Be_lakor, thanks, and thanks for the correction! I want to add more cards to the spreadsheet, just went off of the stuff from the original spreadsheet to start, but did have the time to add Welding Jar.
I did it a little different. As I mentioned, I used the number of copies of a typical metagame card as a multiplier ("ER" value), as each copy of the metagame card in an opponent's deck would increase the relevance of the candidate card in our deck. For each candidate card in which a single copy of it would negate every copy of the metagame card, I performed another multiplier. That is why Ensnaring Bridge is scored so extremely high, which kind of makes sense, as the deck would likely not function nearly as well (if at all) against a metagame full of tier 1 decks without it.
I also gave a 25% bonus to each score for cards that could be grabbed with Ancient Stirrings.
Some things that I found interesting are that, according to this (if I haven't totally goofed on my estimates), Thoughtseize is way better than Duress. Maybe even enough so that it's worth paying the two life. Also, it seems that Galvanic Blast is better than Abrupt Decay (although barely), which kind of makes sense. It takes out nearly as many threats for less mana restrictions.
Also, Sun Droplet ranks higher than Spellskite, which may or may not be accurate (again, I may have my estimates wrong).
But, I'm certainly interested in suggestions for what to add to the spreadsheet, and any corrections anyone may see to my estimates
EDIT: Phozonblaster, what I would normally do is, as you already stated, not let them draw it. But, if the opp were to draw it before I got the lock, then we can use discard spells to force the opponent to pull the trigger on it immediately (if they have the mana left open), preventing the opp from holding it while building up for an alpha strike.
Kinda busy atm so I haven't looked at the spreadsheet and I could've missed something obvious, so apologies if I did.
(WRT: AD vs Galvanic) Did you consider that Decay hits things that go around bridge? (lilly, I'm blanking on other things but there's gotta be at least 1 more.)
(WRT: Skite vs SD) I feel like there's no way skite can be any worse than equal (at least g1) just because of how heavily it dampens infects, affinitys, twins etc strategies.
I like the card but I'm a bit dissapointed at the same time. I mean, it's obviously a good card (it's hard for a card that lets you choose 2 effects from 4 options to be bad), but for some reason I was expecting something else. Artifact destruction was a given and a discard effect was very likely, but I was expecting some kind of harder removal (Doom Blade or whatever).
Anyway, the more I think about the card, the more I like it. I guess it's so flexible that it won't need a very specific meta to have a place. It should see play.
If it did 3 damage instead of 2 it would be pushed.
If the removal option was ANY stronger than that, the card would be very stupidly broken.
You're ignoring the best piece of advice in this thread.
Next time he contacts you, tell him no and that you're calling the police next time he does it. And then do it. This is extremely simple and very easy.
I'm not sure where you are going with this? If the abilities were printed like shown, they were run afoul of the current colour identity rules; the second would add a green colour identity to its card and the first would add a white/red colour identity to its card. If "Growth" was a keyword where the cost was not always printed on the card then it would be like Extort.
I'm going to ask you read my previous posts for context instead of expecting me to type my whole discussion again, given that you were never part of it in the first place. (this doesn't mean I'm not interested in your input, of course).
That said, rules text should be rules text even if it is not printed on a card, like in this case. The reminder text is there to remind you what the rules of Extort are, not as an example like with Trinisphere. It seems very weird to me that as printed and as ruled, if Extort was printed on a mono-red card would, that card's colour identity would not include white or black, but would instead just be red. I like future proofing my rules as much as possible, and if WotC prints more mechanics like this, which is always possible, than the RC is going to run into this problem more frequently. For example, I could imagine a world where Exalted cost W to gain the bonus but where that cost was placed in the mechanic's rule text and not printed on the card and then that keyword would show up on mono-blue and mono-green cards and we'd be in the same situation as Extort.
This is basically about half of the argument I'm making, fyi. The other half is that WotC (more specifically MaRo) will eventually (as far as I can tell) print a mechanic like this in order to force the rules committee to change their rules, so them doing this with extort is just pushing the problem to a later date, which is silly.
Well, upon re-reading what I wrote it isn't. Although they could make like 'Growth: {R/W} You can pay {R/W} to give this creature +1/+1 until end of turn'.
My point still stands.
But if the only place the appears is in the reminder text I still don't see how that's different than Extort. For the record, I dislike the way Extort was created. I'm not going to go full-on tinfoil hat and say that it was templated in such a way as to try to force the RC to change the color identity rules, but if they were at all aware of the ramifications among us then they failed horribly by not changing anything and creating more disagreement and bickering. The thing about the reminder text is that it is the best solution as long as cards like Trinisphere exist.
Actually, there's as part of the ability cost. I used italics to indicate what was reminder text and what wasn't, which is kinda hard to differentiate on these boards, so I'll be more clear here, for everyone's sake.
Two different instances of this ability (changed slightly from its previous incarnation, but I think you'll agree the important aspects are all the same.)
Growth 1: (You may pay to give this creature +1/+1 until end of turn.
Growth 3: (You may pay to give this creature +3/+3 until end of turn.
Just wait, we'll get Firebreathing as a new ability word with the reminder text (you can pay {R} to give this creature +1/+0) on a mono green card or something, and they'll have to change the rules again....
Shoving the examples that show your rules are sloppy under the rug isn't going to work when people in power want the rule changed.
How is that any different than Extort? And last time I checked, the "people in power" when it comes to Commander is the Rules Committee. MaRo made it a point in his article on Monday to state that when they came up with the idea of Planeswalker generals they got the blessing from the Rules Committee first.
Well, upon re-reading what I wrote it isn't. Although they could make like 'Growth: {R/W} You can pay {R/W} to give this creature +1/+1 until end of turn'.
Just wait, we'll get Firebreathing as a new ability word with the reminder text (you can pay {R} to give this creature +1/+0) on a mono green card or something, and they'll have to change the rules again....
Shoving the examples that show your rules are sloppy under the rug isn't going to work when people in power want the rule changed.
Too good, will be staple in control decks I think.
Only if control is running a semi-large amount of dsphere effects or something, because this isn't going to copy their own planeswalkers.
Like, the card is very strong, but control has nothing they want to copy from the opponent except in mirrors (and maybe SOME midrange matchups, sometimes).
Thats like someone falls flat on his face and you say "nice fall", ofcourse that person wont be happy about it.
A "GG" to an bad game is just stupid, face it and accept it.
What about this.
I say gg & present my hand after every tournament game. This is for a variety of reasons, the only one of current relevance being the fact that I consider every (tournament) game a good game.
They may not have been fair, skill-testing, or anything like that (And if I'm salty I may make a remark about that), but from a rational point of view on either side of the table, it was good. Both people were trying to win, and in the end someone did.
So yeah, maybe saying GG to a 'bad' game is stupid. But imo, there are no bad games.
Aso, did you find people would concede to you often when you had the lock up? Your list has no non-mill wincon, and on my testing on Cockatrice people seem very reluctant to concede.
Kinda busy atm so I haven't looked at the spreadsheet and I could've missed something obvious, so apologies if I did.
(WRT: AD vs Galvanic) Did you consider that Decay hits things that go around bridge? (lilly, I'm blanking on other things but there's gotta be at least 1 more.)
(WRT: Skite vs SD) I feel like there's no way skite can be any worse than equal (at least g1) just because of how heavily it dampens infects, affinitys, twins etc strategies.
I think giving it the option to kill courser, disentomb//kill your whip would be way too much.
If it did 3 damage instead of 2 it would be pushed.
If the removal option was ANY stronger than that, the card would be very stupidly broken.
I think that would be really cool.
You're ignoring the best piece of advice in this thread.
Next time he contacts you, tell him no and that you're calling the police next time he does it. And then do it. This is extremely simple and very easy.
I'm going to ask you read my previous posts for context instead of expecting me to type my whole discussion again, given that you were never part of it in the first place. (this doesn't mean I'm not interested in your input, of course).
This is basically about half of the argument I'm making, fyi. The other half is that WotC (more specifically MaRo) will eventually (as far as I can tell) print a mechanic like this in order to force the rules committee to change their rules, so them doing this with extort is just pushing the problem to a later date, which is silly.
Actually, there's
Two different instances of this ability (changed slightly from its previous incarnation, but I think you'll agree the important aspects are all the same.)
Growth 1:
Growth 3:
Well, upon re-reading what I wrote it isn't. Although they could make like 'Growth: {R/W} You can pay {R/W} to give this creature +1/+1 until end of turn'.
My point still stands.
Shoving the examples that show your rules are sloppy under the rug isn't going to work when people in power want the rule changed.
Only if control is running a semi-large amount of dsphere effects or something, because this isn't going to copy their own planeswalkers.
Like, the card is very strong, but control has nothing they want to copy from the opponent except in mirrors (and maybe SOME midrange matchups, sometimes).
Sick sideboard tech though.
What about this.
I say gg & present my hand after every tournament game. This is for a variety of reasons, the only one of current relevance being the fact that I consider every (tournament) game a good game.
They may not have been fair, skill-testing, or anything like that (And if I'm salty I may make a remark about that), but from a rational point of view on either side of the table, it was good. Both people were trying to win, and in the end someone did.
So yeah, maybe saying GG to a 'bad' game is stupid. But imo, there are no bad games.
Yeah, I realized that a little bit after I posted it and edited it out.