Discussing unfair when talking about planeswalker ultimates doesn't seem useful. They aren't meant to be fair. But you're right about the color pie. I hadn't given it much thought because I focused on the lore. To keep it in pie the permanent's controller should get something in return, keeping with her story it should probably be mana, it makes the whole implementation messy but keeps it in pie. So the first ability could be
X: Exile target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less. During that permanent's controller's next precombat main phase, add mana equal to the exiled permanent's mana cost to their mana pool. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
This keeps it on pie and adds an interesting dynamic to exiling your opponents stuff.
The ultimate was meant to get creatures and artifacts from exile with enchantments merely coming along for the ride, it was never meant to get lands, that it why it says cast. Overall its more of a heavy bend than break, it really shouldn't exile creatures, but being on a planeswalker's ultimate it should be fine for what this is trying to convey. Or maybe even add noncreature to it, but that takes away a lot of the power making it kind of meh.
What I mean about the unfairness is not related to the fact that is an emblem, but because from a gamestate point of view you can not spend 0 resources to kill all opponent's resources, whether it's loyalty on a planeswalker, mana, life, or saccing own permanents, there should be something "spent" to deal with ALL their stuff, either that or limit the ability once per turn, emblems are certainly not meant to be fair, and probably not balanced, but for a 3 CMC planeswalker it's a bit much IMO
The ultimate was meant to get creatures and artifacts from exile with enchantments merely coming along for the ride, it was never meant to get lands, that it why it says cast. Overall its more of a heavy bend than break, it really shouldn't exile creatures, but being on a planeswalker's ultimate it should be fine for what this is trying to convey. Or maybe even add noncreature to it, but that takes away a lot of the power making it kind of meh.
It also allows to cast opponent's exiled planeswalkers , it may imply some way to corrupt them so they join the enemy, and it's more a B or a UB thing like Mindleech Mass or Dragonlord Silumgar.
Bring to Light doesn't mess with planeswalkers , Jace, Architect of Thought does mess with planeswalkers but it's not a repeatable effect and he's more expensive and needs 4 turn to ultimate, Mind's Desire does it but only from owner's library
UG is more comfortable when it's about creating tokens, making clones or cheating lands into play. I just gave some examples of what the colors are used to do...
As you may be able to discern from the rendered image, I'm running out of space to write out anything longer for the ultimate ability. So some simplification may be in order.
KeMT is right about the exile vs color pie problem. I was so wrapped in the story & how Rashmi can send things into & out of the Blind Eternities (aka exile zone) that I overlooked the color problem. However, like user_938036, I have no problems with wiping out tokens for zero cost because that was Rashmi's specialization.
So I propose this version blink/steal:
Rashmi, Eternities Researcher 1GU
Planeswalker - Rashmi (M)
+1: Each player exiles the top card of his or her library. Choose a land card in exile, you may play it this turn.
-3: Create a tapped token that’s a copy of target nontoken nonland artifact you control. -6: You get an emblem with “X: Exile target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery." and “X: Cast target face-up noninstant, nonsorcery card in exile with converted mana cost X or less. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery." -6: You get an emblem with “X: Exile target creature or artifact with converted mana cost X or less. You may cast that exiled card & you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast it. Otherwise, return it to play under its owner's control at end of turn. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
{3}
The wording is very tricky and still too long. Any ideas?
If your working that angle for Nissa you should go with something more along the lines of Conscriptor, as in someone who forcibly takes.
Ever sense that color pie violation was pointed out I've been trying to reconcile it but without much effort. All fixes I've come up with are either convoluted or way too wordy. The problem with the first iteration is that neither green nor blue can get rid of creatures for nothing, which is why I suggested giving them mana which could be interesting but adds a ton of text to the ability and there is no more room. If you consolidate both abilities into one we might save space but wording it is tricky. I think the best fix is to add until end of turn on the exile, making it a slow blink, so it still allows you to steal the permanents if you have enough mana.
X: Exile target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less until end of turn. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
While the wording is awkward and not normally used cards like Banisher Priest set precedent for exiling with a duration, you're just making use of this in a new way, setting the duration to a time rather than tying it to an event. Also while it is good to stick to and fall back on what colors have done it is necessary to push what can be done on occasion, as long as you aren't undermining a weakness or dipping too deep into another colors core identity it is good to see how far you can stretch.
Back to KeMT, I understand you don't think you should be able to clear an opponents board without an investment but it can only clear a board of tokens and that is narrow enough to be allowed without breaking anything. Sure creatively tokens and nontokens aren't supposed to be different but because of the constant distinction and of rules cases like this they are treated differently even creatively.
If your working that angle for Nissa you should go with something more along the lines of Conscriptor, as in someone who forcibly takes.
Ever sense that color pie violation was pointed out I've been trying to reconcile it but without much effort. All fixes I've come up with are either convoluted or way too wordy. The problem with the first iteration is that neither green nor blue can get rid of creatures for nothing, which is why I suggested giving them mana which could be interesting but adds a ton of text to the ability and there is no more room. If you consolidate both abilities into one we might save space but wording it is tricky. I think the best fix is to add until end of turn on the exile, making it a slow blink, so it still allows you to steal the permanents if you have enough mana.
X: Exile target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less until end of turn. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
While the wording is awkward and not normally used cards like Banisher Priest set precedent for exiling with a duration, you're just making use of this in a new way, setting the duration to a time rather than tying it to an event. Also while it is good to stick to and fall back on what colors have done it is necessary to push what can be done on occasion, as long as you aren't undermining a weakness or dipping too deep into another colors core identity it is good to see how far you can stretch.
Back to KeMT, I understand you don't think you should be able to clear an opponents board without an investment but it can only clear a board of tokens and that is narrow enough to be allowed without breaking anything. Sure creatively tokens and nontokens aren't supposed to be different but because of the constant distinction and of rules cases like this they are treated differently even creatively.
I like your concise language, but it's the likely ambiguity from the cut text that troubles me.
Do you know of specific rules covering what happens to the card exiled by Banisher Prietst if it was removed from the exile zone somehow and then Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield?
My common sense makes me believe the previously-exiled card doesn't return to its controller then when Banisher Priest bits it, but I really don't know for sure. Having an written out "otherwise" or "if you do/don't" clause, even if repetitive, may be essential in absence of a specific rule to point to.
-6: You get an emblem with “X: Exile target creature or artifact with converted mana cost X or less. You may cast that exiled card & you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast it. Otherwise, return it to play under its owner's control at end of turn. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
{3}
The wording is very tricky and still too long. Any ideas?
How about
-6: You get an emblem with “X: Exile target creature or artifact with converted mana cost X or less. You may pay X to cast that card without paying its mana cost. If you don't, return that card to the battlefield under its owner's control at the beginning of the next end step. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
The idea here is to use X as a shortcut for "spend mana as thought it were mana of any color to cast" since X was already defined as the card's CMC, then simply use a mix between Chandra, Torch of Defiance first abilty and Flickerwisp's text.
Your rewording is clearer, but it doesn't seem to shorten the thing as much I as I like.
Anyone object if I just drop the requirment to pay mana to cast the temporarily exiled creature/artifact?
If OK & using user_938036's wording, I have:
+6: You get an emblem with "X: Exile target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less until end of turn. You may cast that card without paying its mana cost. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
Another possible issue is it is OK to refer to target as permanent in the first sentence and then refer to it as card in the second sentence? In other words, it is sufficient clear under MtG wording practices to use "that card" in a second sentence when there is no "target card" in any preceding sentence?
If a card being tracked by something like Banisher Priest changes zones, like by being processed Blight Herder, then it loses track of said object because when objects change zones they are new objects and usually only the source that moved them can remember them changing. So there is plenty of precedent for this type of effect, it is just weird.
If you are changing it to a flat out Control Magic for X that exiles first, then it does have to be limited to creatures and artifacts and you might have to add a colored mana but it should be fine. Though it does limit you to what is present, without access to other objects in exile.
There is precedent for referring to card types simply as cards later in abilities, Epic Experiment, your ability works as worded.
If a card being tracked by something like Banisher Priest changes zones, like by being processed Blight Herder, then it loses track of said object because when objects change zones they are new objects and usually only the source that moved them can remember them changing. So there is plenty of precedent for this type of effect, it is just weird.
If you are changing it to a flat out Control Magic for X that exiles first, then it does have to be limited to creatures and artifacts and you might have to add a colored mana but it should be fine. Though it does limit you to what is present, without access to other objects in exile.
There is precedent for referring to card types simply as cards later in abilities, Epic Experiment, your ability works as worded.
Weird just means there's plenty of fertile design space to explore. It never ceases to amaze me how far MtG has come since I cast my first creature (Grizzly Bear of all things) in fall of '93.
I want to thank both user_938036 & KeMT for all the interest & time focused on this topic. I never could have gotten so deep without your input.
Still, I'm not happy about the direction Rashmi has taken. A Control Magic/Control Artifact for an ultimate is so blah. The key to preserve is what you hinted at, accessing other objects in exile. So here's another revisions for consideration (long again, but unavoidable considering the color pie problem):
-6: You get an emblem with “Whenever a card is put back into its owner’s hand from the battlefield or on top or bottom of its owner’s library from anywhere, exile it instead.” and “X: Cast target face-up noninstant, nonsorcery card in exile with converted mana cost X or less. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
This means Rashmi doesn't do the exiling all by herself. She merely amplifies traditional blue/green card/deck manipulation (e.g., Scry, Into the Roil, Anchor to the AEther, Commune with Nature, Primal Command, etc.). She can then cast stuff from exile using any mana (the X part, a green portfolio thing).
I understand it started from flavor but if you remove the noninstant nonsorcery we can clean up the wording quite a bit, there are also color pie problems with her because green doesn't typically interact with exile (sending, getting or caring) and blue typically interacts with instants and sorcerys.
Still I want to capture the flavor of her opening up the blind eternities giving you access to everything that has been lost there.
-6: You get an emblem with "Whenever a permanent would leave the battlefield exile it instead." and "You may play cards in exile as though they were in your hand."
This cleans up a lot of the problems but allows you to play instants and sorcerys, but doesn't infinite loop, as well as allowing you to play them on opponents turns, though that can be turned off by adding "On your turn" to the permission to cast from exile. I had originally had "You may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast cards from exile" but it seems unneeded because she already gets you your opponents lands so you should have access to the colored mana needed, and it added a lot of text which was the main thing I was trying to cut down. From the color pie side I'm a lot happier with this version, flavor and function I preferred her other ult but it had some problems.
I understand it started from flavor but if you remove the noninstant nonsorcery we can clean up the wording quite a bit, there are also color pie problems with her because green doesn't typically interact with exile (sending, getting or caring) and blue typically interacts with instants and sorcerys.
Still I want to capture the flavor of her opening up the blind eternities giving you access to everything that has been lost there.
-6: You get an emblem with "Whenever a permanent would leave the battlefield exile it instead." and "You may play cards in exile as though they were in your hand."
This cleans up a lot of the problems but allows you to play instants and sorcerys, but doesn't infinite loop, as well as allowing you to play them on opponents turns, though that can be turned off by adding "On your turn" to the permission to cast from exile. I had originally had "You may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast cards from exile" but it seems unneeded because she already gets you your opponents lands so you should have access to the colored mana needed, and it added a lot of text which was the main thing I was trying to cut down. From the color pie side I'm a lot happier with this version, flavor and function I preferred her other ult but it had some problems.
I like this much shorter version, but will add in the "On your turn" limiter. Of concern if that she can now play instants and sorceries previously exiled with her +1 ("+1: Each player exiles the top card of his or her library. Choose a land card in exile, you may play it this turn."). Maybe we can come back to this possible issue on another completion review (whenever another pair of fresh eyes to look the whole set over). So I'll re-render Rashmi with your text.
Now on to our last 4-ability planeswalker (well, maybe next to last since I'm think of doing an alternate version of Chandra)!
Liliana, the Dark Mistress 2BB
+2: Each player discards a card. You gain 1 life for each creature card discarded this way.
+1: You may exile one target creature card from any graveyard. If you do, create a tapped 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
-4: Destroy target creature or planeswalker.
-10: Search your library for all creature cards and put them in your graveyard. You get an emblem with "At the beginning of your upkeep, if twenty or more creatures are in your graveyard, you win the game."
{4}
Consider this form a starting point because she is mostly a blah sandwich right now. I'm open to suggestions if anyone has like to have any particular flavor implemented (that it will give me some idea what specialization this Liliana may lean towards).
I don't like the anti-synergy with her +1 and her ult. Also it should probably be 'up to' one and take off the 'may' because they would be redundant with 'up to' preforming a better function. Her - could probably be 3 and still be fine, or you could add a create token clause to keep it at 4 and make it more interesting. I really don't like the emblem at all. It feels wrong that it should fulfill its victory criteria itself, while all of your other walkers build up to their criteria via another ability. It can literally go from "I have no creatures in my graveyard" to "I will now win because of the twenty creatures in my graveyard", the win condition is fine but I don't like that it so easily fulfills it itself. If you are already sold on the victory condition don't make a search, instead destroy all creatures then get the emblem. If your open to anything then you could make her ultimate a Debtors' Knell. Though that might be too slow so you could change it to end of turn instead of beginning of upkeep.
I don't like the anti-synergy with her +1 and her ult. Also it should probably be 'up to' one and take off the 'may' because they would be redundant with 'up to' preforming a better function. Her - could probably be 3 and still be fine, or you could add a create token clause to keep it at 4 and make it more interesting. I really don't like the emblem at all. It feels wrong that it should fulfill its victory criteria itself, while all of your other walkers build up to their criteria via another ability. It can literally go from "I have no creatures in my graveyard" to "I will now win because of the twenty creatures in my graveyard", the win condition is fine but I don't like that it so easily fulfills it itself. If you are already sold on the victory condition don't make a search, instead destroy all creatures then get the emblem. If your open to anything then you could make her ultimate a Debtors' Knell. Though that might be too slow so you could change it to end of turn instead of beginning of upkeep.
That Liliana is a bad design from the start. Let me start over with a new theme in mind.
Liliana, the Dark Mistress 2BB
+2: Each player discards a card. Each player loses 1 life for each card discarded this way.
+1: You may activate an loyalty ability on a target planeswalker other than Liliana, the Dark Mistress as if you control that planeswalker and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.
0: Destroy target creature or planeswalker. Remove a number of loyalty counters from Liliana, the Dark Mistress equal to the converted mana cost of the destroyed target.
-10: You get an emblem with “You don’t lose the game for having 0 or less life if you have any cards in your graveyard.”
{4}
Liliana, the Dark Mistress is a seductress. Her charm makes others drop their guard (the +2 ability). On occasions she comes across other planeswalkers, she can manipulate them to do her bidding (the +1 ability). She gains other trusts long enough to get in close to finish them (the 0 ability). She is patient and play the long game with her unnatural agelessness (the ultimate).
I think this version is much more interesting than the previous. What do you think?
Definitely more interesting. That +2 is painful in many ways. I don't think a mono black card should have her +1, I get the flavor but it seems wrong on something that isn't red or blue. Her 0 is rather flavorful, but it isn't really Lily, she isn't that kind of character, she would be better served with sacrifice of some kind. I love her ultimate. You essentially gain her curse of youth/immortality. Though it might need a method for players to kill you built in so it isn't a forever "I can't lose" against people without graveyard hate. Though because it doesn't stop other wins it might be fine.
While its stronger you might want to consider
0: Each player sacrifices a creature. Remove a loyalty counter from Liliana for each creature sacrificed this way.
This fits better with her personal theme, is slightly stronger, and plays in the same flux space as her +2.
I really like the idea of her +1 but it doesn't feel black at all. This effect seems red and would go great on the RG walker you made earlier, in future incarnations. I would personally like to see her make Zombies regularly, but not sure how to go about it here.
As I said her Ult is beautiful, it perfectly captures the Lich feel or taking on her curse with her, not sure if she would/could do this but I love it. If it is too broken then you need the method for dying similar to Immortal Coil.
-10: You get an emblem with “You don’t lose the game for having 0 or less life if you have any cards in your graveyard.” and "As long as you have 0 or less life, if damage would be dealt to you, instead exile that many cards from your graveyard."
It might not be needed but safety valves are useful to keep on hand.
Yes, I'm seeing Liliana's form in better focus with your ideas.
Absent the obvious graveyard-hate or some alternative victory condition (specific cards or poison counters), the only existing way left for opponent to win against the ultimate is to deck/mill you. So to balance the ultimate more, I want to increase the cost from -10 to -11 and add library burn to Liliana's other abilities. The idea is that, by the time you ultimate with her, you likely burned a bigger chunk of your library than your opponent has. It then becomes a question of whether your opponent can survive long enough against Liliana's horde. This way it actually puts the impetus on you to attack (& opponents on all-out defense) instead of sitting on your ultimate to do the work (the case with most other planeswalkers' ultimates). This twist makes the ultimate as currently worded even more intriguing.
So here are the changes:
Liliana, the Dark Mistress 2BB
+2: Each player discards a cardputs the top card from his or her library into his or her graveyard. Each player loses 1 life for each card discardedput into any graveyard this way. +1: You may activate an loyalty ability on a target planeswalker other than Liliana, the Dark Mistress as if you control that planeswalker and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn. +1: Put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard and then exile a card from your graveyard. Create a tapped 2/2 Zombie creature token. 0: Destroy target creature or planeswalker. Remove a number of loyalty counters from Liliana, the Dark Mistress equal to the converted mana cost of the destroyed target. 0: Each player sacrifices a creature. Remove a loyalty counter from Liliana for each creature sacrificed this way. -10-11: You get an emblem with “You don’t lose the game for having 0 or less life if you have any cards in your graveyard.”
{4}
So now both + abilities are fueled by cards from your library, which flavorwise represents your magical power (part of your phylactery when you become a lich with the ultimate). So if you're a lich & you lose either your library or graveyard wiped out (two parts of your phylactery), you die.
As for the stricken-out +1 that lets you use another planeswalker for a turn, I'll recycle it for my redo of Chandra, Torch of Defiance (we did 4 custom ones already, might as well complete the cycle as our own). Only thing is the flavor seems a bit awkward with Chandra.
EDIT: I just thought of something. What cards/mechanisms are there that cycle individual cards (not the entire graveyard) from your graveyard back into your library?
I like this one much better but I would prefer if her +1 was forced to remove a creature from either graveyard and only made the token if she did.
+1: Put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard and then exile a creature from any graveyard. If you do, create a 2/2 Zombie creature token.
Either ability is probably fine, but it feels better if she needs a creature to make the zombie.
I like this one much better but I would prefer if her +1 was forced to remove a creature from either graveyard and only made the token if she did.
+1: Put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard and then exile a creature from any graveyard. If you do, create a 2/2 Zombie creature token.
Either ability is probably fine, but it feels better if she needs a creature to make the zombie.
Done! We completed Liliana faster than I thought after that awful first draw.
However, I'm a bit burned out after doing 14 planeswalkers in little over a month. With one last one to go, all I can really think of right now is a general idea what a new Chandra may be.
I call this new planeswalker Chandra, Igneous Provocateur. Her most recent experience with the Consulate has reinforced her distaste for state authority. She is willing to promote anarchistic efforts to break bonds of authority, even if she's not able to openly act. Thus, she is an agent of chaos & her abilities should reflect it.
However, I don't have an exact idea which abilities & costs. All I have is a list of some ability ideas:
Until end of turn, all creatures attack each turn if able and all creatures block each turn if able. Each player may draw a card for each creature he or she controls that dies from combat damage this turn.
You may activate a loyalty ability on a target planeswalker other than Chandra Igneous Provocateur as if you control that planeswalker and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.
The owner of target permanent shuffles it into his or her library, then reveals the top two cards of his or her library. If either is a permanent card, he or she puts that card onto the battlefield.
You get an emblem with “Whenever a card would go into your graveyard, you may put it on the bottom of your library. Whenever you are dealt damage, exile that many cards from top of your library. You cannot lose the game if you have any cards in your library.”
Randomly choose a player to gain control of target permanent.
Warp World(text too long & too powerful though)...
Perhaps you have an picture of what Chandra can be & I can shape something more concrete from that image. Previous Chandras have been powered with direct damage. Maybe something that powers creature decks (phoenix Chandra, maybe)?
I thank you for sticking with me so long. Your voice has been invaluable.
I don't think you should cut out Chandra's fire ability completely, but making it take a back seat to other abilities should be fine. Going with your wanted theme. Trying to keep her at a CMC 4 and a starting Loyalty of 4
+2: Chandra deals 1 damage to up to 3 target creatures controlled by different players. Until your next turn those creatures must attack or block if able.
Essentially she is going the route of just pissing people off to get them to action, you can add a bit of empathy magic to her roster and we get her second ability.
+1:You may activate a loyalty ability on a target planeswalker other than Chandra as if you control that planeswalker and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.
I'm not certain you want the "As if you control" it makes the ability much better but isn't quite on theme of her inciting reckless behavior, though gameplay may have to trump flavor here.
-4: Chandra deals X damage to each creature, where X is the number of creatures on the battlefield.
At heart she is still a pyromancer, but now she lets other's hate and anger fuel her flames.
-10: You get an emblem with "Whenever you or a permanent you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery an opponent controls, you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copy.
I just went with something big here that is still on theme. I don't really like this ultimate on her, though I do personally like this ultimate, this just probably isn't the home for it.
I hope this gives you an idea for a Chandra that utilizes empathy magic, its one of the most under utilized magics ever.
I don't think you should cut out Chandra's fire ability completely, but making it take a back seat to other abilities should be fine. Going with your wanted theme. Trying to keep her at a CMC 4 and a starting Loyalty of 4
I'm thinking of following that pattern as well, keeping this first ability at +2 and the second as a +1 or +X and the third as a - and the ultimate maybe as a -8 (there other four have ultimates at -9,-10,-11 & -12).
I like your ideas, but I have some quick Q's about my understanding of your wording.
+2: Chandra deals 1 damage to up to 3 target creatures controlled by different players. Until your next turn those creatures must attack or block if able.
Essentially she is going the route of just pissing people off to get them to action, you can add a bit of empathy magic to her roster and we get her second ability.
For sake of clarity, I'm thinking of rewording it as:
+2: Chandra deals 1 damage to each of up to three target creatures, each controlled by a different player. Until your next turn those creatures lose defender if they have it and must attack or black if able.
So it is explicit then that you cannot do more damage than the number of players & synergizes with the defender subtheme in my cube.
+1:You may activate a loyalty ability on a target planeswalker other than Chandra as if you control that planeswalker and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.
I'm not certain you want the "As if you control" it makes the ability much better but isn't quite on theme of her inciting reckless behavior, though gameplay may have to trump flavor here.
I'm assuming that this ability without "as if you control that planeswalker" still lets you make choices on targetting with the planeswalker ability you activate. However, it does get ambiguous how to apply other stuff. For example, whenever the activate loyalty ability refers to "you" like in "You get an emblem", who would be the "you", you as the controller of Chandra or the player that controls the planeswalker that Chandra is messing with? What wording would clarify this?
-10: You get an emblem with "Whenever you or a permanent you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery an opponent controls, you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copy.
I just went with something big here that is still on theme. I don't really like this ultimate on her, though I do personally like this ultimate, this just probably isn't the home for it.
I can tweak this one a bit to fit Chandra's character on this card, but I think -10 is a bit steep compared to the relatively low loyalty cost/emblem power ratio on Chandra, Torch of Defiance. As mention at the top, I like to drop it to -8 (maybe offset the +2 ability loyalty gain by a optional loyalty loss, making the +2 in reality something more like +1.5 averaged per turn).
I hope this gives you an idea for a Chandra that utilizes empathy magic, its one of the most under utilized magics ever.
If I understand your reference to empathy magic, do you think it would matter if I had something where either you or other players too can look at the bottom X cards of another player's library (& can put back on bottom of library in any order)? The idea is that if you can look at another player's library, you get a better sense of how that deck works and your empathy level is heightened. But it wouldn't be interesting if one gets to see the whole library. So the question is what is minimal number of cards you get to see that would make this mechanic matter (more skill players likely need to see less than less skilled players)?
The removal of "as though you control" was to make the abilities that reference 'you' still apply to the walkers' controller, not Chandra's controller though it may be unneeded I'm not certain how you would treat this kind of effect. While unique and amusing it might be easier to just gain control of a walker until end of turn, to clear up this kind of confusion.
It probably is fine if you lower it to 8, I was rather conservative in the ultimate.
Looking at the bottom of the library doesn't really do much, for either player. Skilled players will already know what type of deck your playing and looking at the bottom will only tell them what cards you don't have, which while useful isn't the kind of bookkeeping you want in the game. While for unskilled players it is pointless but will feel important, so its just feel bad. For Empathy magic in game would be something along the lines of using your opponents resources for yourself, or as a limiting factor. Something like Reversal of Fortune can play in this space if you flavor it correctly, even Hive Mind can show how this power works. I think Chandra's ultimate would be better as something along these lines. Maybe even an opponent version of her old ultimate on Chandra, Pyromaster, though that might be too limited.
The removal of "as though you control" was to make the abilities that reference 'you' still apply to the walkers' controller, not Chandra's controller though it may be unneeded I'm not certain how you would treat this kind of effect. While unique and amusing it might be easier to just gain control of a walker until end of turn, to clear up this kind of confusion.
It probably is fine if you lower it to 8, I was rather conservative in the ultimate.
Looking at the bottom of the library doesn't really do much, for either player. Skilled players will already know what type of deck your playing and looking at the bottom will only tell them what cards you don't have, which while useful isn't the kind of bookkeeping you want in the game. While for unskilled players it is pointless but will feel important, so its just feel bad. For Empathy magic in game would be something along the lines of using your opponents resources for yourself, or as a limiting factor. Something like Reversal of Fortune can play in this space if you flavor it correctly, even Hive Mind can show how this power works. I think Chandra's ultimate would be better as something along these lines. Maybe even an opponent version of her old ultimate on Chandra, Pyromaster, though that might be too limited.
Here's my second shot at Chandra:
Chandra, Igneous Provocateur 2RR
+2: Chandra, Igneous Provocateur deals 1 damage to each of up to three target creatures controlled by different players. Until your next turn, those creatures must attack or block if able.
+1: You may activate a loyalty ability on target planeswalker other than Chandra Igneous Provocateur as if you controlled it and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn. -4: Chandra deals X damage to each creature, where X is the number of creatures on the battlefield. -X: Target player draws an additional X cards during that player’s next draw phase and then discards X cards, where X equals your life total. You control that player during that player’s next turn. -10: You get an emblem with "Whenever you or a permanent you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery an opponent controls, you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copy. -8: You get an emblem with “Whenever any opponent casts an instant or sorcery, you may copy that spell and choose new targets for the copy. Otherwise, put a backfire counter on this emblem and this emblem deals X damage to that opponent or a target creature he or she controls, where X equals the number of backfire counters on this emblem.”
{4}
The first & second abilities are like before, except extra clarifications made. I moved the direct damage ability from the third ability and wrapped it into the "ultimate". The third ability is now a semi-ultimate that is likely playable only when you are dramatically close to dying or you are so far ahead that it is a mercy kill (more likely the former than latter). If you are down to 4 life or less, Chandra becomes a super Mindslaver (how's that for empathy Magic?) and can swing the game around. Otherwise, it is more likely Chandra would stick around long enough to have the loyalty tokens to activate that -X ability. So the "ultimate" here is actually more like a third ability in other planeswalkers. The emblem lets you choose whether to copy instant/sorceries or have your opponents' instant/sorceries backfire in their face.
The play pattern with this Chandra is to accumulate loyalty counters (the +2) & annoy the hell out of other players, especially if they play planeswalkers. If they attack you and don't kill you or Chandra, it sets up the -X Mindslaver. Alternatively, if they ignore you, then you set up the emblem and blast away. That seems in character with the Igneous Provocateur title.
I'm not sure you can define X that way, and I'm not that much of a fan of the ability. Red shouldn't be controlling the opponents turn, forcing them to do things is acceptable, while I feel out right control of the turn shouldn't be red. Though I'm not sure how to go about forcing the opponent to do things without mountains of text, like Word of Command, if this ability could be keyworded or something, to massively lower the word count, this would be a wonderful ability on a small minus.
For her ultimate I don't like the choice here. If you just use the damage ability it makes for an interesting clock. While the copy ability might be fine if you make it double your stuff as well.
-8: You get an emblem with "Whenever an opponent casts a spell put a blaze counter on this emblem, then deal damage equal to the number of blaze counters on this emblem to target creature or player."
-8: You get an emblem with "Whenever a you or a creature you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for copy.
I'm not sure you can define X that way, and I'm not that much of a fan of the ability. Red shouldn't be controlling the opponents turn, forcing them to do things is acceptable, while I feel out right control of the turn shouldn't be red. Though I'm not sure how to go about forcing the opponent to do things without mountains of text, like Word of Command, if this ability could be keyworded or something, to massively lower the word count, this would be a wonderful ability on a small minus.
For her ultimate I don't like the choice here. If you just use the damage ability it makes for an interesting clock. While the copy ability might be fine if you make it double your stuff as well.
-8: You get an emblem with "Whenever an opponent casts a spell put a blaze counter on this emblem, then deal damage equal to the number of blaze counters on this emblem to target creature or player."
-8: You get an emblem with "Whenever a you or a creature you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for copy.
I guess sometime flavor is important enough to break the color pie in case of Mindslaver & Emrakul, the Promised End. The difference here may be the repeatable ability aspect.
In any case on to the next revision:
Chandra, Igneous Provocateur 2RR
+2: Chandra, Igneous Provocateur deals 1 damage to each of up to three target creatures controlled by different players. Until your next turn, those creatures must attack or block if able.
+1: You may activate a loyalty ability on target planeswalker other than Chandra Igneous Provocateur as if you controlled it and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn. -X: Target player draws an additional X cards during that player’s next draw phase and then discards X cards, where X equals your life total. You control that player during that player’s next turn. -3: Chandra, Igneous Provocateur deals damage equal to the number of untapped lands target opponent controls, divided as you choose among that opponent and any number of creatures he or she controls. Until your next turn, that opponent sacrifices a permanent for each unspent mana emptied from his or her mana pool. -8: You get an emblem with “Whenever any opponent casts an instant or sorcery, you may copy that spell and choose new targets for the copy. Otherwise, put a backfire counter on this emblem and this emblem deals X damage to that opponent or a target creature he or she controls, where X equals the number of backfire counters on this emblem.” -8: You get an emblem with "Whenever a you or a creature you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for copy.
{4}
Per your idea, the ultimate is a repeatable quasi-Fork.
The -X is changed to a -3 Rolling Thunder based on target opponent's untapped lands. This discourages control opponents from leaving all their mana open and in fact can flip the game if one player is disproportionate ahead in board state. Th addition of super-mana burn (sacrifice permanent) reinforces this -3 ability through your next turn.
That -3 is vicious, I love it. I don't think you need the unspent part because mana only empties from the mana pool if its unspent, when used for cost it is spent not emptied so it should be fine with just the word emptied. As a comparison to Torch of Defiance, yours is a lot more interesting, but I have no idea on powerlevel. That minus ability is vicious for a deck trying to get through a counter wall, while her pluses can wreak an aggro board stall or a control's late game. Honestly looking at her, her abilities are individually great and work together to build an interesting picture but they don't seem to work towards a specific strategy, I'm not sure if that is bad but it is worth pointing out.
That -3 is vicious, I love it. I don't think you need the unspent part because mana only empties from the mana pool if its unspent, when used for cost it is spent not emptied so it should be fine with just the word emptied. As a comparison to Torch of Defiance, yours is a lot more interesting, but I have no idea on powerlevel. That minus ability is vicious for a deck trying to get through a counter wall, while her pluses can wreak an aggro board stall or a control's late game. Honestly looking at her, her abilities are individually great and work together to build an interesting picture but they don't seem to work towards a specific strategy, I'm not sure if that is bad but it is worth pointing out.
Thinking about it a bit more, I believe that -3 may be a bit too vicious. Maybe I'm biased against control decks given a some frustrating experience. Just in case, I think it's better if cost is increased to -4 and damage is only dealt to player & not spread anyway you like to creatures as well.
Still, this version of Chandra may make Chandra, Torch of Defiance looke like a Planeswalker deck card (compare, Chandra, Pyrogenius). I rather think it is a more specialized version. Synergy among abilities may not be that important flavorwise since Chandra here is an agent of chaos. Makes sense she's chaotic in how she does it herself.
Wow I thought I commented on this a while ago...Anyway
Nissa is probably the strongest for combo potential, with Jace being the strongest for 'any deck'. Each of them might be above what Wizards would print in standard. And I forgot how unwieldy Jace's abilities are, that is a lot of text on just two abilities. Though Chandra's wall of text hits a bit harder it feels less complicated.
Chandra feels like a pretty heavy bend but I like the direction she has taken.
Various spelling and grammar:
Jace needs 'Where X is the discarded card's converted mana cost' as opposed to 'where X equals the converted mana cost of the discarded card' on both his abilities.
Liliana should read 'Each player puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard. Then each player loses 1 life for each card put into a graveyard this way' change 'from to of', and 'any to a'.
Nissa's ultimate should change from 'over twenty' to 'twenty or more'
Gideon's third ability says 'dealth' instead of 'dealt'
Chandra's ultimate needs the word 'spell' after 'instant or sorcery'
Wow I thought I commented on this a while ago...Anyway
Nissa is probably the strongest for combo potential, with Jace being the strongest for 'any deck'. Each of them might be above what Wizards would print in standard. And I forgot how unwieldy Jace's abilities are, that is a lot of text on just two abilities. Though Chandra's wall of text hits a bit harder it feels less complicated.
Chandra feels like a pretty heavy bend but I like the direction she has taken.
Various spelling and grammar:
Jace needs 'Where X is the discarded card's converted mana cost' as opposed to 'where X equals the converted mana cost of the discarded card' on both his abilities.
Liliana should read 'Each player puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard. Then each player loses 1 life for each card put into a graveyard this way' change 'from to of', and 'any to a'.
Nissa's ultimate should change from 'over twenty' to 'twenty or more'
Gideon's third ability says 'dealth' instead of 'dealt'
Chandra's ultimate needs the word 'spell' after 'instant or sorcery'
Sorry I did not finish this thread earlier. I went on vacation.
I really wish to thank you for all your patience and help for shaping this fifteen card cycle. Getting them to the current playtestable form wouldn't have been possible without your insight.
Balanced design is much harder than people believe and there are stil much room for improvement in the fifteen cards formulate thus far. So I'm going to reformat the OP to reflect what has been done so far in case others may be interested in contributing their voices as well. Hope you may jump in should anyone else comment later.
I'm going to admit that I came to this thread with less than ideal attitude. I think I was jealous that when I create a batch of cards (which I haven't done in a while, but I used to be a regular content creator here) it would be a struggle to get even a few critiques... (not that I wasn't thankful, I believe I always tried to say thanks)... nay, and here you got 100+ replies of feedback. So naturally, coming here and seeing "pretty girl artwork"... I was like "that's why"...
But, then I took the time to actually read through the cards and some of the discourse, and well, I feel my opinion has changed.
You've honestly created some interesting things here. There are some mechanics (magic "actions", maybe?) and things that I haven't quite seen.
While I can't comment on balance very well, I'm glad you had others to give feedback. You've also added some interesting flavor tweaks to the walkers that we know, so I feel you've contributed to the planeswalker mythos.
So, uh, nice job! I will try to be more open-minded in the future...
I'm going to admit that I came to this thread with less than ideal attitude. I think I was jealous that when I create a batch of cards (which I haven't done in a while, but I used to be a regular content creator here) it would be a struggle to get even a few critiques... (not that I wasn't thankful, I believe I always tried to say thanks)... nay, and here you got 100+ replies of feedback. So naturally, coming here and seeing "pretty girl artwork"... I was like "that's why"...
But, then I took the time to actually read through the cards and some of the discourse, and well, I feel my opinion has changed.
You've honestly created some interesting things here. There are some mechanics (magic "actions", maybe?) and things that I haven't quite seen.
While I can't comment on balance very well, I'm glad you had others to give feedback. You've also added some interesting flavor tweaks to the walkers that we know, so I feel you've contributed to the planeswalker mythos.
So, uh, nice job! I will try to be more open-minded in the future...
[blush]
Thank you very much for your kind compliments. I'm surprised myself at how long this thread ran from the first innocuous message asking for wording advice. The generic thread title likely didn't help attract reader either. It may be fortunate happenstance that user_938036 first replied here and the discussions resonated all the way through fifteen planeswalkers. Looking back, I'm a bit amazed at some of the ideas that came about, some wackier than others, but always interesting.
So I am quite flattered by your encouraging words. I really appreciate your sincerity. Particularly with your longevity and perspective about the game, your words carry quite an endorsement.
Thank you again and hope our interests in design may cross paths in the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
As you may be able to discern from the rendered image, I'm running out of space to write out anything longer for the ultimate ability. So some simplification may be in order.
KeMT is right about the exile vs color pie problem. I was so wrapped in the story & how Rashmi can send things into & out of the Blind Eternities (aka exile zone) that I overlooked the color problem. However, like user_938036, I have no problems with wiping out tokens for zero cost because that was Rashmi's specialization.
So I propose this version blink/steal:
Rashmi, Eternities Researcher
1GU
Planeswalker - Rashmi (M)
+1: Each player exiles the top card of his or her library. Choose a land card in exile, you may play it this turn.
-3: Create a tapped token that’s a copy of target nontoken nonland artifact you control.
-6: You get an emblem with “X: Exile target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery." and “X: Cast target face-up noninstant, nonsorcery card in exile with converted mana cost X or less. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."-6: You get an emblem with “X: Exile target creature or artifact with converted mana cost X or less. You may cast that exiled card & you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast it. Otherwise, return it to play under its owner's control at end of turn. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
{3}
The wording is very tricky and still too long. Any ideas?
Ever sense that color pie violation was pointed out I've been trying to reconcile it but without much effort. All fixes I've come up with are either convoluted or way too wordy. The problem with the first iteration is that neither green nor blue can get rid of creatures for nothing, which is why I suggested giving them mana which could be interesting but adds a ton of text to the ability and there is no more room. If you consolidate both abilities into one we might save space but wording it is tricky. I think the best fix is to add until end of turn on the exile, making it a slow blink, so it still allows you to steal the permanents if you have enough mana.
While the wording is awkward and not normally used cards like Banisher Priest set precedent for exiling with a duration, you're just making use of this in a new way, setting the duration to a time rather than tying it to an event. Also while it is good to stick to and fall back on what colors have done it is necessary to push what can be done on occasion, as long as you aren't undermining a weakness or dipping too deep into another colors core identity it is good to see how far you can stretch.
Back to KeMT, I understand you don't think you should be able to clear an opponents board without an investment but it can only clear a board of tokens and that is narrow enough to be allowed without breaking anything. Sure creatively tokens and nontokens aren't supposed to be different but because of the constant distinction and of rules cases like this they are treated differently even creatively.
I like your concise language, but it's the likely ambiguity from the cut text that troubles me.
Do you know of specific rules covering what happens to the card exiled by Banisher Prietst if it was removed from the exile zone somehow and then Banisher Priest leaves the battlefield?
My common sense makes me believe the previously-exiled card doesn't return to its controller then when Banisher Priest bits it, but I really don't know for sure. Having an written out "otherwise" or "if you do/don't" clause, even if repetitive, may be essential in absence of a specific rule to point to.
Your rewording is clearer, but it doesn't seem to shorten the thing as much I as I like.
Anyone object if I just drop the requirment to pay mana to cast the temporarily exiled creature/artifact?
If OK & using user_938036's wording, I have:
+6: You get an emblem with "X: Exile target nonland permanent with converted mana cost X or less until end of turn. You may cast that card without paying its mana cost. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
Another possible issue is it is OK to refer to target as permanent in the first sentence and then refer to it as card in the second sentence? In other words, it is sufficient clear under MtG wording practices to use "that card" in a second sentence when there is no "target card" in any preceding sentence?
If you are changing it to a flat out Control Magic for X that exiles first, then it does have to be limited to creatures and artifacts and you might have to add a colored mana but it should be fine. Though it does limit you to what is present, without access to other objects in exile.
There is precedent for referring to card types simply as cards later in abilities, Epic Experiment, your ability works as worded.
Weird just means there's plenty of fertile design space to explore. It never ceases to amaze me how far MtG has come since I cast my first creature (Grizzly Bear of all things) in fall of '93.
I want to thank both user_938036 & KeMT for all the interest & time focused on this topic. I never could have gotten so deep without your input.
Still, I'm not happy about the direction Rashmi has taken. A Control Magic/Control Artifact for an ultimate is so blah. The key to preserve is what you hinted at, accessing other objects in exile. So here's another revisions for consideration (long again, but unavoidable considering the color pie problem):
-6: You get an emblem with “Whenever a card is put back into its owner’s hand from the battlefield or on top or bottom of its owner’s library from anywhere, exile it instead.” and “X: Cast target face-up noninstant, nonsorcery card in exile with converted mana cost X or less. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery."
This means Rashmi doesn't do the exiling all by herself. She merely amplifies traditional blue/green card/deck manipulation (e.g., Scry, Into the Roil, Anchor to the AEther, Commune with Nature, Primal Command, etc.). She can then cast stuff from exile using any mana (the X part, a green portfolio thing).
Thoughts?
Still I want to capture the flavor of her opening up the blind eternities giving you access to everything that has been lost there.
This cleans up a lot of the problems but allows you to play instants and sorcerys, but doesn't infinite loop, as well as allowing you to play them on opponents turns, though that can be turned off by adding "On your turn" to the permission to cast from exile. I had originally had "You may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to cast cards from exile" but it seems unneeded because she already gets you your opponents lands so you should have access to the colored mana needed, and it added a lot of text which was the main thing I was trying to cut down. From the color pie side I'm a lot happier with this version, flavor and function I preferred her other ult but it had some problems.
I like this much shorter version, but will add in the "On your turn" limiter. Of concern if that she can now play instants and sorceries previously exiled with her +1 ("+1: Each player exiles the top card of his or her library. Choose a land card in exile, you may play it this turn."). Maybe we can come back to this possible issue on another completion review (whenever another pair of fresh eyes to look the whole set over). So I'll re-render Rashmi with your text.
Now on to our last 4-ability planeswalker (well, maybe next to last since I'm think of doing an alternate version of Chandra)!
Liliana, the Dark Mistress
2BB
+2: Each player discards a card. You gain 1 life for each creature card discarded this way.
+1: You may exile one target creature card from any graveyard. If you do, create a tapped 2/2 black Zombie creature token.
-4: Destroy target creature or planeswalker.
-10: Search your library for all creature cards and put them in your graveyard. You get an emblem with "At the beginning of your upkeep, if twenty or more creatures are in your graveyard, you win the game."
{4}
Consider this form a starting point because she is mostly a blah sandwich right now. I'm open to suggestions if anyone has like to have any particular flavor implemented (that it will give me some idea what specialization this Liliana may lean towards).
That Liliana is a bad design from the start. Let me start over with a new theme in mind.
Liliana, the Dark Mistress
2BB
+2: Each player discards a card. Each player loses 1 life for each card discarded this way.
+1: You may activate an loyalty ability on a target planeswalker other than Liliana, the Dark Mistress as if you control that planeswalker and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.
0: Destroy target creature or planeswalker. Remove a number of loyalty counters from Liliana, the Dark Mistress equal to the converted mana cost of the destroyed target.
-10: You get an emblem with “You don’t lose the game for having 0 or less life if you have any cards in your graveyard.”
{4}
Liliana, the Dark Mistress is a seductress. Her charm makes others drop their guard (the +2 ability). On occasions she comes across other planeswalkers, she can manipulate them to do her bidding (the +1 ability). She gains other trusts long enough to get in close to finish them (the 0 ability). She is patient and play the long game with her unnatural agelessness (the ultimate).
I think this version is much more interesting than the previous. What do you think?
While its stronger you might want to consider
This fits better with her personal theme, is slightly stronger, and plays in the same flux space as her +2.
I really like the idea of her +1 but it doesn't feel black at all. This effect seems red and would go great on the RG walker you made earlier, in future incarnations. I would personally like to see her make Zombies regularly, but not sure how to go about it here.
As I said her Ult is beautiful, it perfectly captures the Lich feel or taking on her curse with her, not sure if she would/could do this but I love it. If it is too broken then you need the method for dying similar to Immortal Coil.
It might not be needed but safety valves are useful to keep on hand.
Absent the obvious graveyard-hate or some alternative victory condition (specific cards or poison counters), the only existing way left for opponent to win against the ultimate is to deck/mill you. So to balance the ultimate more, I want to increase the cost from -10 to -11 and add library burn to Liliana's other abilities. The idea is that, by the time you ultimate with her, you likely burned a bigger chunk of your library than your opponent has. It then becomes a question of whether your opponent can survive long enough against Liliana's horde. This way it actually puts the impetus on you to attack (& opponents on all-out defense) instead of sitting on your ultimate to do the work (the case with most other planeswalkers' ultimates). This twist makes the ultimate as currently worded even more intriguing.
So here are the changes:
Liliana, the Dark Mistress
2BB
+2: Each player
discards a cardputs the top card from his or her library into his or her graveyard. Each player loses 1 life for each carddiscardedput into any graveyard this way.+1: You may activate an loyalty ability on a target planeswalker other than Liliana, the Dark Mistress as if you control that planeswalker and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.+1: Put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard and then exile a card from your graveyard. Create a tapped 2/2 Zombie creature token.
0: Destroy target creature or planeswalker. Remove a number of loyalty counters from Liliana, the Dark Mistress equal to the converted mana cost of the destroyed target.0: Each player sacrifices a creature. Remove a loyalty counter from Liliana for each creature sacrificed this way.
-10-11: You get an emblem with “You don’t lose the game for having 0 or less life if you have any cards in your graveyard.”{4}
So now both + abilities are fueled by cards from your library, which flavorwise represents your magical power (part of your phylactery when you become a lich with the ultimate). So if you're a lich & you lose either your library or graveyard wiped out (two parts of your phylactery), you die.
As for the stricken-out +1 that lets you use another planeswalker for a turn, I'll recycle it for my redo of Chandra, Torch of Defiance (we did 4 custom ones already, might as well complete the cycle as our own). Only thing is the flavor seems a bit awkward with Chandra.
EDIT: I just thought of something. What cards/mechanisms are there that cycle individual cards (not the entire graveyard) from your graveyard back into your library?
Either ability is probably fine, but it feels better if she needs a creature to make the zombie.
Done! We completed Liliana faster than I thought after that awful first draw.
However, I'm a bit burned out after doing 14 planeswalkers in little over a month. With one last one to go, all I can really think of right now is a general idea what a new Chandra may be.
I call this new planeswalker Chandra, Igneous Provocateur. Her most recent experience with the Consulate has reinforced her distaste for state authority. She is willing to promote anarchistic efforts to break bonds of authority, even if she's not able to openly act. Thus, she is an agent of chaos & her abilities should reflect it.
However, I don't have an exact idea which abilities & costs. All I have is a list of some ability ideas:
I thank you for sticking with me so long. Your voice has been invaluable.
Essentially she is going the route of just pissing people off to get them to action, you can add a bit of empathy magic to her roster and we get her second ability.
I'm not certain you want the "As if you control" it makes the ability much better but isn't quite on theme of her inciting reckless behavior, though gameplay may have to trump flavor here.
At heart she is still a pyromancer, but now she lets other's hate and anger fuel her flames.
I just went with something big here that is still on theme. I don't really like this ultimate on her, though I do personally like this ultimate, this just probably isn't the home for it.
I hope this gives you an idea for a Chandra that utilizes empathy magic, its one of the most under utilized magics ever.
I'm thinking of following that pattern as well, keeping this first ability at +2 and the second as a +1 or +X and the third as a - and the ultimate maybe as a -8 (there other four have ultimates at -9,-10,-11 & -12).
I like your ideas, but I have some quick Q's about my understanding of your wording.
For sake of clarity, I'm thinking of rewording it as:
+2: Chandra deals 1 damage to each of up to three target creatures, each controlled by a different player. Until your next turn those creatures lose defender if they have it and must attack or black if able.
So it is explicit then that you cannot do more damage than the number of players & synergizes with the defender subtheme in my cube.
I'm assuming that this ability without "as if you control that planeswalker" still lets you make choices on targetting with the planeswalker ability you activate. However, it does get ambiguous how to apply other stuff. For example, whenever the activate loyalty ability refers to "you" like in "You get an emblem", who would be the "you", you as the controller of Chandra or the player that controls the planeswalker that Chandra is messing with? What wording would clarify this?
I can tweak this one a bit to fit Chandra's character on this card, but I think -10 is a bit steep compared to the relatively low loyalty cost/emblem power ratio on Chandra, Torch of Defiance. As mention at the top, I like to drop it to -8 (maybe offset the +2 ability loyalty gain by a optional loyalty loss, making the +2 in reality something more like +1.5 averaged per turn).
If I understand your reference to empathy magic, do you think it would matter if I had something where either you or other players too can look at the bottom X cards of another player's library (& can put back on bottom of library in any order)? The idea is that if you can look at another player's library, you get a better sense of how that deck works and your empathy level is heightened. But it wouldn't be interesting if one gets to see the whole library. So the question is what is minimal number of cards you get to see that would make this mechanic matter (more skill players likely need to see less than less skilled players)?
The removal of "as though you control" was to make the abilities that reference 'you' still apply to the walkers' controller, not Chandra's controller though it may be unneeded I'm not certain how you would treat this kind of effect. While unique and amusing it might be easier to just gain control of a walker until end of turn, to clear up this kind of confusion.
It probably is fine if you lower it to 8, I was rather conservative in the ultimate.
Looking at the bottom of the library doesn't really do much, for either player. Skilled players will already know what type of deck your playing and looking at the bottom will only tell them what cards you don't have, which while useful isn't the kind of bookkeeping you want in the game. While for unskilled players it is pointless but will feel important, so its just feel bad. For Empathy magic in game would be something along the lines of using your opponents resources for yourself, or as a limiting factor. Something like Reversal of Fortune can play in this space if you flavor it correctly, even Hive Mind can show how this power works. I think Chandra's ultimate would be better as something along these lines. Maybe even an opponent version of her old ultimate on Chandra, Pyromaster, though that might be too limited.
Here's my second shot at Chandra:
Chandra, Igneous Provocateur
2RR
+2: Chandra, Igneous Provocateur deals 1 damage to each of up to three target creatures controlled by different players. Until your next turn, those creatures must attack or block if able.
+1: You may activate a loyalty ability on target planeswalker other than Chandra Igneous Provocateur as if you controlled it and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.
-4: Chandra deals X damage to each creature, where X is the number of creatures on the battlefield.-X: Target player draws an additional X cards during that player’s next draw phase and then discards X cards, where X equals your life total. You control that player during that player’s next turn.
-10: You get an emblem with "Whenever you or a permanent you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery an opponent controls, you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for the copy.-8: You get an emblem with “Whenever any opponent casts an instant or sorcery, you may copy that spell and choose new targets for the copy. Otherwise, put a backfire counter on this emblem and this emblem deals X damage to that opponent or a target creature he or she controls, where X equals the number of backfire counters on this emblem.”
{4}
The first & second abilities are like before, except extra clarifications made. I moved the direct damage ability from the third ability and wrapped it into the "ultimate". The third ability is now a semi-ultimate that is likely playable only when you are dramatically close to dying or you are so far ahead that it is a mercy kill (more likely the former than latter). If you are down to 4 life or less, Chandra becomes a super Mindslaver (how's that for empathy Magic?) and can swing the game around. Otherwise, it is more likely Chandra would stick around long enough to have the loyalty tokens to activate that -X ability. So the "ultimate" here is actually more like a third ability in other planeswalkers. The emblem lets you choose whether to copy instant/sorceries or have your opponents' instant/sorceries backfire in their face.
The play pattern with this Chandra is to accumulate loyalty counters (the +2) & annoy the hell out of other players, especially if they play planeswalkers. If they attack you and don't kill you or Chandra, it sets up the -X Mindslaver. Alternatively, if they ignore you, then you set up the emblem and blast away. That seems in character with the Igneous Provocateur title.
What do you think?
For her ultimate I don't like the choice here. If you just use the damage ability it makes for an interesting clock. While the copy ability might be fine if you make it double your stuff as well.
I guess sometime flavor is important enough to break the color pie in case of Mindslaver & Emrakul, the Promised End. The difference here may be the repeatable ability aspect.
In any case on to the next revision:
Chandra, Igneous Provocateur
2RR
+2: Chandra, Igneous Provocateur deals 1 damage to each of up to three target creatures controlled by different players. Until your next turn, those creatures must attack or block if able.
+1: You may activate a loyalty ability on target planeswalker other than Chandra Igneous Provocateur as if you controlled it and as though none of that planeswalker’s loyalty abilities have been activated this turn.
-X: Target player draws an additional X cards during that player’s next draw phase and then discards X cards, where X equals your life total. You control that player during that player’s next turn.-3: Chandra, Igneous Provocateur deals damage equal to the number of untapped lands target opponent controls, divided as you choose among that opponent and any number of creatures he or she controls. Until your next turn, that opponent sacrifices a permanent for each unspent mana emptied from his or her mana pool.
-8: You get an emblem with “Whenever any opponent casts an instant or sorcery, you may copy that spell and choose new targets for the copy. Otherwise, put a backfire counter on this emblem and this emblem deals X damage to that opponent or a target creature he or she controls, where X equals the number of backfire counters on this emblem.”-8: You get an emblem with "Whenever a you or a creature you control becomes the target of a instant or sorcery you may copy that spell. You may choose new targets for copy.
{4}
Per your idea, the ultimate is a repeatable quasi-Fork.
The -X is changed to a -3 Rolling Thunder based on target opponent's untapped lands. This discourages control opponents from leaving all their mana open and in fact can flip the game if one player is disproportionate ahead in board state. Th addition of super-mana burn (sacrifice permanent) reinforces this -3 ability through your next turn.
How do think this version of Chandra compares to Chandra, Torch of Defiance?
Thinking about it a bit more, I believe that -3 may be a bit too vicious. Maybe I'm biased against control decks given a some frustrating experience. Just in case, I think it's better if cost is increased to -4 and damage is only dealt to player & not spread anyway you like to creatures as well.
Still, this version of Chandra may make Chandra, Torch of Defiance looke like a Planeswalker deck card (compare, Chandra, Pyrogenius). I rather think it is a more specialized version. Synergy among abilities may not be that important flavorwise since Chandra here is an agent of chaos. Makes sense she's chaotic in how she does it herself.
Now we have done all five mono colored quad ability Gatewatch planewalkers. I have rendered them below:
How do you think they compare to one another? Weakest? Strongest? Under/Over-Powered?
Nissa is probably the strongest for combo potential, with Jace being the strongest for 'any deck'. Each of them might be above what Wizards would print in standard. And I forgot how unwieldy Jace's abilities are, that is a lot of text on just two abilities. Though Chandra's wall of text hits a bit harder it feels less complicated.
Chandra feels like a pretty heavy bend but I like the direction she has taken.
Various spelling and grammar:
Jace needs 'Where X is the discarded card's converted mana cost' as opposed to 'where X equals the converted mana cost of the discarded card' on both his abilities.
Liliana should read 'Each player puts the top card of his or her library into his or her graveyard. Then each player loses 1 life for each card put into a graveyard this way' change 'from to of', and 'any to a'.
Nissa's ultimate should change from 'over twenty' to 'twenty or more'
Gideon's third ability says 'dealth' instead of 'dealt'
Chandra's ultimate needs the word 'spell' after 'instant or sorcery'
Sorry I did not finish this thread earlier. I went on vacation.
I really wish to thank you for all your patience and help for shaping this fifteen card cycle. Getting them to the current playtestable form wouldn't have been possible without your insight.
Balanced design is much harder than people believe and there are stil much room for improvement in the fifteen cards formulate thus far. So I'm going to reformat the OP to reflect what has been done so far in case others may be interested in contributing their voices as well. Hope you may jump in should anyone else comment later.
I'm going to admit that I came to this thread with less than ideal attitude. I think I was jealous that when I create a batch of cards (which I haven't done in a while, but I used to be a regular content creator here) it would be a struggle to get even a few critiques... (not that I wasn't thankful, I believe I always tried to say thanks)... nay, and here you got 100+ replies of feedback. So naturally, coming here and seeing "pretty girl artwork"... I was like "that's why"...
But, then I took the time to actually read through the cards and some of the discourse, and well, I feel my opinion has changed.
You've honestly created some interesting things here. There are some mechanics (magic "actions", maybe?) and things that I haven't quite seen.
While I can't comment on balance very well, I'm glad you had others to give feedback. You've also added some interesting flavor tweaks to the walkers that we know, so I feel you've contributed to the planeswalker mythos.
So, uh, nice job! I will try to be more open-minded in the future...
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4557651&postcount=1
TheWarden's Creative Commons Music Pick Project (Retired):
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=336498
[blush]
Thank you very much for your kind compliments. I'm surprised myself at how long this thread ran from the first innocuous message asking for wording advice. The generic thread title likely didn't help attract reader either. It may be fortunate happenstance that user_938036 first replied here and the discussions resonated all the way through fifteen planeswalkers. Looking back, I'm a bit amazed at some of the ideas that came about, some wackier than others, but always interesting.
So I am quite flattered by your encouraging words. I really appreciate your sincerity. Particularly with your longevity and perspective about the game, your words carry quite an endorsement.
Thank you again and hope our interests in design may cross paths in the future.