Reincarnation (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if this card is in your graveyard, you may return it to the battlefield attached to that creature. So long as this card remains attached, that creature gains all abilities of this card and gets +X/+X, where X is this card's base power and toughness.)
1.) This doesn't need to be an aura. Aura is specific to the card's it's assigned to as descriptive context (providing flavor first-most; and additional interactivity second-most; which is not always necessary).
2.) Not saying this is unique or never been thought of before, but I would imagine it great a great ability for smaller creatures mostly; enabling a Rebound-like double-play.
And of course,
Tormented Hulk1GG Creature — Human Beast
Reincarnation (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if this card is in your graveyard, you may return it to the battlefield attached to that creature. So long as this card remains attached, that creature gains all abilities of this card and gets +X/+Y, where X is this card's base power and Y is its toughness.)
Tormented Hulk gets -5/-5. "Tenacity is only as relative as strength; yet both are crushed by volume; a death by degrees; in this vacuum of time and space that has no value but we call life." —Thanos the Mad Titan
8/8
Geiaz Gauntlet5 Legendary Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature loses all abilities or gains an additional instance of each ability it has.
Equip C
This feels like a triggered ability version of Scavenge (see Deadbridge Goliath). There is a kernel of an interesting mechanic here, but its current form has both rules and balance problems.
From a rules standpoint, your ability actually would need to make the card become an Aura or something else, as your current wording puts the creature card into play (meaning it is a creature) and a creature cannot be attached to another creature. You could either reframe the ability to work like a Bestow variant, or a Haunt variant and solve the "creature attached to creature" problem.
From a gameplay and balance standpoint, the card should be exiled when the ability is used, or else it can keep recurring over and over again.
Your example card (aside of the rules issues) is incredibly overpowered. One could on turn 1, play a Mountain, discard this card to a Faithless Looting and then cast an Ornithopther and have an 8/9 flyer, or a 16/17 if they managed to discard two.
I was going to have the trigger, "When this creature dies..."
However, it seems like it wanted to things this way, as a closer tribute to the concept.
Comp rules easily hammers out the technicalities of this card being attached to another card (without ever having to give it another type); and can also easily rule that a card attached this way is exiled if removed or otherwise would be put into a graveyard.
Since there is only like an 8% chance of pulling that combo with Pocket Hulks in your opening hand to perform on turn 1, I don't think it was worth addressing. Even with just 1 Hulk the chance is still like 12% or something. You could add lots of other 0 cost creatures, draw/discard, but you're still not building a game winning strategy from that. It still dies to removal, and Lightning Greaves will extend the time range, and plummet the probability even lower.
Comp rules easily hammers out the technicalities of this card being attached to another card (without ever having to give it another type); and can also easily rule that a card attached this way is exiled if removed or otherwise would be put into a graveyard.
They also can solve this much more easily by giving it the aura type so that is what will happen. I know you feel you can hand wave away any problem by saying the rules can be rewritten to handle it. However, a good designer has to ask themselves(or someone who knows how to the rules work) "How can what I want to do be done in the current framework" then They ask "is there a better way to do this". Only a bad designer starts with "the rules will bend around my idea."
Since there is only like an 8% chance of pulling that combo with Pocket Hulks in your opening hand to perform on turn 1, I don't think it was worth addressing. Even with just 1 Hulk the chance is still like 12% or something. You could add lots of other 0 cost creatures, draw/discard, but you're still not building a game winning strategy from that. It still dies to removal, and Lightning Greaves will extend the time range, and plummet the probability even lower.
There are many problems with this mindset and none of them are related to your actual card.
The problem is the mechanic itself. It needs a cost or the problem they pointed out will occur because you are proposing a mechanic, not a single card. meaning there will be a number of cards with this ability and it would be easy to discard a few on turn 1 or 2 and get a huge creature for "free". Or you create the limitations of these being no bigger than 2/2 so thst isn't a problem.
There are many problems with this mindset and none of them are related to your actual card.
The problem is the mechanic itself. It needs a cost or the problem they pointed out will occur because you are proposing a mechanic, not a single card. meaning there will be a number of cards with this ability and it would be easy to discard a few on turn 1 or 2 and get a huge creature for "free". Or you create the limitations of these being no bigger than 2/2 so thst isn't a problem.
Only it's doesn't need a cost—because you can't build a winning strategy at the beginning of the game with the notion pitched due to the probability factor. Probability is a significant aspect in development. It will see things succeed whose properties succeed within its natural container. You will not have to adjust anything. But more importantly, will see things fail unless implemented around properly. I have given a graphic example of this in the past, with the set of lands that only work when the range is increased to allow 6 copies of them in the deck.
Now what we have here is a very special work-around with the factor of probability, it enables us to do something dynamic and open source, because the factor of probability works with us as a limiter to allow it.
With that said, this would be a fair design:
Geiaz Gauntlet2 Artifact — Equipment
If equipped creature would get -X/-X, it gets +X/+X instead.
Equip 0
However, it's not to say this is the way it wants to be done. I would suggest this effect wants to be more interactive and not just blah.
Hostile Impositions2C Enchantment
If a creature would get -X/-X, flip a coin. If heads, that creature gets +X/+X instead. Otherwise, that creature gets double -X/-X instead.
Now, I am not against revision of the keyword, or that a cost could be assigned to the functionality. I just want to make a clear point that this is not needed; as neither is the Aura type. In fact, adding that type could botch the flavor-dynamics, and opens up functionality that this doesn't want to have; but wants to be more solid state than this would create.
Tormented Hulk giving a creature +8/+8 and -5/-5 is weird. Why not just make it a 3/3? Or have the -5/-5 be conditional. Pretty interesting mechanic idea but without any costs associated with it, it's too repeatable, fast, and free to not be absurdly broken.
Grumpy Nalfeshnee1BB
Creature - Demon
Flying
Infectious Surge 2BB (Exile this from your graveyard: Put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to this card's power on target creature spell. It keeps those counters when it resolves.)
When you activate the Infectious Surge of Grumpy Nalfeshnee, put a flying counter on target creature spell.
Only it's doesn't need a cost—because you can't build a winning strategy at the beginning of the game with the notion pitched due to the probability factor. Probability is a significant aspect in development. It will see things succeed whose properties succeed within its natural container. You will not have to adjust anything. But more importantly, will see things fail unless implemented around properly. I have given a graphic example of this in the past, with the set of lands that only work when the range is increased to allow 6 copies of them in the deck.
Now, I am not against revision of the keyword, or that a cost could be assigned to the functionality. I just want to make a clear point that this is not needed; as neither is the Aura type. In fact, adding that type could botch the flavor-dynamics, and opens up functionality that this doesn't want to have; but wants to be more solid state than this would create.
There is so much wrong here that I can only conclude that you don't know what most of the words you used mean. Because you are obviously lacking is comprehension skills ill try to be as simple as possible.
This ability isn't bad, but it is unreasonably difficult to balance because you didn't put a cost in its activation. Your proposed card while strange isn't a problem because spending multiple resources to get a few 'free' +3/+3 auras on a creature isn't significant. However, the ability is a problem because getting a few +5/+5 auras or anything higher is significant. This is why I said you either make it cost something or you are forced by the design of the ability to only put this on small creatures.
Your lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept that your design has obvious problems can't be handwaved away by using words you obviously don't know the meaning of. Fortunately, others here see that this is an interesting ability and can engage in a discussion of its pros and cons. Honestly, it would do your design a disservice for you to continue in the discussion as you don't understand how the game works and actively discourage people from fixing your mistakes.
Only it's doesn't need a cost—because you can't build a winning strategy at the beginning of the game with the notion pitched due to the probability factor. Probability is a significant aspect in development. It will see things succeed whose properties succeed within its natural container. You will not have to adjust anything. But more importantly, will see things fail unless implemented around properly. I have given a graphic example of this in the past, with the set of lands that only work when the range is increased to allow 6 copies of them in the deck.
Now, I am not against revision of the keyword, or that a cost could be assigned to the functionality. I just want to make a clear point that this is not needed; as neither is the Aura type. In fact, adding that type could botch the flavor-dynamics, and opens up functionality that this doesn't want to have; but wants to be more solid state than this would create.
There is so much wrong here that I can only conclude that you don't know what most of the words you used mean. Because you are obviously lacking is comprehension skills ill try to be as simple as possible.
This ability isn't bad, but it is unreasonably difficult to balance because you didn't put a cost in its activation. Your proposed card while strange isn't a problem because spending multiple resources to get a few 'free' +3/+3 auras on a creature isn't significant. However, the ability is a problem because getting a few +5/+5 auras or anything higher is significant. This is why I said you either make it cost something or you are forced by the design of the ability to only put this on small creatures.
Your lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept that your design has obvious problems can't be handwaved away by using words you obviously don't know the meaning of. Fortunately, others here see that this is an interesting ability and can engage in a discussion of its pros and cons. Honestly, it would do your design a disservice for you to continue in the discussion as you don't understand how the game works and actively discourage people from fixing your mistakes.
I think you're just mad that I made you think in a higher level of detail—and your pride feels rustled.
It's free form, open source, but still balanced. Exile can be written into the comp rules. Probability is a major factor in balance. Some things would be ideal, but they can't/won't be reality due to factors like probability. Let's just take this information and see what we can do with it for ourselves.
Notice; this also relays how it doesn't necessarily matter how cheap and powerful a card/combo is; so long as the literature is so deep and evocative that it brings the fantasy to life.
For the record, I am aware that Geiaz Gauntlet is broken with Devoted Druid. I explicitly notioned the context meaning, probability sees that even this card would be perfectly balanced (as apart of a multi-card combo that's too improbable to put together for a win on turn one with Reincarnation/Tormented Hulk).
With that said,
I would suggest simply banning Devoted Druid (which is basically deadspace anyways) outside of Block Constructed formats for the Gauntlet, rather than change the Gauntlet any; although there are a lot of other cards it becomes ridiculously powerful with (even if was composed to only work in cases where there is a double negative value; and not one positive and one negative).
Reap, since you have demonstrated an unwillingness to people's polite feedback, I'll just be direct: You come up with creative card ideas, but you are terrible at execution. Further, your desire for the game and everyone else's experience to conform solely to your will is an act of ego that stymies your ability to improve as a designer.
If you want to keep designing cards that work "how you feel like they should", or need to rewrite the comp rules, or ignore game balance, fine, but you're just designing silver-bordered cards that can live in the company of Sauté and AWOL. If you want to design actual cards like people might want to play with, listen to the feedback you are given, iterate and improve.
If everyone is consistently telling you that you are wrong about the same things, they aren't the problem. You are. Once you realize this, your designs will improve and start getting the actual positive feedback you currently seem to expect without merit.
Th originally proposed ability is pretty much Haunt, but spelled out a little differently.
Tormented Hulk1GG Creature — Human Beast
Haunt (Whenever this creature dies, exile it haunting target creature.)
The creature haunted by ~ gets +3/+3.
3/3
Edit: I thought the intention was to have it shrink itself on the field, but give the full +8/+8 when it reincarnates. But I see now that, as written, it gives the reincarnated creature both +8/+8 and -5/-5?
Seeing as this is an interesting ability with a reasonable amount of design space how should it be balanced? As is its not balancable. Drop the p/t bonus? Add a cost? Both options are interesting but their are even more points to consider. Should this exile or be reusable?
The way its works I see it as Shaman King style oversouls. However I don't think an execution that captures that is reasonable. Instead I'll initially opt for a kicker like extra cost and make it a once time use.
Sword Saint 1WW
Creature - Human Warrior
First Strike, Vigilance, Lifelink
Oversoul(Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control you may pay ~'s mana cost. If you do, exile ~ from your graveyard. That creature gains all abilities of ~ and gets +X/+Y where X is ~'s power and Y is its toughness.)
2/2
Is this too restrained? Should the cost be uncoupled from the cards cost? Should it be reusable? Is it overly complicated?
Th originally proposed ability is pretty much Haunt, but spelled out a little differently.
Tormented Hulk1GG Creature — Human Beast
Haunt (Whenever this creature dies, exile it haunting target creature.)
The creature haunted by ~ gets +3/+3.
3/3
Edit: I thought the intention was to have it shrink itself on the field, but give the full +8/+8 when it reincarnates. But I see now that, as written, it gives the reincarnated creature both +8/+8 and -5/-5?
Seeing as this is an interesting ability with a reasonable amount of design space how should it be balanced? As is its not balancable. Drop the p/t bonus? Add a cost? Both options are interesting but their are even more points to consider. Should this exile or be reusable?
The way its works I see it as Shaman King style oversouls. However I don't think an execution that captures that is reasonable. Instead I'll initially opt for a kicker like extra cost and make it a once time use.
Sword Saint 1WW
Creature - Human Warrior
First Strike, Vigilance, Lifelink
Oversoul(Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control you may pay ~'s mana cost. If you do, exile ~ from your graveyard. That creature gains all abilities of ~ and gets +X/+Y where X is ~'s power and Y is its toughness.)
2/2
Is this too restrained? Should the cost be uncoupled from the cards cost? Should it be reusable? Is it overly complicated?
Having to pay the mana cost puts it over the top. It's too expensive to be interesting now.
So... haven't posted in one of these threads for a while so let me elaborate.
While I see and somewhat understand your argument about "probability", that argument is shut down by Anticipated Volume in this case.
The Bestow ability appears on 35 different creatures
The Mutate ability appears on 34 different creatures
The Scavenge ability appears on 11 different creatures
The Haunt ability appears on 10 different cards
This one card, in a vacuum, is "exciting" but might not be entirely broken. The odds of getting several copies of this one card in your opening hand are relatively low. Most posters on this board, however, aren't looking at this card in the context of only one reincarnating creature existing. Instead, we see that this is a keyword ability and extrapolate the presence of 10+ creatures with this keyword if it were ever to be printed in a set. If there were 10 or more cards with reincarnation, creating a deck filled with free or cheap discard outlets (faithless looting, Noose Constrictor, Putrid Imp, etc.) and a whole lot of reincarnating creatures would GREATLY increase the chance of that line of play.
As far as other considerations:
1. The comprehensive rules has never been used (at least to my knowledge) to contain unwritten rules for a keyword as large as a change in zone. If you want a reincarnated card to exile itself upon leaving the battlefield, you should add that to the reminder text.
2. Going into the realm of anticipated volume once more, I would argue that it is very odd, flavorwise, that multiple cards with reincarnation can all be "reincarnated" as a single creature (which also causes power concerns). You may want to add ",if no other creatures are attached to it," as an intervening clause in the ability so each creature can only be the reincarnated form of one other creature.
So... haven't posted in one of these threads for a while so let me elaborate.
While I see and somewhat understand your argument about "probability", that argument is shut down by Anticipated Volume in this case.
The Bestow ability appears on 35 different creatures
The Mutate ability appears on 34 different creatures
The Scavenge ability appears on 11 different creatures
The Haunt ability appears on 10 different cards
This one card, in a vacuum, is "exciting" but might not be entirely broken. The odds of getting several copies of this one card in your opening hand are relatively low. Most posters on this board, however, aren't looking at this card in the context of only one reincarnating creature existing. Instead, we see that this is a keyword ability and extrapolate the presence of 10+ creatures with this keyword if it were ever to be printed in a set. If there were 10 or more cards with reincarnation, creating a deck filled with free or cheap discard outlets (faithless looting, Noose Constrictor, Putrid Imp, etc.) and a whole lot of reincarnating creatures would GREATLY increase the chance of that line of play.
As far as other considerations:
1. The comprehensive rules has never been used (at least to my knowledge) to contain unwritten rules for a keyword as large as a change in zone. If you want a reincarnated card to exile itself upon leaving the battlefield, you should add that to the reminder text.
2. Going into the realm of anticipated volume once more, I would argue that it is very odd, flavorwise, that multiple cards with reincarnation can all be "reincarnated" as a single creature (which also causes power concerns). You may want to add ",if no other creatures are attached to it," as an intervening clause in the ability so each creature can only be the reincarnated form of one other creature.
You still wouldn't be able to build a winning strategy around something that dies to removal. Removing that condition ups the probability, because it requires additional resources. You could print 100 cards with reincarnate. It doesn't matter. You're crushed by the volume of game influence, and the resource overhead of probability, trying to counter that influence with other cards.
There's a reason Oath of Druids is what it is. And it undeniably wouldn't be so if it required two other cards to do what it does.
I would suggest, "Exile this card if it would leave the battlefield this way." to the end, as an alternative fix for the 'unwritten law' issue; if you must.
Reincarnation (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if this card is in your graveyard, you may pay . If you do, return this card to the battlefield attached to that creature. As long as this card remains attached, that creature gains all abilities of this card and gets +X/+X, where X is this card's base power and toughness. Exile this card if it would leave the battlefield this way.)
Even this—and it becomes too wordy, and you mine as well not bother with it anymore.
I would suggest reserving the keyword for very special releases now and again, to preserve the force majure.
Even this—and it becomes too wordy, and you mine as well not bother with it anymore.
It seems that you have located a real problem there.
If a keyword's actual functioning would require more text than could neatly fit onto a magic card, I will happily admit that there is a problem with that situation. Your response to this practical limitation appears to be shoving the "overflow text" into the comprehensive rules, however, which 1) does not really have any precedent and 2) virtually every other poster here keeps saying is a bad idea.
Rather than finding a way to MAKE the ability work as you intend, I would think that the natural conclusion is that the ability DOES NOT WORK as you want it to. If a new ability requires so much wording and caveats to make it work "just so" and none of the simpler alternatives work, the simple truth may be that the ability is ill-fitted for the medium.
While I applaud your creativity, I feel that the space available on the actual cardboard is a practical limitation that should ultimately be adhered to. In fact, I have a recent video link reporting why using keywords as "short-hand" for long text held in a comprehensive rulebook (AKA without reminder text on the card) can be deleterious to the long-term health of a collectable card game.
I would suggest reserving the keyword for very special releases now and again, to preserve the force majure.
This is the sort of communication problem that I have run into on these threads now and again. You post something that is intended to go against certain norms (EX: creating a mechanic that is meant to be used very sparingly) and do not specifically state that you are doing so until midway through the thread, leading everyone who sees the thread sooner to assume that you are following the established norms (EX: creating a mechanic designed to have similar quantity and rarity distribution to other mechanics) and we end up speaking past one another until you finally reveal the disconnect.
You still wouldn't be able to build a winning strategy around something that dies to removal.
You've clearly never heard of Death's Shadow, which was a dominant force in Modern for quite sometime, was vulnerable to removal, and necessitated the user to drive their life total down to use. As an added bonus, your ability could easily be triggered onto a slippery bogle or other cheap hexproof creature and no longer be vulnerable to removal.
Dies to removal... Arguable the best, yet worst, response evar! Every card dies to removal. Weather it be counters or traditional removal like push or bolt. There is even pillage and stone rain for those pesky hard to remove card types. I think a deck should only consist of cards with hexproof and indestructibility. 🤪
You still wouldn't be able to build a winning strategy around something that dies to removal.
You've clearly never heard of Death's Shadow, which was a dominant force in Modern for quite sometime, was vulnerable to removal, and necessitated the user to drive their life total down to use. As an added bonus, your ability could easily be triggered onto a slippery bogle or other cheap hexproof creature and no longer be vulnerable to removal.
Right, but that card doesn't hit the board until late-game, where and when masses of removal resources are likely to have been expended.
What you're suggesting in the opening game scenario, even with the Bogle, is lost to Innocent Blood lolfeelsbadman.
@Rosey You know that is really the product of your getting-ahead-of yourself and interpretation. You could easily pause, stop to think a moment, and then ask any additional questions necessary to mediate your logical direction of the thread discussion/points of interest.
Might I also point out of this elaborates on the factor of time-frame when it comes to gaming power and acceptance. If you had to wait 10 years to get enough Reincarnation cards to build a deck around them, you wouldn't it one bit. lmao nice. But if you release them all at once, that's not okay. But even so in the end, only to probably lose.
Umm what? When does Death's Shadow hit the board late game? What format do you play? Death's Shadow likes to be played turn 2 or 3 whenever possible. Decks with it don't want you expending your removal on other threats. They usually try to hit you with a Thoughtseize and next turn play it. Or play it and have counter back up. I've never heard anything you are talking out my good sir or madam.
You still wouldn't be able to build a winning strategy around something that dies to removal.
You've clearly never heard of Death's Shadow, which was a dominant force in Modern for quite sometime, was vulnerable to removal, and necessitated the user to drive their life total down to use. As an added bonus, your ability could easily be triggered onto a slippery bogle or other cheap hexproof creature and no longer be vulnerable to removal.
Right, but that card doesn't hit the board until late-game, where and when masses of removal resources are likely to have been expended.
What you're suggesting in the opening game scenario, even with the Bogle, is lost to Innocent Blood lolfeelsbadman.
@Rosey You know that is really the product of your getting-ahead-of yourself and interpretation. You could easily pause, stop to think a moment, and then ask any additional questions necessary to mediate your logical direction of the thread discussion/points of interest.
Might I also point out of this elaborates on the factor of time-frame when it comes to gaming power and acceptance. If you had to wait 10 years to get enough Reincarnation cards to build a deck around them, you wouldn't it one bit. lmao nice. But if you release them all at once, that's not okay. But even so in the end, only to probably lose.
Yeah. I'm now about 95% positive you've never actually played Magic.
Umm what? When does Death's Shadow hit the board late game? What format do you play? Death's Shadow likes to be played turn 2 or 3 whenever possible. Decks with it don't want you expending your removal on other threats. They usually try to hit you with a Thoughtseize and next turn play it. Or play it and have counter back up. I've never heard anything you are talking out my good sir or madam.
I'm just unfamiliar with that card's strategies to be honest. Aware me? Not sure where/why/how a person is reducing their life safely below 13 so soon. Or are they removing the abilities? If you have exactly 1 life, via such as Worship, it's a 12/12. I could never see this surviving in a hostile game. How was it so good?
I haven't played since Mirrodin personally. I'm an OG Mid Schooler from Odyssey block/7th Edition. I picked the game back up and Lorwyn/Time Spiral, then left again at Scars of Mirrodin. I haven't played though since High School. I just know some tricks from back then, and I've picked up deck-building via mathematical proportion, which I didn't fully understand back then, but do now.
I haven't played since Mirrodin personally. I'm an OG Mid Schooler from Odyssey block/7th Edition. I picked the game back up and Lorwyn/Time Spiral, then left again at Scars of Mirrodin. I haven't played though since High School. I just know some tricks from back then, and I've picked up deck-building via mathematical proportion, which I didn't fully understand back then, but do now.
And now we have clarification for so much. You're basing your designs on a combination decade old gameplay experience and math theory without updating your knowledge of the game, rules, strategies or power levels.
Like I've said, its clear you have creative ideas for how you WANT cards to work, but you don't have the current knowledge or experience of how to actually MAKE them work. You're a designer, not a developer. That's not a bad thing, but be willing to bend on the execution of your designs in order for them to be playable. All you have to do is listen to the feedback people give you and your design experience will improve massively.
Also, go play actual magic. Arena is free, so there's no excuse not to update your play experience.
I'm just unfamiliar with that card's strategies to be honest. Aware me? Not sure where/why/how a person is reducing their life safely below 13 so soon. Or are they removing the abilities? If you have exactly 1 life, via such as Worship, it's a 12/12. I could never see this surviving in a hostile game. How was it so good?
To that particular answer, the deck used cards like shock and fetch lands and cards where life payments were meant as balancing factors (like Thoughtsieze) to both drive down their life total and fill their graveyard, so that Death's Shadow would be a 1 mana 4/4 or 5/5, and Tarmogoyf would be a 6/7 or so on turn 3ish. Thoughtsieze would have removed their removal and their early creatures wouldn't have been large enough to trade on blocks.
Umm what? When does Death's Shadow hit the board late game? What format do you play? Death's Shadow likes to be played turn 2 or 3 whenever possible. Decks with it don't want you expending your removal on other threats. They usually try to hit you with a Thoughtseize and next turn play it. Or play it and have counter back up. I've never heard anything you are talking out my good sir or madam.
I'm just unfamiliar with that card's strategies to be honest. Aware me? Not sure where/why/how a person is reducing their life safely below 13 so soon. Or are they removing the abilities? If you have exactly 1 life, via such as Worship, it's a 12/12. I could never see this surviving in a hostile game. How was it so good?
I haven't played since Mirrodin personally. I'm an OG Mid Schooler from Odyssey block/7th Edition. I picked the game back up and Lorwyn/Time Spiral, then left again at Scars of Mirrodin. I haven't played though since High School. I just know some tricks from back then, and I've picked up deck-building via mathematical proportion, which I didn't fully understand back then, but do now.
Even if you don't play the game yourself or look into Arena as Rowanalpha recommends, you may want some additional data. Look at deck lists for popular archetypes (or watch some videos if they don't make sense. It took me an embarrassingly long time to get how dredge or "Oops, all spells" decks work) before you comment on how (or whether) they work.
Here is some information regarding the possibility of using this mechanic in a bogles-style deck.
1. You report that Bogles would be answered by innocent blood... even though discussions of the archetype normally happens relation to the Modern format, where innocent blood is not legal. In fact, let's go further than that. This is a list of the 50 most played spells in modern. Take a look at the list and take note that very few of those cards would actually take out the bogle. The most salient sacrifice spell within the past decade, Liliana of the Veil, is no longer in even 8% of the meta. If your deck requires a more efficient version of innocent blood to be introduced into the meta or would require slippery bogle to also be banned... along Gladecover Scout, invisible stalker, and silhana ledgewalker... that is a bad sign.
2. The fact that you don't see Inquisition of Kozilek or Thoughtseize as answers to "Dies to Removal" when those cards have allowed vanilla beaters like tarmogoyf to exist in a format where path to exile exists for years, that seems to go against available evidence at this time. Likewise, the lack of any mana cost involved in attaching these things to a creature would mean increased mana available for counterspells.
3. Even with Faithless Looting banned in modern, the presence of cathartic reunion, lightning axe, and collective brutality (among other cards) would allow for easy discard outlets and have already seen play in some versions of other archeytpes that require putting cards in graveyards quickly (like Grishoalbrand). However difficult or unlikely you feel discarding these cards would be in the early game, history shows that is simply not the case.
4. You do not need to reach a "critical mass" of a mechanic in order for it to be problematic. The aura swap keyword appears on only one card (arcanum wings) but the potential of throwing down big bonuses for relatively little cost made that card a notable part of certain bogle builds at one point (actually learned about that build on this very site back in the day). Printing out cards over a long period of time only prevents problems in standard/brawl. Also, while you've made your distaste for the current mulligan rules clear in the past, the current rules do greatly increase the chance of being able to "force" a card into your opening hand.
5. Along similar lines, remember that cards like Street Wraith, Manamorphose, Mishra's Bauble, and fetchlands are hyperefficient at thinning decks and effectively reducing the number of cards in your library to get a best-case scenario (offsetting the normal math), even if not all of those cards see too much use these days.
1.) This doesn't need to be an aura. Aura is specific to the card's it's assigned to as descriptive context (providing flavor first-most; and additional interactivity second-most; which is not always necessary).
2.) Not saying this is unique or never been thought of before, but I would imagine it great a great ability for smaller creatures mostly; enabling a Rebound-like double-play.
And of course,
Tormented Hulk 1GG
Creature — Human Beast
Reincarnation (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if this card is in your graveyard, you may return it to the battlefield attached to that creature. So long as this card remains attached, that creature gains all abilities of this card and gets +X/+Y, where X is this card's base power and Y is its toughness.)
Tormented Hulk gets -5/-5.
"Tenacity is only as relative as strength; yet both are crushed by volume; a death by degrees; in this vacuum of time and space that has no value but we call life."
—Thanos the Mad Titan
8/8
Geiaz Gauntlet 5
Legendary Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature loses all abilities or gains an additional instance of each ability it has.
Equip C
From a rules standpoint, your ability actually would need to make the card become an Aura or something else, as your current wording puts the creature card into play (meaning it is a creature) and a creature cannot be attached to another creature. You could either reframe the ability to work like a Bestow variant, or a Haunt variant and solve the "creature attached to creature" problem.
From a gameplay and balance standpoint, the card should be exiled when the ability is used, or else it can keep recurring over and over again.
Your example card (aside of the rules issues) is incredibly overpowered. One could on turn 1, play a Mountain, discard this card to a Faithless Looting and then cast an Ornithopther and have an 8/9 flyer, or a 16/17 if they managed to discard two.
However, it seems like it wanted to things this way, as a closer tribute to the concept.
Comp rules easily hammers out the technicalities of this card being attached to another card (without ever having to give it another type); and can also easily rule that a card attached this way is exiled if removed or otherwise would be put into a graveyard.
Since there is only like an 8% chance of pulling that combo with Pocket Hulks in your opening hand to perform on turn 1, I don't think it was worth addressing. Even with just 1 Hulk the chance is still like 12% or something. You could add lots of other 0 cost creatures, draw/discard, but you're still not building a game winning strategy from that. It still dies to removal, and Lightning Greaves will extend the time range, and plummet the probability even lower.
There are many problems with this mindset and none of them are related to your actual card.
The problem is the mechanic itself. It needs a cost or the problem they pointed out will occur because you are proposing a mechanic, not a single card. meaning there will be a number of cards with this ability and it would be easy to discard a few on turn 1 or 2 and get a huge creature for "free". Or you create the limitations of these being no bigger than 2/2 so thst isn't a problem.
Only it's doesn't need a cost—because you can't build a winning strategy at the beginning of the game with the notion pitched due to the probability factor. Probability is a significant aspect in development. It will see things succeed whose properties succeed within its natural container. You will not have to adjust anything. But more importantly, will see things fail unless implemented around properly. I have given a graphic example of this in the past, with the set of lands that only work when the range is increased to allow 6 copies of them in the deck.
Now what we have here is a very special work-around with the factor of probability, it enables us to do something dynamic and open source, because the factor of probability works with us as a limiter to allow it.
With that said, this would be a fair design:
Geiaz Gauntlet 2
Artifact — Equipment
If equipped creature would get -X/-X, it gets +X/+X instead.
Equip 0
However, it's not to say this is the way it wants to be done. I would suggest this effect wants to be more interactive and not just blah.
Hostile Impositions 2C
Enchantment
If a creature would get -X/-X, flip a coin. If heads, that creature gets +X/+X instead. Otherwise, that creature gets double -X/-X instead.
Now, I am not against revision of the keyword, or that a cost could be assigned to the functionality. I just want to make a clear point that this is not needed; as neither is the Aura type. In fact, adding that type could botch the flavor-dynamics, and opens up functionality that this doesn't want to have; but wants to be more solid state than this would create.
Grumpy Nalfeshnee 1BB
Creature - Demon
Flying
Infectious Surge 2BB (Exile this from your graveyard: Put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to this card's power on target creature spell. It keeps those counters when it resolves.)
When you activate the Infectious Surge of Grumpy Nalfeshnee, put a flying counter on target creature spell.
3/1
This ability isn't bad, but it is unreasonably difficult to balance because you didn't put a cost in its activation. Your proposed card while strange isn't a problem because spending multiple resources to get a few 'free' +3/+3 auras on a creature isn't significant. However, the ability is a problem because getting a few +5/+5 auras or anything higher is significant. This is why I said you either make it cost something or you are forced by the design of the ability to only put this on small creatures.
Your lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept that your design has obvious problems can't be handwaved away by using words you obviously don't know the meaning of. Fortunately, others here see that this is an interesting ability and can engage in a discussion of its pros and cons. Honestly, it would do your design a disservice for you to continue in the discussion as you don't understand how the game works and actively discourage people from fixing your mistakes.
I think you're just mad that I made you think in a higher level of detail—and your pride feels rustled.
It's free form, open source, but still balanced. Exile can be written into the comp rules. Probability is a major factor in balance. Some things would be ideal, but they can't/won't be reality due to factors like probability. Let's just take this information and see what we can do with it for ourselves.
Notice; this also relays how it doesn't necessarily matter how cheap and powerful a card/combo is; so long as the literature is so deep and evocative that it brings the fantasy to life.
lmao nice
With that said,
I would suggest simply banning Devoted Druid (which is basically deadspace anyways) outside of Block Constructed formats for the Gauntlet, rather than change the Gauntlet any; although there are a lot of other cards it becomes ridiculously powerful with (even if was composed to only work in cases where there is a double negative value; and not one positive and one negative).
If you want to keep designing cards that work "how you feel like they should", or need to rewrite the comp rules, or ignore game balance, fine, but you're just designing silver-bordered cards that can live in the company of Sauté and AWOL. If you want to design actual cards like people might want to play with, listen to the feedback you are given, iterate and improve.
If everyone is consistently telling you that you are wrong about the same things, they aren't the problem. You are. Once you realize this, your designs will improve and start getting the actual positive feedback you currently seem to expect without merit.
Tormented Hulk 1GG
Creature — Human Beast
Haunt (Whenever this creature dies, exile it haunting target creature.)
The creature haunted by ~ gets +3/+3.
3/3
Edit: I thought the intention was to have it shrink itself on the field, but give the full +8/+8 when it reincarnates. But I see now that, as written, it gives the reincarnated creature both +8/+8 and -5/-5?
The way its works I see it as Shaman King style oversouls. However I don't think an execution that captures that is reasonable. Instead I'll initially opt for a kicker like extra cost and make it a once time use.
Sword Saint 1WW
Creature - Human Warrior
First Strike, Vigilance, Lifelink
Oversoul(Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control you may pay ~'s mana cost. If you do, exile ~ from your graveyard. That creature gains all abilities of ~ and gets +X/+Y where X is ~'s power and Y is its toughness.)
2/2
Is this too restrained? Should the cost be uncoupled from the cards cost? Should it be reusable? Is it overly complicated?
That's totally wrong flavor-wise though.
Having to pay the mana cost puts it over the top. It's too expensive to be interesting now.
While I see and somewhat understand your argument about "probability", that argument is shut down by Anticipated Volume in this case.
The Bestow ability appears on 35 different creatures
The Mutate ability appears on 34 different creatures
The Scavenge ability appears on 11 different creatures
The Haunt ability appears on 10 different cards
This one card, in a vacuum, is "exciting" but might not be entirely broken. The odds of getting several copies of this one card in your opening hand are relatively low. Most posters on this board, however, aren't looking at this card in the context of only one reincarnating creature existing. Instead, we see that this is a keyword ability and extrapolate the presence of 10+ creatures with this keyword if it were ever to be printed in a set. If there were 10 or more cards with reincarnation, creating a deck filled with free or cheap discard outlets (faithless looting, Noose Constrictor, Putrid Imp, etc.) and a whole lot of reincarnating creatures would GREATLY increase the chance of that line of play.
As far as other considerations:
1. The comprehensive rules has never been used (at least to my knowledge) to contain unwritten rules for a keyword as large as a change in zone. If you want a reincarnated card to exile itself upon leaving the battlefield, you should add that to the reminder text.
2. Going into the realm of anticipated volume once more, I would argue that it is very odd, flavorwise, that multiple cards with reincarnation can all be "reincarnated" as a single creature (which also causes power concerns). You may want to add ",if no other creatures are attached to it," as an intervening clause in the ability so each creature can only be the reincarnated form of one other creature.
You still wouldn't be able to build a winning strategy around something that dies to removal. Removing that condition ups the probability, because it requires additional resources. You could print 100 cards with reincarnate. It doesn't matter. You're crushed by the volume of game influence, and the resource overhead of probability, trying to counter that influence with other cards.
There's a reason Oath of Druids is what it is. And it undeniably wouldn't be so if it required two other cards to do what it does.
I would suggest, "Exile this card if it would leave the battlefield this way." to the end, as an alternative fix for the 'unwritten law' issue; if you must.
Reincarnation (Whenever a creature enters the battlefield, if this card is in your graveyard, you may pay . If you do, return this card to the battlefield attached to that creature. As long as this card remains attached, that creature gains all abilities of this card and gets +X/+X, where X is this card's base power and toughness. Exile this card if it would leave the battlefield this way.)
Even this—and it becomes too wordy, and you mine as well not bother with it anymore.
I would suggest reserving the keyword for very special releases now and again, to preserve the force majure.
If I may respond.
It seems that you have located a real problem there.
If a keyword's actual functioning would require more text than could neatly fit onto a magic card, I will happily admit that there is a problem with that situation. Your response to this practical limitation appears to be shoving the "overflow text" into the comprehensive rules, however, which 1) does not really have any precedent and 2) virtually every other poster here keeps saying is a bad idea.
Rather than finding a way to MAKE the ability work as you intend, I would think that the natural conclusion is that the ability DOES NOT WORK as you want it to. If a new ability requires so much wording and caveats to make it work "just so" and none of the simpler alternatives work, the simple truth may be that the ability is ill-fitted for the medium.
While I applaud your creativity, I feel that the space available on the actual cardboard is a practical limitation that should ultimately be adhered to. In fact, I have a recent video link reporting why using keywords as "short-hand" for long text held in a comprehensive rulebook (AKA without reminder text on the card) can be deleterious to the long-term health of a collectable card game.
Here's the relevant link
This is the sort of communication problem that I have run into on these threads now and again. You post something that is intended to go against certain norms (EX: creating a mechanic that is meant to be used very sparingly) and do not specifically state that you are doing so until midway through the thread, leading everyone who sees the thread sooner to assume that you are following the established norms (EX: creating a mechanic designed to have similar quantity and rarity distribution to other mechanics) and we end up speaking past one another until you finally reveal the disconnect.
You've clearly never heard of Death's Shadow, which was a dominant force in Modern for quite sometime, was vulnerable to removal, and necessitated the user to drive their life total down to use. As an added bonus, your ability could easily be triggered onto a slippery bogle or other cheap hexproof creature and no longer be vulnerable to removal.
Right, but that card doesn't hit the board until late-game, where and when masses of removal resources are likely to have been expended.
What you're suggesting in the opening game scenario, even with the Bogle, is lost to Innocent Blood lolfeelsbadman.
@Rosey You know that is really the product of your getting-ahead-of yourself and interpretation. You could easily pause, stop to think a moment, and then ask any additional questions necessary to mediate your logical direction of the thread discussion/points of interest.
Might I also point out of this elaborates on the factor of time-frame when it comes to gaming power and acceptance. If you had to wait 10 years to get enough Reincarnation cards to build a deck around them, you wouldn't it one bit. lmao nice. But if you release them all at once, that's not okay. But even so in the end, only to probably lose.
Yeah. I'm now about 95% positive you've never actually played Magic.
This is clearly a troll, why are you all so eager to feed it?
I'm just unfamiliar with that card's strategies to be honest. Aware me? Not sure where/why/how a person is reducing their life safely below 13 so soon. Or are they removing the abilities? If you have exactly 1 life, via such as Worship, it's a 12/12. I could never see this surviving in a hostile game. How was it so good?
I haven't played since Mirrodin personally. I'm an OG Mid Schooler from Odyssey block/7th Edition. I picked the game back up and Lorwyn/Time Spiral, then left again at Scars of Mirrodin. I haven't played though since High School. I just know some tricks from back then, and I've picked up deck-building via mathematical proportion, which I didn't fully understand back then, but do now.
And now we have clarification for so much. You're basing your designs on a combination decade old gameplay experience and math theory without updating your knowledge of the game, rules, strategies or power levels.
Like I've said, its clear you have creative ideas for how you WANT cards to work, but you don't have the current knowledge or experience of how to actually MAKE them work. You're a designer, not a developer. That's not a bad thing, but be willing to bend on the execution of your designs in order for them to be playable. All you have to do is listen to the feedback people give you and your design experience will improve massively.
Also, go play actual magic. Arena is free, so there's no excuse not to update your play experience.
To that particular answer, the deck used cards like shock and fetch lands and cards where life payments were meant as balancing factors (like Thoughtsieze) to both drive down their life total and fill their graveyard, so that Death's Shadow would be a 1 mana 4/4 or 5/5, and Tarmogoyf would be a 6/7 or so on turn 3ish. Thoughtsieze would have removed their removal and their early creatures wouldn't have been large enough to trade on blocks.
Even if you don't play the game yourself or look into Arena as Rowanalpha recommends, you may want some additional data. Look at deck lists for popular archetypes (or watch some videos if they don't make sense. It took me an embarrassingly long time to get how dredge or "Oops, all spells" decks work) before you comment on how (or whether) they work.
Here is some information regarding the possibility of using this mechanic in a bogles-style deck.
1. You report that Bogles would be answered by innocent blood... even though discussions of the archetype normally happens relation to the Modern format, where innocent blood is not legal. In fact, let's go further than that. This is a list of the 50 most played spells in modern. Take a look at the list and take note that very few of those cards would actually take out the bogle. The most salient sacrifice spell within the past decade, Liliana of the Veil, is no longer in even 8% of the meta. If your deck requires a more efficient version of innocent blood to be introduced into the meta or would require slippery bogle to also be banned... along Gladecover Scout, invisible stalker, and silhana ledgewalker... that is a bad sign.
2. The fact that you don't see Inquisition of Kozilek or Thoughtseize as answers to "Dies to Removal" when those cards have allowed vanilla beaters like tarmogoyf to exist in a format where path to exile exists for years, that seems to go against available evidence at this time. Likewise, the lack of any mana cost involved in attaching these things to a creature would mean increased mana available for counterspells.
3. Even with Faithless Looting banned in modern, the presence of cathartic reunion, lightning axe, and collective brutality (among other cards) would allow for easy discard outlets and have already seen play in some versions of other archeytpes that require putting cards in graveyards quickly (like Grishoalbrand). However difficult or unlikely you feel discarding these cards would be in the early game, history shows that is simply not the case.
4. You do not need to reach a "critical mass" of a mechanic in order for it to be problematic. The aura swap keyword appears on only one card (arcanum wings) but the potential of throwing down big bonuses for relatively little cost made that card a notable part of certain bogle builds at one point (actually learned about that build on this very site back in the day). Printing out cards over a long period of time only prevents problems in standard/brawl. Also, while you've made your distaste for the current mulligan rules clear in the past, the current rules do greatly increase the chance of being able to "force" a card into your opening hand.
5. Along similar lines, remember that cards like Street Wraith, Manamorphose, Mishra's Bauble, and fetchlands are hyperefficient at thinning decks and effectively reducing the number of cards in your library to get a best-case scenario (offsetting the normal math), even if not all of those cards see too much use these days.