Great Depression1B Enchantment
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size is reduced by one. "Darkness, my old friend. You've come for me again...but I can't go on."
—The Witch's Memoir, final entry
Being creative with the Crescendo keyword from awhile back.
Essentially, you can drop Spellbook and cause your hand to go infinite while your opponent's hand size continues to drop.
The way this works—it's a static effect on a trigger. When the trigger stacks, the previous instances of the static ability are replaced. For these effects to remain in precedence, they would need need additional context such as "this game" to denote that. [At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size reduced by one for the rest of the game.] Thus, the stack is gradient, and is only reduced by one incrementally as the Crescendo continues.
I don't know what you think you mean about the time lapse, but this really should cost 2 or remove the crescendo. While against aggro this will have little to no effect. Against every other type of deck it's very punishing. As an aggro card it's possibly game breaking. The more I think about it the more dangerous it feels.
So I play this.
Next turn it triggers and hand sizes are reduced by one
Next turn it triggers twice and hand sized are reduces 2 more to -3
Next turn, 3 triggers, total -6 hand size.
This is too powerful. A deck built around this can drop its hand quickly without losing any cards and is even more absurdly punishing if your opponent misses even one of their land drops.
Unless they are a deck of noting but 1-2 drops like Burn you will force multiple discards for a single mana, which is very badly designed for game balance.
It shouldn’t have “crescendo” (and crescendo shouldn’t be a keyword if it did, but that’s a different discussion)
Here’s the fixed and balanced version.
Depression B
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a sad counter on CARDNAME.
Each players maximum hand size is reduced by the number of Sad counters on CARDNAME.
This is still strong, especially good against control decks that want to build up their hands in the late game, but doesn’t force excessive discarding up to that point.
Additionally, it can be interacted with by removing the enchantment, where your card just sets the max hand size with no way for the other player to counter act it once it’s triggered.
Turn one, it triggers and the hand is reduced by one. This effect goes static. When the trigger changes, the static effect is replaced by the trigger instance.
Turn 1, hand is reduced by 1.
Turn 2, the static effect stack changes as now it triggers twice, the previous trigger is no longer valid as it's been replaced. Hand size now reduced by two.
Turn 3, effect triggers and replaces are previous instances. Hand size now reduced by 3.
Yeah, that may be how you want it to work, but that’s not how the card you wrote actually works because that’s not how abilities work and there’s nothing in the rules to replace one version of an effect with another if it’s not written on the card.
Here’s a design hint, if a multiple people reading the card understood it in the same way, that’s what the card does, not whatever different thing you intended.
Funny enough, the version I wrote works exactly as you intended your card to work, so probably you should just use that version instead of trying to rewrite the comp rules again.
You don’t understand how static effects work, because it’s not a static effect, it’s a triggered ability with an unlimited duration. If the ability said “At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size is reduced by one until your next turn.” then each reduction would expire before the next round of triggers happen and your card would do what you wanted
Because your card doesn’t define how the ability ends it’s duration, it doesn’t just end because you say it does. The fact that you had to write a paragraph to explain how people are supposed to use the card means you didn’t write it correctly.
Or you could just use the wording I wrote 4 posts ago since that’s how the card would actually be written if it was printed in-game.
I still forget that I need knowledge of the secret rulings on your cards before they can be properly understood. So with that nonsense out of the way let's look at the card you meant to design.
Depression B
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a sad counter on CARDNAME.
Each players maximum hand size is reduced by the number of Sad counters on CARDNAME.
This is still a strong card in an aggro shell but no longer an obviously oppressive card. It's possible it's still too strong but at least it's in the ballpark now.
I like this one. But the memory issues are problematic. Crecendo should be replaced with text:
Great DepressionB
Enchantment
When Great Depression enters the battlefield, and at the beginning of your upkeep, put a poverty counter on Great Depression.
Each player's maximum hand size is reduced by the number of poverty counters on Great Depression.
I get that your idea was to have this trigger first once, then twice, then three times. But completely annhialating everyone's hand size in a matter of a few upkeep triggers is way too much, and would be quite unfun. It would have to go on a creature to have that ability so as to be more easily interactable. Look to Sire of Insanity for the cost of actually destroying everyone's hand.
Generally speaking all your designs need to have their efficiency pulled back a bit. You overestimate the value of one mana, and underestimate the potency of cards that resist interaction. But this one I like. I think it's got something going for it. It just triggers too often and has an unnecessary keyword.
But yeah, the biggest problem with the card you posted is that the effect is an emblem (but not written as such for some reason). That has bigtime memory issues, and is uninteractive for no reason. You definitely need it to be the case that if the card is removed, hand sizes return to normal.
The version that I posted would be a value uncommon, and I think a popular card at EDH tables. And one many people would hate, but still one worth existing.
EDIT: Looks like Roawnalpha gave the same redesign I did. So that's probably the correct design. It's a pretty big deal to make cards easily understandable from reading them so no explanation is needed. Heck, this time you even misunderstood your own wording, and thought it reduced 1, then 2, then 3. As written, it definitely reduces 1, then 3, then 6. That's why we use counters/emblems. Stuff gets messy.
Great DepressionB
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, you get an emblem with "each player's hand size is reduced by 1."
But people hate emblems because they can't be interacted with. There's no reason to change the rules or use confusing wordings when there's already something that does what you're looking for.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I would like to remain tolerant and professional to explain this.
Traditionally, triggered abilities are single instance effects. Gnat Miser is a contemporary of this effect. Normally, if we added a triggered effect to this effect, it wouldn't make any sense, because it just wants to be a static ability then. And so it is.
[At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size is reduced by one.]
When this triggers, it reinstates the effect. It would just continuously reduce each player's hand size by one, (by instance) on a trigger, over and over.
Now, when we add Crescendo to this trigger, we're doing the same thing. Thus, the initial effects are reinstated, and replace the previous instatement.
For it to do otherwise, it needs additional context to denote that. Without that context, you get what's provided above.
It doesn't need additional context to denote this, because this is the fundamental mechanics of the game. And conventionally, the purpose of splitting effects between triggered and static abilities. Since we are blending the line here, this is the adaptation that transpires naturally by the fundamental mechanics of the game, and how triggered and static abilities naturally take precedence (without additional context that denotes additional time and space dynamics).
Yeah, definitely strong (fixed version obvs.). I can see Reanimator decks playing this as part enabler, part disruption. At 1B, I think it's printable in something Standard-legal, but maybe B for Modern Horizons 3 or whatever.
It does have the problem of not being massively fun, which I think is a strike against it. You play this on turn one in Commander and the table groans, you know? I think that's why this is relatively unexplored design space (hello Gnat Miser!)
Flavour-wise, I think 'Great Depression' is out because I can't see WotC going for historical references in 2022 - especially when it's not really anything to do with the Great Depression. 'Depression' is also probably out (and definitely sad counters!). It's just not sensitive to the massive number of people with mental health issues. But it could work as a sort of 'creeping darkness'-type flavour - a rot that slowly engulfs you. There's plenty of precedent for that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood within this cloak to kill. There is only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof." - V, V for Vendetta. Alan Moore
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I would like to remain tolerant and professional to explain this.
Traditionally, triggered abilities are single instance effects. Gnat Miser is a contemporary of this effect. Normally, if we added a triggered effect to this effect, it wouldn't make any sense, because it just wants to be a static ability then. And so it is.
[At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size is reduced by one.]
When this triggers, it reinstates the effect. It would just continuously reduce each player's hand size by one, (by instance) on a trigger, over and over.
Now, when we add Crescendo to this trigger, we're doing the same thing. Thus, the initial effects are reinstated, and replace the previous instatement.
For it to do otherwise, it needs additional context to denote that. Without that context, you get what's provided above.
It doesn't need additional context to denote this, because this is the fundamental mechanics of the game. And conventionally, the purpose of splitting effects between triggered and static abilities. Since we are blending the line here, this is the adaptation that transpires naturally by the fundamental mechanics of the game, and how triggered and static abilities naturally take precedence (without additional context that denotes additional time and space dynamics).
I don't know what you are trying to say. You can just make a triggered ability that says, 'At X reduce both players hand size by 1'. WotC typically makes them static effects on permanents by cards like Inspired Idea exist.
I think I understand where you're coming from, but I would like to remain tolerant and professional to explain this.
Traditionally, triggered abilities are single instance effects. Gnat Miser is a contemporary of this effect. Normally, if we added a triggered effect to this effect, it wouldn't make any sense, because it just wants to be a static ability then. And so it is.
[At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size is reduced by one.]
When this triggers, it reinstates the effect. It would just continuously reduce each player's hand size by one, (by instance) on a trigger, over and over.
Now, when we add Crescendo to this trigger, we're doing the same thing. Thus, the initial effects are reinstated, and replace the previous instatement.
For it to do otherwise, it needs additional context to denote that. Without that context, you get what's provided above.
It doesn't need additional context to denote this, because this is the fundamental mechanics of the game. And conventionally, the purpose of splitting effects between triggered and static abilities. Since we are blending the line here, this is the adaptation that transpires naturally by the fundamental mechanics of the game, and how triggered and static abilities naturally take precedence (without additional context that denotes additional time and space dynamics).
Ah, I do understand what you're saying now. What you're missing is that a triggered ability can't be a static ability. For example "At the beginning of your upkeep, each creature gets -1/-1" is not supported in the rules. There has to be a term limit stated. Normally that would be until end of turn. Your trigger is missing that term limit, so we've just assumed that means "for the rest of the game". Only Riding the Dilu Horse defies this principal, and that was by error. The oracle text includes "This effect lasts indefinitley."
But regardless of any of that, clarity is key. Even if your version were supported in the rules, it would be confusing to people. That's not what anybody wants. If you wanted to create a new rule in which triggered abilities could be static like this, you would need some serious reminder text. It also wouldn't open up any design space.
But moving on from technicalities, I do agree with Gothblin about the actual card's actual effect in its printable version.
Traditionally, triggered abilities are single instance effects. Gnat Miser is a contemporary of this effect. Normally, if we added a triggered effect to this effect, it wouldn't make any sense, because it just wants to be a static ability then. And so it is.
You seriously need to stop acting like you know anything about rules. Gnat Miser is a static ability. Full stop. In no way shape or form does it have anything to do with triggered abilities.
There are already triggered abilities that create permanent effects, see Stigma Lasher. It’s effect doesn’t end and replace itself the second time it deals damage, there’s just no additional effect from multiple “Player can’t gain life” abilities being in existence.
Your card has a triggered ability.
Your triggered ability does not define its duration.
Your card does not define in its text how to remove that effect.
If you write cards and leave out key pieces of information, people will not understand your intention, and that is your fault for being a bad communicator, not their fault for not reading your mind.
I said that, the effect was contemporary. And if we put it on a trigger, typically it doesn't make any sense; or at least, it become too confusing for a single instance effect. And this is where the traditional split between triggered and static abilities begins.
When we blend this line, these are the dynamics that take precedence based on how they would work if that static ability was a triggered ability.
Also, I'd like to remind you that since we are blending the line on an innovation here, it's entirely open source to the interpretation of the developer; and this is my interpretation as explained.
I said that, the effect was contemporary. And if we put it on a trigger, typically it doesn't make any sense; or at least, it become too confusing for a single instance effect. And this is where the traditional split between triggered and static abilities begins.
When we blend this line, these are the dynamics that take precedence based on how they would work if that static ability was a triggered ability.
Also, I'd like to remind you that since we are blending the line on an innovation here, it's entirely open source to the interpretation of the developer; and this is my interpretation as explained.
Is there any mechanical difference between the effect and
“At the beginning of your upkeep, each player’s maximum hand size is reduced by 1 (this effect doesn’t end at end of turn).”
It's a prime example of "additional context" to denote the additional parameters of time and space on the effect apart from the conventional dynamics of the game.
What it does different is exclude Crescendo, which has additional applications (and interactions) apart from what's provided.
In my design, it's apart of a greater whole that is excluded in your design.
Certainly, they function similarly, but not interactively, concerning the application of Crescendo here.
Additionally, yours is more confusing that the effect continues or not after the permanent has left the battlefield.
It's a prime example of "additional context" to denote the additional parameters of time and space on the effect apart from the conventional dynamics of the game.
What it does different is exclude Crescendo, which has additional applications (and interactions) apart from what's provided.
In my design, it's apart of a greater whole that is excluded in your design.
Certainly, they function similarly, but not interactively, concerning the application of Crescendo here.
Additionally, yours is more confusing that the effect continues or not after the permanent has left the battlefield.
It looks like you are looking for a mixture of Experience Counters and Cumulative Upkeep (where you are guaranteed to gain another counter like Cumulative upkeep but there is no cost, where possessing counters could theoretically increase the potency of passive or triggered abilities as seen in psychic vortex, mwonvuli ooze, Mizzix of the Nivmagus, and Daxos the Returned) with the added benefit of being able to isolate the ability from being connected to a permanent/token/emblem. Is that about right?
With that said, I expect that there is going to be some natural disagreement regarding what level of cognitive load is appropriate for this game. The test card Control Win Condition from Mystery Boosters a few years ago is unlikely to ever see print because it relies on keeping track of a value over a long period of time that the game does not generally give you a way to track (how many turns you've taken, in that case). I recall that you've designed several cards in the past that last 2 or 3 turns without using tokens to track and that's something that wizards hasn't really had people do since Telekinesis back in Legends.
Note that most of the permanent effects I listed above are either Yes-No binaries (either I have a maximum hand-size or I dont, either players can gain life or they can't, either I control the creature or they do, one trait doctoring effect typically overrules all previous ones, etc) or are marked by counters (as with the fireheart or BoED). What you are proposing is effects that can have granularity and that have no remaining way to track magnitude when the card leaves the battlefield (I may need to remember that one card with this ability caused hand sizes to be reduced by 2, that all sources of life gain gain an extra 3 life, and that all of my creatures get +4/+4 in the late-game, for example, with no counters/emblems on any permanents or players to mark that it is still in effect).
I imagine that this is an effect that you don't see any problems with and that I see as going against current design doctrine. No real way past that unless one of us drastically change our design philosophies but thought that the source of contention might be worth pointing out. I think that we can both agree that 1) this design would not be used by Wizards at this current time with their current design philosophies and 2) that this does not bother you as you see Wizards' designs as needlessly restrictive, though you can let me know if I'm wrong.
When it leaves the battlefield, the effect ends, so there's nothing remaining to keep track of.
I wouldn't typically think to create a design with crescendo and an effect that lasts for the rest of the game (its polarizing).
I don't see your point in some of your examples. The Treachery one is a single instance effect on a trigger. It's not a permanent effect. Dulu Horse is from Portal III, and long errated (as should Moonlace always be) to include "this effect doesn't end" for coherence.
I believe strongly in providing additional context (or reminder text) for coherence where it's necessary. It should not be necessary here, as the technicalities are apart of comprehensive rulings that would go into MTG articles for explanation, in the implementation process of the new content.
The context of "use a counter to keep track of this" in Crescendo was a personally debated subject, where I decided to just leave it there for the clean coherence that it provides. It might be unnecessary, but I felt like it makes the concept more friendly (specifically that it's introducing something new to the game that it's not exactly familiar with). This is the traditional standard of etiquette—and of where things like reminder text come from.
Certainly, I believe that companies should stand their ground to defend things like constitutional rights and human rights against the masses and their intolerance, unprofessionalism, and/or over-sensitivity. It should also stand its ground to defend all creative potential for their products. Not doing so creates a bad environment where these types of submissions are easily exploited by those with pernicious motives. And thus, can become an alibi for tyrants to oppress others.
As for the creative potential of the product, this is naturally healthy, as innovation and improvisation is the mark of talent. It is this exactly that breathes new life into the product, keeps it fun and exciting; and thus, preserves interest for the consumer to continue investing their time, attention, and money into it.
Likewise, a bad cabinet is unhealthy for the company, and wants to be cleaned immediately (for the sake of the greater potential that's available for the product—and the profits this brings). This is maybe, not an easily discernable thing for a company's executives, if they are out-of-touch with their product (which they never want to be). That is supposed to be why Richard gets paid 80k dollars a year as a consultant for Wizards regarding MTG. A job I would be graciously happy to take over for—and could easily prove my expertise and competence towards.
That being said, any current "standard" that the MTG teams have don't necessarily represent what's truest and purest, and/or represent what's best for the product or the company. It can simply be the product of a deep-seating, long-standing corruption that produces gerrymandering.
This being said, I think the right-standing or wrong-standing of my work (in said eyes) is majorly irrelevant at its worst, and should not be a topic for discussion.
It's a prime example of "additional context" to denote the additional parameters of time and space on the effect apart from the conventional dynamics of the game.
Additionally, yours is more confusing that the effect continues or not after the permanent has left the battlefield.
That's the point of the "this effect doesn't end at the end of the turn". It's less confusing that yours.
Certainly, they function similarly, but not interactively, concerning the application of Crescendo here.
There are some problems with crecendo too. It's just that it isn't necessary for the card, so people keep leaving it off.
Crecendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
It doesn't say when during your turn. That means as written, you can go ahead and add a counter the turn this enters the battlefield, and you can do it before your upkeep. So, this actually has two crecendo counters the first time it triggers if you play correctly. Another problem: it doesn't define the type of counters. It also multiplies all triggers, so if you have say Sword of Body and Mind on a crecendo creature, it gets extra triggers on hit. That's not a problem, just a feature.
I think the wording would have to be closer to this:
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
Great DepressionB
Enchantment
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, create an emblem with "Each player's maximum hand size is reduced by 1."
This is the broken version. That's because this card should NOT have crecendo. Crecendo is an ability that would have to be on very conservatively built cards. Again, your idea with the replacement ability is not supported in the rules, and you don't get to change the rules. This should be written as has been suggested to reduce hand size by the number of counters on the card. You've offered no reason why that's not the best version.
Now, let's look at whether or not crecendo is adding useful design space:
Sweltering Soloist1R
Creature- Human Bard (U)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When Sweltering Soloist attacks, it deals 1 damage to target player or planeswalker.
0/2
Audience Seating5
Artifact (R)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When a creature enters the battlefield under your control, scry 1.
Drum Circle3GG
Creature- Elf Bard (U)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When Drum Circle dies, draw a card.
4/4
Arraster, Master of Music2UW
Legendary Creature- Sphinx Bard (R)
Flying
When Arraster, Master of Music attacks, tap up to one target creature. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
2/3
Exquisite Recital5U
Enchantment (M)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your end step, draw a card.
And a twisted version of your card:
Haunting Concerto2BB
Enchantment (R)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your end step, each player discards a card.
Conclusion: Yes, the ability is worthwhile, and opens up a good amount of design space. It's a good ability, but because of how it scales, it's super dangerous. I keep needing to go back and increase the mana costs of the cards I posted considering their second turn potential. I like the ability, and I could keep spitting out cards with it. That's a good sign. But it is a risky ability. It can get really out of hand, and you have to charge a lot of mana for it. Most of the cards are gonna end up being crap, and the ones that are good might be too good.
Once again, this ability should absolutely not be on the card you originally posted. That card is best served without the ability.
The reason for that context is that it's intended to happen outside of the influence of phases.
The reason being, effects that disrupt them would disrupt Crescendo, and we don't want that to happen. Some of the designs have negative effects that are apart of the balance in the design. The context of "During each of your turns" as it's written (without any additional context) means [at the beginning of your turn, outside the influence of any actual phases]. Of course, this might be re-workable as "At the start of your turn", I just didn't feel that flowed quite as well when I was developing the initial concept. It's a little polarizing to me.
The examples you've provided are bad examples. They're unartistic and using different functionality than what's intended. The purpose of this intended functionality is to keep Crescendo within reasonable proportions and artistic utilities.
The examples you've provided are bad examples. They're unartistic and using different functionality than what's intended. The purpose of this intended functionality is to keep Crescendo within reasonable proportions and artistic utilities.
The functionality that's intended doesn't work within the rules. This version does. These are random examples to show proof of concept, which is something you have not managed to do yet. If you can show me proof of concept on cards that operate within the rules and are balanced, I'll be pleased.
Once again, you must work within the rules of the game you are designing for. Otherwise, you may as well be tapping orange mana to untap target player.
Yes, we do want interaction. Always. It doesn't matter if some effects hurt the user. They should still be reactable.
I don't know what you mean about time-space. Instead of time, Magic has steps and phases and operates on a basis of passing priority and emptying the stack. Instead of space, it has zones. Perhaps you mean timing restrictions, which are indeed something you need to worry more about in your wordings.
If you have a working version of your wording, let's see it. Again, you must work within the rules. This seems to be your main challenge. You don't get to say the rules are wrong. They aren't wrong. You may disagree with some of them, but they're the principals that make the game function. You just need to learn to use them. You don't have to be a rules guru to know that you have say when say when an effect happens.
It's okay if you get rules wording wrong on a custom card. Nobody judges you for that. Just correct your wordings when people point out mistakes or omissions. Arguing that an incorrect wording is actually correct is counterproductive.
Give us a working version of crecendo within the rules, and some cards with it that work. They don't need to be flashy, they just need to be proof of concept. Anything that shows it can actually be implemented in real games as a real mechanic. I did it, and you can too. It's not that hard. You just have to make Crecendo operate within the game of magic with appropriate timing restrictions and card balance. You can do this, I know you can. you just have to actually try. You just have to stop saying "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right" and actually use game design skills and an understanding of the game to apply your concepts within that game. I'm not criticizing you here, I'm encouraging you. If you believe in this concept, show you can make it happen within the rules. It can be done. But the rules don't adapt to you, you adapt to them. If this mechanic is worthwhile, show me.
It's a prime example of "additional context" to denote the additional parameters of time and space on the effect apart from the conventional dynamics of the game.
Additionally, yours is more confusing that the effect continues or not after the permanent has left the battlefield.
That's the point of the "this effect doesn't end at the end of the turn". It's less confusing that yours.
Certainly, they function similarly, but not interactively, concerning the application of Crescendo here.
There are some problems with crecendo too. It's just that it isn't necessary for the card, so people keep leaving it off.
Crecendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
It doesn't say when during your turn. That means as written, you can go ahead and add a counter the turn this enters the battlefield, and you can do it before your upkeep. So, this actually has two crecendo counters the first time it triggers if you play correctly. Another problem: it doesn't define the type of counters. It also multiplies all triggers, so if you have say Sword of Body and Mind on a crecendo creature, it gets extra triggers on hit. That's not a problem, just a feature.
I think the wording would have to be closer to this:
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
Great DepressionB
Enchantment
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, create an emblem with "Each player's maximum hand size is reduced by 1."
This is the broken version. That's because this card should NOT have crecendo. Crecendo is an ability that would have to be on very conservatively built cards. Again, your idea with the replacement ability is not supported in the rules, and you don't get to change the rules. This should be written as has been suggested to reduce hand size by the number of counters on the card. You've offered no reason why that's not the best version.
Now, let's look at whether or not crecendo is adding useful design space:
Sweltering Soloist1R
Creature- Human Bard (U)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When Sweltering Soloist attacks, it deals 1 damage to target player or planeswalker.
0/2
Audience Seating5
Artifact (R)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When a creature enters the battlefield under your control, scry 1.
Drum Circle3GG
Creature- Elf Bard (U)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When Drum Circle dies, draw a card.
4/4
Arraster, Master of Music2UW
Legendary Creature- Sphinx Bard (R)
Flying
When Arraster, Master of Music attacks, tap up to one target creature. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
2/3
Exquisite Recital5U
Enchantment (M)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your end step, draw a card.
And a twisted version of your card:
Haunting Concerto2BB
Enchantment (R)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your end step, each player discards a card.
Conclusion: Yes, the ability is worthwhile, and opens up a good amount of design space. It's a good ability, but because of how it scales, it's super dangerous. I keep needing to go back and increase the mana costs of the cards I posted considering their second turn potential. I like the ability, and I could keep spitting out cards with it. That's a good sign. But it is a risky ability. It can get really out of hand, and you have to charge a lot of mana for it. Most of the cards are gonna end up being crap, and the ones that are good might be too good.
Once again, this ability should absolutely not be on the card you originally posted. That card is best served without the ability.
Some nice designs in here Mergatroid, but they all suffer from being simpler and easier to parse if you take the keyword off.
Sweltering Soloist 1R
Creature - Human Bard (U)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on ~.
When ~ attacks, it deals X damage divided as you choose to any number of target players or planeswalkers, where X is the number of verse counters on it.
0/2
That's not a problem with any of your designs, of course, it's a problem with Crescendo as an idea. WotC would probably make adding the counters mandatory too, so there's no risk of forgetting, given it's going to be an effect you want nine times out of ten.
I expect I'll get a few hundred words from Reap on how this cleaner, simpler design is depriving people of human rights and artistic utility, so to pre-empt that: mate, your weird little keyword is not special enough to trigger at a time nothing else in the game does and no amount of arguing will change that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood within this cloak to kill. There is only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof." - V, V for Vendetta. Alan Moore
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size is reduced by one.
"Darkness, my old friend. You've come for me again...but I can't go on."
—The Witch's Memoir, final entry
Being creative with the Crescendo keyword from awhile back.
Essentially, you can drop Spellbook and cause your hand to go infinite while your opponent's hand size continues to drop.
The way this works—it's a static effect on a trigger. When the trigger stacks, the previous instances of the static ability are replaced. For these effects to remain in precedence, they would need need additional context such as "this game" to denote that. [At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size reduced by one for the rest of the game.] Thus, the stack is gradient, and is only reduced by one incrementally as the Crescendo continues.
Next turn it triggers and hand sizes are reduced by one
Next turn it triggers twice and hand sized are reduces 2 more to -3
Next turn, 3 triggers, total -6 hand size.
This is too powerful. A deck built around this can drop its hand quickly without losing any cards and is even more absurdly punishing if your opponent misses even one of their land drops.
Unless they are a deck of noting but 1-2 drops like Burn you will force multiple discards for a single mana, which is very badly designed for game balance.
It shouldn’t have “crescendo” (and crescendo shouldn’t be a keyword if it did, but that’s a different discussion)
Here’s the fixed and balanced version.
Depression B
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a sad counter on CARDNAME.
Each players maximum hand size is reduced by the number of Sad counters on CARDNAME.
This is still strong, especially good against control decks that want to build up their hands in the late game, but doesn’t force excessive discarding up to that point.
Additionally, it can be interacted with by removing the enchantment, where your card just sets the max hand size with no way for the other player to counter act it once it’s triggered.
Turn one, it triggers and the hand is reduced by one. This effect goes static. When the trigger changes, the static effect is replaced by the trigger instance.
Turn 1, hand is reduced by 1.
Turn 2, the static effect stack changes as now it triggers twice, the previous trigger is no longer valid as it's been replaced. Hand size now reduced by two.
Turn 3, effect triggers and replaces are previous instances. Hand size now reduced by 3.
Here’s a design hint, if a multiple people reading the card understood it in the same way, that’s what the card does, not whatever different thing you intended.
Funny enough, the version I wrote works exactly as you intended your card to work, so probably you should just use that version instead of trying to rewrite the comp rules again.
Please read the update to the headline.
Because your card doesn’t define how the ability ends it’s duration, it doesn’t just end because you say it does. The fact that you had to write a paragraph to explain how people are supposed to use the card means you didn’t write it correctly.
Or you could just use the wording I wrote 4 posts ago since that’s how the card would actually be written if it was printed in-game.
This is still a strong card in an aggro shell but no longer an obviously oppressive card. It's possible it's still too strong but at least it's in the ballpark now.
Great Depression B
Enchantment
When Great Depression enters the battlefield, and at the beginning of your upkeep, put a poverty counter on Great Depression.
Each player's maximum hand size is reduced by the number of poverty counters on Great Depression.
I get that your idea was to have this trigger first once, then twice, then three times. But completely annhialating everyone's hand size in a matter of a few upkeep triggers is way too much, and would be quite unfun. It would have to go on a creature to have that ability so as to be more easily interactable. Look to Sire of Insanity for the cost of actually destroying everyone's hand.
Generally speaking all your designs need to have their efficiency pulled back a bit. You overestimate the value of one mana, and underestimate the potency of cards that resist interaction. But this one I like. I think it's got something going for it. It just triggers too often and has an unnecessary keyword.
But yeah, the biggest problem with the card you posted is that the effect is an emblem (but not written as such for some reason). That has bigtime memory issues, and is uninteractive for no reason. You definitely need it to be the case that if the card is removed, hand sizes return to normal.
The version that I posted would be a value uncommon, and I think a popular card at EDH tables. And one many people would hate, but still one worth existing.
EDIT: Looks like Roawnalpha gave the same redesign I did. So that's probably the correct design. It's a pretty big deal to make cards easily understandable from reading them so no explanation is needed. Heck, this time you even misunderstood your own wording, and thought it reduced 1, then 2, then 3. As written, it definitely reduces 1, then 3, then 6. That's why we use counters/emblems. Stuff gets messy.
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, you get an emblem with "each player's hand size is reduced by 1."
But people hate emblems because they can't be interacted with. There's no reason to change the rules or use confusing wordings when there's already something that does what you're looking for.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Traditionally, triggered abilities are single instance effects. Gnat Miser is a contemporary of this effect. Normally, if we added a triggered effect to this effect, it wouldn't make any sense, because it just wants to be a static ability then. And so it is.
[At the beginning of your upkeep, each player's maximum hand size is reduced by one.]
When this triggers, it reinstates the effect. It would just continuously reduce each player's hand size by one, (by instance) on a trigger, over and over.
Now, when we add Crescendo to this trigger, we're doing the same thing. Thus, the initial effects are reinstated, and replace the previous instatement.
For it to do otherwise, it needs additional context to denote that. Without that context, you get what's provided above.
It doesn't need additional context to denote this, because this is the fundamental mechanics of the game. And conventionally, the purpose of splitting effects between triggered and static abilities. Since we are blending the line here, this is the adaptation that transpires naturally by the fundamental mechanics of the game, and how triggered and static abilities naturally take precedence (without additional context that denotes additional time and space dynamics).
It does have the problem of not being massively fun, which I think is a strike against it. You play this on turn one in Commander and the table groans, you know? I think that's why this is relatively unexplored design space (hello Gnat Miser!)
Flavour-wise, I think 'Great Depression' is out because I can't see WotC going for historical references in 2022 - especially when it's not really anything to do with the Great Depression. 'Depression' is also probably out (and definitely sad counters!). It's just not sensitive to the massive number of people with mental health issues. But it could work as a sort of 'creeping darkness'-type flavour - a rot that slowly engulfs you. There's plenty of precedent for that.
I don't know what you are trying to say. You can just make a triggered ability that says, 'At X reduce both players hand size by 1'. WotC typically makes them static effects on permanents by cards like Inspired Idea exist.
Ah, I do understand what you're saying now. What you're missing is that a triggered ability can't be a static ability. For example "At the beginning of your upkeep, each creature gets -1/-1" is not supported in the rules. There has to be a term limit stated. Normally that would be until end of turn. Your trigger is missing that term limit, so we've just assumed that means "for the rest of the game". Only Riding the Dilu Horse defies this principal, and that was by error. The oracle text includes "This effect lasts indefinitley."
But regardless of any of that, clarity is key. Even if your version were supported in the rules, it would be confusing to people. That's not what anybody wants. If you wanted to create a new rule in which triggered abilities could be static like this, you would need some serious reminder text. It also wouldn't open up any design space.
But moving on from technicalities, I do agree with Gothblin about the actual card's actual effect in its printable version.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
You seriously need to stop acting like you know anything about rules. Gnat Miser is a static ability. Full stop. In no way shape or form does it have anything to do with triggered abilities.
There are already triggered abilities that create permanent effects, see Stigma Lasher. It’s effect doesn’t end and replace itself the second time it deals damage, there’s just no additional effect from multiple “Player can’t gain life” abilities being in existence.
Your card has a triggered ability.
Your triggered ability does not define its duration.
Your card does not define in its text how to remove that effect.
If you write cards and leave out key pieces of information, people will not understand your intention, and that is your fault for being a bad communicator, not their fault for not reading your mind.
I said that, the effect was contemporary. And if we put it on a trigger, typically it doesn't make any sense; or at least, it become too confusing for a single instance effect. And this is where the traditional split between triggered and static abilities begins.
When we blend this line, these are the dynamics that take precedence based on how they would work if that static ability was a triggered ability.
Also, I'd like to remind you that since we are blending the line on an innovation here, it's entirely open source to the interpretation of the developer; and this is my interpretation as explained.
Is there any mechanical difference between the effect and
“At the beginning of your upkeep, each player’s maximum hand size is reduced by 1 (this effect doesn’t end at end of turn).”
Or would they function identically?
What it does different is exclude Crescendo, which has additional applications (and interactions) apart from what's provided.
In my design, it's apart of a greater whole that is excluded in your design.
Certainly, they function similarly, but not interactively, concerning the application of Crescendo here.
Additionally, yours is more confusing that the effect continues or not after the permanent has left the battlefield.
It looks like you are looking for a mixture of Experience Counters and Cumulative Upkeep (where you are guaranteed to gain another counter like Cumulative upkeep but there is no cost, where possessing counters could theoretically increase the potency of passive or triggered abilities as seen in psychic vortex, mwonvuli ooze, Mizzix of the Nivmagus, and Daxos the Returned) with the added benefit of being able to isolate the ability from being connected to a permanent/token/emblem. Is that about right?
As has been noted, permanent abilities have been done in the past. Agent of Treachery takes things forever, Riding the Dilu Horse never ends (though that's an old and awkward example), Stigma Lasher makes a permanent effect, Lots of moonlace-type effects never wear off, Counsel of the Praetors gives a permanent benefit, and Obsidian Fireheart/Book of Exalted Deeds create counters that have permanent abilities that last beyond the original permanent.
With that said, I expect that there is going to be some natural disagreement regarding what level of cognitive load is appropriate for this game. The test card Control Win Condition from Mystery Boosters a few years ago is unlikely to ever see print because it relies on keeping track of a value over a long period of time that the game does not generally give you a way to track (how many turns you've taken, in that case). I recall that you've designed several cards in the past that last 2 or 3 turns without using tokens to track and that's something that wizards hasn't really had people do since Telekinesis back in Legends.
Note that most of the permanent effects I listed above are either Yes-No binaries (either I have a maximum hand-size or I dont, either players can gain life or they can't, either I control the creature or they do, one trait doctoring effect typically overrules all previous ones, etc) or are marked by counters (as with the fireheart or BoED). What you are proposing is effects that can have granularity and that have no remaining way to track magnitude when the card leaves the battlefield (I may need to remember that one card with this ability caused hand sizes to be reduced by 2, that all sources of life gain gain an extra 3 life, and that all of my creatures get +4/+4 in the late-game, for example, with no counters/emblems on any permanents or players to mark that it is still in effect).
I imagine that this is an effect that you don't see any problems with and that I see as going against current design doctrine. No real way past that unless one of us drastically change our design philosophies but thought that the source of contention might be worth pointing out. I think that we can both agree that 1) this design would not be used by Wizards at this current time with their current design philosophies and 2) that this does not bother you as you see Wizards' designs as needlessly restrictive, though you can let me know if I'm wrong.
I wouldn't typically think to create a design with crescendo and an effect that lasts for the rest of the game (its polarizing).
I don't see your point in some of your examples. The Treachery one is a single instance effect on a trigger. It's not a permanent effect. Dulu Horse is from Portal III, and long errated (as should Moonlace always be) to include "this effect doesn't end" for coherence.
I believe strongly in providing additional context (or reminder text) for coherence where it's necessary. It should not be necessary here, as the technicalities are apart of comprehensive rulings that would go into MTG articles for explanation, in the implementation process of the new content.
The context of "use a counter to keep track of this" in Crescendo was a personally debated subject, where I decided to just leave it there for the clean coherence that it provides. It might be unnecessary, but I felt like it makes the concept more friendly (specifically that it's introducing something new to the game that it's not exactly familiar with). This is the traditional standard of etiquette—and of where things like reminder text come from.
Certainly, I believe that companies should stand their ground to defend things like constitutional rights and human rights against the masses and their intolerance, unprofessionalism, and/or over-sensitivity. It should also stand its ground to defend all creative potential for their products. Not doing so creates a bad environment where these types of submissions are easily exploited by those with pernicious motives. And thus, can become an alibi for tyrants to oppress others.
As for the creative potential of the product, this is naturally healthy, as innovation and improvisation is the mark of talent. It is this exactly that breathes new life into the product, keeps it fun and exciting; and thus, preserves interest for the consumer to continue investing their time, attention, and money into it.
Likewise, a bad cabinet is unhealthy for the company, and wants to be cleaned immediately (for the sake of the greater potential that's available for the product—and the profits this brings). This is maybe, not an easily discernable thing for a company's executives, if they are out-of-touch with their product (which they never want to be). That is supposed to be why Richard gets paid 80k dollars a year as a consultant for Wizards regarding MTG. A job I would be graciously happy to take over for—and could easily prove my expertise and competence towards.
That being said, any current "standard" that the MTG teams have don't necessarily represent what's truest and purest, and/or represent what's best for the product or the company. It can simply be the product of a deep-seating, long-standing corruption that produces gerrymandering.
This being said, I think the right-standing or wrong-standing of my work (in said eyes) is majorly irrelevant at its worst, and should not be a topic for discussion.
That's the point of the "this effect doesn't end at the end of the turn". It's less confusing that yours.
There are some problems with crecendo too. It's just that it isn't necessary for the card, so people keep leaving it off.
Crecendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
It doesn't say when during your turn. That means as written, you can go ahead and add a counter the turn this enters the battlefield, and you can do it before your upkeep. So, this actually has two crecendo counters the first time it triggers if you play correctly. Another problem: it doesn't define the type of counters. It also multiplies all triggers, so if you have say Sword of Body and Mind on a crecendo creature, it gets extra triggers on hit. That's not a problem, just a feature.
I think the wording would have to be closer to this:
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
Great Depression B
Enchantment
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, create an emblem with "Each player's maximum hand size is reduced by 1."
This is the broken version. That's because this card should NOT have crecendo. Crecendo is an ability that would have to be on very conservatively built cards. Again, your idea with the replacement ability is not supported in the rules, and you don't get to change the rules. This should be written as has been suggested to reduce hand size by the number of counters on the card. You've offered no reason why that's not the best version.
Now, let's look at whether or not crecendo is adding useful design space:
Sweltering Soloist 1R
Creature- Human Bard (U)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When Sweltering Soloist attacks, it deals 1 damage to target player or planeswalker.
0/2
Audience Seating 5
Artifact (R)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When a creature enters the battlefield under your control, scry 1.
Drum Circle 3GG
Creature- Elf Bard (U)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
When Drum Circle dies, draw a card.
4/4
Arraster, Master of Music 2UW
Legendary Creature- Sphinx Bard (R)
Flying
When Arraster, Master of Music attacks, tap up to one target creature. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
2/3
Exquisite Recital 5U
Enchantment (M)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your end step, draw a card.
And a twisted version of your card:
Haunting Concerto 2BB
Enchantment (R)
Crecendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on this card. When another triggered ability of this card triggers, copy that ability for for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your end step, each player discards a card.
Conclusion: Yes, the ability is worthwhile, and opens up a good amount of design space. It's a good ability, but because of how it scales, it's super dangerous. I keep needing to go back and increase the mana costs of the cards I posted considering their second turn potential. I like the ability, and I could keep spitting out cards with it. That's a good sign. But it is a risky ability. It can get really out of hand, and you have to charge a lot of mana for it. Most of the cards are gonna end up being crap, and the ones that are good might be too good.
Once again, this ability should absolutely not be on the card you originally posted. That card is best served without the ability.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
The reason being, effects that disrupt them would disrupt Crescendo, and we don't want that to happen. Some of the designs have negative effects that are apart of the balance in the design. The context of "During each of your turns" as it's written (without any additional context) means [at the beginning of your turn, outside the influence of any actual phases]. Of course, this might be re-workable as "At the start of your turn", I just didn't feel that flowed quite as well when I was developing the initial concept. It's a little polarizing to me.
The examples you've provided are bad examples. They're unartistic and using different functionality than what's intended. The purpose of this intended functionality is to keep Crescendo within reasonable proportions and artistic utilities.
Yes we do. We want the opponent to be able to disrupt crecendo. That's interaction.
That is not accurate. During your turn means at any time during your turn. You have to state when it happens.
The functionality that's intended doesn't work within the rules. This version does. These are random examples to show proof of concept, which is something you have not managed to do yet. If you can show me proof of concept on cards that operate within the rules and are balanced, I'll be pleased.
Once again, you must work within the rules of the game you are designing for. Otherwise, you may as well be tapping orange mana to untap target player.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Not exactly. And you provided the exact reason why. The context would include "at any time" to denote that aspect of time-space.
The composure of "During each of your turns" is intended as base context, with the comprehensive ruling provided.
I don't know what you mean about time-space. Instead of time, Magic has steps and phases and operates on a basis of passing priority and emptying the stack. Instead of space, it has zones. Perhaps you mean timing restrictions, which are indeed something you need to worry more about in your wordings.
If you have a working version of your wording, let's see it. Again, you must work within the rules. This seems to be your main challenge. You don't get to say the rules are wrong. They aren't wrong. You may disagree with some of them, but they're the principals that make the game function. You just need to learn to use them. You don't have to be a rules guru to know that you have say when say when an effect happens.
It's okay if you get rules wording wrong on a custom card. Nobody judges you for that. Just correct your wordings when people point out mistakes or omissions. Arguing that an incorrect wording is actually correct is counterproductive.
Give us a working version of crecendo within the rules, and some cards with it that work. They don't need to be flashy, they just need to be proof of concept. Anything that shows it can actually be implemented in real games as a real mechanic. I did it, and you can too. It's not that hard. You just have to make Crecendo operate within the game of magic with appropriate timing restrictions and card balance. You can do this, I know you can. you just have to actually try. You just have to stop saying "I'm right because I'm right because I'm right" and actually use game design skills and an understanding of the game to apply your concepts within that game. I'm not criticizing you here, I'm encouraging you. If you believe in this concept, show you can make it happen within the rules. It can be done. But the rules don't adapt to you, you adapt to them. If this mechanic is worthwhile, show me.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Some nice designs in here Mergatroid, but they all suffer from being simpler and easier to parse if you take the keyword off.
Sweltering Soloist 1R
Creature - Human Bard (U)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may put a verse counter on ~.
When ~ attacks, it deals X damage divided as you choose to any number of target players or planeswalkers, where X is the number of verse counters on it.
0/2
That's not a problem with any of your designs, of course, it's a problem with Crescendo as an idea. WotC would probably make adding the counters mandatory too, so there's no risk of forgetting, given it's going to be an effect you want nine times out of ten.
I expect I'll get a few hundred words from Reap on how this cleaner, simpler design is depriving people of human rights and artistic utility, so to pre-empt that: mate, your weird little keyword is not special enough to trigger at a time nothing else in the game does and no amount of arguing will change that.