Results 451 to 480 of 591
Thread: MTG Share your Card Designs II
-
2020-01-06, 08:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
The thing I like about this wording is that it doesn't shut off anything, it just restricts you to paying it fairly. You can cast a cascaded spell, you just need to pay for it. You can flashback a spell, the flashback just can't be cheaper than the cmc. Another thing I like is that we know it's a functional wording.
The thing I don't like is that it doesn't work on Convoke, Delve or improvise.
This locks with some more cards, but with cards that already have locks, so that's probably fine. I'm not sure if the wording works though.
-
2020-01-06, 06:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
One possible interpretation from Discord - "Any spell cast for less than its converted mana cost costs its converted mana cost to cast instead."
Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-07 at 07:40 AM.
-
2020-01-07, 02:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
-
2020-01-07, 06:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
You mean, it's => its. Yeah I know, I copied it verbatim from Discord warts and all.
Honestly, I stated as much, add term mana paid or reuse the mana payment used in rules. Maybe something "Any spells where mana paid/mana payment is less than it's converted mana cost, must pay the difference in mana".
-
2020-01-07, 06:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I included "to cast".
Honestly, I stated as much, add term mana paid or reuse the mana payment used in rules. Maybe something "Any spells where mana paid/mana payment is less than it's converted mana cost, must pay the difference in mana".
-
2020-01-07, 06:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Mana costs can't be reduced.
Mana costs can't be paid except with mana.
Spells can't be cast without paying their mana costs.
I think that covers everything?
-
2020-01-07, 08:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Heavily disagree. Adding any form of keyword ability, means changing the rules. Like it or not, we're always changing the rules. And this wouldn't rewrite rules, just count the portion of mana paid in total costs (which can include non-mana costs).
However, I think the effect might be too finnicky to be worth it.
I don't think it does, convoke has this wording:
702.50. Convoke
- 702.50a Convoke is a static ability that functions while the spell with convoke is on the stack. “Convoke” means “For each colored mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature of that color you control rather than pay that mana. For each generic mana in this spell’s total cost, you may tap an untapped creature you control rather than pay that mana.”
--------
Had few more ideas unrelated to this discussions, I'd rather have.
- Corruption counters. At the beginning of your end step, you take 1 damage for half of your corruption counters, rounded down. In contrast to the previous discussions, corruption counters can be changed up or down.
- Hecatomb - keyword ability. You may cast this spell by sacrificing creatures. Each sacrificed creature reduces mana cost by either one of its colors, or for generic mana equal to its converted mana cost.
-
2020-01-07, 09:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
The 'Mana costs can't be paid except with mana' should prevent Convoke from being used to pay the card's mana cost by tapping creatures, as far as I can tell.
Corruption counters. At the beginning of your end step, you take 1 damage for half of your corruption counters, rounded down. In contrast to the previous discussions, corruption counters can be changed up or down.
Hecatomb - keyword ability. You may cast this spell by sacrificing creatures. Each sacrificed creature reduces mana cost by either one of its colors, or for generic mana equal to its converted mana cost.
-
2020-01-07, 10:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
No, no. Idea is that you can modify these counters any way you want. Increase, decrease, remove entirely. Also, anything that reduces damage will work against it.
Yeah, I might need to go for an alternative cost.
Ancient Nightmare 2BB
Creature - Shadow - Common
Hecatomb 1BB
Flying
3/2
Worshiped Horror 3B
Creature - Horror - Uncommon
Hecatomb 5B
When ~ enters the battlefield, if hecatomb price was paid, put a +1/+1 counter on ~ for each creature sacrificed to pay for this spell.
~ has menace as long as it has a +1/+1 counter.
4/4
Carnage Demon 3BBB
Creature - Demon - Rare
Hecatomb 4BB (You may cast this spell by paying 4BB and sacrificing creatures rather than paying its mana cost. If you chose to pay this spell’s Hecatomb cost, for each sacrificed creature reduce its total cost by either that one mana of that creature's color, or for its converted mana cost).
Flying
When ~ enters the battlefield, if hecatomb price was paid, for each creature sacrificed to pay for this spell you may destroy target creature opponent controls.
6/6Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-07 at 11:09 AM.
-
2020-01-07, 11:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
-
2020-01-07, 11:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
-
2020-01-07, 12:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
How about:
Corruption counters:
At the beginning of a players upkeep, that player loses 1 life for each corruption counter on them, then remove a corruption counter from that player.
It's unfortunately quite parasitic.
I did this once:
Torment (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to an opponent, that player loses life equal to the number of torment counters on them, then put a torment counter on that player.)
-
2020-01-08, 05:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Definitely not the flavor I'm going for. Truth be told, I really want corruption to be a lot like Armello's Rot:
First is that it can be part the cost:
(see the snakey thing with number 2)
It's detrimental in general, at start of each turn
but it can be interacted with.
I think any kind of player token is inherently parasticial, hopefully there will be more player counter interacting strategies, so it won't be as parasitic.
Here were some thoughts
Wild Cleansing - 1G
Sorcery - Common
Remove X counters of from yourself, where X is the number of green creatures you control.
Sin Eater - WB
Creature - Human Shaman - Uncommon
Whenever one or more counters would be placed on a player, you may pay W/B. If you do, prevent those counters instead, and put a +1/+1 on CARDNAME.
1/1Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-08 at 05:40 AM.
-
2020-01-08, 05:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
If it was like Armello's rot then it should just say "At the beginning of a players upkeep, if that player has any rot counters, that player loses 1 rot." And then have cards that cared about it.
But I don't think you can do rot like Armello. It works in Armello because it is one of the core game mechanics, it's not in magic, so you can't expect the opponent to have any way of interacting with it.
-
2020-01-08, 05:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I'm not translating it 1 for 1.
Also, that's not how rot in Armello works. Rot is permanent (unless they changed it like recently) and at start of turn you take 1 damage.
From Discord discussions, if I did it as damage at beginning of rotten player's upkeep, it would be impossible for the user to prevent or mitigate it. Basically Rot becomes at start of your turn - DIE!
You can interact with stuff at the end of a turn (the beginning of your end step), but not at beggining of your upkeep, I think you never get priority there.
To me important aspects of Rot are:
- Rot is persistent (it won't disappear on its own)
- Rot can be used as cost
- Rot has some penalty
- Rot can be interacted with
- Things can scale off it.
- It can be used as a punishment.
-
2020-01-08, 09:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Carlisle, Englund
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
You always get priority in every step bar 2. Those two are the Untap Step, where you can never get priority (anything that triggers in the Untap Step (e.g. Inspired) waits till the Upkeep step to go on the stack), and the Cleanup Step where players only get priority if something triggers or state based actions cause something to happen.
"Three blokes walk into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid, and the whole scene unfolds with a tedious inevitability." - Bill Bailey
Androgeus' 3 step guide to Doctor Who speculation:
Spoiler- Pick a random character
- State that person is The Rani
- goto 1
-
2020-01-08, 10:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Sorry I misspelled, it was supposed to say lose 1 life, not lose 1 rot.
You can interact with stuff at the end of a turn (the beginning of your end step), but not at beggining of your upkeep, I think you never get priority there.
To me important aspects of Rot are:
- Rot is persistent (it won't disappear on its own)
- Rot can be used as cost
- Rot has some penalty
- Rot can be interacted with
- Things can scale off it.
- It can be used as a punishment.
Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-08 at 10:36 AM.
-
2020-01-08, 11:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Hm, not sure then. Maybe they thought that you can't play any sorcery or creature that would have dealt with it somewhat. E.g. you would take non-lethal Rot damage, and your opponent, made you
No problem, but I don't see point having it just deal 1 (20-25% of your life) damage on upkeep. I mean, in Armello if you die, you get send to your starting position, you don't lose the game there and then.
I don't see it as limitations. I have a set of counters. I have cards that increase/decrease some counters. And I have cards scaling of those counters.
-
2020-01-08, 02:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
-
2020-01-08, 06:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
-
2020-01-09, 01:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
This isn't just parasitic. It's highly parasitic.
If you make it energy counters, but then add more stuff that interacts with it specifically, you're just making it more parasitic. That's not a good thing.
Your mechanic should always work even if the opponent has dedicated nothing to fighting it.
-
2020-01-09, 05:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
So? Tribal is parasitic, but it's not inherently problematic. Same with cards that fetch an exactly single card e.g. Visage of Bolas.
I honestly think large problem with energy was, its uninteractivity. Parasitism isn't on its own a huge problem. It's a red flag, not a red card.
Not sure how to parse this. Your mechanics should work if your opponent has nothing against it?
It will. You can load yourself with corruption, use it for an effect and lose it. Or prevent/heal it's "maintenance cost". Usually, if you load yourself with it, it's a net positive effect.
-
2020-01-09, 10:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Tribal support is parasitic, the creatures themselves aren't, that's why tribal works in sets. Corruption only works with corruption enablers or corruption payoffs. It's like the spirit/arcane synergy in Kamigawa. It didn't work well.
Same with cards that fetch an exactly single card e.g. Visage of Bolas.
There is a huge difference between having one card that does something and having it as a set mechanic.
I honestly think large problem with energy was, its uninteractivity. Parasitism isn't on its own a huge problem. It's a red flag, not a red card.
Not sure how to parse this. Your mechanics should work if your opponent has nothing against it?
It will. You can load yourself with corruption, use it for an effect and lose it. Or prevent/heal it's "maintenance cost". Usually, if you load yourself with it, it's a net positive effect.
You keep talking about all these things you want to do with corruption, but you show very little.
-
2020-01-09, 01:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
*cough*Slivers*cough*Thalia's entourage*cough*Tribal Lords*cough*
Kaladesh had 70 energy, in set of 184 cards. This set so far has about 20 corruption cards out of 284, and some cards like 10 that affect counters. If anything I need to add more corruption cards.
It's still leagues better than energy. A card that heals you mitigates it. A card that affects counters affects it. Same for cards that prevent damage.
The answer is either damage them more or control them enough for the corruption to do its thing.
Is paying life good or bad? Depends on context.
Black and red are good at causing corruption to enemies. Blue can offer it, but not mandatory.
Black and Red inflict corruption to themselves for profit. White too in a lesser extent.
Green can remove counters from itself, but it will be creature dependent.
White can prohibit counters but not remove them from self.
Black can remove counters... From opponents.
Colors that can scale of your corruption are red and black.
Colors that scale of opponent's are white and green.
Colorless uses corruption as cost, can inflict and prevent it.
Rest of the cards interacting, just add life, prevent damage or increase counters, damage etc.Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-09 at 01:34 PM.
-
2020-01-09, 04:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Yes slivers are quite parasitic, which is why it's lucky that they're really cool. You need a design that is equally cool to justify it.
Thalia's entourage
*cough*Tribal Lords*cough*
Kaladesh had 70 energy, in set of 184 cards. This set so far has about 20 corruption cards out of 284, and some cards like 10 that affect counters. If anything I need to add more corruption cards.
Also you can't possibly claim energy wasn't problematic.
It's still leagues better than energy. A card that heals you mitigates it. A card that affects counters affects it. Same for cards that prevent damage.
How does healing prevent the counters?
Preventing counters and preventing damage is very specific, and very limited in what colors get to do it.
Is paying life good or bad? Depends on context.
Yes some things care about the downside, but paying life is a downside.
But you know what's cool about paying life? It's done everywhere. Same with discard and sacrificing creatures.
Undying synergized with the sac effects of innistrad, but it also synergizes with for instance extort of Tarkir.
What does your mechanic synergize with?
Black and red are good at causing corruption to enemies. Blue can offer it, but not mandatory.
Black and Red inflict corruption to themselves for profit. White too in a lesser extent.
If you play against a deck that wants to be corrupted, and you can cause them corruption, is that good?
Pick one, either you corrupt your opponent or yourself, you can't do both, that doesn't balance.
Green can remove counters from itself, but it will be creature dependent.
Black can remove counters... From opponents.
Colors that can scale of your corruption are red and black.
Colors that scale of opponent's are white and green.
Nothing you have said about your mechanic has done anything to convince me that it's a good idea. Go ahead and show off some designs.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-09 at 04:43 PM.
-
2020-01-10, 01:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Cards that depend on Humans. Mainly Thraben Inspector, Thalia's Lieutenant, Kessig Malcontent, etc.
But same goes for elves.
That depends whether the set cares about that creature type. In Inistrad there aren't as many lords as cards that care about it.
You said extend(sic). I assume you meant how many cards.
Also anything that depends on corruption can add corruption as part of casting. Anything that gives you corruption (i.e. corruption as a cost), gives you a positive effect as well.
Parasitism of energy was its least problem.
Pretty sure the real problem was non-interactivity. I.e. There was no counterplay for it.
Sigh. I explained already. The counters cause damage at end of your turn. Hmmm. How could healing, help mitigate damage.
Hence why I added some colorless counter removal/prevention.
Spectacle from Guilds of Ravnica. Assuming I move the damage trigger from end step to upkeep.
Same as paying life.
You don't want corruption on yourself. However the benefits might outweigh the costs.
Well in general, assuming BR is playing corruption deck, it wants to have minimal corruption and cause as much as it can WG.
In general the chances of WG having counter prevention is low. But if they stabilize, BR player is ****ed. WG is usually +1/+1 counter synergy. BR is playing a burn against a midrange deck. A midrange deck that probably has heals.
-
2020-01-10, 02:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Thraben Inspector doesn't depend on humans though?
It is a human, so cards that depend on humans can use it, but Thraben Inspector can be played in any white deck.
Thalia's Lieutenant, Kessig Malcontent, etc.
But same goes for elves.
Yes you have a few that enable tribal synergies, but it's not like your deck is either all elves or no elves, a deck can easily play some elves and not care about tribal synergies.
That depends whether the set cares about that creature type. In Inistrad there aren't as many lords as cards that care about it.
Shadows Over Innistrad block has 15 cards that care about humans from what I could find (search for cards that mention "human", then remove the ones saying non-human or just making tokens.)
Shadows over Innistrad block has 79 humans.
This is a perfect example of how few support cards are actually needed for tribal support.
You said extend(sic). I assume you meant how many cards.
Also anything that depends on corruption can add corruption as part of casting. Anything that gives you corruption (i.e. corruption as a cost), gives you a positive effect as well.
Parasitism of energy was its least problem.
Pretty sure the real problem was non-interactivity. I.e. There was no counterplay for it.
The problem, for standard, was that there were so many powerful energy cards, but you could only play them if you were a dedicated energy deck.
Energy was a resource that you used, your corruption sticks around, that's much more difficult to balance.
Sigh. I explained already. The counters cause damage at end of your turn. Hmmm. How could healing, help mitigate damage.
It doesn't matter if you heal the damage the corruption gives, you've made it clear that isn't the point of the mechanic. The point is that when the opponent gives you
Hence why I added some colorless counter removal/prevention.
Take a look at how much specific hate exists for other mechanics. None, or very little. Now look at how many hate cards you have planned.
Spectacle from Guilds of Ravnica. Assuming I move the damage trigger from end step to upkeep.
Same as paying life.
You don't want to pay life, you do it because it's a resource.
Only Death's Shadow wants to pay life.
You don't want corruption on yourself. However the benefits might outweigh the costs.
Well in general, assuming BR is playing corruption deck, it wants to have minimal corruption and cause as much as it can WG.
If GW are the colors that scale of your opponent's corruption, doesn't it want to corrupt the opponent?
You said BR scales off your corruption, so why doesn't it want it?
In general the chances of WG having counter prevention is low. But if they stabilize, BR player is ****ed. WG is usually +1/+1 counter synergy. BR is playing a burn against a midrange deck. A midrange deck that probably has heals.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
Your set lacks focus. It tries to do way too many things at once, many of them at odds with eachother. Pick one part of your design, and do that. What you're doing now doesn't work.
-
2020-01-10, 07:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Champion of the Parish. My bad.
Well, yeah, but they are the largest tribe in MTG, outside Changelings
Well, no. Elves can't go in any deck. Sure a particularily dtrong elf, can fill some niche in any deck. But most elves can't.
To put more than one elf, or to use hardly used elfs, it takes a specific deck.
I have around 20 cards for corruption. In a set of about ~290(it's hovering between 280-286). Your point is - I should have more ?
Maro, also mentioned that another large problem with energy is that you couldn't interact with these counters, another was missing the correct cost of them. All set mechanics are generally pushed, if you don't you push mechanics you get an underwhelming set mechanics.
It doesn't stop counters, but where did I made it clear that it doesn't matter if you heal/prevent damage from corruption?
Wizards have the benefit or doing this on a much larger timescale. They can create hate mechanics a much further down the line. See energy and Price of Betrayal.
When I proposed such mechanics, literally the first thing people asked is, can they be removed? Adding a few hate cards doesn't seem bad, especially if it's something people want.
You mean on, right? Still, turning spectacle on forever in a burn deck isn't that hard. It's pretty much, business as usual. To activate corruption you either need to cast two spells or one rare spell that can inflict more than 1 corruption.
I'm still mulling over whether to add it beginning of upkeep or end step. Or whether to deal damage equal to X/2, X/3, X/4, etc. Where X is number of corruption counters. That would change the dynamics significantly.
Well, not identical, but similar in nature. You trade a low-value resource (life) for high value resource - card, creature, etc.
Think black cares about that mostly.
EDIT: Red cares to a lesser extent, not sure if I designed this card, but it would probably be something like.
Corruption Elemental 1R
Creature - Elemental - Rare
As you cast this spell, you may gain up to two corruption counters.
Trample, haste.
CARDNAME power is equal to your corruption (Player's corruption is equal to number of corruption counters on that player).
*/1
In your hypothetical scenario I took a given BR corruption deck against a typical GW deck. Typical GW deck is a +1/+1 counter synergy, not an anti-corruption deck. Green has no corruption infliction. White has one, but that would be inefficent as hell (Target player heals 7 gains a corruption counter).
No, the black/red deck is probably Sacrifice Aggro. You just asked me to test a fringe deck, that runs corruption.
It's like saying mono-blue control based on counters in limited against green.Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-10 at 03:31 PM.
-
2020-01-10, 03:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
My own suggestion, if I'm reading things right that Corruption is intended primarily as the cost of stuff like demonic contracts, is to focus self-corruption in Black and Blue, with corruption-punishing being primarily in White and Green, the removal of it being primarily in Red and Green, White and Blue sharing infliction of it on others, and the payoff of having it primarily in Red and Black.
Having Blue be self-Corruption rather than Red comes from the fact that Red's the color of chaos and freedoms, rather contrary to Corruption-as-payment because it's contrary to the deal-making involved in Corruption stemming from such things as demonic contracts. White getting Corruption infliction would come as a matter of "law-breaking", using it as an alternative to some of White's usual tax and balance effects, and Blue doing it as part of "symmetrical" effects that represent largely-neutral deal-making and Blue's purview over forced decisions. Red getting Corruption removal and payoff for it ties back to why I feel it shouldn't get self-inflicted Corruption, that being they'd come from the notion of breaking and twisting the deals that cause corruption.
This also makes for Corruption mechanics being prone to backfiring in opposing colors. Black has to deal with hardcore punishment of Corruption, Blue's gets stripped to remove that pseudo-burn reach for winning, White might just drown in the enemy's payoffs for it, Green's defenses against it may also give the enemy gas and Red's quite possibly going to end up buried in it. But this very backfire also means opponent colors have a key synergy, with Blue/Green sourcing its own corruption to punish and clearing itself off, Black/White being able to go off significantly faster by ignoring its own costs, Red/White being able to go off hard on asymmetric punishments, Green/Black being able to keep itself from blowing up entirely and Blue/Red being able to exploit the everloving bajesus out of its tie-ins.
And yes, I'm very much thinking of Corruption as a frequently inverted relation with damage. Red getting lifegain? Blue and White with burn? White and Green punishing low life totals? Of course, it'd be generally somewhat inefficient compared to actual life altering, partly because of the color pie breaks being a risk and partly so it's not ever going to be just better than the normal version of the effect. The thing would be that it tips the scales on "life" in addition to doing something else. Rather than every Corruption card trying to be self-contained like Energy, I'd go for having them spread out so they might matter even if they're the only Corruption-mentioning card in either player's 75.
-
2020-01-10, 04:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
And they've been that since the great creature update of 2007, yet it wasn't until Innistrad in 2011 they received any tribal support. Being the tribe with the most members doesn't make it parasitic in any way.
Most humans don't care about humans.
Well, no. They can't go in any deck. Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.
I have around 20 cards for corruption. In a set of about ~290(it's hovering between 280-286). Your point is - I should have more ?
The same can't be said about corruption. Corruption synergy cards all need to deal with corruption directly. This makes them all highly parasitic.
Maro, also mentioned that another large problem with energy is that you couldn't interact with these counters, another as missing the cost of them.
All set mechanics are generally pushed, if you don't you just get an underwhelming mechanics.
That wouldn't have been a big problem if the cards were less pushed.
Energy was more pushed than most.
It doesn't stop counters, but where did I made it clear that it doesn't matter if you heal/prevent damage from corruption?
You said that there are cards that care about the corruption counters. Then healing the damage the corruption does won't do anything to interact with the cards that utilize corruption.
Wizards have the benefit or doing this on a much larger timescale.
When I proposed such mechanics, literally the first thing people asked is, can they be removed? Adding a few hate cards doesn't seem bad, especially if it's something people want.
You seem to think there is some perfect amount of specific hate cards you can jam into your set and all will be fine, but there isn't.
The problem lies with how you're trying to implement the mechanic. There are ways you could implement it that would work, but you're looking at your mechanic through rose-tinted glasses.
You mean on, right?
Still, turning spectacle on forever in a burn deck isn't that hard.
Also saying "this synergizes with stuff that cares about dealing damage" doesn't count. Dealing damage is easy, almost every creature in the game does that.
I'm still mulling over whether to add it beginning of upkeep or end step. Or whether to deal damage equal to X/2, X/3, X/4, etc. Where X is number of corruption counters. That would change the dynamics significantly.
It's either going to be totally overpowered, or completely useless, with a very small margin where it is actually balanced.
Well, not identical, but similar in nature. You trade a low-value resource (life) for high value resource - card, creature, etc.
EDIT: Red cares to a lesser extent, not sure if I designed this card, but it would probably be something like.
Corruption Elemental 1R
Creature - Elemental - Rare
As you cast this spell, you may gain up to two corruption counters.
Trample, haste.
CARDNAME power is equal to your corruption (Player's corruption is equal to number of corruption counters on that player).
*/1
In your hypothetical scenario I took a given BR corruption deck against a typical GW deck. Typical GW deck is a +1/+1 counter synergy, not an anti-corruption deck. Green has no corruption infliction. White has one, but that would be inefficent as hell (Target player heals 7 gains a corruption counter).
If green and white are the colors that care about how much corruption your opponent has, why aren't they able to give corruption.
That's like making a set where all your cards that care about how many cards you draw are in white.
No, the black/red deck is probably Sacrifice Aggro. You just asked me to test a fringe deck, that runs corruption.
Having GW be caring about the counters on the enemy without a way to put corruption on the enemy is a horrible mechanic, because it only functions as hate. It's like in Ice Age when no one played snow lands, because there were much stronger snow hosers than snow payoffs.
Either you want to give corruption to the enemy or you want to give it to yourself. You are toying with way too many different designs at once and they don't function together.
In design, less is more.