Results 481 to 510 of 591
Thread: MTG Share your Card Designs II
-
2020-01-10, 06:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
From a flavor perspective that makes a lot of sense!
However, from the magic pie perspective, only cards that can prevent/remove counters are - White and Black (from permanents and opponents). Green could theoretically do it in a creature dependent way. Hence Wild Cleansing (Remove a counter from yourself for each green creature you control). Black can remove counters from various things, but not itself. Red doesn't care about counters.
So in essence. While black and blue could be the color of self-inflicted corruption. I don't get too much choice who is the corruption removal color. It's either - White (Solemnity, Suncleanser), Black (Price of Betrayal) or Green (Melira).
It's a difficult question. Let's break down the corruption effects -there are five possible effects, I mean ideally it would be like this
- Self-Corruption - W*UBR*
- Corruption-inflict - UBR
- Corruption-removal - WRG
- Corruption-punish - WUG
- Corruption-synergy - BR
* - means some means available, but generally not really cost-efficient. However, this makes G kinda the outlier it can only remove or punish corruption.
Self-containing is IMO a better design. I could see a few cards, being slightly overstated and giving you corruption. I'm talking the equivalent of 2CMC 2/3 vanilla minion that gives you corruption.
------------
Here we go again.
*Cough*Humans*Cough*. It doesn't matter most don't care. The few that care and support cards are fantastic enough. Why do you think they made non-Humans a mechanic in ELD?
Now re-read my post. Some elves can. Especially overstated elves with evasion and mana dorks.
You convinently forgot that in Pioneer Elves deck, don't play just Steelleaf, Llanowar and Elvish mystics. They play Clancaller and Shaman of the pack, two very linear Elf creatures.
Yeah, but the best are linearly scaling off Humans. You can't say humans decks don't care about Humans when Best Human card available - Thalia's Lieutenant is in every remotely Human deck. Along with any remotely good Human in Pioneer.
Do they? The just need to say counters can't be placed or remove counters from players.
Yes, they messed up valuing some abilities. Same with Oko.
In the long term, you are correct. Luckily you don't have to win the game in the long term.
Ok. If time scale doesn't matter (which it does), it's in due to popular demand. People asked if they can be removed.
Perhaps. But you are merely a data-point, not the final arbiter.
If you are playing a red black deck, with as many corruption you're going to play towards aggro.
Corruption means, you'll have steady a source of damage, that means, your red burns will burn for more, because of a spectacle like mechanics. As long as you deal 1 damage, your red cards will be better. If you are playing against a green white deck that for some reason wants to give you corruption, that's fine, you keep your corruption relatively low and kill him with aggro and burn spells.
Look you do make a good case for moving white into corruption causing, but then white becomes the color that removes/adds and punishes corruption.
GW, in general, doesn't care. Corruption is a minor set mechanics, you are fixating on for some reason. I told you it was a small part of overall design.
The main set cares about four warring factions. The corruption is but a side show.
That's not what you asked.
This is what you asked.
And I answered. Assuming you meant Limited and BR is the corruption deck. Then I answered the other question above.
-
2020-01-11, 04:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
That has everything to do with humans being powerful, and nothing to do with the mechanics being parasitic.
If you draft Shadows Over Innistrad human's aren't parasitic. You can look at the other decks that play humans, they're not
Now re-read my post. Some elves can.
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.
Especially overstated elves with evasion and mana dorks.
Synergy cards like Rishkar or Carapace Forger.
Solid Creatures like Thorn Lieutenant and Sylvan Advocate.
Power house cards like Deathrite Shaman and Bloodbraid Elf.
Great utility creatures like Elvish Reclaimer.
Elves that have the right keyword for an archetype, like Gladecover Scout and Glistener Elf.
Aggressive creatures like Pelt Collector, Narnam Renegade, Sunblade Elf.
Basically if a creature is a good creature then it will see play in non tribal decks even if it also has a relevant tribe. The fact that this happens makes elves non parasitic.
You convinently forgot that in Pioneer Elves deck, don't play just Steelleaf, Llanowar and Elvish mystics. They play Clancaller and Shaman of the pack, two very linear Elf creatures.
Of course tribal decks want to play only, or mostly only, creatures with their tribe, but that doesn't mean that all the cards in those decks that don't have specific tribal support don't show up in other decks. That's how the mechanic isn't parasitic. A creature being an elf isn't parasitic.
Infect creatures for instance pretty much only show up in infect decks.
Yeah, but the best are linearly scaling off Humans. You can't say humans decks don't care about Humans when Best Human card available - Thalia's Lieutenant is in every remotely Human deck. Along with any remotely good Human in Pioneer.
Of course a tribal deck cares about its tribe.
But the decks that don't themselves have tribal synergy show up other places.
Green white decks in standard played Avacyn's Pilgrim.
Jeskai aggro decks in standard played Mantis Rider.
Noble Hierarch has seen play in a ton of decks as it's one of the best manadorks ever printed.
Reflector Mage saw a ton of play in blue white decks in standard.
Kitesail Freebooter saw play in blue black midrange decks.
In standard Thalia saw play mostly in decks that played Champion of the Parish, but she also saw play in decks that didn't. In Legacy and Vintage she sees play in a ton of creature heavy decks, since the spell-heavy nature of the format makes her ability that much more powerful.
Back with Meddling Mage was printed Human tribal wasn't even a thing, and it saw play back then too.
These cards are all played in human tribal decks because they are humans, but they were also played in other decks that didn't care about their creature type.
Do they? The just need to say counters can't be placed or remove counters from players.
2. Count the amount of times that effect has showed up, it's not often.
3. You're not allowed to remove any kind of counters from yourself, because of infect.
In the long term, you are correct. Luckily you don't have to win the game in the long term.
Also you don't play lifegain to counteract the corruption anymore than you play lifegain to counteract phyrexian mana/shock lands/thoughsieze.
Ok. If time scale doesn't matter (which it does),
Design with limited in mind. Limited doesn't care what cards are in the set that comes out in 9 months.
it's in due to popular demand. People asked if they can be removed.
Perhaps. But you are merely a data-point, not the final arbiter.
I have explained to you that there are ways to implement this, but you are too stuck in your own idea about how it has to work.
If you are playing a red black deck, with as many corruption you're going to play towards aggro.
Corruption means, you'll have steady a source of damage, that means, your red burns will burn for more,
Why would I deal them 1 damage every turn for 3 turns if it's more difficult than just dealing 3 at once?
because of a spectacle like mechanics.
2. Is spectacle in your limited format?
If you are playing against a green white deck that for some reason wants to give you corruption,
that's fine, you keep your corruption relatively low and kill him with aggro and burn spells.
Look you do make a good case for moving white into corruption causing, but then white becomes the color that removes/adds and punishes corruption.
Being the color that both removes and punishes corruption seems counter intuitive, because then it only makes sense for you to remove corruption from yourself, and not from your opponent.
GW, in general, doesn't care. Corruption is a minor set mechanics, you are fixating on for some reason. I told you it was a small part of overall design.
That's not what you asked.
This is what you asked.
And I answered. Assuming you meant Limited and BR is the corruption deck. Then I answered the other question above.
This is what you claimed:
You just asked me to test a fringe deck, that runs corruption.
So if you're playing red/black and your opponent is playing white/green, what happens? Do you want to have a lot of corruption. Do you want to have low corruption?
I was curious if this wording would work. I suspect not.
Tiger’s Warden - 2GG
Creature - Elf Druid
When Tiger’s Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Cat creature token.
Tokens created by Tiger’s Warden get +1/+1.
1/1
Otherwise I guess a set mechanic could be done like:
Tiger’s Warden - 2GG
Creature - Elf Druid
When Tiger’s Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Cat creature token. That token is Tiger Warden’s familiar.
Tiger’s Warden’s familiar gets +1/+1.
1/1Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-11 at 04:38 AM.
-
2020-01-11, 09:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Carlisle, Englund
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I believe this wording would work. 607.2c covers linked abilities where one of the abilities makes tokens. This has only been used to remove tokens in the past. I’d maybe be a bit worried about some players thinking the buff from multiple copies stacked, or if you flickered the card then all the tokens would get the buff and not just the most recent.
Might be simpler just to go with something like:
Familliar - When ~ enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 cat token. That token gets +1/+1 until ~ leaves the battlefield.Last edited by Androgeus; 2020-01-11 at 09:36 AM.
-
2020-01-11, 10:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Neat. I'm very happy that can be done, because then I can also have "familiar" cards where the card being a familiar doesn't mean anything, but I don't have to keep the "That token is Cardname's familiar." clause to keep the theme. It also means it has more synergies with cards outside the set.
Could you then also do something like:
Sever Bond - 2B
Instant - C
Target creature and each token created by it gain -3/-3.
Familiar's Protection - W
Instant - C
Target creature and each token created by it has indestructible until end of turn.
That may cause memory issues?
I’d maybe be a bit worried about some players thinking the buff from multiple copies stacked, or if you flickered the card then all the tokens would get the buff and not just the most recent.
Might be simpler just to go with something like:
Familliar - When ~ enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 cat token. That token gets +1/+1 until ~ leaves the battlefield.
-
2020-01-14, 07:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
No, it doesn't because I never claimed an elf or a human or token couldn't be good enough on their own.
My claim was that parasitism isn't a huge deal. Tribes are parasitic, but not problematic. When you do have a parasitic and linear mechanic ala Affinity or another scaling you do get problems.
I never disputed that. Did I say Constructs are problematic because of Balista? No. You're making a strawman here.
Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.
To use Elf Synergies, you need a specific deck.
Having an 5/5 3CMC elf used outside of Elf deck, doesn't address my claim in any way. In fact, I'd say the Linearity is a bigger problem than parasitism. Want to refute that? Find a card that's not linear, extremely parasitic and considered OP.
Yes. Yes, they are. I never said no <<INSERT TRIBE>> would see play on their own.
However, imagine if all those humans had add +1/+1 on up to two target Humans you control. Because if you have Thalia's Liuetanant and Champion of the Parish on the field, it's the same as having that ability. Even if most Humans don't care, the few that do care a lot.
1. I never said they are.
2. Ok, sure.
3. You could limit it to nonpoison counters because Infect.
In limited, you probably would care. Especially, if you go against some deck you know applies corruption.
I am. Also limited is designed with future cards in mind, because it cares about cards that come out in same block.
Yeah, and they have been unpersuasive. To be honest, I'm closer to killing it/changing it because it doesn't mesh well enough with the set, rather than anything you said so far.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I meant, if someone else puts corruption on you, you can negate/heal corruption damage, buying you a few turns.
If you are self-corrupting, healing helps you not die to corruption, assuming you go overboard.
Obviously you side it in both cases.
Note I said, Spectacle-like. Not Spectacle.
Basically, when you deal damage to an opponent, you get some boons. E.g. some red spells are cheaper, some red spells deal more damage if an opponent was damaged this turn. Now, corruption is constant damage tick each turn, enabling these effects at no cost. Similar to how spectacle works.
So, instead of using 2x3 cards to enable this mechanic you can use 1 (corruption card) + 3 to achieve the same effect.
Green white is designed to use +1/+1 counter synergy in this set. Remember when I said, there are very few corruption cards in this set? It's because I wanted to test waters with it in a small set, where it isn't as prominent.
I designed limited, knowing it won't be a large part of the limited. You are asking me, but what if I designed a deck around it. I mean sure. You can design a deck around anything. I've seen a guy pull two Lovestruck Beasts, so he designed his deck around that.
I'm pretty sure that's not a may. It's how big of a memory issue will it cause.
Not to mention what happens when you copy a familiar? Is it its familiar, and how often would new players mistakenly destroy these as well.
-
2020-01-14, 05:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Literally what you wrote:
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.
My claim was that parasitism isn't a huge deal. Tribes are parasitic, but not problematic. When you do have a parasitic and linear mechanic ala Affinity or another scaling you do get problems.
This is in stark contrast with parasitic mechanics like energy, where energy cards are only good in energy decks, and energy decks want to play mostly only energy cards.
I never disputed that. Did I say Constructs are problematic because of Balista? No. You're making a strawman here.
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.
AN ELF can see fill any niche in any deck. E.g a 1/1 elf could see play in decks that relies on having 1/1 creatures (e.g. something with Love Struck beast).
To use Elf Synergies, you need a specific deck.
Two different mana elves and Steel Leaf Champion for instance.
Having an 5/5 3CMC elf used outside of Elf deck,
doesn't address my claim in any way. In fact, I'd say the Linearity is a bigger problem than parasitism. Want to refute that?
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.Find a card that's not linear, extremely parasitic and considered OP.
Linearity isn't a bad thing as long as there isn't too much of it. All formats need decks that are straight forward.
Parasitism is bad because it limits the stuff you can do, especially in older formats with larger card pools.
I would argue that the four color energy decks that dominated standard were heavily parasitic, but not very linear.
Yes. Yes, they are. I never said no <<INSERT TRIBE>> would see play on their own.
If lots of different decks played one or two energy cards then energy wouldn't be a parasitic mechanic.
However, imagine if all those humans had add +1/+1 on up to two target Humans you control. Because if you have Thalia's Lieutenant and Champion of the Parish on the field, it's the same as having that ability. Even if most Humans don't care, the few that do care a lot.
Parasitism is requiring a player to play a lot of the same thing to be effective, especially if that thing only exists in a few sets.
Kamigawa's Spirit and Arcane Synergy was parasitic, but the Spirit and Arcane types themselves weren't.
Energy is parasitic even if Rosewater claims it isn't, because while you can play an energy card by themselves, they are so much better if you play a lot. The standard environment they were in proved this.
Infect is extremely parasitic, as it dictates that every creature in your deck intended for dealing damage to the opponent must have infect.
You can say human synergy cards are parasitic, even though humans are the most common creature type, but humans themselves aren't parasitic.
You don't see a lot of energy cards outside energy decks, you don't see a lot of infect creatures outside infect decks. You do see a lot of humans outside human decks, that's why humans aren't parisit
Also for Kamigawa block there are 87 cards refering to arcane, while Innistrad block only has 48 references to humans, and Shadows Over Innistrad only has 24. Arcane also only shows up in Kamigawa.
The existence of Kwende doesn't make First Strike a parasitic mechanic.
1. I never said they are.
The same can't be said about corruption. Corruption synergy cards all need to deal with corruption directly. This makes them all highly parasitic.Do they? The just need to say counters can't be placed or remove counters from players.
If the word deal caused confusion then let me rephrase:
The same can't be said about corruption. Corruption synergy cards all need to utilize corruption directly. This makes them all highly parasitic.
3. You could limit it to nonpoison counters because Infect.
In limited, you probably would care. Especially, if you go against some deck you know applies corruption.
I am. Also limited is designed with future cards in mind, because it cares about cards that come out in same block.
Source
Yeah, and they have been unpersuasive. To be honest, I'm closer to killing it/changing it because it doesn't mesh well enough with the set, rather than anything you said so far.
The fact that you consistently fail to provide counter arguments yet still remain unpersuaded just shows how blind you have gotten to the failings of your own idea.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I meant, if someone else puts corruption on you, you can negate/heal corruption damage, buying you a few turns.
If you are self-corrupting, healing helps you not die to corruption, assuming you go overboard.
The advantage of corrupting yourself is that your cards get to be stronger. You lose that advantage if you then play weak life gain cards.
Decks that pay life don't play lots of lifegain to offset it.
I don't know why you're talking about lifegain, I didn't bring up lifegain the the section you replied to.
Note I said, Spectacle-like. Not Spectacle.
Basically, when you deal damage to an opponent, you get some boons. E.g. some red spells are cheaper, some red spells deal more damage if an opponent was damaged this turn. Now, corruption is constant damage tick each turn, enabling these effects at no cost. Similar to how spectacle works.
So, instead of using 2x3 cards to enable this mechanic you can use 1 (corruption card) + 3 to achieve the same effect.
2. Putting corruption synergy on burn spells is counterproductive, as burn wants to close the game fast, and corruption is slow damage.
3. You don't want very many face burn spells, as they are bad in limited and only help few decks in constructed.
Green white is designed to use +1/+1 counter synergy in this set. Remember when I said, there are very few corruption cards in this set? It's because I wanted to test waters with it in a small set, where it isn't as prominent.
I designed limited, knowing it won't be a large part of the limited. You are asking me, but what if I designed a deck around it. I mean sure. You can design a deck around anything. I've seen a guy pull two Lovestruck Beasts, so he designed his deck around that.
I'm pretty sure that's not a may. It's how big of a memory issue will it cause.
Not to mention what happens when you copy a familiar? Is it its familiar, and how often would new players mistakenly destroy these as well.
If you have multiple distinct sources that make multiple identical tokens then it could be confusing, but that should then not be printed in that set. As for constructed I think it would mostly be relevant in commander, and even then not that much.
The rules can be a bit weird, but there are a lot of stuff that can have weird rules, as long as we don't print any weird interactions in the same set I think it's safe.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-14 at 05:30 PM.
-
2020-01-15, 02:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
First off I explained what this means. Second off, you are nitpicking here.
Adress my main point - Parasitism is a red flag, not a deal breaker.
Here is a shocker for you. Tribal support is problematic because of linearity, not parasitism.
No. Just no.
MTG gamepedia definition with sources
Parasitism is how good this card works with cards outside of the set. If it doesn't it's parasitic.
Linearity, how much does this card enables linear strategies. Linear strategies being, if I use something I need to use more of that something.
Linearity isn't a bad thing as long as there isn't a powerful effect attached to it.
The only reason "corruption" would be parasitic, is that Wizards are too afraid to print some player counter interactions. Because - poison.
Energy is both parasitic and linear. Generally, if you play one energy card, you have to play other energy cards as well. Energy is a linear strategy. As extra cherry energy is/was extremely non-interactive.
They did it as far as Amonkhet, and this is Wizards, they change their mind often. That said, I'm definitely making it in style of Ixalan, rather than WAR or ELD.
To be honest, you write a lot. And most of that is repetitive, nitpicking, and boring. You provide problems, but rarely solutions.
Do you know what is constructive? Celestine Cave Witch
One easy hack to have corruption be a token Aura enchantment with at beginning of upkeep deal 1 damage. It solves all your complaints.
It's neither parasitic nor do I need special cards dealing with it.
I can make cards that just scale off number of Auras on your, or your opponent.
Ok, what about bounce? Flicker? Exile until X leaves the battlefield? Each one of those effects will cause memory problems.
Having blue without bounce would be horrible. Having blue with bounce with a special ruling would probably be even worse.
To be a nitpick, cards need to use "with" not "by". As in "tokens created with ~".
But on the more serious side, +1/+1 to tokens is Uncommon card at minimum. That means you can't have familiar at Common. It's not a good set mechanic if you can't see it at Common.
You can make it not be a set mechanic, but part of a cycle - e.g. Uncommon legendary creatures with familiars.Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-15 at 05:02 AM.
-
2020-01-15, 05:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
You can't say that you explained what you meant and then not repost your explanation.
You literally claimed it takes a specific deck to play more than one elf.
Adress my main point - Parasitism is a red flag, not a deal breaker.
Here is a shocker for you. Tribal support is problematic because of linearity, not parasitism.
Also you can't claim Tribal support is linear when you have decks like Legacy Goblins which is built like a toolbox.
I also wouldn't call Humans linear as it plays way too much interaction, that's what makes the deck good.
Wow, I never expected gamepedia or Maro to claim something so overtly wrong.
Here's some more sources:
From Wizards
MTG Salvation
Reddit
"To employ a linear strategy means that you're entirely focused on one goal or theme. Every card contributes to that goal, and you have little interest in deviating from that plan. Worrying about what your opponent is doing is largely just a distraction. In short, linear strategies follow a "straight line" from point A to point B."
"Basically, linnear is a type of deck. Specifically, one that has a single gameplan, and it either executes that gameplan, or it loses. Strong examples of this are combo decks like ad nauseam, aggro decks like burn/zooicide, and ramp decks like tron. "
"Linear decks aren't literally "play this exact sequence every single game". The term refers to decks that have a clear goal in mind, with most of their cards dedicated to that goal. Modern Burn and infect have room for play skill but are still aptly described as linear decks."
Linear decks are stuff like burn, dredge, Ad Nauseum, Storm, Infect, Affinity. Decks that are highly focused on a specific goal, unlike interactive decks like Death's Shadow, Jund or humans who change their play style.
Parasitism is how good this card works with cards outside of the set. If it doesn't it's parasitic.
use it with?
Also this doesn't at all mix with how you claimed tribal support was parasitic, since both the support and the creature types show up in multiple formats.
Linearity, how much does this card enables linear strategies. Linear strategies being, if I use something I need to use more of that something.
Ad Nauseum is a very linear deck, but it doesn't play that much of a specific thing.
Linear refers to a deck having a linear angle of attack. A non linear deck is capable of changing its game plan.
Linearity isn't a bad thing as long as there isn't a powerful effect attached to it.
The only reason "corruption" would be parasitic, is that Wizards are too afraid to print some player counter interactions. Because - poison.
Energy is both parasitic and linear. Generally, if you play one energy card, you have to play other energy cards as well. Energy is a linear strategy. As extra cherry energy is/was extremely non-interactive.
Being linear means having a specific angle of attack, but thanks to the flexibility energy provides, it isn't linear. Energy not being linear can actually be a big problem, as it reduces the amount of effective hate.
They did it as far as Amonkhet, and this is Wizards, they change their mind often. That said, I'm definitely making it in style of Ixalan, rather than WAR or ELD.
They have said they are moving away from block structure, and have good reasons for doing so, most importantly all their market research showed that people like tripple set drafting way more.
You can't just go "They'll change their mind" and disregard their decisions, that's not good design.
To be honest, you write a lot. And most of that is repetitive, nitpicking, and boring.
Massive flaws in your design aren't nitpicking.
I'm sure it sucks to have someone point out why your great ideas don't work.
The fact that you have to accuse my arguments of being repetitive, nitpicking and boring instead of properly engaging with them proves my point.
You provide problems, but rarely solutions.
2. I have come up with several solutions, but you have quickly discarded them for not fitting your idea of how the mechanic should be.
Do you know what is constructive? Celestine Cave Witch
One easy hack to have corruption be a token Aura enchantment with at beginning of upkeep deal 1 damage. It solves all your complaints.
It's neither parasitic nor do I need special cards dealing with it.
There's also the problem of it being a two mana enchantment making it difficult to attach to cards without either making them very expensive, or requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops.
The more powerful corruption is by itself the more difficult it is to make stuff that interacts with it.
There's also problems with interactions with stuff like constellation and All that Glitters.
It also doesn't change my complaints about the schizophrenic design of the set. There shouldn't be both cards that rewarded you for your opponent having high corruption, and cards that rewarded yourself for having high corruption. The set should focus on one of them.
I had thought about that, but I didn't bring it up because I didn't think it was that good a solution. It is better than what you're currently doing though.
I think you could do corruption as a black red mechanic in the set, put it on say 10 cards, make most of those not have any corruption synergy themselves, and keeping the synergy for higher rarities. Then you could give green, blue and white some decent answers in common or uncommon like:
Elvish Purifier - 2G
Creature - Elf Druid - C
When Elvish Purifier enters the battlefield, choose one:
*You gain 2 life
*Destroy target enchantment with converted mana cost 2 or less.
2/3
Ok, what about bounce? Flicker? Exile until X leaves the battlefield? Each one of those effects will cause memory problems.
It's possible that the synergy cards would be too difficult to implement, but I think limited is where it is most important to keep in mind, and I think it's easy enough to do there. You could do Amonkhet style punch out counters if necessary.
Having blue without bounce would be horrible. Having blue with bounce with a special ruling would probably be even worse.
Also Throne of Eldraine had 2 common bounce spells and 1 uncommon, the rest were rare or mythic. Theros Beyond death has one common and one uncommon. It doesn't seem like that big of deal to just not print any and just make an extra tap spell.
To be a nitpick, cards need to use "with" not "by". As in "tokens created with ~".
But on the more serious side +1/+1 to tokens is uncommon card at minimum.
That means you can't have familiar at common. It's not a good set mechanic, if you can't see it at common.
Some of the common familiars I have toyed with:
Attended Guard - 2W
Creature - Human Soldier - C
Vigilance
When Attended Guard enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white cat creature token.
Creature tokens created by Attended Guard have lifelink.
2/2
Scariet Messenger - 3W
Creature - Human Wizard - C
When Scariet Messenger enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Bird creature token with flying.
Whenever a creature token created by Scariet Messenger attacks, tap target creature defending player controls.
2/1
(I think this card probably should either be an uncommon or not create a flying token.)
Scariet Scholar - 2U
Creature - Human Wizard - C
When Scariet Scholar enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 blue Bird creature token with flying.
Whenever a creature token created by Scariet Scholar attacks, scry 1.
1/1
(Same with this.)
Scariet Senior - 3U
Creature - Human Wizard - C
When Scariet Senior enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 blue Bird creature token with flying.
If Scariet Senior or a creature token created by it is untapped, they both have hexproof.
2/2
Wizard Urchin - 2B
Creature - Human Wizard - C
When Wizard Urchin enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 black Rat creature token.
Creature tokens created by Wizard Urchin can’t be blocked by creatures with power 3 or more.
1/2
Flamespeaker Acolyte - 2R
Creature - Human Warlock - C
When Flamespeaker Acolyte enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 red Devil creature token. It has “When this creature dies, it deals 1 damage to any target.”
(They don't all have to care about the token if the set has familiar support)
Benakh Beastsage - 3GG
Creature - Elf Shaman - C
When Benakh Beastsage enters the battlefield, create a 3/3 green Beast creature token.
Creature tokens created by Benakh Beastsage have trample.
2/2
Benakh Witch - 3G
Creature - Human Warlock - C
Vigilance
When Tiger’s Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Wolf creature token.
Creature tokens created by Deepwood Witch have vigilance.
Lifecrafter Acolyte - 1G
Creature - Elf Druid - C
When Lifecrafter Acolyte enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 green Saproling creature token.
When a creature token created with Lifecrafter Acolyte dies, gain 3 life.
0/1
Keep in mind that a lot of these were me experimenting with what could be done with the mechanic. There's a lot of design space by simple creating a 1/1, 2/2 or 3/3 token and giving it an evergreen keyword.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-15 at 05:41 AM.
-
2020-01-15, 06:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I feel like having only some of your tokens of a [type] get a benefit (that isn't marked on a card like a counter is) would be a very awkward mechanic in practice. A lot of the time people want to stack up all their tokens of a particular type, or use a die to represent how many there are, which this makes difficult. Especially if you have multiple cards which make the same type of token. You'd end up with boardstates and questions being asked like "Okay, so you're attacking with two Rats and two Wizard Urchins, so I'll block the Rat that's linked to the Wizard without a +1/+1 counter on it" and similarly difficult to evaluate boardstates and decisions.
I think if I wanted to do a mechanic like this, I'd use the Soulbond mechanic from Avacyn Restored. Which had issues - mainly because un-bonding mid-combat hurt a lot, since many of the buffs granted affected combat ability. If it's less swingy, and the creature makes a token itself for you to bond with, I think it could be made to work.
-
2020-01-15, 07:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Cards that effect a type would be common or up, if they were there at all.
This is what the splicers did, I don't think they were confusing.
A lot of the time people want to stack up all their tokens of a particular type, or use a die to represent how many there are, which this makes difficult. Especially if you have multiple cards which make the same type of token.
You'd end up with boardstates and questions being asked like "Okay, so you're attacking with two Rats and two Wizard Urchins, so I'll block the Rat that's linked to the Wizard without a +1/+1 counter on it" and similarly difficult to evaluate boardstates and decisions.
I think if I wanted to do a mechanic like this, I'd use the Soulbond mechanic from Avacyn Restored. Which had issues - mainly because un-bonding mid-combat hurt a lot, since many of the buffs granted affected combat ability. If it's less swingy, and the creature makes a token itself for you to bond with, I think it could be made to work.
I get that there are some things that may cause a little trouble, but I don't think it's actually that difficult. It shouldn't be more difficult than soulbond, and I don't recall that being particularly complex. The biggest issue with soulbond was responding to bond triggers and such, which won't be a problem here since they're static or triggered abilities, with mostly static on common.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-15 at 07:38 AM.
-
2020-01-15, 02:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Maybe I worded it wrong, but to play an elf deck, you need linear elfs. That's what I meant in a nutshell.
It's definitely not that big of an issue. Parasitism is to be expected when you develop a new ability or ability keyword.
Dude, Humans are linear, you win by playing your linear threats (Champion of Paris and Thalia's Lieutenant) and you stall and disrupt opponent enough for you to win. If you're unlucky you play your Mantis Riders and hope they kill him, before he removes them.
By Goblins you mean this deck? If so, that's even more linear. Create X Goblins for each Goblin you control? Goblins get +1/+1 x6 ? Goblins you control have haste? Sac goblin for mana?
What are you referring to anyway? Even by that definition Tribal lords and other cards are linear.
Yeah, but the question is, why should I care? Wizards care, because they want to their cards to mesh well with newer/older cards they print. I'm not WotC. Beyond sets I create, I don't care if it is that parasitic or not.
Also this doesn't at all mix with how you claimed tribal support was parasitic, since both the support and the creature types show up in multiple formats.
Almost all definitions look at how well does your card function outside of given set. Also I'm talking about cards that are enable linear strategy.
Lords are linear. But they don't have to be parasitic. See Benalish Marshall.
Missing the point here. If there were stuff like Anti-Proliferate I could use that mechanic to control corruption. I can't because Wizards are too afraid to weaken Poison counters.
It also makes it linear - reread the article.
It becomes the linear deck's goal to expand things out to make sure its cards are at their most powerful. We call this achieving critical mass.
Yes it is. They have their reasons for caring. I have mine for not caring.
Hm. I do hate it possibly enabling linear strategies, it being like Curse of the Pierced heart is a non-problem. This has CMC 0.
One way to solve it is to to go for Amass like the wording. Corrupt opponent 2 (Target opponent creates a Corruption if they don't own one. Put two charge counters on Corruption target opponent owns) (Corruption is a colorless Aura Curse enchantment token that at beginning of owner's upkeep deals X damage to that player for each charge counter on it).
If you have bounce or flicker, or Banisher effect, they will. At quite a few prereleases, I had to explain to people you can't negate sacrifice costs with instants.
Now, imagine the problems this mechanic will cause for people that want to kill all Familiars and not just the latest one.
Adding +1/+1 or invulnerable will change board state. See the Master Splicer and Vital Splicer. Memory issues, affecting board state, all those are red flags and push card from common into uncommon territory.
Giving evergreen is ok, but not all. Flying and first-strike would be too brutal. It still feels weird. I mean, why not just create some creature type and give them a bonus? It would be way more elegant and cause fewer memory issues, even if it is like "Give all Cat Familiars Vigilance". Not to mention, you who went that far to champion against parasitic mechanics would go on and create such a parasitic mechanic.
As far as I'm concerned, you chose the way lesser evil. I quite liked Battlebond partner mechanic.
This probably is too powerful at common. I have found one common lifelink vigilance card at common - Dawnstrike Paladin. With similar stats (2/4) it costs 5CMC.
I'd make it so if you control both, they have vigilance.
These also look like uncommon.
Seems ok, I'd probably keep it at 2UU.
[/QUOTE]
-
2020-01-15, 05:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
So your point was that elf synergy decks play cards with elf synergy?
Why even waste time making such a trivial statement.
It's definitely not that big of an issue. Parasitism is to be expected when you develop a new ability or ability keyword.
Mechanics like delve, escape and heroic are downright anti parasitic, they have negative synergy with themselves.
Even stuff like Battalion you can say yes if your deck can support battalion you might have more battalion cards, but you in no way need to. You would play multiple battallion cards because they fit in the same type of deck, not because they synergize with each other directly.
Looking at Throne of Eldraine, Food was a parasitic mechanic, or at least the heavy focus on the payoffs was. Most of the food cards only saw play in food decks. Adventures weren't parasitic, there were just a few synergy cards. Several decks play just few Adventure cards because they are powerful cards. Adamant to my knowledge hasn't seen competitive results, mostly due to only appearing on commons and uncommons, but it's in the same place as Battalion where your deck will likely
Dude, Humans are linear, you win by playing your linear threats (Champion of Paris and Thalia's Lieutenant) and you stall and disrupt opponent enough for you to win. If you're unlucky you play your Mantis Riders and hope they kill him, before he removes them.
You're applying the word linear wrong. Linear doesn't mean synergistic, it means focused game plan.
By Goblins you mean this deck? If so, that's even more linear. Create X Goblins for each Goblin you control? Goblins get +1/+1 x6 ? Goblins you control have haste? Sac goblin for mana?
The deck is highly synergy based, but it's not linear.
What are you referring to anyway?
Even by that definition Tribal lords and other cards are linear.
Yeah, but the question is, why should I care?
Because you're trying to make a good design, and not caring creates a bad design.
Wizards care, because they want to their cards to mesh well with newer/older cards they print. I'm not WotC. Beyond sets I create, I don't care if it is that parasitic or not.
You can make 4/4s for 2 the baseline for creatures. You can make every spell cantrip. You can print loads of fast mana.
If your set is only ever meant to be completely self contained then you can do whatever you want, but you need to show us a whole lot more if you want any kind of feedback, because we can only compare your cards to existing cards, we can't compare them to the rest of your set that we don't know about.
Almost all definitions look at how well does your card function outside of given set. Also I'm talking about cards that are enable linear strategy.
Lords are linear. But they don't have to be parasitic. See Benalish Marshall.
Anthems are generally linear, in that you want a wide board to take effect of them, and they are somewhat parasitic, since they only buff one thing, but the thing they buff usually has uses without them.
Missing the point here. If there were stuff like Anti-Proliferate I could use that mechanic to control corruption. I can't because Wizards are too afraid to weaken Poison counters.
How are we supposed to guess which parts you want to discard and which parts you want to keep.
It also makes it linear - reread the article.
Do Harness Lightning and other energy sinks like more energy?
The fact that linear decks want critical mass doesn't mean decks that want critical mass are necessarily critical. Delver of Secrets needs a critical mass of instant and sorceries, but I would never call Delver decks linear.
They do, however, energy has a different problem. It's non-interactive and under costed, so you get effect for cheap and energy for free. E.g. Attune with Ether.
The fact that energy had a multitude of problems doesn't mean that it being parasitic wasn't a problem.
Yes it is. They have their reasons for caring. I have mine for not caring.
it being like Curse of the Pierced heart is a non-problem. This has CMC 0.
The fact that your mechanic is a cmc 2 card matters, because if you need to strap it onto a card then you need to factor in the card less you spend, so you're looking at a cost of 3 or 4 added to the card. This makes it very hard to design for.
One way to solve it is to to go for Amass like the wording. Corrupt opponent 2 (Target opponent creates a Corruption if they don't own one. Put two charge counters on Corruption target opponent owns) (Corruption is a colorless Aura Curse enchantment token that at beginning of owner's upkeep deals X damage to that player for each charge counter on it).
If you have bounce or flicker, or Banisher effect, they will.
When a creature comes into play only the creature it creates right there is its familiar.
Now, imagine the problems this mechanic will cause for people that want to kill all Familiars and not just the latest one.
Again most of these effects can just not be included in the limited format, but I'm not convinced this interaction is too obscure, I mean it's the knowledge required to know that Cloudshift can blank removal spells.
Adding +1/+1 or invulnerable will change board state. See the Master Splicer and Vital Splicer. Memory issues, affecting board state, all those are red flags and push card from common into uncommon territory.
Giving evergreen is ok, but not all. Flying and first-strike would be too brutal.
It still feels weird. I mean, why not just create some creature type and give them a bonus? It would be way more elegant and cause fewer memory issues, even if it is like "Give all Cat Familiars Vigilance".
It's an interesting idea though. I fear we're just printing tribal cards then though.
Not to mention, you who went that far to champion against parasitic mechanics would go on and create such a parasitic mechanic.
A familiar creature doesn't have synergy with other familiar creatures. You have no reason to play several unless they're both good cards for your deck in their own right.
As far as I'm concerned, you chose the way lesser evil. I quite liked Battlebond partner mechanic.
This probably is too powerful at common. I have found one common lifelink vigilance card at common - Dawnstrike Paladin. With similar stats (2/4) it costs 5CMC.
These also look like uncommon.
Seems ok, I'd probably keep it at 2UU.
-
2020-01-15, 08:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
If Corruption has any effect of its own that interacts outside of itself, then it isn't wholly parasitic. If that effect is increasing the HP threshold for losing, then it's somewhat linear in that you'll be aiming for victory by HP damage, and Corruption is just ticking the clock from the other direction. If it's just losing 1 health per turn if you have some amount, it's not going to do enough to be a serious thing of its own outside specific control decks. If it's 1 health per turn per Corruption, then it's Bad Juju, especially if control effects are compatible with Corruption decks.
This is why I suggest having Corruption be minimum HP increase and used as underpowered health-based mechanics in abnormal colors while attached to other on-color effects, widening what the colors can do at lower power levels than the normal version of the effect, and being a "bonus" to the value of an in-color effect (for example, having a two-mana Counter that gives a Corruption to the countered spell's controller and the caster). The existent color pie for general counters is for the general case, and Corruption mechanics are a specific case that can be given quite literally any color identity imaginable. Set mechanics can re-define the ordinary nature of the color pie freely, because they're both temporary and are new mechanics, not necessarily beholden to the ordinary design space.
Hence Green getting mass -1/-1 counter infliction in New Phyrexia, because Infect, as a set-specific mechanic, was defined to be secondary for Green, even though the result of the mechanic is ordinarily wholly outside Green's ballpark. Even though anti--1/-1 is what Green normally does, and outside Infect, Persist and Wither (-1/-1 counter set mechanics), there's a grand total of eight mono-Green cards that inflict -1/-1 counters. And of them, three self-remove the counters, three use it as a cost for higher than usual effect, including a Commulative Upkeep card, one is a Flyer removal spell and the last is Swamp hate from Fallen Empires. As compared to the considerable frequency of +1/+1 counters, which inherently negate -1/-1 counters, in Green, which includes a number of set mechanics, including but not limited to Riot, Undying, Bolster, Outlast, Scavenge and Tribute.
Red also has a bit of a habit of getting creature recursion via set mechanics, which is otherwise very very nearly universally restricted to Phoenix creatures, and is a mechanic that's supposed to be primary Black and secondary White (even though Green seems to get it more often than White does...).
-
2020-01-16, 03:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
The flaws of this have been discussed to death.
Basically it's functionally identical to damage/life loss 99% of the time. There is no reason for it to exist mechanically.
and used as underpowered health-based mechanics in abnormal colors while attached to other on-color effects, widening what the colors can do at lower power levels than the normal version of the effect, and being a "bonus" to the value of an in-color effect
(for example, having a two-mana Counter that gives a Corruption to the countered spell's controller and the caster).
The existent color pie for general counters is for the general case, and Corruption mechanics are a specific case that can be given quite literally any color identity imaginable.
Set mechanics can re-define the ordinary nature of the color pie freely, because they're both temporary and are new mechanics, not necessarily beholden to the ordinary design space.
Hence Green getting mass -1/-1 counter infliction in New Phyrexia, because Infect, as a set-specific mechanic, was defined to be secondary for Green, even though the result of the mechanic is ordinarily wholly outside Green's ballpark.
This can be done because it is a set mechanic, just like blue get Unearth.
This has also been discussed a lot already.
Most of the points you raise have already been discussed.
TL;DR no you don't get to just ignore the color pie because you come up with a new mechanic, but a set mechanic does allow a bit of bleed. Be very careful with what you are doing though. Giving green -1/-1 counters on combat damage isn't dangerous, giving it direct damage can very well be.
-
2020-01-20, 12:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
-
2020-01-21, 08:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- Somewhere
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I just had a idea for two legendary creatures for new type of Commanders.
The idea is to make partners who doesn't feel equals in a relationship with each other but still work well together.
For that:
1) They must be Legendary
2) They both must have Partner with each others
3) One of them has to have a lieutenant ability.
HERE'S the result:
1) Sadistic Artist // Martyr Muse
Sadistic Artist - 1BR (or 2B)
2/3
Legendary Creature - Vampire
When Sadistic Artist Enter the battlefield, put one -1/-1 counter on all your creature. For each creature you own who dies this way, your opponents lose that much life. If Artistic Muse is on the battlefield, during your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on Sadistic Artist.
Martyr Muse - 2W
1/3
Legendary Creature - Human
Lieutenant - As long as you control your commander, prolifiate each time a creature you own goes to the graveyard.Last edited by Emmerlaus; 2020-01-21 at 08:32 AM.
-
2020-01-21, 07:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I think we're just working with different definitions of parasitism and linearity. You consider parasitism to be how well card to synergise with each other and define linearity as narrow strategy.
I'm going with what's MaRo's definition of these terms. I.e. Parasitism is how much does current set work with other sets. Linearity is how much a card is synergetic. I.e. Delve is anti-linear and non-parasitic.
Lord is a creature specific Anthem.
No. That's a fallacy, there are more positions than - you don't play by the rules, or you are a rules Nazi.
Namely, my idea was make a 4 faction based set, that's in theory could work with M:tG, and see how people respond.
I said, the problem was that energy is wrongly costed, not that Attune with the Ether (AwtE) was a great card.
And AwtE without energy synergy is indeed a crap card, but what if it creates a 1/1 servo token? Or, deals 1 damage? Or gives one mana of any color, etc.
Yeah, that's ignoring how people perceive MtG vs how MtG rules. I know that you know that, but know who doesn't know that - new players.
If I wasn't aware of what magic does and you put your "Familiar summoner", flicker it, and then I cast a spell that "Destroys a creature and all creatures created with target", I'd probably say destroy both of them.
No, it isn't. It hinges on knowing what "Creatures created with" means.
Ok, look at https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/...wo-redflagging
As far as I see most things that increase board calculations are considered red flags.
Giving first strike changes board state and adds complexity. Look at golems and splicers. I think even 2/2 creatures with first strike can trade with 3CMC creatures (most of them seem to be 3/2 these days).
I think at common there were cards that gave vigilance and reach to other creatures.
It's a parasitic card, in that it only cares about another card. It doesn't play well with other sets. Not the way you're defining parasitism though.
Oh, I see. Well, then it doesn't have symmetric bonuses. That gets red-flagged for needing to read twice.
The beaty of a Trampler giving everyone Trample is that you don't need to read the whole card. Does it give Haste? Or Flying. No it gives, what it has - and it's Trample. Easy to remember, hard to forget.
Yes, I'm confirming your doubts.
------------------------------
I think it needs to say non-land creatures are legendary. It's possible to use this to counter Nissa Who Shakes the World. Then you create a bunch of creatures named Forest and they would need to be sacrificed if all creatures are legendary. Plus someone could turn your lands to creatures, causing mass land destruction.
Interesting idea. I think even logistically wizards can randomize cards, you never get one, without the other.Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-21 at 07:39 PM.
-
2020-01-22, 04:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
That's the definitions people use online.
I'm going with what's MaRo's definition of these terms. I.e. Parasitism is how much does current set work with other sets. Linearity is how much a card is synergetic. I.e. Delve is anti-linear and non-parasitic.
Even going by those definitions what you've said is still wrong.
Lord is a creature specific Anthem.
No. That's a fallacy, there are more positions than - you don't play by the rules, or you are a rules Nazi.
If you outright say that you're going to disregard some of WotC's design philosophies, how do we know which ones you're going to disregard?
If your set isn't meant to work with the rest of magic you can create a white burn spell.
Namely, my idea was make a 4 faction based set, that's in theory could work with M:tG, and see how people respond.
I said, the problem was that energy is wrongly costed, not that Attune with the Ether (AwtE) was a great card.
Stop saying you didn't make an argument that you literally made.
And AwtE without energy synergy is indeed a crap card, but what if it creates a 1/1 servo token? Or, deals 1 damage? Or gives one mana of any color, etc.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
Yeah, that's ignoring how people perceive MtG vs how MtG rules. I know that you know that, but know who doesn't know that - new players.
If I wasn't aware of what magic does and you put your "Familiar summoner", flicker it, and then I cast a spell that "Destroys a creature and all creatures created with target", I'd probably say destroy both of them.
If you didn't know the rules you might also not know that Cloudshift can protect you from removal spells, but that didn't stop them from printing cloudshift at common.
No, it isn't. It hinges on knowing what "Creatures created with" means.
Also these effects can easily not be put it the same set as the familiar cards.
Ok, look at https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/...wo-redflagging
As far as I see most things that increase board calculations are considered red flags.
Giving first strike changes board state and adds complexity.
Look at golems and splicers. I think even 2/2 creatures with first strike can trade with 3CMC creatures (most of them seem to be 3/2 these days).
Also I did the search. Looking at creatures from 2018 and later, there have been printed slightly more 2/3s than 3/2s at cmc 3.
I also have no idea why you mentioned 2/2 first strikers since I have previewed none of the sort.
I think at common there were cards that gave vigilance and reach to other creatures.
I wasn't talking about granting vigilance, I was talking about the tribal synergies. It's possible that it's not though. The problem with doing that is that you're making the set more tribal focused, and it limits some of the things you can do in the set. Though if you make familiar a creature type you can keep from making it too tribal focused.
It's not necessarily a bad design, just a different design than the one I'm looking for.
It's a parasitic card, in that it only cares about another card. It doesn't play well with other sets. Not the way you're defining parasitism though.
Familiar plays well with blink/recursion, it plays well with token strategies, it can synergize with tribal support. Most familiar cards are pretty straight forward, if I made a rare like:
Benakh Archranger - 2GG
Creature - Elf Archer - R
When Benakh Beastsage enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green wolf creature token.
Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, put a +1/+1 counter on Benakh Ranger or target token created by it.
2/2
That card would be a fine midrange threat, without incentivizing you to play any more familiar makers.
Oh, I see. Well, then it doesn't have symmetric bonuses. That gets red-flagged for needing to read twice.
The beaty of a Trampler giving everyone Trample is that you don't need to read the whole card. Does it give Haste? Or Flying. No it gives, what it has - and it's Trample. Easy to remember, hard to forget.
Interesting idea. I think even logistically wizards can randomize cards, you never get one, without the other.
-
2020-01-22, 10:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Yeah, but most official sources list linearity as "hyper-synergy", and most MaRo's blogs talk about parasitism as in how it works within a set.
Jeez, if only there was some way for me to say, what I'm going to disregard.
Yes, I try to bend colors a bit more strongly than most. Sometimes they break. I do try to rein it in.
Ok, where did I say that before?
I remember I said it was under costed not free (usually there is always opportunity cost).
Look at Lay of the Land. Attune with ether is Lay of the Land + energy. That energy acts as charge counters for various other effects. In-game, you're not playing Attune if you don't have an energy sink. So your Attune isn't just a LotL, it's LotL with some other effect. That's what makes Attune better than LotL. That, and there isn't a much better mana-fixer + energy production.
This tell us it's not really new user-friendly. If your set mechanics results in a huge number of judge calls, it's not a great standard set.
What's easier to calculate - board of two 1/1 Cat familiars, two 2/2 Cat Summoners or a board of four 2/2?
Ok, but why is Blade Splicer rare?
Yeah, I meant compare favorably. I thought trade meant it can kill, regardless of it dying.
If you don't think it's a legitimate criticism, that means you haven't really absorbed the red-flagging primer.
Even if, it SOMEHOW - doesn't impact board state (I think it does) and doesn't cause memory issue (I believe it will); and that it somehow doesn't have 4 lines of rules text;
or that it doesn't need to be read twice (some examples). It still uses highly complexy wording that's reserved for cards of rare or higher rarity.
You seem to be going for standard-like cards since you hold Modern in low regards. So I assume this is meant for Standard, which means it should at least obey the red-flagging guide.
Last but not least, most of feedback I received for "familiars" boiled basically to its gimmicky mechanics, and not elegant. Everyone on Discord agreed it would better work as a flat effect, giving boon to all familiars. The created with as far as I can tell is only used when a creature creates mass tokens.Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-22 at 12:11 PM.
-
2020-01-22, 01:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I don't care what words Maro use, if those aren't the words people use.
R&D distinguishes blink effects by referring to insta-blink and flicker. But everywhere else the terms are used interchangeably.
Jeez, if only there was some way for me to say, what I'm going to disregard.
Ok, where did I say that before?
I remember I said it was under costed not free (usually there is always opportunity cost).
It's non-interactive and under costed, so you get effect for cheap and energy for free. E.g. Attune with Ether.Look at Lay of the Land. Attune with ether is Lay of the Land + energy. That energy acts as charge counters for various other effects. In-game, you're not playing Attune if you don't have an energy sink. So your Attune isn't just a LotL, it's LotL with some other effect. That's what makes Attune better than LotL. That, and there isn't a much better mana-fixer + energy production.
At no point did I claim Lay of the Land was just Attune with the Ether, neither did I say you made that claim, so I have no idea why you're even bringing that up.
Traverse the Ulvenwald is also a strictly better Lay of the Land, what's your point?
Lay of the Land is a garbage magic card. Being a garbage magic card with an added ability doesn't make the added ability free.
This tell us it's not really new user-friendly. If your set mechanics results in a huge number of judge calls, it's not a great standard set.
2. I can not include them in the same set.
What's easier to calculate - board of two 1/1 Cat familiars, two 2/2 Cat Summoners or a board of four 2/2?
I don't see how this is in any way an argument for anything. Why was attended knight printed if it would be easier to calculate had it just been a 2/2 with no abilities?
Ok, but why is Blade Splicer rare?
Why was the rest of the cycle common and uncommon?
Also there were literally zero of the previewed cards that had first strike anywhere on them, so I have no idea why you keep referring to it.
Yeah, I meant compare favorably. I thought trade meant it can kill, regardless of it dying.
If you don't think it's a legitimate criticism, that means you haven't really absorbed the red-flagging primer.
Kithkin Shielddare adds complexity because it can target any creature, vastly increasing the options in a specific combat.
Tiger's Warden doesn't do this.
The legitimate criticism against Tiger Warden's design is that if you block with both of them and Tiger's Warden dies, the cat dies to 2 damage, and that might be counter intuitive. I think that's a legitimate reason for not including a pump static on one of the common familiar cards.
Even if, it SOMEHOW - doesn't impact board state (I think it does)
I'm assuming the part you have a problem with is that the creature affects another creature. However it affects it statically, so it doesn't increase options.
and doesn't cause memory issue (I believe it will);
and that it somehow doesn't have 4 lines of rules text;
Finally it is worth mentioning that sometimes you get "invisible mechanics" which are basically ability words with repeated text that don't have the italicized ability word text for whatever reason. Some examples of these are Eldrazi spawn/scions from ROE or BFZ, the Naya "5 power or greater" mechanic from Shards of Alara or the Processors from BFZ.
Basically if you asked most players what some of the mechanics of the set where, they will include these despite not having an associated ability word.
So when it comes to NWO Red Flagging we treat the repeated text of an "invisible mechanic" as exactly like as if it had an ability word, thus ignoring the repeated text.
or that it doesn't need to be read twice (some examples).
It still uses highly complexy wording that's reserved for cards of rare or higher rarity.
You seem to be going for standard-like cards since you hold Modern in low regards.
So I assume this is meant for Standard, which means it should at least obey the red-flagging guide.
It's also important to note these are red flags, they're not rules. They're things to keep in mind, they're not things to avoid at all cost.
Last but not least, most of feedback I received for "familiars" boiled basically to its gimmicky mechanics, and not elegant.
Everyone on Discord agreed it would better work as a flat effect, giving boon to all familiars.
What did discord say to your corruption mechanic?
The created with as far as I can tell is only used when a creature creates mass tokens.
Did you change your mind on Benalish Marshal being a lord?
How come you completely abandoned your accusations of my design being parasitic when I pressed you on it?Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-22 at 02:06 PM.
-
2020-01-22, 06:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Sure, I guess. I was under impression most of community uses those terms.
You do realize that's a joke, right? It's a play on "Money for nothing and chicks for free".
You claimed that Lay of the Land is abysmal. I'm telling you Attune isn't as abysmal because it's power creep on Lay of the Land.
A. This isn't cloudshift.
B. Even if you don't include the terms "created with"/"created by" appears only on cards of RARE or MYTHIC rarity. It absolutely is an obscure rule. And it's going to trip players. Especially new players.
I think there is a difference between printing a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1 creature that has <<EVERGREEN>> as long as 2/2 is on the field, and a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1. For one when the latter is simpler and easier to track.
Yeah I don't remember your examples very well. Let's use lords instead.
What's easier to calculate a board with four 2/2 or a board with three 1/1 Zombies and a Zombie lord?
In essence what's easier to calculate nothing or several things? Keep in mind we're talking about common. Commons are usually very simple.
Ok, but why is it a powerful card?
Rest had less impactful keywords. The least impactful being at common.
I mentioned some evergreen keywords were not ok e.g. first strike or flying.
No idea, I think I might have picked it up from watching HS stream, where they use the term trade to mean attack.
I have a problem with it affecting another creature because then you have to take those effects into consideration when defending/attacking with/into it. I.e. board compexity.
Soulbound probably isn't a good mechanic to look up to - it's about 6 on Storm scale. It's been noted as affecting playability, albeit it works a bit differently. What your "familiar" mechanics gains in simplicity with it not being affected by entering creatures it loses in versatility. Not much affects it.
I never said anything about ETB being a problem, ever.
Reread the primer better. Also there is no card with oracle text "created by". It's "created with". Notice something about "created with"? It only appears on rares and a mythic. This makes it an obscure rule part. I.e. only way a newish player has encountered this rule literally only if he played battlebond previously and managed to draw that exact card. You're more literally more likely to have played A planeswalker from any edition (that has one or more planeswalkers) than to encounter that rule.
Well, you are right. However, you'll notice that some cards/effects NEVER feature at common. Hell, until late planeswalkers were RARE or MYTHIC. The fact that "created with" appears ONLY on a few RARE and MYTHICS, is a cause for concern.
It tells me, that Wizards are super wary of it. To me, that's makes it worse than any red flag.
I talked to people on Custom Magic discord. While not omniscient, they have few important thing going for them over "people who agree with me".
A) I presented this as my own idea - so they didn't agree with me
B) They play magic
C) They design custom cards for fun, are way more knowledgable
You could make it more narrow. You could make it not stack. E.g.
Cat Lady 3CMC
Creature - Human Wizard
When ~ ETB create a 1/1 white creature token Cat Familiar.
All Cat Familiars you control have Reach.
2/2
It only affects specific Cat Familiars and it gives them a non stacking evergreen. Parasitism on some level is to be expected. You can't have
Lifeloss with extra steps. It's major part of why I gave up on it.
Benalish is a Creature Anthem, and Lords are Tribal Anthems, not much to say there?
Because we didn't use the same definition of what parasitism is. If you call EuroAsia Europe, and I say China isn't in Europe and you say it is, then in essence we're both right.Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-22 at 06:05 PM.
-
2020-01-23, 03:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
It doesn't. Look at the links I posted.
You do realize that's a joke, right? It's a play on "Money for nothing and chicks for free".
You: Where did I say that.
Me: Show literal quote where you said it.
You: It was a joke.
Really?
You claimed that Lay of the Land is abysmal. I'm telling you Attune isn't as abysmal because it's power creep on Lay of the Land.
Stop trying to make counter arguments to points I never made.
A. This isn't cloudshift.
B. Even if you don't include the terms "created with"/"created by" appears only on cards of RARE or MYTHIC rarity. It absolutely is an obscure rule. And it's going to trip players. Especially new players.
I think there is a difference between printing a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1 creature that has <<EVERGREEN>> as long as 2/2 is on the field, and a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1. For one when the latter is simpler and easier to track.
What's easier to calculate a board with four 2/2 or a board with three 1/1 Zombies and a Zombie lord?
In essence what's easier to calculate nothing or several things? Keep in mind we're talking about common. Commons are usually very simple.
Ok, but why is it a powerful card?
Rest had less impactful keywords. The least impactful being at common.
I mentioned some evergreen keywords were not ok e.g. first strike or flying.
Caller of Gales gives flying at common. As does Helium Squirter. Lowland Oaf. Merrow Levitator. Zephyr Charge. There's also the many flyers that gives something flying when they attack.
I have a problem with it affecting another creature because then you have to take those effects into consideration when defending/attacking with/into it. I.e. board compexity.
Soulbound probably isn't a good mechanic to look up to - it's about 6 on Storm scale. It's been noted as affecting playability, albeit it works a bit differently. What your "familiar" mechanics gains in simplicity with it not being affected by entering creatures it loses in versatility. Not much affects it.
Maro put madness as an 8 on the storm scale, but that was used later.
I never said anything about ETB being a problem, ever.
and that it somehow doesn't have 4 lines of rules text;Also there is no card with oracle text "created by". It's "created with".
To be a nitpick, cards need to use "with" not "by". As in "tokens created with ~".
Notice something about "created with"? It only appears on rares and a mythic.
Those cards aren't rare because they use "created with". They're rares because they do complex things.
This makes it an obscure rule part. I.e. only way a newish player has encountered this rule literally only if he played battlebond previously and managed to draw that exact card. You're more literally more likely to have played A planeswalker from any edition (that has one or more planeswalkers) than to encounter that rule.
It's quite easy. The creature makes one token, and then it gives the one token created with it some bonus while it's one the field. Knowing the other cards that use the same phrase doesn't really help you.
Well, you are right. However, you'll notice that some cards/effects NEVER feature at common. Hell, until late planeswalkers were RARE or MYTHIC. The fact that "created with" appears ONLY on a few RARE and MYTHICS, is a cause for concern.
It tells me, that Wizards are super wary of it. To me, that's makes it worse than any red flag.
I talked to people on Custom Magic discord. While not omniscient, they have few important thing going for them over "people who agree with me".
A) I presented this as my own idea - so they didn't agree with me
B) They play magic
C) They design custom cards for fun, are way more knowledgable
*Looks at You Make The Card*
*Looks at You Make The Card Challenge*
*Looks at 1000+ cards designed in set editor*
You could make it more narrow. You could make it not stack. E.g.
Cat Lady 3CMC
Creature - Human Wizard
When ~ ETB create a 1/1 white creature token Cat Familiar.
All Cat Familiars you control have Reach.
2/2
"When Cat Lady enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Cat Familiar creature token.
Cat Familiar creatures you control have reach."
It only affects specific Cat Familiars and it gives them a non stacking evergreen. Parasitism on some level is to be expected.
You can't have
Lifeloss with extra steps. It's major part of why I gave up on it.
Benalish is a Creature Anthem, and Lords are Tribal Anthems, not much to say there?
With creature anthem I first thought you meant an anthem that is a creature, but then you said lords are tribal anthems, which I guess means it's an anthem only for a tribe. If Benalish Marshal is then an anthem for creatures, isn't that just an anthem?
You claimed Benalish Marshal was a lord:
Lords are linear. But they don't have to be parasitic. See Benalish Marshall.Because we didn't use the same definition of what parasitism is. If you call EuroAsia Europe, and I say China isn't in Europe and you say it is, then in essence we're both right.
Your definition of parasitic is narrower than mine. Only work in a specific set vs Works best in heavy conjunction with the mechanic itself. So if it's parasitic by your definition then it ought to also be parasitic by mine.
-
2020-01-23, 06:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
I did.
Yes. From my perspective.
Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: Makes an offhand reference to it being free.
You: OOOOH! You said it was free.
So, yes. Ignore multiple time I said it was undercosted and focus on that one time I called it free.
Ok. Where does Cloudshift uses "created with"?
You're forgetting, that Wizards could have created this mechanic time and time and time and time again. And they didn't. Perhaps there is a reason. One such reason is that they don't work with anything outside of the set, so they make for horrible Constructed/Limited cards.
Someone once told me, that if it was never done before, maybe there is good reason Wizards never did it. Oh, wait. That was you.
Yeah, but in your case one has memory issues, other doesn't.
Partially true, but undercosted probably isn't enough to push it to rare.
No. I listed them both as possibly problematic. You might have point about first strike. It seems I valued it too much.
So? Look at planescluptor. Most of the sets there have their creator on magic discord. Plus they playtest their cards. That's qualitatively better than some forum card thread and someone with 1000+ cards designed in set editor.
Depends. What if you don't have a word for EuroAsia? But have one for Europe, because there are no syllables for Asia. But yeah, should have used neutral terms, I keep forgetting you are nitpicking incarnate.
My definition is also the one lead designer uses. It's also listed on mtg gamepedia.
-
2020-01-23, 09:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Then you should realize what definitions people use.
Yes. From my perspective.
Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: Makes an offhand reference to it being free.
You: OOOOH! You said it was free.
So, yes. Ignore multiple time I said it was undercosted and focus on that one time I called it free.
Free is undercosted, so that's not even a defense.
This is you once again making a statement, then not correcting it immediately once I reply to that statement, and then only later going "Oh that wasn't what I meant at all."
It's not even a reference. If it was you would have said "You get effect for nothing and energy for free."
Ok. Where does Cloudshift uses "created with"?
You're forgetting, that Wizards could have created this mechanic time and time and time and time again. And they didn't. Perhaps there is a reason.
One such reason is that they don't work with anything outside of the set, so they make for horrible Constructed/Limited cards.
Familiar creators create tokens on ETB, so they work with everything other creatures that create tokens on ETB work with. Aside from that they're all workable creatures in their own right, they don't depend on synergy in any way. There isn't a lot of synergy for them in the set. That's like saying Huntmaster of the Fells doesn't work with anything outside the set, despite the decks that played him played no other werewolves and no werewolf support.
Familiar payoffs work with any creature that creates tokens, (Avenger of Zendikar, Hornet Queen, Ant Queen, Darien King of Keldor).
Someone once told me, that if it was never done before, maybe there is good reason Wizards never did it. Oh, wait. That was you.
Yeah, but in your case one has memory issues, other doesn't.
Partially true, but undercosted probably isn't enough to push it to rare.
No. I listed them both as possibly problematic. You might have point about first strike. It seems I valued it too much.
So? Look at planescluptor. Most of the sets there have their creator on magic discord. Plus they playtest their cards. That's qualitatively better than some forum card thread and someone with 1000+ cards designed in set editor.
You're still just saying "I know someone who has more experience than you and they say that I am right".
Aside from the fact that this is a very bad attempt at an argument from authority, you haven't even shown the feedback of these people.
You've just claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that some people on a discord server made some complaints about my design, some people from the discord create sets on planesculptor and some of the sets on planesculptor are very good.
Do you really not see how much of a non-argument this is?
Also even looking at the featured sets on Planesculptor there are cards that break the red flags.
Depends. What if you don't have a word for EuroAsia? But have one for Europe, because there are no syllables for Asia. But yeah, should have used neutral terms, I keep forgetting you are nitpicking incarnate.
You are using terms outside their usual meaning and without explaining the meaning when you use them. How could you possibly not see the problem with that?
My definition is also the one lead designer uses. It's also listed on mtg gamepedia.
R&D also differentiate between insta-blink and flicker, doesn't mean the rest of us do.
I see you didn't reply to the part where I said I hoped you played the game. I don't want to take this as meaning you don't, because I am assuming you do, but your failure to acknowledge that is alarming.
I also see you once again decided not to explain your stance on Benalish Marshal being a lord.
-
2020-01-24, 04:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Well, no, the thing is, it's easy to confuse one with the other.
I literally said it was a joke. What part of that you don't understand?
I'm not salty about it, it's your one-way nitpicking personality. I admit, my knowledge of terms and their applications isn't perfect. And I make mistakes. I write tokens instead of counters, etc. But I mean yours.
And I correct them.
In terms of Magic. They absolutely are. Do me a favor, find your friends that don't play magic. Then playtest your cards.
Wasn't this the same argument you were making before in the thread - when I wanted to have an instant removal that removed creature or artifact?
I honestly can't. The forums are so ****ing slow, I can't bear to search them. I got multiple 503 when trying to find it.
It doesn't. Because it uses a different wording. Also soulbound functioned differently. You could soulbound any entering creature, instead of just spawning a creature on ETB.
So? You didn't playtest corruption, but were certain it would play badly?
You can make inference based on encountering similar cards, and I'm relatively certain it would cause confusion with new players.
You're still missing the point. I'm telling you it's wonky and bad, others are telling you it's wonky and bad, and you're doing your best "LALALALA can't hear you" impression. Despite this being feedback, from your potential players/peers.
I honestly didn't think you would imply I would lie. I'll go to discord again and fetch you actual quotes.
Feedback
Umm. You're allowed to break red flags in 20% of your cards. I think the whole mechanic is flawed on a more basic level.
It's easy to see everything as wrong if you are consistently nitpicking. After all, perfect is the enemy of good.
I don't answer pointless questions. Mainly because you then make more quotes I need to answer and that just keeps multiplying, turning the page into a "Quote Wars".Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-24 at 07:13 AM.
-
2020-01-24, 08:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
And now that I've explained what definitions people use it hopefully won't happen again.
I literally said it was a joke. What part of that you don't understand?
I'm not salty about it, it's your one-way nitpicking personality. I admit, my knowledge of terms and their applications isn't perfect. And I make mistakes. I write tokens instead of counters, etc. But I mean yours.
From what I have seen your knowledge is actually very lacking, which is why it is so annoying that you seem to think you know so much.
It's very difficult to take criticism seriously from someone who doesn't have a good enough grasp at the game to distinguish counters from tokens.
And I correct them.
In terms of Magic. They absolutely are. Do me a favor, find your friends that don't play magic. Then playtest your cards.
Wasn't this the same argument you were making before in the thread - when I wanted to have an instant removal that removed creature or artifact?
You're just saying "This mechanic is bad because if it was good wizards would have done it".
It doesn't. Because it uses a different wording. Also soulbound functioned differently. You could soulbound any entering creature, instead of just spawning a creature on ETB.
So? You didn't playtest corruption, but were certain it would play badly?
The fact that some of the people who allegedly agreed with your criticism of familiar, allegedly playtested their own sets, doesn't lend a lot of additional weight to their alleged criticism of familiar, since they haven't playtested those. All criticism they have that is backed up by arguments is still entirely valid, but you haven't shared those.
You can make inference based on encountering similar cards, and I'm relatively certain it would cause confusion with new players.
You claiming you're relatively certain doesn't count for anything.
You're still missing the point. I'm telling you it's wonky and bad,
others are telling you it's wonky and bad,
and you're doing your best "LALALALA can't hear you" impression.
I have addressed every bit of criticism that has been raised against the familiar mechanic. That's not to say there isn't some valid criticism, there just haven't been any deal breakers.
Despite this being feedback, from your potential players/peers.
As I've said I'm not planning on doing anything with this mechanic, it was mostly a test. But if I were interested in actually implementing it I would make it and try it out to see if it was intuitive or hard to track, I wouldn't just take your gut feeling as gospel.
I honestly didn't think you would imply I would lie.
I'm also curious, actually, about why you just showed that card, instead of either the even simpler ones, or some of the more complex commons.
Umm. You're allowed to break red flags in 20% of your cards.
I think the whole mechanic is flawed on a more basic level.
It's easy to see everything as wrong if you are consistently nitpicking. After all, perfect is the enemy of good.
I don't answer pointless questions. Mainly because you then make more quotes I need to answer and that just keeps multiplying, turning the page into a "Quote Wars".
Not only have you still not explained your stance on Benalish Marshal being a lord, you haven't even confirmed that you actually play the game.
Also, you claimed the mechanic had to be on common if it was a set mechanic, but miracles were uncommon and over. Even if the mechanic was too complicated for common it would be fully possible to make about 10 uncommons and about 5 rares. I would cut the familiar synergy cards, but those were a maybe anyways.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-24 at 08:16 AM.
-
2020-01-24, 09:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
On a different note, some time ago reading an article about how so many different mechanics are really just kicker made me want to make a set with several different kicker mechanics.
So what I'm currently at is five 3 color factions, but not divided into shards or wedges. The factions and their mechanics are:
Eonta (Grixis)
Empower:
Pay an additional cost, if you do this instant or sorcery has a stronger effect.
Example:
Maddening Epiphany - R
Sorcery - C
Empower 2 (You may pay an additional 2 as you cast this spell.)
Discard a card, then draw a card.
If Maddening Epiphany was empowered, discard a card, then draw two cards.
Forain (Sultai)
Advantage:
Pay an additional cost. Do something good, and something bad if you didn’t pay the cost. Bad can either be a related downside or a symmetric effect.
Example:
Unbound Vegetation - 2G
Sorcery - C
Advantage 1G (You may pay an additional 1G as you cast this spell.)
Search your library for two basic land cards and put them onto the battlefield tapped. Then shuffle your library. Sacrifice a land unless Unbound Vegetation has advantage.
Osver (Mardu)
Perform:
Pay an additional cost. When this creature enters the battlefield, if you paid its perform cost, do something.
Example:
Raised Noble - 1B
Creature - Zombie Noble - C
Perform 1B (You may pay an additional 1B as you cast this spell.)
When Raised Noble enters the battlefield, if it performs, each opponent loses 2 life and you gain 2 life.
2/1
Perau (Naya)
Colossal:
Colossal N. You may pay an additional cost as you cast this creature. If you do, it enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it. It's the only of the five where the ability does something by itself. There might be uncommons and up that care about a creature being colossal.
Example:
Brach Wolf - 1G
Creature - Plant Wolf - C
Colossal 2 2G (You may pay an additional 2G as you cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with 2 +1/+1 counters on it.)
2/2
Umil (Bant)
Aid:
Pay an additional cost. If you do this creature makes tokens on ETB.
Example:
Wolf Caller - 1G
Creature - Human Druid - U (Haven't made a common with this ability)
Aid 2GG (You may pay an additional 2GG as you cast this spell.)
When this creature enters the battlefield, if it is aided, create two 2/2 green Wolf creature tokens.
Wolves you control get +1/+1
2/2
All colors are present in three factions. Five 2 color combinations are present in two factions, five are present in only one.
The set will have card that care about paying additional costs. Example:
Forain Harpy - 2B
Creature - Harpy - C
Flying
Whenever you pay an additional cost of a spell, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
2/1
I'm liking Colossal the most because of how simple it is. I think advantage is really interesting, but it's also the most complicated one with the smallest design space. I might swap it out for simply cantripping.
To not step on Colossal or Aid, no perform card makes tokens or gets counters on its perform.
Colossal and Umil can be supported in the form of cards that care about counter or tokens, but since the other abilities can't I doubt I'll do a lot of that.
All the abilities have a shorthand for paying the cost: Is empowered, Has advantage, Performs, Is colossal, Is aided.
The names are subject to change.
I'm wondering if other wording would be better, like making perform:
Perform N (You may pay an additional N as you cast this spell. If you do, when it enters the battlefield it performs)
When Cardname performs, do something.
I am curious to what other kicker mechanics could be done. I want to avoid multikicker effects, so no replicate, and want additional costs not alternative costs, so no overload.
Buyback is possible, but has some issues with repetitive game play.
Pay to scry could possibly work.Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-24 at 09:19 AM.
-
2020-01-24, 02:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
It's a good thing this didn't come off as extremely patronizing.
I know the difference, I accidentally type one instead of the other. Typing mistakes happen.
Yeah. Projecting.
Also Allegedly? Did you not see the discord screen I posted? I picked one at random. I'm pretty sure I posted Tiger Warden and the response I got was:
Use cat tokens if that's what you want tho don't add confusion for mehit wont give the boost to previously created tokens. when it enters back from exile, it's a new object, and wont recognize the earlier tokens
so yeah. more confusion than its worth
- It's hard to track => It's Cloudshift
- It's uses complex wording => They can learn the wording from Cloudshift.
To you? Yes.
To me? Yes.
To average NWO player? HOLY HELL. NO. LIKE NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.
I had a guy at Dominaria prerelease tried to counter a spell, by returning creature I sacrificed as part of kicker to my hand.
Let me repeat that. He tried to prevent cost payment. With a bounce.
Explain to me, how that player won't be confused by your give X to all creatures created with CARDNAME.
Let me give you a preview of what happens when you play that card with him. I'll call him Jim, for no reason.
Jim: Ok. I have a Tiger Warden. And I summon another Tiger Warden. Now my Cat tokens have "+2/+2" because they were both created by Tiger Wardens.
Jim: Now I flicker my new Tiger Warden and have three cats. Since all were created by Tiger Wardens, my three cats have +2/+2.
Me: That's not how it works Jim. Only last one gets buff.
Jim: But it says cards created by "Tiger Warden". That means any Tiger Warden. You're a cheater! Judge.
Judge: Looks exhausted, because he's seen this scene play out at least seven times already.
Words on "Created with SUMMONER" and their colloquial meaning i.e. created by SUMMONER whichever, whenever - will clash with MtG meaning - i.e. last token that specific SUMMONER created.
How can you not see this?
And you're not answering this question - Is there maybe a reason they haven't done this? This wording has been around since Mirrage. And they used it Modern = 0 times.
And I told you why Wizards probably didn't use it. It's complex rule interaction. It's confusing. You're probably right about it not impacting board.
But on the flip side, it's non-interactive (with other sets). Sure you can use "Familiars summoner", but why should one? From a Constructed players perspective all Familiar Summoners are underwhelming compared e.g. Young Pyromancer. I mean even for Cat generation they are underwhelming.
Yeah, I don't need to playtest a card to know that some players, especially younger ones are going to be confused with this. They get confused by flicker. This is way complex than flicker.
Because you're ignoring my complaints. And not just mine. But yeah, I get it, killing your pet mechanic is a hard thing to do.
Pretty sure I did, way, way ago.
Miracle is Storm 9. Not the greatest mechanic to emulate IMO. But also it could be due to flavor (I mean, miracles aren't common). I did not claim this MaRo's did in article on NWO.
"If your theme is not at common, it's not your theme." Because the theme by its nature tends to involve complexity (themes tend to require players caring about something you don't normally care about), it meant that we had to allocate a certain portion of our common complexity to supporting the theme.
-
2020-01-24, 07:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
At this point I've stopped bothering.
I know the difference, I accidentally type one instead of the other. Typing mistakes happen.
Yeah. Projecting.
Also Allegedly? Did you not see the discord screen I posted? I picked one at random. I'm pretty sure I posted Tiger Warden and the response I got was:
I've asked this several times, but I have to ask again, because you don't seem to get it.
Do you really not see how unconvincing this is?
No, you haven't.
- It's hard to track => It's Cloudshift
- It's uses complex wording => They can learn the wording from Cloudshift.
Knowing that a creature leaving the battlefield and entering again is a new object is the same as cloudshift.
The tracking is the same as soulbond.
You only think the wording is complex because it had no reason to show up before. When it shows up on this mechanic it's pretty straight forward.
I have addressed all of those points.
To you? Yes.
To me? Yes.
To average NWO player? HOLY HELL. NO. LIKE NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.
The creature comes into play and creates a token. Then that token has an ability while you control the creature. I don't see where the big points of confusion come from.
I had a guy at Dominaria prerelease tried to counter a spell, by returning creature I sacrificed as part of kicker to my hand.
Let me repeat that. He tried to prevent cost payment. With a bounce.
Explain to me, how that player won't be confused by your give X to all creatures created with CARDNAME.
There are a lot of simple things in magic that guy isn't going to understand, I'm not sure why this one thing is the one that counts. If he misunderstands interactions that we know are reasonable then him misunderstanding an interaction isn't evidence for that interaction being unreasonable.
The argument for it being bad should be someone who understood the other mechanics, but failing to understand this.
Jim: Ok. I have a Tiger Warden. And I summon another Tiger Warden. Now my Cat tokens have "+2/+2" because they were both created by Tiger Wardens.
If I have a Heliod's Pilgrim and I play a second one, do I get to tutor twice, since both trigger when Heliod's Pilgrim enters the battlefield?
If I have two Stampede riders and a creature with power 4, do both my stampede riders get +2/+2?
This confusion isn't limited to familiars.
Jim: Now I flicker my new Tiger Warden and have three cats. Since all were created by Tiger Wardens, my three cats have +2/+2.
Me: That's not how it works Jim. Only last one gets buff.
Jim: But it says cards created by "Tiger Warden". That means any Tiger Warden. You're a cheater! Judge.
Judge: Looks exhausted, because he's seen this scene play out at least seven times already.
Knowing that when a card's name appears on a card that means this card is also very basic knowledge that wizards assume you know. If you were that afraid of confusion you could even change the wording to "Created with this creature".
Does Jimmy know what happens when you blink a transformed card or a morph?
Does he know the CMC of a transformed creature?
Does he know how Bile Blight interacts with morph creatures?
Heck, does he even know that unmorphing doesn't use the stack?
Are any of these signs that the mechanics shouldn't be used?
Words on "Created with SUMMONER" and their colloquial meaning i.e. created by SUMMONER whichever, whenever - will clash with MtG meaning - i.e. last token that specific SUMMONER created.
How can you not see this?
It's the same knowledge required for cloudshift to function, which to my knowledge isn't a problematic card.
It's the same knowledge required to know that one Skophos Warleader activation doesn't pump both of them.
And you're not answering this question - Is there maybe a reason they haven't done this? This wording has been around since Mirrage. And they used it Modern = 0 times.
You said they haven't used in modern, which is true. The reason you used that wording is that you knew it had been used in modern times, 2016 and 2018 to be precise. In battlebond and in a commander precon, both of which are quite casual products.
So they have used that exact wording recently, and have apparently had no problems with it.
And I told you why Wizards probably didn't use it. It's complex rule interaction. It's confusing. You're probably right about it not impacting board.
But on the flip side, it's non-interactive (with other sets).
Familiar cards are just creatures, they die to removal like everything else.
In case you didn't mean non-interactive but non-synergetic, that's also wrong. They still create tokens with any kind of recursion.
It's also worth pointing out they don't need synergy. Not every mechanic is a synergy mechanic. What does unleash synergize with? Yes a few cards that care about +1/+1 counters, but for the most part you're just playing good creatures.
Sure you can use "Familiars summoner", but why should one? From a Constructed players perspective all Familiar Summoners are underwhelming compared e.g. Young Pyromancer. I mean even for Cat generation they are underwhelming.
Benakh Archranger - 2GG
Creature - Elf Archer - R
When Benakh Beastsage enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green wolf creature token.
Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, put a +1/+1 counter on Benakh Ranger or target token created by it.
2/2
Huntmaster of the Fells saw play in decks that didn't have any kind of synergy, they just played it because it was a strong card. You could easily print familiar cards like that.
Yeah, I don't need to playtest a card to know that some players, especially younger ones are going to be confused with this. They get confused by flicker. This is way complex than flicker.
They also get confused by this, so that's not fine.
That reasoning doesn't hold up.
Because you're ignoring my complaints. And not just mine. But yeah, I get it, killing your pet mechanic is a hard thing to do.
It's not a pet mechanic, I've explained several times that I thought it up to see what could be done with it, and have not plans for actually using it for anything.
Knowing that the interactions work for interesting rares is actually what I'm more interested in, like:
Mirror Crafter - 3UU
Creature - Elf Wizard - R
When Mirror Crafter enters the battlefield, create a 0/0 blue Reflection creature token. That creature enters the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may have each creature token created by Mirror Crafter become a copy of target creature.
2/2
Miracle is Storm 9. Not the greatest mechanic to emulate IMO.
If familiars are a theme of your set - which it seems - they should be at common. And unlike most things they kept to it - all keyword abilites, keyword actions, and ability words they made so far were at common.
There was also Planeswalkers in War of the Spark.
There's Sagas.
Familiar doesn't need to be a major theme, I've already said I would cut out the familiar support cards, which I might have done anyway. It's not even keyworded, so you could very easily put just a few cards in.
Since it's not keyworded you could also just have the "Creatures created with" clause on uncommons and higher, but still have commons that created tokens, and still have it feel thematically cohesive because it's creatures that come with a friend, especially if it was flavored to be wizards with a familiar.
-
2020-01-28, 11:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
- Location
- Tron Spacetime
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Yeah, I've noticed.
Me too. I'm glad you're seeing how you're projecting /troll
I guess I understand.
However, I'm not lying - the only response I got for your designs were - it's too complex for effect; too much complexity; And do a buff for all Familiars. The fact that every single response to it was "it's complex" should maybe tell you something. Maybe something about - complexity.
Anyway, if you believe I'm misrepresenting, go to Discord, post it yourself.
Yeah, no. It appears rarely:
A) because it's complex i.e. a TON of confusion for newcomers - so it's only used for cards that spawn MULTIPLE copies. I.e.
B) causes memory problems in large amounts.
C) can be done more elegantly with existing mechanics e.g. "token matters" vs "created with matters" theme.
I still can't believe you don't understand how the wording "created with" is going to be either a pitfall for newcomers and/or a nightmare to track.
Not really. Remember the feedback I got. Like four or something people (me excluded) responded. And they have all been consistent in that it's just too complex.
Yes, but tracking for what permanents is a knowledge check. Checking for "created with" is both a knowledge and a memory check.
As a side not out of things that reference colorless permanents/cards/etc at common you have basically Hedron Blade and Lithomancer's Focus. And even those might be reprinted today at higher rarity (uncommon), like Ancient Stirrings.
So if you're carrying three hundred pounds on your back, I should add fifty more! In for the penny, in for the pound, right?
Yeah, that's not how NWO works.
And I see what you did there. Newcomer != casual.
NWO applies to Standard viable sets, i.e. sets designed for new people. It also doesn't apply to cards in Modern Master, or boosters that are Modern/Commander/Brawl specific (e.g. having both -1/-1 and +1/+1 counters and like eight different keywords in draft environment).
But ok, let's look at cards using proper wording i.e. created with. There is 6 of them in total. In how many sets? And all of them are rare... And all of them spawn many copies. And there is like single per set... Hmm. :THONK:
INSERT whatever word you use for your set MaRo's definition of parasitism.
What I mean is "created with" is non-interactive. It's a highly complex wording meant to deal with permanents that spawn multiple copies. Which they don't do in your set.
And it doesn't interact with anything else either. It just interacts with the stuff that permanent created. And you have no way to generate tokens. At least I hope, so. If you do, then it's a whole another level of memory compexity.
I meant it as a criticism of all printed cards, regardless of their rarity. Can you print overstated card, yes. But then that's on the card itself, nothing to do with "created with" mechanic.
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/pos...he-storm-scale
9 doesn't mean we'll never reprint this card. It means likelihood of us reprinting a standard viable <<INSERT MECHANIC>> card is close to a minor miracle. Only 10 and 9.5 mean, we'll reprint this in Standard card after a major Miracle (e.g. Second Coming, Apocalypse, etc.) Also it can change. Luckily chances of Miracles haven't change since 2017.
The Miracle was a horrible theme. It got 9 for a reason.
WotS Planeswalker as a theme is a departure, but honestly, that set produced so much problem, it's probably best not repeated.
Saga's weren't the theme. It was Historic matters. Sagas were part of that Historic mechanic.
So we have:
A) Horrible mechanic
B) A mechanic that literally can't appear at common. And still managed to cause huge problems.
C) Not a theme
A solution to your predicament is simple. Choose one:
A) Crowd favorite. Make Familiar a theme. Scrap "created with" for a flat buff to familiars (e.g. Cat Familiars or Cat Familiars with 1 power, etc.). Everyone kept suggesting it, and it is the wording most people are already well-acquainted with. And honestly it does everything you want in a more cross-set interactive manner.
B) Keep at higher rarity - Rare or Mythic would be preferable. Maybe uncommon, but honestly, if it's not creating multiple copies, the "created with"-complexity is wasted on it. But then it's not a theme.
C) Don't make a Standard compliant set.Last edited by -D-; 2020-02-26 at 12:29 PM.