Well it hardly "broken" , as any combo that work with it means you have to play this 4 mana enchantment first, and actual play the super expensive cards that are pretty bad without this.
Overall a nice design, but the card itself is just not strong enough to make a deck with it.
Well it hardly "broken" , as any combo that work with it means you have to play this 4 mana enchantment first, and actual play the super expensive cards that are pretty bad without this.
Overall a nice design, but the card itself is just not strong enough to make a deck with it.
It would make two 0/0 tokens if you don't sacrifice any lands.
I don't see any problem with making X arbitrarily large.
You declare X in 601.2b to be, say, 1,000,000.
You determine the cost in 601.2e, declaring that you will pay {1} rather than sacrifice 1,000,000 lands.
The costs are paid, with X=1,000,000.
107.3b If a player is casting a spell that has an {X} in its mana cost, the value of X isn't defined by the text of that spell, and an effect lets that player cast that spell while paying neither its mana cost nor an alternative cost that includes X, then the only legal choice for X is 0. This doesn't apply to effects that only reduce a cost, even if they reduce it to zero. See rule 601, "Casting Spells."
Technically it currently only applies to mana, but one imagines it'd be tweaked slightly if this card existed to include any situation where X is defined by a cost.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When you peer long enough through the depths, the depths peer also through you.
Multikicker is X additional costs
And this would have to be more specified like
"When you cast a spell with an additional cost, you may pay {1} for each posible additional cost"
This would then mean that X costs become pay {X} instead and kickers would each be {1} instead of whatever they were.
Yeah, the enchantment has to stick but its still really, really strong.
Exactly that makes it weak.
I said you need to play cards that otherwise suck (as you hardly play any of them ; sadistic "maybe" , but not with blue/red aswell).
Also i mean "broken" that it somehow becomes a combo deck that somehow reliable wins.
For 4-mana enchantments, Aluren is an example of "broken" , as the only thing it really does is pump out so much stuff that you win instantly, or combo with creatures.
But theirs allways some cards that are similiar to this, they push the sets mechanic ; but most the time they are bad because they really just push the mechanic, and do nothing else if you don't totally abuse the mechanic (and its a good mechanic aswell).
While a nice build around me card, its really not "broken" at all, just something to lets you think about some kicker/buyback cards etc. ; finally still realizing they are not worth the effort.
Now that you mention it, the wording on this card is very strange. It was originally intended just to let you pay one instead of the alternate cost (i.e. 1 for each kicker) but the wording can be interpreted either way, to mean either "each" or "all" of the costs. Probably something we should have caught earlier on.
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.
Now that you mention it, the wording on this card is very strange. It was originally intended just to let you pay one instead of the alternate cost (i.e. 1 for each kicker) but the wording can be interpreted either way, to mean either "each" or "all" of the costs. Probably something we should have caught earlier on.
Ya, agreed. It would be better if it had read:
"Pay 1, Sacrifice Minimal Effort, Discard 2 cards; If the next spell you cast contains an additional cost, the additional cost does not need to be paid. If the spell has X in it's additional cost, X is 0".
Does this make sense (I needed to re-write this like..8 times to get it to do what i was thinking)?
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.
Cool design.
Doesn't look to me like this card works particularly well, though.
I'm surprised it got through all the rules gurus…
Agreed, lots of potential for confusion for such a simply worded card. Most of the comments in this thread seems to assume kicker counts as an "additional cost", but that phrase is not in kicker's reminder text. And I think we all know how Wizards likes the literal interpretations of things to apply whenever possible.
And as far as current cards that actually say "as an additional cost" go, it looks like most of them either break in half (Gaea's Balance) or have no use for the effect (Fling).
I'm not sure I see what's "red" about this card? Even the name is clearly blue, maybe blue-black (think underhanded, shortest-route-to-victory).
The only red connection could be the flavour text from eternal warrior? Or are there other good examples of red's flavour fitting with a card called "minimal effort" - or even the cost reduction effect
Enchantment
You may pay 1 rather than pay additional costs of spells.
Here's how it went down:
Name
Name poll
Card type poll
Mechanics
Mechanics poll
Mana costs
Mana cost poll
Art
Art Poll
Flavour text
Flavour text poll
Each time kicked is all one additional cost,
So then say, can't I cast everflowing chalice for 0 saying I kick it 1000 times, and then only have to pay one?
MOD::symw::symu::symb: Gifts
LEG::symg::symb: Infect
Reckless Waif; It's the red Delver of Secrets.
No spirits were sacrificed, so it would deal 0 damage.
Devastating summons would read: As an additional cost to cast Devastating Summons, pay 1.
Put two 1/1 creatures onto the battlefield.
It would make two 0/0 tokens if you don't sacrifice any lands.
Overall a nice design, but the card itself is just not strong enough to make a deck with it.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
I'd play it
I don't know that this makes it not broken. Kicked Sadistic Sacrament for 4. Kicked Rite of Replication for 5. Kicked Urza's Rage for 4. Tinker or Trash for Treasure without sacrificing artifacts. All buyback costs become 1 colorless mana (Whispers of the Muse, Corpse Dance, Forbid, Walk the Aeons, Evangelize etc.).
Yeah, the enchantment has to stick but its still really, really strong.
Now it says
Rise U card.
1U
Draw three cards.
scumbag
Want Higher Level Card Evaluation? Visit Diestoremoval.com
You want broken? It was originally 0
I don't see any problem with making X arbitrarily large.
You declare X in 601.2b to be, say, 1,000,000.
You determine the cost in 601.2e, declaring that you will pay {1} rather than sacrifice 1,000,000 lands.
The costs are paid, with X=1,000,000.
Technically it currently only applies to mana, but one imagines it'd be tweaked slightly if this card existed to include any situation where X is defined by a cost.
And this would have to be more specified like
"When you cast a spell with an additional cost, you may pay {1} for each posible additional cost"
This would then mean that X costs become pay {X} instead and kickers would each be {1} instead of whatever they were.
Exactly that makes it weak.
I said you need to play cards that otherwise suck (as you hardly play any of them ; sadistic "maybe" , but not with blue/red aswell).
Also i mean "broken" that it somehow becomes a combo deck that somehow reliable wins.
For 4-mana enchantments, Aluren is an example of "broken" , as the only thing it really does is pump out so much stuff that you win instantly, or combo with creatures.
But theirs allways some cards that are similiar to this, they push the sets mechanic ; but most the time they are bad because they really just push the mechanic, and do nothing else if you don't totally abuse the mechanic (and its a good mechanic aswell).
While a nice build around me card, its really not "broken" at all, just something to lets you think about some kicker/buyback cards etc. ; finally still realizing they are not worth the effort.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
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
Ya, agreed. It would be better if it had read:
"Pay 1, Sacrifice Minimal Effort, Discard 2 cards; If the next spell you cast contains an additional cost, the additional cost does not need to be paid. If the spell has X in it's additional cost, X is 0".
Does this make sense (I needed to re-write this like..8 times to get it to do what i was thinking)?
I like Turtles
Something like: "If you would pay an additional cost for a spell, you may pay 1 instead."
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
Doesn't look to me like this card works particularly well, though.
I'm surprised it got through all the rules gurus…
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=504072
Agreed, lots of potential for confusion for such a simply worded card. Most of the comments in this thread seems to assume kicker counts as an "additional cost", but that phrase is not in kicker's reminder text. And I think we all know how Wizards likes the literal interpretations of things to apply whenever possible.
And as far as current cards that actually say "as an additional cost" go, it looks like most of them either break in half (Gaea's Balance) or have no use for the effect (Fling).
A card that breaks Tinker? SOMEONE CALL THE POLICE!!!
Seriously, the card is very limited in it's applications. It isn't Dream Halls, guys. And it might just make Retrace a bit... interesting.
But it does need an 'X is zero' clause though.
The only red connection could be the flavour text from eternal warrior? Or are there other good examples of red's flavour fitting with a card called "minimal effort" - or even the cost reduction effect