1.Picture an Izzet mage repeating the same experiment over and over until he/she is sure it's right (or at least hoping Niv-Mizzet doesn't burninate them for it.)
2. Copying a spell saves time for them. Not to mention the convenience of having a backup if the original is damaged.
3. A lot of the stuff they do for the city has got to be repetitive. Check something at regular intervals, keep logs, if there is an emergency go to the designated area, write an accident report when an experiment goes boom etc.
As far as copy/copy/copy:
Selesnya: lots of little creatures/Convoke works with more creature/the guildmage adds another or makes one better.
Boros: an organized army/Radiance in theory helps you as long as you are unified/the guildmage helps out her fellow soldiers.
Dimir:Milling empties your opponent's mind/Transmute is using secretiveness/knowledge.the guildmage helps you get your knowledge (draw) and limit your opponent's (discard)
Golgari: growing through cycles of life and death/Dredge lets you 'kill' part of your library so something else can be reborn/the guildmage can do the same life/death and help things 'grow stronger'
True, but in the Simic's case trying to make things better can also be hazardous.
Likewise, the Dimir seem to use a lot of replaceable agents and presumably the Azorious is eager to call an executive session or such to keep their plans going.
Copying does fit the Izzet.
1.Picture an Izzet mage repeating the same experiment over and over until he/she is sure it's right (or at least hoping Niv-Mizzet doesn't burninate them for it.)
2. Copying a spell saves time for them. Not to mention the convenience of having a backup if the original is damaged.
3. A lot of the stuff they do for the city has got to be repetitive. Check something at regular intervals, keep logs, if there is an emergency go to the designated area, write an accident report when an experiment goes boom etc.
Why would an inventor or researcher try the same experiment over and over? Or someone bent on making things better keep doing repetative stuff the same way over and over?
Your reasons are exactly what is also wrong with the keyword. Replicate implies doing the same over and over, no progression, no researching. To me, that sounds a lot more like white/blue then red/blue. The Azorious are more suited to copying, simply because they approach the same problem the same way: consistency.
Reckless mages or any blue+red mages should be innovative and always come up with new whacky stuff.
Maybe a mechanic like: Improvise: Whenever you are dealt damage by any source, you may pay the improvise cost (or possibly free, haven't thought of the mana cost for this yet). If you do, discard this card and draw 2 cards (or maybe more cards or something)
Why would an inventor or researcher try the same experiment over and over?
Because they liked what happened. Explosions, people running about, shiny markings on the walls.
You claim the Izzet should be innovative and always come up with new stuff. They do - when they get bored of the old thing. And how does a passionate mage-scientist get bored of the old spell?
Doing it over and over and over and over.
The Izzet doesn't Replicate a spell for consistency. They do it because they love their new spell, and want to use it over and over and over... until they get bored of it, draw a new spell, and use that.
And they love that spell - after all, its just the greatest spell ever - so they use it over and over and over. But man, that spell is so boring after awhile.
One of the prime symptoms of attention deficit disorder, interestingly, is hyperattention or hyperfocus on a task. Replicate shows the Izzet's natural hyperfocus on a card that those in the other guild would only use a single time.
Well, if we are using Char as an archetype for the Izzet mechanic, it seems as if the Izzet aren't getting hurt on purpose. That seems more like a black-red type thing... *makes note about possible Rakdos mechanic*. Anyway, for the Izzet, it seems as if they get hurt by accident, and as the flavour text states "Izzet mages often acquire their magic reagents from dubious sources, so the potency of their spells is never predictable."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Charlie Donaldson for Banner Straight Member of the Gaymers
Replishock :1mana::symr:
CARDNAME deals 2 damag e to target creature or player.
Replicate :2mana::symr: (When you play this spell, copy it for each :2mana::symr: you pay as an additional cost to play it. You may choose new targets for the copies).
Repliconvolute :1mana::symu:
Counter target spell unless it's controller pays :2mana:.
Replicate (When you play this spell, copy it for each you pay as an additional cost to play it. You may choose new targets for the copies).
U/R power uncommon :symr::symu:
CARDNAME deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Target players draws a card.
Char shows the Izzet's disregard for for their own safety when using the OMG BEST SPELL EVER of the moment. The person in the picture prolly knew there were some problems, but who cares it's going to make a totally huge boom wheee!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
T-Minus 15.193792102158E+9 years until the universe closes!
Replishock :1mana::symr:
CARDNAME deals 2 damag e to target creature or player.
Replicate :2mana::symr: (When you play this spell, copy it for each :2mana::symr: you pay as an additional cost to play it. You may choose new targets for the copies).
Repliconvolute :1mana::symu:
Counter target spell unless it's controller pays :2mana:.
Replicate (When you play this spell, copy it for each you pay as an additional cost to play it. You may choose new targets for the copies).
U/R power uncommon :symr::symu:
CARDNAME deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Target players draws a card.
So now you're just making up cards instead of talking about the keyword, and copting other's shock and just renaming it? That's not what this thread is about.
I don't think this is the mechanic, if only because it seems like they'd not bother to do it. Though some of the ideas seem feasible (such as paying some cost and discarding the card to copy a spell on the stack), there certainly are other possibilities far more in flavor for the guild. One thing to keep in mind is the fact that this block has TEN keywords... or does it? After all, they did keep in mind that they didn't want people to have to remember too many new things. It seems likely to me that the Izzet could have a number of repeated abilities, and storm is too broken to be one of them. Personal guesses:
Transmute (heck, it SOUNDS way more Izzet than Dimir... what if they have the same mechanic?)
Cycling (has the whole discard one idea for another flavor)
If it IS Replicate, I'd not be suprised if it targeted a spell on the stack. Then again, printing a bunch of twincasts? I've the feeling they would not do that - Twincast is bloody powerful, and unless they costed it very highly (close to the actual casting cost) it'd be broken. Not to mention the fact that mill decks would have 8-12 extra twincasts for their Glimpses...
Paying for the same spell multiple times would also be cool (like 1R - deal one damage to target creature or player Replicate R) but it still seems dubious for the breakability - they don't like X damage burn spells much anymore, and this sort of thing would be exactly that.
If it IS Replicate, I'd not be suprised if it targeted a spell on the stack. Then again, printing a bunch of twincasts? I've the feeling they would not do that - Twincast is bloody powerful, and unless they costed it very highly (close to the actual casting cost) it'd be broken. Not to mention the fact that mill decks would have 8-12 extra twincasts for their Glimpses...
Paying for the same spell multiple times would also be cool (like 1R - deal one damage to target creature or player Replicate R) but it still seems dubious for the breakability - they don't like X damage burn spells much anymore, and this sort of thing would be exactly that.
10 new keywords/ability words for the set; we've been told no repeats and no old words.
That said, I think your best point is that more ways of copying Glimpse of the Unthinkable is a bad thing for standard (unless the G/R guild has a way of shuffling your graveyard back into your library). One option, of course, is to limited the twincast ability to the spell's CMC (Like transmutate)... which has been suggested. Of course, if we have both "Izzet Shock 1R" and "Izzet Bounce 1U"; then that's essentially 8 new copies of twincast for the mill deck. BUT... and here's the bad thing... they can always change the replicate cost, or set a standard. Setting a standard of "3" for transmutate was annoying narrow, so they can do the same thing. Twincasting a 2cc spell for 1RR seems like a bit of a hastle.
Personally, I think that Glimpse is one reason why we won't be seeing many 2cc replicate spells; I mean, honestly, a 4cc replicate spell that coppied only 4cmc spells having a replicate cost of U or R isn't exactly broken... I mean, there's only one big spell I can think to replicate (Cranial Extraction), so having a bad spell that can also double as a cheap cranial extraction's not a bad thing. Cranial Extracting x2 on turn 4 or 5 in a U/B deck is mean, but it's not broken. Furthermore, the mechanic feeds off of itself; it's best to copy an opponent's spell, but it's more reliable to copy your spells... since you'll build your deck accordingly.
The discard - replicate a spell with the same CMC idea seems to be the most fair, yet powerful, idea that's come about. Multiple kickers is annoying in limited and next to useless in constructed (wow, I can copy my shock 2 times by paying 8? Oh, wait, I win by turn 6...). Storm-varients are inherently broken. But being able to turn my 4cc spell into another 4cc spell? That's neat. It fosters good deck building, yet... when the deck's working at it's best, it's got overcosted answers to everything or works a lot like a goldfish Plague Rats deck...
If done right, we could see a Shatter Varient, a bounce varient, a LD varient, and powerhouses like a counterspell varient and instant card draw. But no matter how the deck's set up, it's no better than a lot of copies of it's best spell of the turn. Which ends up being a non-replicate spell most often... meaning there's an inherent give and take between spells to copy and spells that can copy. Sure, you can copy spells that can copy relatively, but they're likely overpriced because they can copy.
10 new keywords/ability words for the set; we've been told no repeats and no old words.
That said, I think your best point is that more ways of copying Glimpse of the Unthinkable is a bad thing for standard (unless the G/R guild has a way of shuffling your graveyard back into your library). One option, of course, is to limited the twincast ability to the spell's CMC (Like transmutate)... which has been suggested. Of course, if we have both "Izzet Shock 1R" and "Izzet Bounce 1U"; then that's essentially 8 new copies of twincast for the mill deck. BUT... and here's the bad thing... they can always change the replicate cost, or set a standard. Setting a standard of "3" for transmutate was annoying narrow, so they can do the same thing. Twincasting a 2cc spell for 1RR seems like a bit of a hastle.
Personally, I think that Glimpse is one reason why we won't be seeing many 2cc replicate spells; I mean, honestly, a 4cc replicate spell that coppied only 4cmc spells having a replicate cost of U or R isn't exactly broken... I mean, there's only one big spell I can think to replicate (Cranial Extraction), so having a bad spell that can also double as a cheap cranial extraction's not a bad thing. Cranial Extracting x2 on turn 4 or 5 in a U/B deck is mean, but it's not broken. Furthermore, the mechanic feeds off of itself; it's best to copy an opponent's spell, but it's more reliable to copy your spells... since you'll build your deck accordingly.
The discard - replicate a spell with the same CMC idea seems to be the most fair, yet powerful, idea that's come about. Multiple kickers is annoying in limited and next to useless in constructed (wow, I can copy my shock 2 times by paying 8? Oh, wait, I win by turn 6...). Storm-varients are inherently broken. But being able to turn my 4cc spell into another 4cc spell? That's neat. It fosters good deck building, yet... when the deck's working at it's best, it's got overcosted answers to everything or works a lot like a goldfish Plague Rats deck...
If done right, we could see a Shatter Varient, a bounce varient, a LD varient, and powerhouses like a counterspell varient and instant card draw. But no matter how the deck's set up, it's no better than a lot of copies of it's best spell of the turn. Which ends up being a non-replicate spell most often... meaning there's an inherent give and take between spells to copy and spells that can copy. Sure, you can copy spells that can copy relatively, but they're likely overpriced because they can copy.
The problem is that it is inherently degenerate, and puts a -ton- of design restrictions on them. They cannot print a 4cc one in blue because then everyone would be copying Gifts Ungiven (two tutorable card advantage, plus two other cards tutored for, is pretty broken). They could also copy Demonic Tutor, which, though not blue, would allow you to with a single card + a discard instantly set up pretty much any combo. They cannot print a 2cc one in blue because then you'd break it with Glimpse the Unthinkable. That leaves 1cc (which would be fine), 3cc (again, fine), 5cc (might be a bit dubious due to copied Traumatize or Tidings for an absurd card advantage, but 5cc spells tend to be pretty bad), and anything higher. If they charge you 3 mana for it, its probably borderline unplayable unless you put in 2cc ones, which would be fine. Well, copying Lava Axe would almost make it useful - 10 damage for 8 mana isn't awful, after all.
Playing cards for free is very, very powerful, which is why cards it is printed on almost always are very powerful/broken or would be if they didn't cost a hojillion mana - Eye of the Storm is a good example, as is Storm. Some cards with storm were fine, while others were rediculously broken.
Just to note that I had the "copies a spell already on the stack" idea first
To me, that fits Izzet's flavour. You've got this spell in your head (being researched, if you will) but then you see this spell on the stack and think "Holy crap, that's awesome!" and pitch that idea for the cool new one. It especially fits on more narrow and reactive cards because they're the ones you might regret throwing away later ("Man, I wish I had that shatter varient"!).
I think the best way to avoid Glimpse brokeness is just to make one 2cc replicate spell, and maybe make the replicate cost a bit higher (2RR or something).
I actually liked your idea - "discard this spell to copy target spell with the same CMC" - better, though: one could build a CMC-focused URB deck with transmute and replicate
I actually liked your idea - "discard this spell to copy target spell with the same CMC" - better, though: one could build a CMC-focused URB deck with transmute and replicate
...erm, my idea?
Also, I'm not sure about the common idea the replicate will be the "Storm Redux" version of "Pay X: Copy this spell X times". It seems boring and flavorless. Then again I could be wrong (although I'm hoping I'm not).
If Replicate is true here's the WACKINESS I wish to see.
Fire Flow R
Instant
Destroy target artifact
Replicate (As you play this spell, target opponent may reveal an instant from his or her hand. If they do, Fire Flow is a copy that instant. You may choose new targets for Fire Flow)
Shifting Drake UR
Creature- Drake
Flying
Replicate (As you play this spell, target opponent may reveal a creature from his or her hand. If they do, Shifting Drake is a copy that creature.)
2/1
Fire Whip 1R
Instant
Fire Flow deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
Replicate (When you play this spell, copy it for each card named Fire Whip in your graveyard)
"More Power! Uh uh uh!"
Whipping Drake UR
Creature-Drake
Flying
If Whip Drake is in a graveyard, it's name become Fire Whip.
0/1
"Why should I boast? The bards will do it for me-and with music"-Ertai, wizard adept
I like big creatures and I cannot lie
You other players can't deny
That when a beast walks in with an itty bitty cost
And your blockers are all lost
You get removal!
If this is true and its going to be like fork/Twincast I would think that replicate would read like this.
Draw Spell 1U
Sorcery
Replicate (remove a card from you hand that shares a color with the spell from the game put a copy of this spell on the stack)
Draw a card
Burn Spell R
Instant
Replicate (remove a card from you hand that shares a color with the spell from the game put a copy of this spell on the stack)
Deal 1 damage to target creature
Counter Variant #872 1U
Instant
Replicate (remove a card from you hand that shares a color with the spell from the game put a copy of this spell on the stack)
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 2
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
first turn
Nick: I lay a swamp, tap, dark ritual...
Me: If you cast a hypnotic specter I'll punch you in the face
Nick:...ahh I take 3 points of mana burn
The reason I play black according to CrovaxtheCursed:
Why would an inventor or researcher try the same experiment over and over? Or someone bent on making things better keep doing repetative stuff the same way over and over?
Imagine a child with a toy or favorite item. Now, maybe next week they'll see something at the store etc. will become their new target, but for that time period they're almost inseparable.
Likewise, if you're dealing with people with short attention spans or such, you're going to have repetition. "Put that back. Put it back. No, put it back. I already told you to put it back. Did you put it back like I told you?"
So ie, the Izzet are like: "This flame can burns anything. Yes it does. Look. Of course I can do it again. See? What do you mean that's not enough? How about this? GET OUT OF THE WAY! Are you dense? Well, if you wouldn't have been so stubborn you wouldn't have gotten burned. You ruined the lab again. Yes you did. No, it's your fault."
A system to direct the flow of Ravnica's entire water supply? Thinking a bit small, aren't we?
- Trivaz, Izzet mage
Q: What's larger than 1 fireball?
A: 20 fireballs.
Creating copies with mana is the boring.
Quote from Boreez »
"Fire flow"
- what would be the point of playing a Shatter which your opponent could potentially disrupt and turn into a useless spell??
Oops. Should be 1 mana.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why should I boast? The bards will do it for me-and with music"-Ertai, wizard adept
I like big creatures and I cannot lie
You other players can't deny
That when a beast walks in with an itty bitty cost
And your blockers are all lost
You get removal!
Fire Whip 1R
Instant
Fire Flow deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
Replicate (When you play this spell, copy it for each card named Fire Whip in your graveyard)
"More Power! Uh uh uh!"
Not to busrst your bubble or anything but Fire Whip has already been done. Perhaps Flame Spike?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"As the mists of Mirewood are ever changing so to is life." ~Tyorl Nightwind, Mirewood Ranger
Fire Flow R
Instant
Destroy target artifact
Replicate (As you play this spell, target opponent may reveal an instant from his or her hand. If they do, Fire Flow is a copy that instant. You may choose new targets for Fire Flow)
SWEET
A USE FOR ONE WITH NOTHING!
that being said, I really don't like that mechanic. Hopefully it won't be storm 2.0 either...
I was looking up the word replicate for further information, and rediscovered the noun definition, meaning one of a set of identical experiments. Just brainstorming, but if it were to be used in this sense, the mechanic most brought to mind by this is the AK/Relentless Rats mechanic. While I don't think this could be keyworded, the possibility occurred to me that Guildpact might contain a series of these type of cards across Hybrid, gold, and blue/red cards, and that the Replicate mechanic might allow you to change the card's name in any zone.
Imagine a child with a toy or favorite item. Now, maybe next week they'll see something at the store etc. will become their new target, but for that time period they're almost inseparable.
Likewise, if you're dealing with people with short attention spans or such, you're going to have repetition. "Put that back. Put it back. No, put it back. I already told you to put it back. Did you put it back like I told you?"
So ie, the Izzet are like: "This flame can burns anything. Yes it does. Look. Of course I can do it again. See? What do you mean that's not enough? How about this? GET OUT OF THE WAY! Are you dense? Well, if you wouldn't have been so stubborn you wouldn't have gotten burned. You ruined the lab again. Yes you did. No, it's your fault."
Inventors are not like children at all :-/. They are simply never satisfied and will always see new possibilities. A spell, creature or artifact will never be compleat in the eyes of the Izzet because it can always gain more power one way or the other.
What you are saying is that they stop and play with their spell long enough to love it. They don't. Once they have made the spell, their eyes sparkle with new ideas and they work on it again.
And they don't listen to repetetive orders anyway, since they are also too narrowminded and arrogant to see their way is not the best ("who are you to tell me what this spell is supposed to do, silly Trickster mage? Do you even know my power? I have enhanced even the Lightning Bolt spell...")
So the Izzet are more like:
>>"This spell can burn that wooden box over there"
>"Wow, nice. But you know what would make it better... burning stone!"
>>"No wait.. MELTING stone!"
>"Molten stone?!? Hey, do you remember that spell that makes weapons out of molten steel? We should modify it to work with molten stone too!"
etc etc.
Seriously though - spells that copy themselves seem overdone, and too powerful. Free spells seem overpowerful.
Hmmm... MaRo, can I have the Izzet mechanic be a combination of the 2??? (Dream....)
Modern: Dominium Eminens
Legacy: UB Tezz (Check out My Primer at TheSource)
Vinitage: Oath
I used to judge alot.
1.Picture an Izzet mage repeating the same experiment over and over until he/she is sure it's right (or at least hoping Niv-Mizzet doesn't burninate them for it.)
2. Copying a spell saves time for them. Not to mention the convenience of having a backup if the original is damaged.
3. A lot of the stuff they do for the city has got to be repetitive. Check something at regular intervals, keep logs, if there is an emergency go to the designated area, write an accident report when an experiment goes boom etc.
As far as copy/copy/copy:
Selesnya: lots of little creatures/Convoke works with more creature/the guildmage adds another or makes one better.
Boros: an organized army/Radiance in theory helps you as long as you are unified/the guildmage helps out her fellow soldiers.
Dimir:Milling empties your opponent's mind/Transmute is using secretiveness/knowledge.the guildmage helps you get your knowledge (draw) and limit your opponent's (discard)
Golgari: growing through cycles of life and death/Dredge lets you 'kill' part of your library so something else can be reborn/the guildmage can do the same life/death and help things 'grow stronger'
Likewise, the Dimir seem to use a lot of replaceable agents and presumably the Azorious is eager to call an executive session or such to keep their plans going.
Why would an inventor or researcher try the same experiment over and over? Or someone bent on making things better keep doing repetative stuff the same way over and over?
Your reasons are exactly what is also wrong with the keyword. Replicate implies doing the same over and over, no progression, no researching. To me, that sounds a lot more like white/blue then red/blue. The Azorious are more suited to copying, simply because they approach the same problem the same way: consistency.
Reckless mages or any blue+red mages should be innovative and always come up with new whacky stuff.
Maybe a mechanic like:
Improvise: Whenever you are dealt damage by any source, you may pay the improvise cost (or possibly free, haven't thought of the mana cost for this yet). If you do, discard this card and draw 2 cards (or maybe more cards or something)
This great banner was made by Topher
Because they liked what happened. Explosions, people running about, shiny markings on the walls.
You claim the Izzet should be innovative and always come up with new stuff. They do - when they get bored of the old thing. And how does a passionate mage-scientist get bored of the old spell?
Doing it over and over and over and over.
The Izzet doesn't Replicate a spell for consistency. They do it because they love their new spell, and want to use it over and over and over... until they get bored of it, draw a new spell, and use that.
And they love that spell - after all, its just the greatest spell ever - so they use it over and over and over. But man, that spell is so boring after awhile.
One of the prime symptoms of attention deficit disorder, interestingly, is hyperattention or hyperfocus on a task. Replicate shows the Izzet's natural hyperfocus on a card that those in the other guild would only use a single time.
Thanks to Charlie Donaldson for Banner
Straight Member of the Gaymers
Replishock :1mana::symr:
CARDNAME deals 2 damag e to target creature or player.
Replicate :2mana::symr: (When you play this spell, copy it for each :2mana::symr: you pay as an additional cost to play it. You may choose new targets for the copies).
Repliconvolute :1mana::symu:
Counter target spell unless it's controller pays :2mana:.
Replicate (When you play this spell, copy it for each you pay as an additional cost to play it. You may choose new targets for the copies).
U/R power uncommon :symr::symu:
CARDNAME deals 2 damage to target creature or player.
Target players draws a card.
Char isn't the basis for the Izzet mechanic.
Char shows the Izzet's disregard for for their own safety when using the OMG BEST SPELL EVER of the moment. The person in the picture prolly knew there were some problems, but who cares it's going to make a totally huge boom wheee!
So now you're just making up cards instead of talking about the keyword, and copting other's shock and just renaming it? That's not what this thread is about.
Transmute (heck, it SOUNDS way more Izzet than Dimir... what if they have the same mechanic?)
Cycling (has the whole discard one idea for another flavor)
If it IS Replicate, I'd not be suprised if it targeted a spell on the stack. Then again, printing a bunch of twincasts? I've the feeling they would not do that - Twincast is bloody powerful, and unless they costed it very highly (close to the actual casting cost) it'd be broken. Not to mention the fact that mill decks would have 8-12 extra twincasts for their Glimpses...
Paying for the same spell multiple times would also be cool (like 1R - deal one damage to target creature or player Replicate R) but it still seems dubious for the breakability - they don't like X damage burn spells much anymore, and this sort of thing would be exactly that.
10 new keywords/ability words for the set; we've been told no repeats and no old words.
That said, I think your best point is that more ways of copying Glimpse of the Unthinkable is a bad thing for standard (unless the G/R guild has a way of shuffling your graveyard back into your library). One option, of course, is to limited the twincast ability to the spell's CMC (Like transmutate)... which has been suggested. Of course, if we have both "Izzet Shock 1R" and "Izzet Bounce 1U"; then that's essentially 8 new copies of twincast for the mill deck. BUT... and here's the bad thing... they can always change the replicate cost, or set a standard. Setting a standard of "3" for transmutate was annoying narrow, so they can do the same thing. Twincasting a 2cc spell for 1RR seems like a bit of a hastle.
Personally, I think that Glimpse is one reason why we won't be seeing many 2cc replicate spells; I mean, honestly, a 4cc replicate spell that coppied only 4cmc spells having a replicate cost of U or R isn't exactly broken... I mean, there's only one big spell I can think to replicate (Cranial Extraction), so having a bad spell that can also double as a cheap cranial extraction's not a bad thing. Cranial Extracting x2 on turn 4 or 5 in a U/B deck is mean, but it's not broken. Furthermore, the mechanic feeds off of itself; it's best to copy an opponent's spell, but it's more reliable to copy your spells... since you'll build your deck accordingly.
The discard - replicate a spell with the same CMC idea seems to be the most fair, yet powerful, idea that's come about. Multiple kickers is annoying in limited and next to useless in constructed (wow, I can copy my shock 2 times by paying 8? Oh, wait, I win by turn 6...). Storm-varients are inherently broken. But being able to turn my 4cc spell into another 4cc spell? That's neat. It fosters good deck building, yet... when the deck's working at it's best, it's got overcosted answers to everything or works a lot like a goldfish Plague Rats deck...
If done right, we could see a Shatter Varient, a bounce varient, a LD varient, and powerhouses like a counterspell varient and instant card draw. But no matter how the deck's set up, it's no better than a lot of copies of it's best spell of the turn. Which ends up being a non-replicate spell most often... meaning there's an inherent give and take between spells to copy and spells that can copy. Sure, you can copy spells that can copy relatively, but they're likely overpriced because they can copy.
The problem is that it is inherently degenerate, and puts a -ton- of design restrictions on them. They cannot print a 4cc one in blue because then everyone would be copying Gifts Ungiven (two tutorable card advantage, plus two other cards tutored for, is pretty broken). They could also copy Demonic Tutor, which, though not blue, would allow you to with a single card + a discard instantly set up pretty much any combo. They cannot print a 2cc one in blue because then you'd break it with Glimpse the Unthinkable. That leaves 1cc (which would be fine), 3cc (again, fine), 5cc (might be a bit dubious due to copied Traumatize or Tidings for an absurd card advantage, but 5cc spells tend to be pretty bad), and anything higher. If they charge you 3 mana for it, its probably borderline unplayable unless you put in 2cc ones, which would be fine. Well, copying Lava Axe would almost make it useful - 10 damage for 8 mana isn't awful, after all.
Playing cards for free is very, very powerful, which is why cards it is printed on almost always are very powerful/broken or would be if they didn't cost a hojillion mana - Eye of the Storm is a good example, as is Storm. Some cards with storm were fine, while others were rediculously broken.
To me, that fits Izzet's flavour. You've got this spell in your head (being researched, if you will) but then you see this spell on the stack and think "Holy crap, that's awesome!" and pitch that idea for the cool new one. It especially fits on more narrow and reactive cards because they're the ones you might regret throwing away later ("Man, I wish I had that shatter varient"!).
I think the best way to avoid Glimpse brokeness is just to make one 2cc replicate spell, and maybe make the replicate cost a bit higher (2RR or something).
I actually liked your idea - "discard this spell to copy target spell with the same CMC" - better, though: one could build a CMC-focused URB deck with transmute and replicate
...erm, my idea?
Also, I'm not sure about the common idea the replicate will be the "Storm Redux" version of "Pay X: Copy this spell X times". It seems boring and flavorless. Then again I could be wrong (although I'm hoping I'm not).
Fire Flow R
Instant
Destroy target artifact
Replicate (As you play this spell, target opponent may reveal an instant from his or her hand. If they do, Fire Flow is a copy that instant. You may choose new targets for Fire Flow)
Shifting Drake UR
Creature- Drake
Flying
Replicate (As you play this spell, target opponent may reveal a creature from his or her hand. If they do, Shifting Drake is a copy that creature.)
2/1
if not the above, some copy Kindle/Flame Burst variant
Fire Whip 1R
Instant
Fire Flow deals 1 damage to target creature or player.
Replicate (When you play this spell, copy it for each card named Fire Whip in your graveyard)
"More Power! Uh uh uh!"
Whipping Drake UR
Creature-Drake
Flying
If Whip Drake is in a graveyard, it's name become Fire Whip.
0/1
I like big creatures and I cannot lie
You other players can't deny
That when a beast walks in with an itty bitty cost
And your blockers are all lost
You get removal!
Draw Spell 1U
Sorcery
Replicate (remove a card from you hand that shares a color with the spell from the game put a copy of this spell on the stack)
Draw a card
Burn Spell R
Instant
Replicate (remove a card from you hand that shares a color with the spell from the game put a copy of this spell on the stack)
Deal 1 damage to target creature
Counter Variant #872 1U
Instant
Replicate (remove a card from you hand that shares a color with the spell from the game put a copy of this spell on the stack)
Counter target spell unless its controller pays 2
Nick: I lay a swamp, tap, dark ritual...
Me: If you cast a hypnotic specter I'll punch you in the face
Nick:...ahh I take 3 points of mana burn
The reason I play black according to CrovaxtheCursed:
Imagine a child with a toy or favorite item. Now, maybe next week they'll see something at the store etc. will become their new target, but for that time period they're almost inseparable.
Likewise, if you're dealing with people with short attention spans or such, you're going to have repetition. "Put that back. Put it back. No, put it back. I already told you to put it back. Did you put it back like I told you?"
So ie, the Izzet are like: "This flame can burns anything. Yes it does. Look. Of course I can do it again. See? What do you mean that's not enough? How about this? GET OUT OF THE WAY! Are you dense? Well, if you wouldn't have been so stubborn you wouldn't have gotten burned. You ruined the lab again. Yes you did. No, it's your fault."
- what would be the point of playing a Shatter which your opponent could potentially disrupt and turn into a useless spell??
A system to direct the flow of Ravnica's entire water supply? Thinking a bit small, aren't we?
- Trivaz, Izzet mage
Q: What's larger than 1 fireball?
A: 20 fireballs.
Creating copies with mana is the boring.
Oops. Should be 1 mana.
I like big creatures and I cannot lie
You other players can't deny
That when a beast walks in with an itty bitty cost
And your blockers are all lost
You get removal!
Q: What's the easiest way to make 20 fireballs?
A: Use a fireball spell 20 times.
Not to busrst your bubble or anything but Fire Whip has already been done. Perhaps Flame Spike?
~Tyorl Nightwind, Mirewood Ranger
~Banner by Tawnos
SWEET
A USE FOR ONE WITH NOTHING!
that being said, I really don't like that mechanic. Hopefully it won't be storm 2.0 either...
I was looking up the word replicate for further information, and rediscovered the noun definition, meaning one of a set of identical experiments. Just brainstorming, but if it were to be used in this sense, the mechanic most brought to mind by this is the AK/Relentless Rats mechanic. While I don't think this could be keyworded, the possibility occurred to me that Guildpact might contain a series of these type of cards across Hybrid, gold, and blue/red cards, and that the Replicate mechanic might allow you to change the card's name in any zone.
Unlikely, but an intriguing thought.
Inventors are not like children at all :-/. They are simply never satisfied and will always see new possibilities. A spell, creature or artifact will never be compleat in the eyes of the Izzet because it can always gain more power one way or the other.
What you are saying is that they stop and play with their spell long enough to love it. They don't. Once they have made the spell, their eyes sparkle with new ideas and they work on it again.
And they don't listen to repetetive orders anyway, since they are also too narrowminded and arrogant to see their way is not the best ("who are you to tell me what this spell is supposed to do, silly Trickster mage? Do you even know my power? I have enhanced even the Lightning Bolt spell...")
So the Izzet are more like:
>>"This spell can burn that wooden box over there"
>"Wow, nice. But you know what would make it better... burning stone!"
>>"No wait.. MELTING stone!"
>"Molten stone?!? Hey, do you remember that spell that makes weapons out of molten steel? We should modify it to work with molten stone too!"
etc etc.
This great banner was made by Topher