexproof from" is a counter for spells/abilities. Proactive hexproof i.e. "Hexproof from" on permanents, is a target prevention.

The idea that it's irrelevant most of the time because you'll just answer it with something else is missing the point. Resistance to a colour isn't about being completely immune. If you took 2 extra damage because you needed to wait a turn before you killed something in order to find a removal spell it didn't dodge, was it irrelevant? Or taking a line that makes your mana usage awkward, and so on.

Resistance? Do you mean protection?

Most of the time taking 2 extra damage is going to be irrelevant. It, of course, depends on context. Against burn, yeah, that hurts. Against control? Fire away. Against burn, taking 2 damage but getting a lifelinker, yeah I'd take that trade. But not if I'm in Shock range after.

It's similar to saying that First Strike doesn't matter because your opponent didn't block your creature.

No, it's not. First-strike doesn't stop working because you blocked with black 1/1 vs a red 1/1, i.e. the only thing that needed to change was a color. Stats cost mana, forcing different trades, color doesn't cost mana.

Also Hexproof only protects against things that target AND things of that color. Against things that don't target OR things outside that color, it's a <<DO NOTHING>> text. It's <<DO NOTHING>> against most creatures in game (i.e. plain old P/T trades).

Adaptable
Whenever this creature attacks or blocks, you may have it get +1/-1 or -1/+1 until end of turn.

You could have it be 'blocks or becomes blocked' instead, which makes it a bit worse as a clock but harder to effectively block.

Eh, this introduces a lot of board complexity. I mean it might seen evergreen status, but I doubt it.

[Gauntlet]

Resistance? Do you mean protection?

I meant to encompass all the various effects that make a creature situationally more durable. Hexproof From X, Can't be blocked by X, Protection from X, Prevent damage from X sources, and so on. All of these effects make answering a card a bit more difficult, but don't make a card completely unanswerable.

Most of the time taking 2 extra damage is going to be irrelevant. It, of course, depends on context. Against burn, yeah, that hurts. Against control? Fire away. Against burn, taking 2 damage but getting a lifelinker, yeah I'd take that trade. But not if I'm in Shock range after.

If it meaningfully changed the game state, I think that's a good bar for relevancy. A lot of the time the extra attacking time it bought you could be worth more damage, or harm the defending player in other ways, also - like forcing them to spend mana in awkward patterns, or use a high-quality answer on a low-cost threat, allowing a high-value threat to go unanswered later.

No, it's not. First-strike doesn't stop working because you blocked with black 1/1 vs a red 1/1, i.e. the only thing that needed to change was a color. Stats cost mana, forcing different trades, color doesn't cost mana.

Also Hexproof only protects against things that target AND things of that color. Against things that don't target OR things outside that color, it's a <<DO NOTHING>> text. It's <<DO NOTHING>> against most creatures in game (i.e. plain old P/T trades).

First Strike does stop working if you just didn't block at all, or if you didn't attack because your opponent had a bigger creature. It 'did nothing' - except screw with your decision making. In the same way that conditional durability like Veil of Summer or Knight of Grace 'does nothing' - except screw with the opponent's decision making.

Saying that Hexproof from Black is irrelevant because I can just play red removal instead, is like saying that First Strike is irrelevant because I can play a creatureless deck, or Uncounterable is irrelevant because most decks don't play counters.

The number of decks that play black removal spells - or creatures - or countermagic - is far higher than the number of decks that would treat Corruption as anything different to damage.