Firstly, it's not like you can't build an aggro deck where you can cast it targeting yourself, absolutely cripple someone else's deck, and all they can do in return is tap all your stuff for a turn.
Secondly, if it's in your opponents' best interest to collaborate to kill you, they could/would do that WITHOUT you casting this card, so that threat really isn't as big of a deal as a couple posters have made it to be.
If two players are already going at it, this lets you sit back and enjoy some more chaos. This isn't going to win you any games, but it will be hilarious every time you cast it.
Also worth noting, you CAN target yourself as one of those players, it's not hard to put yourself in a position to gain more value than your opponent.
This is exactly the kind of card that I want to see resolved, but exactly the kind of card that's never going to be in a deck I build.
When they talk about the kind of player that "just wants to see what happens", this is the first of those effects that actually makes sense to me in an appealing way.
I guess if I made a Burning Wish package that included only shenanigans like this I would eventually use it...
This card is a test. A test for sodium. Sometimes you have players that hate each other so much that this will go as how wizards designed it. Cruel Entertainment. Then... against level headed opponent's they will just be like "ok what do you want me to do for payback on this punk that cast this on us?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To the people that say that a card needs to be a higher rarity because of Limited... I hate you guys so much. I present to you with this.
Couldnt it just say "they control each others next turn" ?
That would be way way easier then this mess of "first, second" player.
For clarity. This wording makes it clear that across two separate turns, those turns controller's switch. Your proposed wording is less clear about this and relies more on players getting the general concept in order to understand how it works mechanically in the rules.
I guarantee they considered something like what you suggest, and other ideas, but determined they were not clear enough.
EDIT:
On the card generally, it's not really my kind of thing, but seems like it could be fun especially for the right people. I don't see any problems with it.
This card is super hilarious, but probably won't work.
If someone casts it against me, I intend to turn to my compatriot and say "I'll tell you to do what you were planning to do anyway, if you do me the same favor." Might occasionally work if one player is the clear must-kill at the table, though, so that no one will politic with them.
I'm surprised by how many people are suggesting that the targeted players are just both going to turn on the caster, particularly when that is offered as the "level headed" response.
Would the players not judge the situation at the time? If you give the strongest player and the weakest player control of each other, I imagine the weakest player is going to be keen on using the strongest's resources against him. Not a lot of point is smashing everything at someone in the middle when they are the only thing stopping the top dog going all in on you. If you are dominating then giving two players control of each other isn't going to do much, since they are probably already working against you, but if you are the least threatening at the table, the others are going to be more interested in messing with each other's plans and furthering their own, which hopefully buys you more time to dig up some more answers.
This card is political AF and as that is my favourite part of the game, I am very much looking forward to seeing this cast often.
I'm surprised by how many people are suggesting that the targeted players are just both going to turn on the caster, particularly when that is offered as the "level headed" response.
Would the players not judge the situation at the time? If you give the strongest player and the weakest player control of each other, I imagine the weakest player is going to be keen on using the strongest's resources against him. Not a lot of point is smashing everything at someone in the middle when they are the only thing stopping the top dog going all in on you. If you are dominating then giving two players control of each other isn't going to do much, since they are probably already working against you, but if you are the least threatening at the table, the others are going to be more interested in messing with each other's plans and furthering their own, which hopefully buys you more time to dig up some more answers.
This card is political AF and as that is my favourite part of the game, I am very much looking forward to seeing this cast often.
That's true. An opponent might have better things to do with another opponent's turn than attack you. Imagine using this on one enemy and one ally.
Then... against level headed opponent's they will just be like "ok what do you want me to do for payback on this punk that cast this on us?"
That really depends on the circumstances. If the Cruel Entertainment's caster has the strongest position, then yes, though even then each slavering player has an incentive to harm the opponent they're controlling. The first player controlling the other's turn has an incentive to eliminate that player if possible to preserve their turn but a potential to be nice if they can't do that in order to encourage that player to be nice when the tables are turned. The second player doing the controlling has less of an incentive to play nice.
If the cast doesn't have the strongest position, things get more interesting still. If an opponent seems like their about to win and you target opponent and another one, the latter will almost certainly care more about hurting the former than about hurting you. Etc. It's complicated calculation which should make the card fun to see in action.
it is a pretty complex and interactive card, but, honestly, would it be undercosted at even 4 mana? Just for the sake of argument, would it be undercosted at one black? like, what could really be abused with this effect?
At first I thought this was the B Undaunted card (because of its mana cost) and thought they went for a creative twist on a generic cycle. Turns it wasn't so.
Well this card requires you to know who to target and when to cast it very carefully, since it can easily backfire on you as well.
I have every intention of doing so. My chaos commander has been Jhoira of the Ghitu thus far, but I may have to add a color or two depending on how the Entropy deck commander looks.
"So, wanna team up and wreck the idiot who thought this would win him the game?"
"Deal. He was nice enough to tap out for us too, so we can probably do whatever we want to him/board. Here, I'll hold him down."
1) And if there's a 4th player, as there often is in Commander?
2) After Player 1 has used their turn attacking the caster, Player 2 is under no real obligation to follow through if they think Player 1 is now more of a threat than the caster. You could argue the social contract, but really it depends entirely on who you're playing with, and who you're casting it on. If you KNOW one of the players at the table is an absolute backstabber and you can make sure they get the latter turn, the capacity for teamwork is greatly diminished.
I think you're underestimating the human capacity for dickery, if nothing else
^^This^^
Honestly the people I play with would try and ruin each others day. True in some groups they will just fight you instead but hey, it's not meant for those groups. It's meant for me, and hive mind... and my true believer
In what universe? If you build a deck like that, and ever draw that hand, I will personally come to wherever you live, perform complicated acts of awestruck ********, then disembowel myself to escape the world that allowed something like this to occur and validate you.
I really do love cards that are pretty much social experiments.
This is why this card is so great. A lot of people point out how the players you target will team up on you. But the situation becomes similar to a prisoner's dilemma situation (with the potential added complication if yet anger player). As was said later, the player going last has no obligation to uphold deals.
Also, even if the rational answer is to team up against the person who cast the spell, you so seldomky get the chance to thoroughly screw someone over and people are underestimating the fun and likelihood of people doing so.
And it's just a great political card.
I'm glad that WotC is willing to make cards like this.
Oh, to e early poster who replied criticizing the card like people would a constructed card ("strictly worse", "serious constructed play") who got so many people to reply to him: very good troll, you got way more people to respond than I would have thought. At least I really hope it was a troll.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
Can people stop using "strictly worse" wrong, please?
Firstly, it's not like you can't build an aggro deck where you can cast it targeting yourself, absolutely cripple someone else's deck, and all they can do in return is tap all your stuff for a turn.
Secondly, if it's in your opponents' best interest to collaborate to kill you, they could/would do that WITHOUT you casting this card, so that threat really isn't as big of a deal as a couple posters have made it to be.
Love this card! I'll be sure to pick one up.
Strictly worse? You know Null Rod exists right?
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
If two players are already going at it, this lets you sit back and enjoy some more chaos. This isn't going to win you any games, but it will be hilarious every time you cast it.
Also worth noting, you CAN target yourself as one of those players, it's not hard to put yourself in a position to gain more value than your opponent.
When they talk about the kind of player that "just wants to see what happens", this is the first of those effects that actually makes sense to me in an appealing way.
I guess if I made a Burning Wish package that included only shenanigans like this I would eventually use it...
Older Magic as a Board Game: Panglacial Wurm , Mill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY8h2vp5Xis
BRGKresh the BloodbraidedBRG, A box of lands and ideas.
Modern:
RG Titanshift. A deck made of cards too stupid for EDH.
Retired: Lots. More than I feel you should suffer through or I should type out.
For clarity. This wording makes it clear that across two separate turns, those turns controller's switch. Your proposed wording is less clear about this and relies more on players getting the general concept in order to understand how it works mechanically in the rules.
I guarantee they considered something like what you suggest, and other ideas, but determined they were not clear enough.
EDIT:
On the card generally, it's not really my kind of thing, but seems like it could be fun especially for the right people. I don't see any problems with it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
If someone casts it against me, I intend to turn to my compatriot and say "I'll tell you to do what you were planning to do anyway, if you do me the same favor." Might occasionally work if one player is the clear must-kill at the table, though, so that no one will politic with them.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Would the players not judge the situation at the time? If you give the strongest player and the weakest player control of each other, I imagine the weakest player is going to be keen on using the strongest's resources against him. Not a lot of point is smashing everything at someone in the middle when they are the only thing stopping the top dog going all in on you. If you are dominating then giving two players control of each other isn't going to do much, since they are probably already working against you, but if you are the least threatening at the table, the others are going to be more interested in messing with each other's plans and furthering their own, which hopefully buys you more time to dig up some more answers.
This card is political AF and as that is my favourite part of the game, I am very much looking forward to seeing this cast often.
That's true. An opponent might have better things to do with another opponent's turn than attack you. Imagine using this on one enemy and one ally.
Then run and hide.
That really depends on the circumstances. If the Cruel Entertainment's caster has the strongest position, then yes, though even then each slavering player has an incentive to harm the opponent they're controlling. The first player controlling the other's turn has an incentive to eliminate that player if possible to preserve their turn but a potential to be nice if they can't do that in order to encourage that player to be nice when the tables are turned. The second player doing the controlling has less of an incentive to play nice.
If the cast doesn't have the strongest position, things get more interesting still. If an opponent seems like their about to win and you target opponent and another one, the latter will almost certainly care more about hurting the former than about hurting you. Etc. It's complicated calculation which should make the card fun to see in action.
Well this card requires you to know who to target and when to cast it very carefully, since it can easily backfire on you as well.
I have every intention of doing so. My chaos commander has been Jhoira of the Ghitu thus far, but I may have to add a color or two depending on how the Entropy deck commander looks.
Totally agree. Kudos to you, for calling it like it is. A great Magic mind for sure!
^^This^^
Honestly the people I play with would try and ruin each others day. True in some groups they will just fight you instead but hey, it's not meant for those groups. It's meant for me, and hive mind... and my true believer
This is why this card is so great. A lot of people point out how the players you target will team up on you. But the situation becomes similar to a prisoner's dilemma situation (with the potential added complication if yet anger player). As was said later, the player going last has no obligation to uphold deals.
Also, even if the rational answer is to team up against the person who cast the spell, you so seldomky get the chance to thoroughly screw someone over and people are underestimating the fun and likelihood of people doing so.
And it's just a great political card.
I'm glad that WotC is willing to make cards like this.
Oh, to e early poster who replied criticizing the card like people would a constructed card ("strictly worse", "serious constructed play") who got so many people to reply to him: very good troll, you got way more people to respond than I would have thought. At least I really hope it was a troll.
Commander:
R Daretti, Scrap Savant
BR Olivia Voldaren
BRG Shattergang Brothers
GUR Riku of Two Reflections
WBG Karador, Ghost Chieftain
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.