Sign of the CrossW Sorcery
Look at the top four cards of your library. You may play a land card from among them. Then put one of those cards on the top of your library and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order. You gain 2 life. Even forgiveness requires a binding.
First, a massive color pie violation. Proper color for this effect is green. Though thanks to the deck manipulation it is still little off for green.
This effect is very strong at one mana but doesn't do enough to justify a higher cost. If you drop the nonsense of putting a card on top and the pointless gain life its an interesting and reasonable card at G.
Why would I play this over a basic land? It doesn't ramp because it takes up your land play for the turn. So basically all it does is let you play a land from a different zone, and you might even whiff with it. I'd rather draw a basic land than this card, at least that's a guaranteed land drop that doesn't give my opponents a bonus.
Flavor follows form never the other way as anything can be fit in any color via flavor.
That said, my first go through was overly harsh in toning it down. Dropping just the pointless gain life would make it a good card for G. Library manipulation isn't a green effect but it doesn't undermine the color's weakness. Too much and you cross a line but doing it as a bonus for an in pie effect to make it worth playing is fine.
I was going to put on the card explicitly [if you haven't played a land this turn], but since it's been decided that March of Ancestral Recall doesn't have to say that, this shouldn't either? You know I am all about coherence, but I also believe the fundamental rules of the game should be understood, despite being unwritten.
It's cool...is why.
Cause ahh...there are people like me who will run like 18 lands in their deck, and this becomes really neat to keep pace with your land drops, while adding some indexing to boot.
The design is interesting but, as others have stated, it is categorically not a white card as white is worst at card draw/filtering and doesn't get ramp. Additionally, putting "play a land" in the spell resolution doesn't work the way you want it too. If the spell tells you to take a special action, it doesn't care if you've already played your land for the turn, if it somehow isn't you main phase or even isn't your turn. This is much more a Blue-Green spell.
Flavor is not justification to give colors abilities they shouldn't have. A designer's job is to find ways to make flavorful abilities that fit in color.
Others have pointed out the not-whiteness, but can I ask what the flavour is here? You mentioned archangels - it's a Christianity reference or something else? And what is the flavour text about?
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
Certainly, we shouldn't oppress people's creativity and choice of application.
Attempting to force feed someone our philosophy is toxic.
That's not what free spaces of communication are for.
Let me attempt to redirect the logical path here, in noting that the point of interest that wants to be addressed here and now is the reason behind why colors shouldn't have some fundamental grounds, and why that's not core-essential to the game down to its most bare bones physics.
Let's not subvert back to our bias of colors and functionality before disproving this—or at least acknowledging it fairly as a possibility (that you just might not be able to understand or touch on).
White flavor-wise is literally based on religious precept, so it's fair to note as long as we don't directly reference Christianity, that it's ambiguous towards any religion in specific (despite shared grounds). Otherwise, if one insists this can't be true, we have to gut the entire color from the game.
///
I'd like to address a personal concern of mine that the nature and scale of this design really wants to be pushed into the uncommon territory. I don't think it entirely lacks this flare as it stands, but certainly leaves one guessing with the life gaining drawback. I'd like to push the notion of making the life gain universal, so that all players gain 4 life instead; maybe reduce the life gained if necessary; but certainly I'd like no question towards the status of its rarity as an uncommon.
Certainly, we shouldn't oppress people's creativity and choice of application.
Let's not subvert back to our bias of colors and functionality before disproving this—or at least acknowledging it fairly as a possibility (that you just might not be able to understand or touch on).
In case you missed the new pinned thread at the top of this forum, color pie (and other basic balance/design principles that everyone already knows) are now things that matter on this forum.
Quote from rowanalpha »
Your designs should be based on the assumptions of Magic design and rules as they currently are. If you want to design something that requires changing rules or breaking with normal design expectations of things like the color pie, power level, etc. , you should explain your intention and why you want to do so so that commenters can understand and discuss your intentions.
The same rules say to move on if the original poster is unresponsive to criticism and I intend to do so but I did want to pass this along in case it wasn’t noticed.
Let me attempt to redirect the logical path here, in noting that the point of interest that wants to be addressed here and now is the reason behind why colors shouldn't have some fundamental grounds, and why that's not core-essential to the game down to its most bare bones physics.
In principle, I'm open to hearing an argument. For example, if you'd said: "All colours need lands to play the game. Green gets to search for them and put them into hand/play. Blue gets blue loot (draw then discard) and lots of Anticipate and straight draw to find lands. Red gets impulse (play cards before EOT/next EOT) and red loot (discard then draw), so it can find lands that way. And Black gets universal tutors, which you could use to find lands, and straight draw with sac/life loss. But White only gets to find Plains." then I'd have conceded the first point, but replied that with its good point and mass removal, and medium-to-good finishers, White doesn't need better control elements. To balance the colours while making them feel different from each other, they have to have strengths and weaknesses - make White decks better at drawing cards and controlling the library, they don't need to splash Blue.
Instead you said, "White doesn't get anything of something that it needs (from a fundamentals of game physics basis)" and talked about flavour. Can you please explain that sentence as simply as you possibly can? Because I cannot follow it.
White flavor-wise is literally based on religious precept, so it's fair to note as long as we don't directly reference Christianity, that it's ambiguous towards any religion in specific (despite shared grounds). Otherwise, if one insists this can't be true, we have to gut the entire color from the game.
I'm down for cards referencing religion in White, especially organised religion. But the cross is probably the most recognisable religious symbol on the planet. Even if it's not a crucifix we're talking about here, (a + or an X or something), I think it's not ambiguous enough and I recommend changing the name/flavour of the card.
"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
The phrase "Sign of the Cross" provokes thoughts of perdition, protection, or premonition. Some kind of defensive or lifegain spell with an attached scry would be more on point than this.
It was speaking on the Legends version and not the autocard showing.
It relates to me edit on the design. If you didn't see before, it originally granted each opponent 4 life, which is zealous; but sorta punking to be honest (a desperate feel-bad event); and now it pulls out on that and cucks them instead for 2 life.
It was speaking on the Legends version and not the autocard showing.
It relates to me edit on the design. If you didn't see before, it originally granted each opponent 4 life, which is zealous; but sorta punking to be honest (a desperate feel-bad aspect); and now it pulls that and cucks them instead for 2 life.
I still don't understand what you mean, and you're supposed to leave previous versions of your card in post to provide context for commentators.
That's some crazy unwritten law. I wouldn't mind if there was a console that allowed up to cache the previous versions in a spoiler.
Not going out of my way to do that manually though, please forgive me.
It's not necessary and best forgotten.
No, it's written and posted right at the top of the forum for everyone to see, and it seems to me pasting new text and tagging the old with spoilers is much easier than wasting your time writing out nonsense from which you expect people to intuit wisdom.
That's some crazy unwritten law. I wouldn't mind if there was a console that allowed up to cache the previous versions in a spoiler.
Not going out of my way to do that manually though, please forgive me.
It's not necessary and best forgotten.
A core aspect of Magic is the balance between the colors and - while you can post any designs you want - dismissing reasonable feedback out of hand doesn't serve the purpose of this forum. If you can explain game balance/context for why you think it is not breaking the color pie, that is a fine discussion to have. Vague posts about why you feel like those criticisms just don't apply to you aren't.
Given past history of these types of discussions, this thread has run its course and will be locked.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorcery
Look at the top four cards of your library. You may play a land card from among them. Then put one of those cards on the top of your library and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order. You gain 2 life.
Even forgiveness requires a binding.
This effect is very strong at one mana but doesn't do enough to justify a higher cost. If you drop the nonsense of putting a card on top and the pointless gain life its an interesting and reasonable card at G.
Name is confusing as hell.
White doesn't get anything of something that it needs (from a fundamentals of game physics basis). This begins to mend what's broken.
Originally, I wanted this concept to revolve around calling of the 4 archangels (of the four directions).
Invocation is a big part of angelology. Calling on angels for direction, or insight, or guidance (not just protection).
From a flavor stand-point, it should be in the suite for white. We should all know functionality then follows.
NO.
That said, my first go through was overly harsh in toning it down. Dropping just the pointless gain life would make it a good card for G. Library manipulation isn't a green effect but it doesn't undermine the color's weakness. Too much and you cross a line but doing it as a bonus for an in pie effect to make it worth playing is fine.
You can only play the land if you haven't played a land this turn.
Just the same as March of Reckless Joy.
I was going to put on the card explicitly [if you haven't played a land this turn], but since it's been decided that March of Ancestral Recall doesn't have to say that, this shouldn't either? You know I am all about coherence, but I also believe the fundamental rules of the game should be understood, despite being unwritten.
It's cool...is why.
Cause ahh...there are people like me who will run like 18 lands in their deck, and this becomes really neat to keep pace with your land drops, while adding some indexing to boot.
Flavor is not justification to give colors abilities they shouldn't have. A designer's job is to find ways to make flavorful abilities that fit in color.
Attempting to force feed someone our philosophy is toxic.
That's not what free spaces of communication are for.
Let me attempt to redirect the logical path here, in noting that the point of interest that wants to be addressed here and now is the reason behind why colors shouldn't have some fundamental grounds, and why that's not core-essential to the game down to its most bare bones physics.
Let's not subvert back to our bias of colors and functionality before disproving this—or at least acknowledging it fairly as a possibility (that you just might not be able to understand or touch on).
White flavor-wise is literally based on religious precept, so it's fair to note as long as we don't directly reference Christianity, that it's ambiguous towards any religion in specific (despite shared grounds). Otherwise, if one insists this can't be true, we have to gut the entire color from the game.
///
I'd like to address a personal concern of mine that the nature and scale of this design really wants to be pushed into the uncommon territory. I don't think it entirely lacks this flare as it stands, but certainly leaves one guessing with the life gaining drawback. I'd like to push the notion of making the life gain universal, so that all players gain 4 life instead; maybe reduce the life gained if necessary; but certainly I'd like no question towards the status of its rarity as an uncommon.
In case you missed the new pinned thread at the top of this forum, color pie (and other basic balance/design principles that everyone already knows) are now things that matter on this forum.
The same rules say to move on if the original poster is unresponsive to criticism and I intend to do so but I did want to pass this along in case it wasn’t noticed.
In principle, I'm open to hearing an argument. For example, if you'd said: "All colours need lands to play the game. Green gets to search for them and put them into hand/play. Blue gets blue loot (draw then discard) and lots of Anticipate and straight draw to find lands. Red gets impulse (play cards before EOT/next EOT) and red loot (discard then draw), so it can find lands that way. And Black gets universal tutors, which you could use to find lands, and straight draw with sac/life loss. But White only gets to find Plains." then I'd have conceded the first point, but replied that with its good point and mass removal, and medium-to-good finishers, White doesn't need better control elements. To balance the colours while making them feel different from each other, they have to have strengths and weaknesses - make White decks better at drawing cards and controlling the library, they don't need to splash Blue.
Instead you said, "White doesn't get anything of something that it needs (from a fundamentals of game physics basis)" and talked about flavour. Can you please explain that sentence as simply as you possibly can? Because I cannot follow it.
I also asked about the flavour, and you said:
I'm down for cards referencing religion in White, especially organised religion. But the cross is probably the most recognisable religious symbol on the planet. Even if it's not a crucifix we're talking about here, (a + or an X or something), I think it's not ambiguous enough and I recommend changing the name/flavour of the card.
At first you want to give each opponent 4 life, then you only want 2 life for yourself.
What does any of this mean?
It relates to me edit on the design. If you didn't see before, it originally granted each opponent 4 life, which is zealous; but sorta punking to be honest (a desperate feel-bad event); and now it pulls out on that and cucks them instead for 2 life.
I still don't understand what you mean, and you're supposed to leave previous versions of your card in post to provide context for commentators.
Not going out of my way to do that manually though, please forgive me.
It's not necessary and best forgotten.
No, it's written and posted right at the top of the forum for everyone to see, and it seems to me pasting new text and tagging the old with spoilers is much easier than wasting your time writing out nonsense from which you expect people to intuit wisdom.
A core aspect of Magic is the balance between the colors and - while you can post any designs you want - dismissing reasonable feedback out of hand doesn't serve the purpose of this forum. If you can explain game balance/context for why you think it is not breaking the color pie, that is a fine discussion to have. Vague posts about why you feel like those criticisms just don't apply to you aren't.
Given past history of these types of discussions, this thread has run its course and will be locked.