That's like saying, do you feel this boat would float if it wasn't a moat.
You submitted a single card.
The general assumption most have when they see a custom card is that it is being graded as if it were printed tomorrow with no changes to the game beyond the introduction of that card.
Your card fails that test. For many of us, that is the only test that matters. The Alpha and Omega of whether a card design is good or trash.
If you feel that you indeed pass that test, a couple of us can test Tron decks with this card against other modern decks (including Tron decks without) and see how that impacts win-rate, which would show that this card is too powerful. Do you want us to provide you with statistical proof that the card sucks so you can stop whining about people having subjective taste of or do you concede that your card fails the “magic as it is” test?
So… I’m going out on a limb to predict that the blue wrath will 100% replace all destroyed creatures with phyrexian creature tokens (flavored as sleepers revealing themselves) as a sort of curse of swine type card.
The other side doesn't have to be legendary, but the Luna Ring side does (for composure—but also for flavor).
Needing a colorless producing land is a lot rougher than anyone is acknowledging. You're on the exact excuse you claimed of me, where you're suggesting to ban this instead of UrzaTron. UrzaTron is constantly broken. Nothing added ever matters to that fact. And especially not something intended to be limited in all formats, except maybe Type II. This does not consider your brain-dead London mulligan rule, nor should it, or be forced to conform to that.
Factoring the contents and proportions of your deck, to secure grabs for favorable content in your opening hand should be apart of the game, especially in the competitive scene. You cannot do this is any other professional card game—fantasy or otherwise. It should not be allowed here.
So... do you concede that this is unbalanced in real-life actual-factual magic where:
1. the london mulligan exists.
2. this would be played in formats where chalice of the void is entirely unrestricted
3. this would be played in formats where tron exists
4. Limiting cards to 2 copies does not exist.
You seem to design for an alternate form of magic where the rules are changed and where other designed cards don't exist or are altered. In the actual game that people are playing right now, though, do you feel this is balanced?
EDIT: I also forgot the Luna Ring side was supposed to be legendary.
No, you don't get this excuse. Go look at literally the first response on this thread. You were alerted that this should be legendary DAYS ago. This isn't some oversight, this is you deciding that you have lost the argument and finding a road to make a change without admitting any fault.
As you are bringing up mutate, let me bring up the obvious.
If I flash mutate a sea-dasher octopus on top of a 3/3 creature with 2 damage on it, the combined creature will instantly die because damage isn’t instantly cleared from it and it does not become a new object.
Blah blah blah, but for someone who actually knows the game, blah blah blah
Please expound on how exactly you "know the game". Do you play regularly? Do you read or listen to its designers? Do you research the different archetypes that see play and win in different formats?
If the answer is no, then you don't know the game.
Show me your best deck and I'll show you one of mine.
I think when you can prove you're a better player than me we will know for sure whose word holds truest.
Who makes the best decks doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think.
As someone else pointed out, anyone can netdeck or find a deck online and substitute 1-2 cards just so you can call it original.
The specific claims you make regarding how cards would work, however, are testable. You seem to think that this card would be balanced and that it has too high of an opportunity cost to use. As such, you would likely predict that if you took an already usable deck with colorless lands (like Tron) and made two versions, one without argent ring taken from a Modern Tournament decklist and the same list with argent ring (and any other changes that would accompany the addition of that card, such as maindecking chalice of the void so you can play a tron piece + ring and effectively counter your opponent's expedition map or ancient stirrings) and the decklist with argent ring should not win more frequently than the one without.
So you are aware, these are testable hypotheses. As in, people can go out there, get the data, and directly prove you wrong. As such, I want to verify: is that your prediction?
It has to retain Vanishing from the stack to the battlefield. They are different zones, so it will lose whatever it gains there.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
I’m pretty sure that the recent rules change that allowed Henzie to work (granting spells blitz as a spell so you can get the alternate cost and also as permanents so they gain haste and the sac/draw trigger) also lets this work.
In other words, the rules added an addendum to make the ability work. It very rarely ever happens outside of your head but wizards accidentally made a card that didn’t quite work in the rules and they changed rules so it would function.
How does it feel to be on the other end of that argument?
I think like a developer, so it's perfectly normal to me.
And it's not odd for any of you? With the zero exceptions claimed all the time.
It paradoxically isn’t odd specifically because this change is really rare, meaning that this change was widely publicized for its uniqueness and everyone had awareness of it.
Also, this change was validated on a mechanical level without referring to vague matters like “domain influence” or “force Majeure”. Blitz is one of the first mechanics (after dash) that impacts both how a creature is cast as a spell (what costs are paid) and how it acts as a permanent. Henzie is the first card trying to grant such an ability to cards without it. The rule that prevented it from working was fairly obscure (to the point where most people assumed that it worked as intended) and fuxi g the rules to allow such abilities to be granted would allow for future abilities to grant similar keywords.
If you were better able to articulate the actual rule changes (rather than saying “I would change the rules”) and what sort of design space your changes would open up, you might be able to win support for your abilities.
Should probably be legendary to stop colorless decks from launching more than one in a turn (much as recent Mox cards like tantalize, Opal, and Amber are now legendary).
Otherwise, I could imagine this appearing somewhere.
It has to retain Vanishing from the stack to the battlefield. They are different zones, so it will lose whatever it gains there.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
I’m pretty sure that the recent rules change that allowed Henzie to work (granting spells blitz as a spell so you can get the alternate cost and also as permanents so they gain haste and the sac/draw trigger) also lets this work.
In other words, the rules added an addendum to make the ability work. It very rarely ever happens outside of your head but wizards accidentally made a card that didn’t quite work in the rules and they changed rules so it would function.
How does it feel to be on the other end of that argument?
I actually do like to fix things that aren't broken, because not broken doesn't mean perfect.
I am a perfectionist at heart.
I also do think the term Mill is broken, as it's so bland, and monotone, and uncreative. Nothing wrong for players to use it to themselves, or have developed the terminology, but when you get behind the counter, the desk, the workshop; you're looking as so many more tools and expectations accord to professionalism. Now you have responsibility to not just take a thing and run with it, but ensure that it's implemented capturing the utmost sense of fantasy, and flare, and excitement. The term Mill just doesn't do that—especially compared to Traumatize.
Reap: "I don't care if people like what exists and don't like my fix. My fix is better. If they like the worse version, the critics should learn to fix themselves. I make the best things and it doesn't matter whether people don't like it because not liking it is subjective and biased. Even if everyone hates it, that just means that there's a lot of bias and my design is still objectively better"
Whatever skill with designing you think you have, take a moment to consider your communication skill. If you had come here and made a post saying "I think that the keyword mill is a holdover from artifacts that are no longer relevant. The flavor of mill is now almost exclusively related to mental degradation and madness and I feel that the equally iconic card Traumatize would be a better keyword", you may have had some supporters. If you regularly posted links back to previous mechanics and arguments you have made so that people seeing your material for the first time could understand your rationale without trying to force you through the same arguments in every thread (such as if you put those links in your signature), people would be able to have conversations that go beyond the tiny merry-go-round of conversation topics so many of your threads get mired in. If you displayed up-front awareness of when a new card would require specific changes to the comprehensive rules and were able to articulate the specifics of what those rule changes are and what their benefit it rather than specifying "I would make the card work" to benefit the game by "making this one card work" after someone points out that your card doesn't gel with the rules, fewer people would be calling you incompetent.
Either you are a terrible communicator or you have utter contempt for everyone who is seeing your work and don't bother putting effort in because you feel that people are only worthy of seeing your work if they put the effort in for you.
But certainly, the nature of talent ensures that republic officials are necessary as pioneers, innovators, and advisors. Simply not everyone is going to have that keen sense and ability. It would be ideal, but it's never been reality and may never be so ever.
In every single situation I can think of, the way that things work for pioneers/innovators/advisors goes like.
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 2: Because idea is good, people express their support for the idea.
Step 3: Because people support the idea, it is widely adopted and becomes the norm.
What you are doing is:
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 1.25: People do not express their support for the idea.
Step 1.5: Because the idea is built on common sense, I do not need support at this time to show that I am a good designer. Instead, I can claim to be a visionary who is ahead of the times and assume that step 2 and 3 will come later if people are rational and maintain my self-perception of myself as a visionary. I can even claim that a lot of people DO support me but simply do not express their views on this board. Nobody can prove that a silent majority doesn't support me so I am a genius.
Most of us only consider people to be good designers if they can at least reach step 2. If you believe you have reached step 2, you are delusional.
I also think that there is a fundamental disconnect regarding your understanding of game design.
You seem to believe in "principle-based game design". In your mind, as long as you follow certain game design philosophies properly, you are creating a good game. Having a good game with this philosophy has no direct relation to how many people like or understand the end result, though the general underlying assumption is that your game will be understandable and well-liked if you follow the game design philosophies.
We believe in "player-based game design". MTG, like most games, uses a lot of focus group (or A-B testing) before it makes big changes in the game. They gather a lot of feedback from a wide array of people regarding the possible options to see which is more liked and which is most understood. Then, they typically go with what the people want more.
You propose ideas and all of your feedback has been negative. In your philosophy, you did your job properly so the critics must therefore be in the wrong. In our philosophy, a good idea is defined by one that attracts positive feedback and your lack of positive feedback means that your idea is not good.
If you feel that an idea that would (by reports from a large groups of players) increase legibility and accessibility (or increased the perceived fun of play) while actively going against your design principles would be a bad thing, that just looks like you care about the "sanctity of the game" more than you care about the players.
Being her own woman I hope. Putting her foot down.
Yeah, that was a convoluted way to write it though.
I don't really think 'lethal' is needed to be honest. Lethal damage is the end of the damage assignment path, and should kind of be an autonomous function here that doesn't need to be referenced, because it's simply the end path. If damage is assigned based on something, then the conditions of lethal damage assignment come naturally. Should be anyways. Lethal damage should only be referenced when it specifically is being modified.
And that's your opinion.
I just revealed the official rules. Saying that they are the official rules is objective. That is how rules work.
tsk tsk tsk.
To repeat, the only thing we care about is the “Magic-the-way-it-is” test.
Don’t like the London mulligan? Too bad. It’s magic the way it is.
Think a card should be limited to 2 copies. Too bad. That’s not magic the way it is.
Think another card should be ignored or changed so your works? Too bad. That’s not magic the way it is.
Your card fails the “magic-the-way-it-is” test.
You submitted a single card.
The general assumption most have when they see a custom card is that it is being graded as if it were printed tomorrow with no changes to the game beyond the introduction of that card.
Your card fails that test. For many of us, that is the only test that matters. The Alpha and Omega of whether a card design is good or trash.
If you feel that you indeed pass that test, a couple of us can test Tron decks with this card against other modern decks (including Tron decks without) and see how that impacts win-rate, which would show that this card is too powerful. Do you want us to provide you with statistical proof that the card sucks so you can stop whining about people having subjective taste of or do you concede that your card fails the “magic as it is” test?
So... do you concede that this is unbalanced in real-life actual-factual magic where:
1. the london mulligan exists.
2. this would be played in formats where chalice of the void is entirely unrestricted
3. this would be played in formats where tron exists
4. Limiting cards to 2 copies does not exist.
You seem to design for an alternate form of magic where the rules are changed and where other designed cards don't exist or are altered. In the actual game that people are playing right now, though, do you feel this is balanced?
No, you don't get this excuse. Go look at literally the first response on this thread. You were alerted that this should be legendary DAYS ago. This isn't some oversight, this is you deciding that you have lost the argument and finding a road to make a change without admitting any fault.
You made a mistake. You are human. That is okay.
Denying that you make mistakes is not okay.
If I flash mutate a sea-dasher octopus on top of a 3/3 creature with 2 damage on it, the combined creature will instantly die because damage isn’t instantly cleared from it and it does not become a new object.
You need to remove the damage.
Who makes the best decks doesn't demonstrate what you seem to think.
As someone else pointed out, anyone can netdeck or find a deck online and substitute 1-2 cards just so you can call it original.
The specific claims you make regarding how cards would work, however, are testable. You seem to think that this card would be balanced and that it has too high of an opportunity cost to use. As such, you would likely predict that if you took an already usable deck with colorless lands (like Tron) and made two versions, one without argent ring taken from a Modern Tournament decklist and the same list with argent ring (and any other changes that would accompany the addition of that card, such as maindecking chalice of the void so you can play a tron piece + ring and effectively counter your opponent's expedition map or ancient stirrings) and the decklist with argent ring should not win more frequently than the one without.
We should also be able to look at quantitative data from, say, a website that exists to calculate the win percentages between different modern archetypes, add argent ring to decks, and see no notable changes in the win percentages if you are saying the card won't make a difference.
So you are aware, these are testable hypotheses. As in, people can go out there, get the data, and directly prove you wrong. As such, I want to verify: is that your prediction?
It paradoxically isn’t odd specifically because this change is really rare, meaning that this change was widely publicized for its uniqueness and everyone had awareness of it.
Also, this change was validated on a mechanical level without referring to vague matters like “domain influence” or “force Majeure”. Blitz is one of the first mechanics (after dash) that impacts both how a creature is cast as a spell (what costs are paid) and how it acts as a permanent. Henzie is the first card trying to grant such an ability to cards without it. The rule that prevented it from working was fairly obscure (to the point where most people assumed that it worked as intended) and fuxi g the rules to allow such abilities to be granted would allow for future abilities to grant similar keywords.
If you were better able to articulate the actual rule changes (rather than saying “I would change the rules”) and what sort of design space your changes would open up, you might be able to win support for your abilities.
Otherwise, I could imagine this appearing somewhere.
I’m pretty sure that the recent rules change that allowed Henzie to work (granting spells blitz as a spell so you can get the alternate cost and also as permanents so they gain haste and the sac/draw trigger) also lets this work.
In other words, the rules added an addendum to make the ability work. It very rarely ever happens outside of your head but wizards accidentally made a card that didn’t quite work in the rules and they changed rules so it would function.
How does it feel to be on the other end of that argument?
Reap: "I don't care if people like what exists and don't like my fix. My fix is better. If they like the worse version, the critics should learn to fix themselves. I make the best things and it doesn't matter whether people don't like it because not liking it is subjective and biased. Even if everyone hates it, that just means that there's a lot of bias and my design is still objectively better"
Whatever skill with designing you think you have, take a moment to consider your communication skill. If you had come here and made a post saying "I think that the keyword mill is a holdover from artifacts that are no longer relevant. The flavor of mill is now almost exclusively related to mental degradation and madness and I feel that the equally iconic card Traumatize would be a better keyword", you may have had some supporters. If you regularly posted links back to previous mechanics and arguments you have made so that people seeing your material for the first time could understand your rationale without trying to force you through the same arguments in every thread (such as if you put those links in your signature), people would be able to have conversations that go beyond the tiny merry-go-round of conversation topics so many of your threads get mired in. If you displayed up-front awareness of when a new card would require specific changes to the comprehensive rules and were able to articulate the specifics of what those rule changes are and what their benefit it rather than specifying "I would make the card work" to benefit the game by "making this one card work" after someone points out that your card doesn't gel with the rules, fewer people would be calling you incompetent.
Either you are a terrible communicator or you have utter contempt for everyone who is seeing your work and don't bother putting effort in because you feel that people are only worthy of seeing your work if they put the effort in for you.
In every single situation I can think of, the way that things work for pioneers/innovators/advisors goes like.
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 2: Because idea is good, people express their support for the idea.
Step 3: Because people support the idea, it is widely adopted and becomes the norm.
What you are doing is:
Step 1: Person thinks of new idea or paradigm shift that has not previously been considered.
Step 1.25: People do not express their support for the idea.
Step 1.5: Because the idea is built on common sense, I do not need support at this time to show that I am a good designer. Instead, I can claim to be a visionary who is ahead of the times and assume that step 2 and 3 will come later if people are rational and maintain my self-perception of myself as a visionary. I can even claim that a lot of people DO support me but simply do not express their views on this board. Nobody can prove that a silent majority doesn't support me so I am a genius.
Most of us only consider people to be good designers if they can at least reach step 2. If you believe you have reached step 2, you are delusional.
You seem to believe in "principle-based game design". In your mind, as long as you follow certain game design philosophies properly, you are creating a good game. Having a good game with this philosophy has no direct relation to how many people like or understand the end result, though the general underlying assumption is that your game will be understandable and well-liked if you follow the game design philosophies.
We believe in "player-based game design". MTG, like most games, uses a lot of focus group (or A-B testing) before it makes big changes in the game. They gather a lot of feedback from a wide array of people regarding the possible options to see which is more liked and which is most understood. Then, they typically go with what the people want more.
You propose ideas and all of your feedback has been negative. In your philosophy, you did your job properly so the critics must therefore be in the wrong. In our philosophy, a good idea is defined by one that attracts positive feedback and your lack of positive feedback means that your idea is not good.
If you feel that an idea that would (by reports from a large groups of players) increase legibility and accessibility (or increased the perceived fun of play) while actively going against your design principles would be a bad thing, that just looks like you care about the "sanctity of the game" more than you care about the players.
And that's your opinion.
I just revealed the official rules. Saying that they are the official rules is objective. That is how rules work.