"Target opponent reveals his or her hand. Put each creature card revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control. Creatures you control get -1/-1 until end of turn for each creature put into the battlefield with ~."
This I feel gives it a bit of a chance element if you do not get to research their hand prior to playing the card.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Darius?"
"Yea?"
"There's a Goblin sneaking up behind you."
"So?"
"Just Sayin"
Amazing Leathermime Gaymer
Knefriteri Bahushi
Creature - Uhailu Advisor Assassin
When Knefriteri Bahusi enters the battlefield, exile target player's graveyard unless he or she pays
1/1
Gold: 10
Inventory: Aristocrat's Facade
Traits: Legal Boundaries (+1.5 on rolls involving deception)
Ills:
Experience: 5/20
Mana::symwb::sym2w::symub:
I agree with Ikeda, just make it more simple and less powerful but still fun, however with a slight change.
For each opponent, look at that player's hand and choose a creature card from it, then put that card onto the battlefield under your control.
Having all opponents reveal their hands to the whole table in a multiplayer game is just unfun and brutal (especially in a free-for-all game like EDH), therefore the somewhat outdated wording of "Looking at [someone's] hand" (It's still that current oracle wording for Abandon Hope and Agonizing Memories though).
This is somewhat equivalent to Blatant Thievery. BT steals a huge tempo out of the opponents (by stealing things that are already casted) but doesn't give you ETB effects. BT can't touch the cards in hand while this can't touch the cards on the battlefield. Both initially give you +1 card advantage and then +2 for each additional opponent. If we would make this multicolour, this could even be costed at 6, although 7 might be better because people wouldn't enjoy having their hand seen and their dudes stripped away very early.
This would serve better to also be a timmy-having-fun card. Of course you could go with all the life loss, limitation shananigans or sacrificing stuffs to justify topping it up with some more good effects and less mana cost and turn it into a pure-spike card. But as I said earlier (last month), this is You Make the Card, not Spikes Make the Card, so pure-spike card aren't really the first thing we should look for.
Other relevant thoughts
- Overly complicated and wordy cards are never appealing.
- Cards that appeals more than one group of players are very welcome.
- Cards with multiplayer application are appealing most of the time.
What about something like this:
"Each (other?) player reveals a creature card from his or her hand. Put each of cards revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control."
I think that balances it a bit because you stand to get a creature, but not their most powerful one. It also has the added benefit of making interesting choices for the defending players if they have more than one good creature or more than one creature that's important to their deck strategy.
--
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Listen to my M:tG flavor Podcast: Story Circle! (Newest episode is all about Innistrad previews.)
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
{card} {mana}
Sorcery ({rarity})
Multikicker {mana, same as original cost}
Target player discards a card, then reveals their hand. You may put all creature cards revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control.
For each time you payed the kicker cost, you may repeat this spell targetting a different player.
versus
"Each opponenet reveals their hand. Put each creature card revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control."
Gets rid of the multi-player v. singleplayer costing issue, while at the same time giving you way more options in multiplayer. The addition of the discard clause (in bold) is only their to make the spell less of an "I win", giving your opponent(s) the option to dump their most dangerous beasty. However that clause is not set in stone and should be discussed. Increasing the mana cost and/or rarity could counteract the board changing effects of the card, removing the need for the discard clause. I much prefer the spell with the discard clause, because that makes it harder to break, and individual broken cards are never fun (cards which are broken as a group are fine, as long as the group is large enough). It also increases the amount of play the card will see as it decreases cost and/or rarity.
An entirely different approach is to require the casting player to pay life for each card they play. This makes the spell potentially dangerous, and it could backfire and push you over your life total. This would almost completly remove the need to up the cost for multiplayer, because the life cost will be so much statistically higher in multiplayer matchs. However this would require the card to black or a black friend in order to stay in the colour pie.
Really? No one likes the rebound idea? Not even a reason why not? Okay then... *sulks in corner*
It's actually very much like Dodavehu's idea, where it forces the defending player(s) to make tough decisions.
I missed that one. I sort of don't like making cards with block mechanics for the community cards, but in this case I think rebound would be pretty cool.
--
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Listen to my M:tG flavor Podcast: Story Circle! (Newest episode is all about Innistrad previews.)
Really? No one likes the rebound idea? Not even a reason why not? Okay then... *sulks in corner*
Rebound could make sense for this effect, especially if the final decision is to make each opponent choose a creature card in his/her own hand.
However, in multiplayer (which is the direction this card seems to be going to), rebounding this card would result in absurd amount of card advantage. For a 4-player free-for-all the first cast would get you 1+2+2 = +5 CA. On rebound it would give you additional 2+2+2 = 6 CA for a total of +11 CA. Yes, Recurring Insight might yield similar CA. But Recurring Insight doesn't cheat those cards onto the battlefield!
What about something like this:
"Each (other?) player reveals a creature card from his or her hand. Put each of cards revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control."
I think that balances it a bit because you stand to get a creature, but not their most powerful one. It also has the added benefit of making interesting choices for the defending players if they have more than one good creature or more than one creature that's important to their deck strategy.
--
First of all, it has to be "opponent" and not "other player" otherwise you get to cheat your teammate's badass dude onto the battlefield in 2HG or other forms of of team multiplayer.
Secondly, it would lend itself to the "Browbeat Dilemma" in which you always get the worse end of the deal unless you jump through so many hoops to set it up or your opponent(s) are already in a losing position. Cards like this is suppose to make you win the game. Allowing your opponents to choose would most of the time not help you win the game, and is very likely to be unfun for the caster.
Suggestion: (Inspired by Recurring Insight's playtest name "play your stuff")
Target opponent reveals his or her hand, then chooses a creature card from it. You may put that creature onto the battlefield under your control.
Rebound
The idea here is that your opponent has to try and get that bomb out of their hand by next turn. It interacts well with cards like See Beyond and Jace, the Mindsculptor's brainstorm ability, which allows you to bury those cards just out of reach.
I think the card would be pretty exciting. First time around it will most certainly grab something (albeit their "worst" creature) and if they've got another creature, they're forced to play it, hide it, or lose it.
It also works well in multiplayer. If you hit a guy and see he has no other creatures, you can direct the rebound at someone else.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"In the beginning, MTG Salvation switched to a new forum format.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
It was at that moment that I realized: I'm kinda just making these things up. We can just write the rules the way we want them to work. People will have fun, and people will get it.
Make it black(/blue) and add "You lose life equal to the total power (or converted mana cost) of those creature cards?" Like Reanimate or whatnot, but with the risk of killing you.
I actually like that alot. loosing life equal to each creatures cmc. your looking at taking one creature and losing a bit of health, or alot of creatures and losing alot of heath. i mean it balances well, your getting what your paying in health for. crappy creature, barely any cost, a strong creature- lots of weenies medium cost, lots of strong creatures- heavy cost or even death.
How about adding a "You lose life equal to the number of cards revealed this way." clause to it? It adds a serious drawback for multiplayer, where it could be rendered unplayable with too many opponents (where it would be most powerful) and not too serious of one for 1-on-1.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern
Fish
Legacy
Fish
EDH BGRProssh, Skyraider of Kher BGR Level 1 Judge
I actually like that alot. loosing life equal to each creatures cmc. your looking at taking one creature and losing a bit of health, or alot of creatures and losing alot of heath. i mean it balances well, your getting what your paying in health for. crappy creature, barely any cost, a strong creature- lots of weenies medium cost, lots of strong creatures- heavy cost or even death.
Sounds surfacingly good. Until you imagine topdecking the card when you really need help and realise you can't get anything because your life total is too low. That's even worse than drawing a PtE against planeswalkers. Then two things could happen; the spikes suck it up and play it anyway because when it's good it's good enough to justify the times when it's bad, and everyone else just walk away. Sounds balance, but does that sound fun?
Life loss is something R&D used to utilise years ago to balance things when they had no better idea and they largely abandon it. M10 duals in, painlands out. Several good articles in mtg.com already mentioned why life loss is generally not a good way to balance things.
Several good articles in mtg.com already mentioned why life loss is generally not a good way to balance things.
Do you have any links to those (not that I don't believe you, they just sound interesting and I don't remember ever reading anything on that topic)?
--
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Listen to my M:tG flavor Podcast: Story Circle! (Newest episode is all about Innistrad previews.)
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
Then don't vote for it, but don't call other people's ideas stupid.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Wow, that did come out a lot more offensive than I thought it would.
Generals meant to be drafted first in a single pack of 6 cards.
And here is the actual cube, meant to be drafted in 4 regular sized packs. (60 card decks)
This I feel gives it a bit of a chance element if you do not get to research their hand prior to playing the card.
"Yea?"
"There's a Goblin sneaking up behind you."
"So?"
"Just Sayin"
Amazing Leathermime Gaymer
Creature - Uhailu Advisor Assassin
When Knefriteri Bahusi enters the battlefield, exile target player's graveyard unless he or she pays
1/1
Gold: 10
Inventory: Aristocrat's Facade
Traits: Legal Boundaries (+1.5 on rolls involving deception)
Ills:
Experience: 5/20
Mana::symwb::sym2w::symub:
Having all opponents reveal their hands to the whole table in a multiplayer game is just unfun and brutal (especially in a free-for-all game like EDH), therefore the somewhat outdated wording of "Looking at [someone's] hand" (It's still that current oracle wording for Abandon Hope and Agonizing Memories though).
This is somewhat equivalent to Blatant Thievery. BT steals a huge tempo out of the opponents (by stealing things that are already casted) but doesn't give you ETB effects. BT can't touch the cards in hand while this can't touch the cards on the battlefield. Both initially give you +1 card advantage and then +2 for each additional opponent. If we would make this multicolour, this could even be costed at 6, although 7 might be better because people wouldn't enjoy having their hand seen and their dudes stripped away very early.
This would serve better to also be a timmy-having-fun card. Of course you could go with all the life loss, limitation shananigans or sacrificing stuffs to justify topping it up with some more good effects and less mana cost and turn it into a pure-spike card. But as I said earlier (last month), this is You Make the Card, not Spikes Make the Card, so pure-spike card aren't really the first thing we should look for.
Other relevant thoughts
- Overly complicated and wordy cards are never appealing.
- Cards that appeals more than one group of players are very welcome.
- Cards with multiplayer application are appealing most of the time.
"Each (other?) player reveals a creature card from his or her hand. Put each of cards revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control."
I think that balances it a bit because you stand to get a creature, but not their most powerful one. It also has the added benefit of making interesting choices for the defending players if they have more than one good creature or more than one creature that's important to their deck strategy.
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
It's actually very much like Dodavehu's idea, where it forces the defending player(s) to make tough decisions.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
{card} {mana}
Sorcery ({rarity})
Multikicker {mana, same as original cost}
Target player discards a card, then reveals their hand. You may put all creature cards revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control.
For each time you payed the kicker cost, you may repeat this spell targetting a different player.
versus
"Each opponenet reveals their hand. Put each creature card revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control."
Gets rid of the multi-player v. singleplayer costing issue, while at the same time giving you way more options in multiplayer. The addition of the discard clause (in bold) is only their to make the spell less of an "I win", giving your opponent(s) the option to dump their most dangerous beasty. However that clause is not set in stone and should be discussed. Increasing the mana cost and/or rarity could counteract the board changing effects of the card, removing the need for the discard clause. I much prefer the spell with the discard clause, because that makes it harder to break, and individual broken cards are never fun (cards which are broken as a group are fine, as long as the group is large enough). It also increases the amount of play the card will see as it decreases cost and/or rarity.
An entirely different approach is to require the casting player to pay life for each card they play. This makes the spell potentially dangerous, and it could backfire and push you over your life total. This would almost completly remove the need to up the cost for multiplayer, because the life cost will be so much statistically higher in multiplayer matchs. However this would require the card to black or a black friend in order to stay in the colour pie.
GWU Rafiq
RWB Zurgo
WBG Ghave
WUB Oloro
WBR Kaalia (Archived)
My Blog, currently working on series about my custom set Cazia.
Steam Trades - I play Dota 2, CS:GO, TF2, and trade cards heavily. Add me if you like.
I missed that one. I sort of don't like making cards with block mechanics for the community cards, but in this case I think rebound would be pretty cool.
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
However, in multiplayer (which is the direction this card seems to be going to), rebounding this card would result in absurd amount of card advantage. For a 4-player free-for-all the first cast would get you 1+2+2 = +5 CA. On rebound it would give you additional 2+2+2 = 6 CA for a total of +11 CA. Yes, Recurring Insight might yield similar CA. But Recurring Insight doesn't cheat those cards onto the battlefield!
First of all, it has to be "opponent" and not "other player" otherwise you get to cheat your teammate's badass dude onto the battlefield in 2HG or other forms of of team multiplayer.
Secondly, it would lend itself to the "Browbeat Dilemma" in which you always get the worse end of the deal unless you jump through so many hoops to set it up or your opponent(s) are already in a losing position. Cards like this is suppose to make you win the game. Allowing your opponents to choose would most of the time not help you win the game, and is very likely to be unfun for the caster.
Yeah, that was kind of the idea. Here's my original post:
It also works well in multiplayer. If you hit a guy and see he has no other creatures, you can direct the rebound at someone else.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Comic Book Set
Archester: Frontier of Steam (A steampunk set!)
A Good Place to Start Designing
I actually like that alot. loosing life equal to each creatures cmc. your looking at taking one creature and losing a bit of health, or alot of creatures and losing alot of heath. i mean it balances well, your getting what your paying in health for. crappy creature, barely any cost, a strong creature- lots of weenies medium cost, lots of strong creatures- heavy cost or even death.
Modern
Fish
Legacy
Fish
EDH
BGRProssh, Skyraider of Kher BGR
Level 1 Judge
Life loss is something R&D used to utilise years ago to balance things when they had no better idea and they largely abandon it. M10 duals in, painlands out. Several good articles in mtg.com already mentioned why life loss is generally not a good way to balance things.
Do you have any links to those (not that I don't believe you, they just sound interesting and I don't remember ever reading anything on that topic)?
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
Each opponent reveals X cards at random for his or her hand. Put all creature cards revealed this way onto the battlefield under your control.
That should do it. We'll shorten the list and put up the poll soon.