Had this somewhat neat idea for a new keyword recently that I wanted to share with everyone. I haven't really worked on any MTG project developments in the past few years, but this idea came to me as I was sketching a few other things out.
Crescendo(During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
If you take a look at the wording composure here, I felt like it would be way more intuitive to simply use a reminder clause at the end of the statement, that directly instructs players how to keep track of the abilities Crescendo (rather than going all types of out of the way to compose the functionality so that the ability physically appropriates, stacks, and keeps track of physical counters).
Now the concept is really simple, but seeks to be a little innovative, and most of all challenge the talents of developers in how to make use of it. The operating function is essentially a multiplier for triggered abilities, which in the exchange of power can become very tricky in balancing out. Although this concept shares some relativity with the old Crescendo card from the Urza block (which I have always been quite fond of), those were just a distant thought in my mind when coming up with this concept, and only contributed to the inspiration here in the loosest way.
Not to be one to waste design space, I quickly thought of a unique way to channel this ability. Mana batteries—that explode on you in some way on the third turn. Here is a set that I came up with this morning. These haven't been looked over, optimized, or brushed up at all yet; and are still in their raw, unadulterated original forms.
Charity Bank1W Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times of this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Charity Bank and each opponent gains 15 life.
Monster Egg1G Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Monster Egg and your opponent creates a 5/5 green Beast creature token with trample.
Molten Core1R Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Molten Core and it deals 4 damage to you and each creature you control.
Thought Pool1U Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Thought Pool and each opponent may draw up to three cards.
Dread Crucifix1B Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Dread Crucifix and your life total becomes 10.
I think the ability needs to be cleaned up a little. The keyword version appear to copy all of a card's triggered abilities, which can get pretty goofy when it gets granted a triggered ability by something. It might work better as an ability word tailored to exactly you want to happen with each card.
For example, a mana battery (which should just have an all-generic cost for color pie reason) would read:
Crescendo- At the beginning of your upkeep, put a verse counter on CARDNAME, then add COLOR to your mana pool for each verse counter on it, then sacrifice it if it has three or more verse counter on it. Until end of turn, this mana does not empty from your mana pool as steps and phases end.
That would be going in the opposite direction. You don't think the reminder text is intuitive?
Edit: You know the original version of this ability actually didn't include all of the card's triggered abilities.
It went like so,
Crescendo(During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
But looking it over before posting the thread, I had suddenly thought there would be more confusion for players by leaving out "each". I'm not particularly fond of that myself, and I think that a comprehensive ruling could easily hotfix the issue with errata stating that the Crescendo ability only applies to the printed triggered abilities on the card.
Crescendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a verse counter on this. Whenever a triggered ability of this permanent triggers, if it's not this ability, it triggers an additional time for each verse counter on it.)
Monster Egg1G
Artifact
Crescendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a verse counter on this. Whenever a triggered ability of this permanent triggers, if it's not this ability, it triggers an additional time for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add G to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool as steps and phases end.
At the beginning of your end step, if there are three or more verse counters on Monster Egg, sacrifice it. An opponent creates a 5/5 green Beast creature token with trample.
The way you have these cards worded needs tuned up quite a bit. Monster Egg ought to serve as a template for all of the others. However, I suggest we keep working on this until it comes to a more realistic point. I'm not even sure what i've suggested works as intended but I think it's close.
We're not using Verse counters. It's too far out of the way when more innovative wording composure is available (which is easier on the eyes and saves precious text space). Do you think that an errata ruling would be fine to solve any confusion as to which triggered abilities are increased by 1? I don't really want to be all of them, despite the gates of interactivity that closes. I'd prefer if it was just the triggered abilities printed on the card, and then some grander, open source operating function could be implemented into an Enchantment of some kind, with a custom extension that enables all the card's abilities (not just the printed ones) to be increased with Crescendo.
i don't care what you call your counters. verse or otherwise. it's a placeholder and i'm only trying to help get the wording down. the templating web of confusion doesn't make this innovative. i suggest going back to the drawing board on crescendo. also, focus on using existing wording and templating. don't forget though that this is custom magic and as long as you have the time to explain the rulings to the other players and you have the means to keep track of it all, go for it
Sort of like cumulative upkeep for the cards that have beneficial cumulative upkeeps.
But it seems to me like there's not usually a good reason to use that complicated wording rather than...
~~~
At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on ~
At the beginning of your precombat main phase, add G to your mana pool for each age counter on ~. Then, if there are three or more age counters on ~, sacrifice it and create a 3/3 green beast creature token.
~~~
i.e. rather than confusing new players by adding additional triggers, just have triggered abilities that count how many counters there are. There is a difference, I know, but it's not worth the added complexity.
EDIT: which, I just now realize, is exactly what the original crescendo cards do but with activated abilities... Still, if it's not broken then why fix it?
EDIT EDIT: also, the ability "At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, [...]" is itself a triggered ability, so it would trigger multiple times due to crescendo. The white mana battery would end up giving everyone 60 life, for example.
I know you'd mentioned something about not wanting it to necessarily apply to all triggered abilities of the card, but there's not an easy way to avoid that without lots of extra text. Cards (outside of silver-border) should never be designed with the assumption that they will immediately need errata. Cards like Marath, Will of the Wild and Walking Atlas were errata'd due to mistakes made during development, and most other errata'd cards are either very old or have only had their creature type(s) updated.
I think I want to go back to my original wording composure for the Upwelling clause.
This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
I don't have MSE installed so I can't check the flush on the text for any of this. That's what I like to go by since it's so important towards the optical appeal of the card.
I can't see this mechanic ever being used on more than a few cards. It's too specific in it's requirements, too explosive and swingy as it builds up, and too complex, to see the widespread use in a set that named mechanics are used for. Maybe a rare cycle at most could use this effect.
The best way to implement this idea would be too simply have the counters (which should be named as others have suggested) being placed every upkeep as the whole keyword and the effect be part of the regular rules text. This way, you could also use this mechanic to scale up other effects, like activated abilities. Compare this implementation to Exploit.
e.g.
Mana Guy ( )
Creature- Elf Druid (R)
Crescendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a verse counter on this creature.)
: Add X mana of any one color to your mana pool, where X is the number of verse counters on ~.
1/2
This could probably be further improved by putting a limit on how many counters you can get, to stop it spiraling out of control if your opponent can't deal with it.
e.g.
Mana Guy ( )
Creature- Elf Druid (R)
Crescendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, if this creature has three or less verse counters on it, put a verse counter on it.)
: Add X mana of any one color to your mana pool, where X is the number of verse counters on ~.
1/2
With all of these changes, this isn't a bad mechanic, though it's still fundamentally built around being somewhat swingy and basically win more, but that's far from a deal breaker.
I can't see this mechanic ever being used on more than a few cards. It's too specific in it's requirements, too explosive and swingy as it builds up, and too complex, to see the widespread use in a set that named mechanics are used for. Maybe a rare cycle at most could use this effect.
The best way to implement this idea would be too simply have the counters (which should be named as others have suggested) being placed every upkeep as the whole keyword and the effect be part of the regular rules text. This way, you could also use this mechanic to scale up other effects, like activated abilities. Compare this implementation to Exploit.
I'm not seeing any relevance here to the opening statement in the respects to the fact I directly stated, "this ability would challenge designers with its level of intensity". I also went on further to provide graphic examples of how adaptable this ability truly is. I'm entirely against the attempt to devolve this concept and use counters. I personally loved the original concept, but onlyoneof themactuallyusedthe wordCrescendo. So it's not THAT relevant to the concept, and thus is better constructed around another central Keyword, or is something best left in the past as it was entirely.
Mind you that I am not always for innovation either. I strongly believe that great discernment needs to go into innovated choices. Sometimes it's better to summarize things, but other times it's more important to just spell the entire thing out (it can be important to comprehension and context). For example, I was originally against changing the "play zone" to "the Battlefield", but it was something I was able to easily warm up to (given how it adds to the fantasy element of the game). Then you have something the "create" function, which I think was a poor execution of "innovation", and would have never let pass. The reason being is that although it does summarize things (and potentially save text space), it more importantly dumbs down the fantasy element of the game, through a bland command function. Putting things onto the battlefield was dynamic, despite the text space it takes up. But simply "create a creature token" is so monotone and two-dimensional, that it actually takes something precious away from the fantasy element of the game.
So it's not actually innovation, imo. And serves as an example of how this decision to innovate here was well thought out, and is not something that I'm just blindingly promoting to mindlessly press the idea forward. This is an example of good innovation, and attempting to complicate it from the form it takes is non-sensical, because there's absolutely no significant benefit in doing so.
I'm not seeing any relevance here to the opening statement in the respects to the fact I directly stated, "this ability would challenge designers with its level of intensity". I also went on further to provide graphic examples of how adaptable this ability truly is. I'm entirely against the attempt to devolve this concept and use counters. I personally loved the original concept, but onlyoneof themactuallyusedthe wordCrescendo. So it's not THAT relevant to the verse counter concept, and thus is either better constructed around another central Keyword, so is something best left in the past entirely as it was.
Mind you that I am not always for innovation either. I strongly believe that great discernment needs to go into innovated choices. Sometimes it's better to summarize things, but other times it's more important to just spell the entire thing out (it can be important to comprehension and context). For example, I was originally against changing the "play zone" to "the Battlefield", but it was something I was able to easily warm up to (given how it adds to the fantasy element of the game). Then you have something the "create" function, which I think was a poor execution of "innovation", and would have never let pass. The reason being is that although it does summarize things (and potentially save text space), it more importantly dumbs down the fantasy element of the game, through a bland command function. Putting things onto the battlefield was dynamic, despite the text space it takes up. But simply "create a creature token" is so monotone and two-dimensional, that it actually takes something precious away from the fantasy element of the game.
So it's not actually innovation, imo. And serves as an example of how this decision to innovate here was well thought out, and is not something that I'm just blindingly promoting to mindlessly press the idea forward. This is an example of good innovation, and attempting to complicate it from the form it takes is non-sensical, because there's absolutely no significant benefit in doing so.
This ^ is almost as confusing as...
Monster Egg1G
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add green mana to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Monster Egg and your opponent creates a 5/5 green Beast creature token with trample.
...but not quite.
Where does Crescendo currently stand? Is it still what you have posted up there or can you provide an updated example? Monster Egg as you have it posted is nonsensical on the highest.
So the main problem you're running into here is that there's an amount of mechanical explicitness that's conventional in MTG rules text, and a different amount in reminder text, and you have entirely failed to match your proposal to the convention.
The reason that everyone's suggesting using named counters is twofold:
- There are not unnamed counters in MTG.
- Naming counters has important rules significance. (Examine proliferate, Gilder Bairn)
Then there's "Use a counter to keep track."
That's not conventional. The reason for this is that MTG never requires you to make a decision about how persistent information is tracked. Under your direction I could use a single counter and change its name every turn "This turn it's a two counter and that's how many times abilities are supposed to repeat," or maybe I could use multiple counters and use the number of counters to track the value? We don't know! There could be disagreements during games because there's no procedure given so players can fail to have matching interpretations of the board state. This is not remotely acceptable.
Then there's the past where clearly you don't even understand your own card text well enough to realize that e.g. Charity Bank is actually going to give each opponent 60 life when you sacrifice it, which can't possibly be the intended result (because it's absurd.) If you want to use multiple triggered abilities on a card and only scale one, there are ways to do it that actually work, see below.
Piggy Bank3
Artifact (U)
Fatten (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a fat counter on this.) T: Add to your mana pool X white mana, where X is equal to one plus the number of fat counters on Piggy Bank.
At the beginning of your end step, if Piggy Bank has three fat counters on it, sacrifice it and each opponent gains 5 life.
Ways in which this card is improved compared to OP version:
- Funnier name
- Rarity
- There are explicit, unambiguous ways to track its persistent information
- It dispenses with unnecessary use of long-term floating mana, which otherwise would generate another needless tracking problem
- Removes the bizarre triggered mana generation ability in favor of normal mana generation
- Sacrifice trigger isn't duplicated senselessly
- Balance changes
When you argue for a change in convention, you should take care to think it through and ask yourself, why does the convention work the way it does? Is the change I'm proposing an improvement to that functionality or a detriment? I think you'll find that in this community, a change to convention that's strictly detrimental is not going to be well-accepted and you can avoid trainwrecks like this thread in the future by self-editing to a small extent.
EDIT: It occurs to me that you can implement the Piggy Bank design quite effectively using fading/vanishing as long as you're willing to use subtraction in card text
So the main problem you're running into here is that there's an amount of mechanical explicitness that's conventional in MTG rules text, and a different amount in reminder text, and you have entirely failed to match your proposal to the convention.
The reason that everyone's suggesting using named counters is twofold:
- There are not unnamed counters in MTG.
- Naming counters has important rules significance. (Examine proliferate, Gilder Bairn)
Then there's "Use a counter to keep track."
That's not conventional. The reason for this is that MTG never requires you to make a decision about how persistent information is tracked. Under your direction I could use a single counter and change its name every turn "This turn it's a two counter and that's how many times abilities are supposed to repeat," or maybe I could use multiple counters and use the number of counters to track the value? We don't know! There could be disagreements during games because there's no procedure given so players can fail to have matching interpretations of the board state. This is not remotely acceptable.
Then there's the past where clearly you don't even understand your own card text well enough to realize that e.g. Charity Bank is actually going to give each opponent 60 life when you sacrifice it, which can't possibly be the intended result (because it's absurd.) If you want to use multiple triggered abilities on a card and only scale one, there are ways to do it that actually work, see below.
Nothing conventional to MTG operating functions is necessarily essential to the game. Most everything is open to adaptation and optimization. Some operating functions are so golden (or so solid) there is no need to adapt them, but most others are simply carried on blindly uphold their heritage. Now that I've explained this, I'd like to explain that I AM not having any major troubles with anything here. I know this works perfectly as it is, and I know that this is a great example of good innovation.
In regards to your next major point of interest:
First of all, counters are not required to have a name in MTG. They are traditionally given a title for flavor purposes. In addition to that, naming counters genuinely opens up design space in theme-based sets, that enables other content to dynamically interact with them (without disrupting other types of counters—that are irrelevant to the desired effect). There is really no need for that here, so there's no need for the counter used to track Crescendo to have a name or a title.
Second of all, Crescendo doesn't even use traditional counters as it's composed. The keyword instructs players to use a counter to keep track of the Crescendo stack. It doesn't place a physical counter onto the card, so it's technically not even relevant to traditional MTG counter-based functions.
I used to regularly get nagged on the official forum by the old crew there about keeping track of game-based elements. They would even complain about things that were common sense to keep track of. This adaptation effectively ends that argument once and for all, and innovates something new that can be put to good use elsewhere.
Ways in which this card is improved compared to OP version:
- Funnier name
- Rarity
- There are explicit, unambiguous ways to track its persistent information
- It dispenses with unnecessary use of long-term floating mana, which otherwise would generate another needless tracking problem
- Removes the bizarre triggered mana generation ability in favor of normal mana generation
- Sacrifice trigger isn't duplicated senselessly
- Balance changes
When you argue for a change in convention, you should take care to think it through and ask yourself, why does the convention work the way it does? Is the change I'm proposing an improvement to that functionality or a detriment? I think you'll find that in this community, a change to convention that's strictly detrimental is not going to be well-accepted and you can avoid trainwrecks like this thread in the future by self-editing to a small extent.
EDIT: It occurs to me that you can implement the Piggy Bank design quite effectively using fading/vanishing as long as you're willing to use subtraction in card text
As for the concept of your design, what you've provided in support of it is the typical empty statement (biased, subjective, and conditional). I personally don't think what you've presented is a "funnier" name (in the sense that it possesses an irrefutable greater element of entertainment). Maybe for you personally, but outside of an Un-set, I would say it lacks the major elements of entertainment that fuel fantasy gaming (action, suspense, horror, science fiction, realism, and/or mystery).
Even as an element of comedy, what you've presented is rather bland in comparison, and almost tasteless; lacking the seriousness it needs to bring the fantasy to life. Considering this, I feel like it's a more generic name than Crescendo.
Regarding the rarity issue, I didn't even provide a rarity to the cards I created. This argument you've presented is entirely fabricated and made-up from no point of interest whatsoever. I'm assuming that you meant flavor here? Well, once again, I don't find that this concept actually captures the fantasy flare as well as you idealize it to. It might be relevant to you (and your interests), the concept is a little too kiddy, and probably isn't as universal as it needs to be to capture a majorities (so that the flavor it provides is a significant benefactor).
As for record keeping, the operating function you've used does not enable information to be kept track of in any manner superior to Crescendo. What Crescendo provides is (in the least) an equally solid, and direct method of "keeping track of persistent information". It's as simple as a single die. And if you think it gets any cleaner than that, I'd love to hear your elaboration on this.
Furthermore, nothing about the mana dispensed here is any more complicated than the original Upwelling that innovated this operating function. The mana of my Artifact cycle empties at the end of the turn, and even in multiples, the operating function is easily tracked by a few three-sided dice, a single ten-sided die, or a single twenty-sided die.
As for your "unnecessary duplication" argument, the sacrifice trigger will not duplicate. That operation takes wing as a state-based effect that puts the permanent into the graveyard superseding the stack—with no time-frame beyond this that enables the operating function to trigger an additional time (or trigger in any exponential fashion).
Your closing statement is going out on another limb with an empty, biased, conditional statement that caters to favorable conditions that haven't even truly been proven to exist. It simply seeks to get by on the vagueness of suggestion and no contest, without truly disproving the legitimacy opposing side, or without proving that the favorable side is truly in possession of the suggested quality itself.
Who? What? Where?
When? Why? How?
These are the aspects you need to explain to form a presentable counter-argument. Your arguments lack detail entirely.
I actually took plenty of consideration into this function. Most people just blindly develop MTG content, but I am not one of those people. I have extensive experience with developing for this game, and I know the dynamics of fantasy, mathematical proportion, and interactivity which drive the entertainment (and functionality) of MTG as a card game. I can often tell (in a flash calculation) how adaptable or not a design, operating function, or innovation is to the game or not.
In closing, nothing about this innovation with Crescendo is detrimental at all, that's just another empty, biased, favorable statement that has yet to be reasonably explained and proven (which I don't think is even possible).
This ability has a lot of problems as others have already pointed out, and you seem unwelcome to criticism. Your thread title itself signals that you wouldn't be willing to listen to others. Yet you start off in your OP stating that you haven't really worked on MTG stuff in a few years.
What crescendo tries to achieve is overly complicated. As is, referencing triggered abilities makes it impossible to print at common, and that's before you get to the wall of text involved in making the narrative concept of a "crescendo" work. Your idea is not a keyword ability. It really should just be a one of card, perhaps a single cycle at most at a higher rarity. The complexity here isn't worth it.
You state also state in your OP that the most important thing about your mechanic is how it challenges designers/developers. That is just the wrong way to prioritize anything about MTG. The game is about fun, and mechanics that express exciting, flavorful ideas into the game that have depth and go beyond their first read. Lenticular. But the main point is players having fun. Not challenging designers to make narrow, complicated cards.
Willows solution (disregarding the unset flavor) is much closer to where this mechanic wants to be. It cleans up the wording to be contemporary and have proper triggers while making the card much easier to understand. However it still reflects a high complexity card and a very strict design space.
I can certainly commend the concept of wanting to capture the idea of a crescendo mechanically into a keyword, but this isn't it. Stict to a couple cards with the cresendo idea and nix keywording it. Don't make it the focus of a set/block.
This ability has a lot of problems as others have already pointed out, and you seem unwelcome to criticism. Your thread title itself signals that you wouldn't be willing to listen to others. Yet you start off in your OP stating that you haven't really worked on MTG stuff in a few years.
What crescendo tries to achieve is overly complicated. As is, referencing triggered abilities makes it impossible to print at common, and that's before you get to the wall of text involved in making the narrative concept of a "crescendo" work. Your idea is not a keyword ability. It really should just be a one of card, perhaps a single cycle at most at a higher rarity. The complexity here isn't worth it.
I am not beyond criticism, but I have yet to see a single credible argument from anybody. It would be nice if you had one, but so far no one has explained or provided anything irrefutable. For the record, I have not worked on MTG content in a few years, but before that I gained extensive experience with content development through private practice.
How is Crescendo overly complicated? This is just another empty statement, in a paragraph of empty statements, that doesn't explain (or elaborate) on any significant details in your favor. There's no wall of text involves. As composed, the ability (yes it is a Keyword ability) works flawlessly alongside a counter to effortlessly keep track of the Crescendo stack.
And Crescendo is not at all impossible to print at the common level either. Here, I'll provide an example.
Asian Golddigger Creature — Human Vampire
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life. "She offers you eternal sanctuary, in the hands that bleed you dry."
3/2
There's really no significant relevance to this argument at all.
I would think uncommon to the be least rarity you'd see Crescendo in, with a design something like this:
Shifting Puzzle Box Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, put the top card of your library on the bottom of your library. "Some puzzles are like the sands of time, and threaten to wear away their beholder before the depths of their mysteries can ever be fathomed."
You state also state in your OP that the most important thing about your mechanic is how it challenges designers/developers. That is just the wrong way to prioritize anything about MTG. The game is about fun, and mechanics that express exciting, flavorful ideas into the game that have depth and go beyond their first read. Lenticular. But the main point is players having fun. Not challenging designers to make narrow, complicated cards.
You say it's wrong to prioritize the aspect of challenge in content development, but the example you've given doesn't provide a credible reason. The aspect of challenge is what drives the game. It's one of the greatest fundamental elements and fun-factors. It doesn't have to be a big challenge, it can be as simple as getting a creature onto the battlefield and enchanting it. But inevitably fulfilling that challenge is what makes the game fun.
Content development can be no different. Some people like the challenge. And furthermore, this could easily serve as an evaluation of improvisational talent, that enables management to wane out the meek from the mighty. There's really nothing wrong credible that can be said against the aspect of challenge here. It might just seem controversial to those who can't meet the demand, but this demand is apart of the job (it's a dynamic qualification), so attempting to oppress it here is absurd.
Willows solution (disregarding the unset flavor) is much closer to where this mechanic wants to be. It cleans up the wording to be contemporary and have proper triggers while making the card much easier to understand. However it still reflects a high complexity card and a very strict design space.
I can certainly commend the concept of wanting to capture the idea of a crescendo mechanically into a keyword, but this isn't it. Stict to a couple cards with the cresendo idea and nix keywording it. Don't make it the focus of a set/block.
Willow's does not clean up anything. It's actually an underwhelming use of a keyword ability. All it does is place a counter on the card at designated time, something that's more simply spelled out as a traditional effect. And even the simple flavor it provides doesn't eclipse the fact of how unnecessary and tacky it truly is. If you really think otherwise, I mean you're really going to provide me with a little more detail than this so that I might understand where you're coming from. I'm trying really hard to see the legitimacy...but it's just not there for me.
The tone with which you're carrying out this discussion is so closed to the point where I'm surprised people are arguing with as much patience as they've been giving you.
You're not arguing in good faith. You're deflecting any criticism that comes your way. All you're doing is pitching an idea that you came up with due to "innovation" reasons, claiming that your "extensive experience" means you know more than all of us do. You claim that all the criticism you get is full of "empty, biased statements," yet the reality is that your opinion is so biased to the point where you're afraid to actually address others' concerns. You default to "No, you're wrong" in one way or another, since you're not actually able to argue for why your idea is a good idea. I can come up with many examples if you wish.
Since you're so adamant in your opinion, why are you even posting here? You're obviously not willing to look outside your rose-tinted lens to see what people actually have to say, so all it is is a waste of time for both parties. It's abundantly evident that you don't want your view changed on any of this. Surely, your "extensive experience" means you don't need any of us to contribute our viewpoints, and that you can keep going on your path on your own. Using the tone you've been using in the discussion so far just makes people not want to discuss with you.
The core reason of why this mechanic even came to be, according to you, is "innovation." "Innovation" means "implementing an idea that nobody has ever done before," but it doesn't automatically mean that the idea is inherently good. You then make a huge logical leap and say that "My idea is good due to my 'extensive experience,'" which is not logically valid. Because of this, your entire argument isn't valid. I'm sure I don't have to point out examples in history where designing something for "innovation" led to terrible results.
You might as well just make a different game, rather than pitch ideas for Magic designs. Magic has a bunch of conventions and standards that you're throwing out the window for no reason other than "innovation." By doing so, you're no longer designing for Magic anymore, so of course none of what we say is going to make you budge, since we don't even know what game you are designing for.
As for your "unnecessary duplication" argument, the sacrifice trigger will not duplicate. That operation takes wing as a state-based effect that puts the permanent into the graveyard superseding the stack—with no time-frame beyond this that enables the operating function to trigger an additional time (or trigger in any exponential fashion).
This is hilariously incorrect. Read your proposed cards again, read the reminder text again, and then try to realize why you're wrong. I'm sure you'd be able to, with your "extensive experience" and all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I am not beyond criticism, but I have yet to see a single credible argument from anybody.
...You can't be serious? You don't think there has been one single credible critique of your card?
Let me introduce myself. My screename is IcariiFA. I've been on these forums for over a decade, though my old profile was lost when the forum transitioned to Curse. I've been designing cards since the day I got here, from a complete novice with amateur ideas to today. What's today? After last year I am one of the top designers on this forum and certainly the one with the most peer awarded victories in a single run. Not only that, I one of the only people on these boards that actually has a game development degree and has done any form of professional work on that matter. When I critique you card for complexity, it come from a lot more than "private practice" and is CERTAINLY credible.
You want a more direct argument against everything wrong instead of "empty" statements? Here's a lesson:
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
First, "abilities trigger" is a phrase most casual players will have trouble with and newer players can't understand. Triggering abilities is a reference equivalent to converted mana cost, which WotC has explicitly stated is a strike against new world order and would typically push a card from being common.
Second, "every turn" triggers require some level of tracking and memory issues that also typically push a card with those effects from being common.
Third, you ability creates multiple of those triggers on top of each other, using the stack in way that requires separate steps of resolution, which also adds to the complexity and pushed it from the realm of common.
Fourth, crescendo requires another ability outside of the ability word to function itself, which means there will always be several lines of text associate with it, usually more that four, which pushes it from being a common.
Fifth, your wording is still wrong, as you must name your counter and call it a counter. Wizards always has a name for counters (markers.) Further there are no such thing as "markers" in the rules, counter is the proper term. There is a reason 0 cards to date reference the term "marker".
Sixth, your common changes crescendo in that there is no ability the ends it like in your OP examples. Your OP examples break what a cresendo is in way by ending abruptly while these cards change your flavor idea. Personally a think these examples are better than your OP, but still over-complicate the ability
Seventh, you mechanic could be executed easier by simply placing counters on your card and have the ability reference the counters, a la willows example. The design space there is slightly different, but many times easier.
Eighth "during each of your turns" is completely ambiguous as to when the counter effect happens. Tt needs a specific timing. "At the begining of your upkeep"/"At the end of your turn" etc... As is this ability does nothing because it doesn't trigger, it isn't activated, and the wording doesn't apply statically to add counters.
That's a good start. I suggest you go read about New World Order and refresh yourself on the comp rules before you tell one of the most qualified people on these forums that they aren't credible.
I am not beyond criticism, but I have yet to see a single credible argument from anybody. It would be nice if you had one, but so far no one has explained or provided anything irrefutable. For the record, I have not worked on MTG content in a few years, but before that I gained extensive experience with content development through private practice.
All of the arguments we're giving you are credible. You're just refusing to see why they're credible. You keep using your "extensive experience" as a comfort blanket to try and justify why you don't want to get over your biases. Your "extensive experience" means absolutely nothing to any of us, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The more you do, the less genuine we know your ideas are.
How is Crescendo overly complicated? This is just another empty statement, in a paragraph of empty statements, that doesn't explain (or elaborate) on any significant details in your favor. There's no wall of text involves. As composed, the ability (yes it is a Keyword ability) works flawlessly alongside a counter to effortlessly keep track of the Crescendo stack.
Again, refusing to see through to the other side. Rose-tinted lens.
You're using a poorly-designed mechanic to justify your poorly-designed mechanic. Sure, that works, but only if you want people to think of your mechanic as being at least as poorly designed as the example mechanic.
Some people like the challenge. And furthermore, this could easily serve as an evaluation of improvisational talent, that enables management to wane out the meek from the mighty. There's really nothing wrong credible that can be said against the aspect of challenge here. It might just seem controversial to those who can't meet the demand, but this demand is apart of the job (it's a dynamic qualification), so attempting to oppress it here is absurd.
Okay, so you like the challenge of content development. Why are you so afraid of hearing others say that you've failed at what you've done?
Failure isn't inherently bad. It's a sign that person who has failed has to improve. But you're just not willing to accept the fact that we think your mechanic is bad.
Willow's does not clean up anything. It's actually an underwhelming use of a keyword ability. All it does is place a counter on the card at designated time, something that's more simply spelled out as a traditional effect. And even the simple flavor it provides doesn't eclipse the fact of how unnecessary and tacky it truly is. If you really think otherwise, I mean you're really going to provide me with a little more detail than this so that I might understand where you're coming from. I'm trying really hard to see the legitimacy...but it's just not there for me.
Forcing a player to use a counter to track something about the game state, when the player has other options to do so, is "unnecessary and tacky." This is especially so if the counter has no actual rules relevance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The tone with which you're carrying out this discussion is so closed to the point where I'm surprised people are arguing with as much patience as they've been giving you.
You're not arguing in good faith. You're deflecting any criticism that comes your way. All you're doing is pitching an idea that you came up with due to "innovation" reasons, claiming that your "extensive experience" means you know more than all of us do.
You claim that all the criticism you get is full of "empty, biased statements," yet the reality is that your opinion is so biased to the point where you're afraid to actually address others' concerns. You default to "No, you're wrong" in one way or another, since you're not actually able to argue for why your idea is a good idea. I can come up with many examples if you wish.
I'm not simply deflecting anything. I am providing sound logic that has yet to be reasoned against with any significant cause. Nothing provided thus far as been significant. Provide me with one clear point—your greatest argument of why the keyword I presented isn't absolutely perfect as it is.
I claim that a statement is empty and biased when the poster fails to explain their statement—when that statement fails to disprove my point of interest. You're either not explaining anything in support of your claim—or the reason that you're providing isn't significant (or relevant) within enough reason to champion my argument. How can anyone even present themselves in debate like this? It's such an embarrassment.
Since you're so adamant in your opinion, why are you even posting here? You're obviously not willing to look outside your rose-tinted lens to see what people actually have to say, so all it is, is a waste of time for both parties. It's abundantly evident that you don't want your view changed on any of this. Surely, your "extensive experience" means you don't need any of us to contribute our viewpoints, and that you can keep going on your path on your own. Using the tone you've been using in the discussion so far just makes people not want to discuss with you.
I have given everyone a fair chance to debate and explain their reasoning. I posted here to share my idea in hopes of intelligent conversation. I am not oppressing anyone here, I simply demand a legitimate argument that undeniably explains how or why my Keyword and its operating function isn't absolutely perfect as it is.
The core reason of why this mechanic even came to be, according to you, is "innovation." "Innovation" means "implementing an idea that nobody has ever done before," but it doesn't automatically mean that the idea is inherently good. You then make a huge logical leap and say that "My idea is good due to my 'extensive experience,'" which is not logically valid. Because of this, your entire argument isn't valid. I'm sure I don't have to point out examples in history where designing something for "innovation" led to terrible results.
I am not saying that it's good because of experience. I am saying that it's good because it neatly and effectively summarizes and operating function, and does so in a stylish manner. My experience has only helped me to envision this design, and recognize that its without any flaws.
"Create" was a bad innovation. If they were going to use a single word, it should have been Summon, because at least that word is relevant to the concept of the game, and retains the fantasy element when it plays out.
This is hilariously incorrect. Read your proposed cards again, read the reminder text again, and then try to realize why you're wrong. I'm sure you'd be able to, with your "extensive experience" and all.
It's not incorrect. There is no time-frame for the sacrifice ability to trigger an additional time, and the comprehensive rulings team would never etch out the fine details explaining that it does.
...You can't be serious? You don't think there has been one single credible critique of your card?
Let me introduce myself. My screename is IcariiFA. I've been on these forums for over a decade, though my old profile was lost when the forum transitioned to Curse. I've been designing cards since the day I got here, from a complete novice with amateur ideas to today. What's today? After last year I am one of the top designers on this forum and certainly the one with the most peer awarded victories in a single run. Not only that, I one of the only people on these boards that actually has a game development degree and has done any form of professional work on that matter. When I critique you card for complexity, it come from a lot more than "private practice" and is CERTAINLY credible.
Self-proclaimed top designer or not—the proof is in the pudding. Trust me when I say I'm one for repeating myself. However many times it takes, I want you to fully understand the legitimacy or fallacy of whatever it is I explain.
Nothing you've provided in your list is credible, especially given the fact that nothing in your list proves or explains how the operating function of my Keyword is malfunctional, improficient, or counter-productive.
And furthermore, your list fails to prove or explain how any other method is more fluid, functional, stylish, or significantly beneficial to the game. There needs to be an important reason why. That's apart of proving legitimacy. It can't even be a vague reason—just for the sake of providing a reason. To a debate, your logic has to be absolutely sound—obliterating even the benefit of doubt—so that there is absolutely no way to reason against it.
Let me break down your list for you and refute it bit by bit so that you might be able to see things in a greater light.
First, "abilities trigger" is a phrase most casual players will have trouble with and newer players can't understand. Triggering abilities is a reference equivalent to converted mana cost, which WotC has explicitly stated is a strike against new world order and would typically push a card from being common.
Second, "every turn" triggers require some level of tracking and memory issues that also typically push a card with those effects from being common.
Third, you ability creates multiple of those triggers on top of each other, using the stack in way that requires separate steps of resolution, which also adds to the complexity and pushed it from the realm of common.
First — Taking another person's empty statement (or a another person's logical statement without the explanative) counts as an empty statement. If they explained why the phrase is as much trouble as claimed, or you personally understand why, I need you to explain that. Because I personally, even as a new player, would have never had trouble with understanding the concept of "an ability triggering".
Second — There are little to no memory issues involves with every turn triggers, especially not when you're using a counter to keep track of a single ability triggering multiple times.
Third — Crescendo doesn't cut anything off in the way you've explained. The sequence would trigger consecutively, and players would be able to cut-in on select instances at their acknowledgable discretion. Otherwise, all the triggers stack on top of one another neatly and resolve together neatly one after the next. It opens interactivity, but otherwise the stackis more likely to betoo tremendousto bother with.
Fourth, crescendo requires another ability outside of the ability word to function itself, which means there will always be several lines of text associate with it, usually more that four, which pushes it from being a common.
Fifth, your wording is still wrong, as you must name your counter and call it a counter. Wizards always has a name for counters (markers.) Further there are no such thing as "markers" in the rules, counter is the proper term. There is a reason 0 cards to date reference the term "marker".
Sixth, your common changes crescendo in that there is no ability the ends it like in your OP examples. Your OP examples break what a crescendo is in way by ending abruptly while these cards change your flavor idea. Personally a think these examples are better than your OP, but still over-complicate the ability.
Fourth — There are no lines of text needed moreso that what's provided. The printed abilities on the card trigger an exponential number of times so long as the time-frame is provided that allows it to do so. A counter is used to keep track of how many times the abilities trigger. Nothing further needs explained that isn't in the natural responsibilities of each player to source from the comprehensive rulings.
Fifth — Nothing about my wording is wrong, and nowhere is it demanded for counters to have names or titles in MTG. It's conventionally so by heritage, but isn't necessarily essential to the game or the functionality of an effect.
Sixth — It's not necessary for the Crescendo to have a cut-off point. One would implement a cut-off point (such as I originally provided) if the balance of power demands it. In the creature example I provided, it's essential to the balance of power for Crescendo to have no cut-off point. It's a powerful creature for a single mana. Could have been a Zombie. But above all else needs this liability to counter-balance its power and cost. In general, there is no definite need for a cut-off point to Crescendo. This aspect would be subject to special cases, and decided upon on a case-by-case basis. This is not a legitimate argument.
Seventh, your mechanic could be executed easier by simply placing counters on your card and have the ability reference the counters, a la willows example. The design space there is slightly different, but many times easier.
Eighth "during each of your turns" is completely ambiguous as to when the counter effect happens. Tt needs a specific timing. "At the beginning of your upkeep"/"At the end of your turn" etc... As is this ability does nothing because it doesn't trigger, it isn't activated, and the wording doesn't apply statically to add counters.
Seventh — It would not be implemented easier. It would be equally as functional without going all types of out of the way to explain the functionality. My keyword is a brushed up version of the operating function. That can not only be used with counter-based effects, but is adaptable so that it can be used with other triggered abilitiesthat wouldotherwisehavenothingto dowithcountersor counter-basedeffects.
Eighth — It needs to be open source because abilities of cards trigger at different times, so the operating function of Crescendo needs to be able to adapt to which and whenever those abilities trigger during the turn. That is what the word composure provides. It makes it functional through-out the entire course of the turn, embodying all the various possible conditions for if-and-when an ability triggers.
For the sake of being proficient, an ability should cover all these bases from the start, rather than have to double-back later to cover them for some expanded adaptation of the effect (such as an Enchantment, Aura, Equipment, etc.—that can grant the ability to possibly any card).
All of the arguments we're giving you are credible. You're just refusing to see why they're credible. You keep using your "extensive experience" as a comfort blanket to try and justify why you don't want to get over your biases. Your "extensive experience" means absolutely nothing to any of us, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The more you do, the less genuine we know your ideas are.
I'm not denying anyone of what's rightfully theirs. Re-direct to comment in OP of this section and report back when you've got even just a single clear point that explains why Crescendo and its operating function is malfunctional, improficient, or counter-productive.
You're using a poorly-designed mechanic to justify your poorly-designed mechanic. Sure, that works, but only if you want people to think of your mechanic as being at least as poorly designed as the example mechanic.
Auto-carding Epic was simply intended as contrast to the fact that Crescendo is kind of epic, and for that reason isn't the type of thing you develop to implement into the game at common rarity.
Failure isn't inherently bad. It's a sign that person who has failed has to improve. But you're just not willing to accept the fact that we think your mechanic is bad.
I have no problem accepting you don't like my concept. I just refuse to let anyone bash the legitimacy of this concept with and empty, biased, subjective, or conditional statement that simply attempts to get by on no contest.
Forcing a player to use a counter to track something about the game state, when the player has other options to do so, is "unnecessary and tacky." This is especially so if the counter has no actual rules relevance.
Appropriating a keyword to do something frivolous, and more simply spelled out as a traditional effect is tacky. There's no need to appropriate a keyword for this, especially in a way (or taking the form of a concept) that isn't universally all counters and their respective concepts. Verse counters don't even relate to the concept of being "Fattened". Charge counters would be far close to home, but even then the concept of being "Fattened" has no fair relevancy to the machines and artifacts that predominantly use Charge counters. It needs to be universal across the board, or it needs to be spelled out as a traditional effect. The logic here is pretty simple.
How much longer are you going to stay on your high horse? Your ego is way too large.
"I know everything there is about my mechanic. All your arguments are 'empty,' 'weak,' 'biased,' or whatever other adjective I want to use to deflect them."
Yet, you can't even answer IcariiFA's rules concerns correctly? Maybe you should take a step back and realize that the criticism against your mechanic means you don't know as much as you think you do. It's more than evident enough that your knowledge of the game's rules is pitifully small, despite the "extensive experience" that you keep on pointing at.
Get your mechanic to work properly first. I don't think you'll be able to on your own.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Almost. Cumulative upkeep offers the option to not pay for the amount of age counters, and if the payment isn't made, the relevant permanent gets sacrificed. This doesn't involve the ability to sacrifice at all, nor to avoid any sort of payment.
Essentially, it boils down to:
Cumulative upkeep 0(At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on this, then sacrifice it unless you pay the upkeep cost for each age counter on it.)
You must pay ~'s cumulative upkeep cost if able.
When/Whenever/At [something], [something else] for each age counter on ~.
The second ability is what makes it look weird. After all, if the second ability is just going to make the optional portion of the first ability mandatory, why not just change the first ability to have that part be mandatory instead?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Sorry dude, but as everyone has noted here, you don't know what you're talking about. I gave you explicit rules references and design articles and you ignored it all. You're beyond help right now.
Good luck to your futile endeavors. I advise others to leave the troll alone.
Sorry dude, but as everyone has noted here, you don't know what you're talking about. I gave you explicit rules references and design articles and you ignored it all. You're beyond help right now.
Good luck to your futile endeavors. I advise others to leave the troll alone.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is entirely delusion.
You have all failed to provide me a single clear point, that reasonably explains how Crescendo (and its operating function) is significantly malfunctional, improficient, or counter-productive. I had hoped for better, but it figures. Nobody has anything intelligible to input as always.
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
If you take a look at the wording composure here, I felt like it would be way more intuitive to simply use a reminder clause at the end of the statement, that directly instructs players how to keep track of the abilities Crescendo (rather than going all types of out of the way to compose the functionality so that the ability physically appropriates, stacks, and keeps track of physical counters).
Now the concept is really simple, but seeks to be a little innovative, and most of all challenge the talents of developers in how to make use of it. The operating function is essentially a multiplier for triggered abilities, which in the exchange of power can become very tricky in balancing out. Although this concept shares some relativity with the old Crescendo card from the Urza block (which I have always been quite fond of), those were just a distant thought in my mind when coming up with this concept, and only contributed to the inspiration here in the loosest way.
Not to be one to waste design space, I quickly thought of a unique way to channel this ability. Mana batteries—that explode on you in some way on the third turn. Here is a set that I came up with this morning. These haven't been looked over, optimized, or brushed up at all yet; and are still in their raw, unadulterated original forms.
Charity Bank 1W
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times of this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Charity Bank and each opponent gains 15 life.
Monster Egg 1G
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Monster Egg and your opponent creates a 5/5 green Beast creature token with trample.
Molten Core 1R
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Molten Core and it deals 4 damage to you and each creature you control.
Thought Pool 1U
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Thought Pool and each opponent may draw up to three cards.
Dread Crucifix 1B
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Dread Crucifix and your life total becomes 10.
For example, a mana battery (which should just have an all-generic cost for color pie reason) would read:
Crescendo- At the beginning of your upkeep, put a verse counter on CARDNAME, then add COLOR to your mana pool for each verse counter on it, then sacrifice it if it has three or more verse counter on it. Until end of turn, this mana does not empty from your mana pool as steps and phases end.
Edit: You know the original version of this ability actually didn't include all of the card's triggered abilities.
It went like so,
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
But looking it over before posting the thread, I had suddenly thought there would be more confusion for players by leaving out "each". I'm not particularly fond of that myself, and I think that a comprehensive ruling could easily hotfix the issue with errata stating that the Crescendo ability only applies to the printed triggered abilities on the card.
Artifact
Crescendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a verse counter on this. Whenever a triggered ability of this permanent triggers, if it's not this ability, it triggers an additional time for each verse counter on it.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add G to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool as steps and phases end.
At the beginning of your end step, if there are three or more verse counters on Monster Egg, sacrifice it. An opponent creates a 5/5 green Beast creature token with trample.
The way you have these cards worded needs tuned up quite a bit. Monster Egg ought to serve as a template for all of the others. However, I suggest we keep working on this until it comes to a more realistic point. I'm not even sure what i've suggested works as intended but I think it's close.
But it seems to me like there's not usually a good reason to use that complicated wording rather than...
~~~
At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on ~
At the beginning of your precombat main phase, add G to your mana pool for each age counter on ~. Then, if there are three or more age counters on ~, sacrifice it and create a 3/3 green beast creature token.
~~~
i.e. rather than confusing new players by adding additional triggers, just have triggered abilities that count how many counters there are. There is a difference, I know, but it's not worth the added complexity.
EDIT: which, I just now realize, is exactly what the original crescendo cards do but with activated abilities... Still, if it's not broken then why fix it?
EDIT EDIT: also, the ability "At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, [...]" is itself a triggered ability, so it would trigger multiple times due to crescendo. The white mana battery would end up giving everyone 60 life, for example.
I know you'd mentioned something about not wanting it to necessarily apply to all triggered abilities of the card, but there's not an easy way to avoid that without lots of extra text. Cards (outside of silver-border) should never be designed with the assumption that they will immediately need errata. Cards like Marath, Will of the Wild and Walking Atlas were errata'd due to mistakes made during development, and most other errata'd cards are either very old or have only had their creature type(s) updated.
- Rabid Wombat
This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
I don't have MSE installed so I can't check the flush on the text for any of this. That's what I like to go by since it's so important towards the optical appeal of the card.
The best way to implement this idea would be too simply have the counters (which should be named as others have suggested) being placed every upkeep as the whole keyword and the effect be part of the regular rules text. This way, you could also use this mechanic to scale up other effects, like activated abilities. Compare this implementation to Exploit.
e.g.
Mana Guy ( )
Creature- Elf Druid (R)
Crescendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a verse counter on this creature.)
: Add X mana of any one color to your mana pool, where X is the number of verse counters on ~.
1/2
This could probably be further improved by putting a limit on how many counters you can get, to stop it spiraling out of control if your opponent can't deal with it.
e.g.
Mana Guy ( )
Creature- Elf Druid (R)
Crescendo (At the beginning of your upkeep, if this creature has three or less verse counters on it, put a verse counter on it.)
: Add X mana of any one color to your mana pool, where X is the number of verse counters on ~.
1/2
With all of these changes, this isn't a bad mechanic, though it's still fundamentally built around being somewhat swingy and basically win more, but that's far from a deal breaker.
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
I'm not seeing any relevance here to the opening statement in the respects to the fact I directly stated, "this ability would challenge designers with its level of intensity". I also went on further to provide graphic examples of how adaptable this ability truly is. I'm entirely against the attempt to devolve this concept and use counters. I personally loved the original concept, but only one of them actually used the word Crescendo. So it's not THAT relevant to the concept, and thus is better constructed around another central Keyword, or is something best left in the past as it was entirely.
Mind you that I am not always for innovation either. I strongly believe that great discernment needs to go into innovated choices. Sometimes it's better to summarize things, but other times it's more important to just spell the entire thing out (it can be important to comprehension and context). For example, I was originally against changing the "play zone" to "the Battlefield", but it was something I was able to easily warm up to (given how it adds to the fantasy element of the game). Then you have something the "create" function, which I think was a poor execution of "innovation", and would have never let pass. The reason being is that although it does summarize things (and potentially save text space), it more importantly dumbs down the fantasy element of the game, through a bland command function. Putting things onto the battlefield was dynamic, despite the text space it takes up. But simply "create a creature token" is so monotone and two-dimensional, that it actually takes something precious away from the fantasy element of the game.
So it's not actually innovation, imo. And serves as an example of how this decision to innovate here was well thought out, and is not something that I'm just blindingly promoting to mindlessly press the idea forward. This is an example of good innovation, and attempting to complicate it from the form it takes is non-sensical, because there's absolutely no significant benefit in doing so.
This ^ is almost as confusing as...
Monster Egg 1G
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, add green mana to your mana pool. This mana doesn't empty from your mana pool unless spent or until end of turn.
At the end of the third turn this card's ability triggers, sacrifice Monster Egg and your opponent creates a 5/5 green Beast creature token with trample.
...but not quite.
Where does Crescendo currently stand? Is it still what you have posted up there or can you provide an updated example? Monster Egg as you have it posted is nonsensical on the highest.
The reason that everyone's suggesting using named counters is twofold:
- There are not unnamed counters in MTG.
- Naming counters has important rules significance. (Examine proliferate, Gilder Bairn)
Then there's "Use a counter to keep track."
That's not conventional. The reason for this is that MTG never requires you to make a decision about how persistent information is tracked. Under your direction I could use a single counter and change its name every turn "This turn it's a two counter and that's how many times abilities are supposed to repeat," or maybe I could use multiple counters and use the number of counters to track the value? We don't know! There could be disagreements during games because there's no procedure given so players can fail to have matching interpretations of the board state. This is not remotely acceptable.
Then there's the past where clearly you don't even understand your own card text well enough to realize that e.g. Charity Bank is actually going to give each opponent 60 life when you sacrifice it, which can't possibly be the intended result (because it's absurd.) If you want to use multiple triggered abilities on a card and only scale one, there are ways to do it that actually work, see below.
Piggy Bank 3
Artifact (U)
Fatten (At the beginning of your upkeep, put a fat counter on this.)
T: Add to your mana pool X white mana, where X is equal to one plus the number of fat counters on Piggy Bank.
At the beginning of your end step, if Piggy Bank has three fat counters on it, sacrifice it and each opponent gains 5 life.
Ways in which this card is improved compared to OP version:
- Funnier name
- Rarity
- There are explicit, unambiguous ways to track its persistent information
- It dispenses with unnecessary use of long-term floating mana, which otherwise would generate another needless tracking problem
- Removes the bizarre triggered mana generation ability in favor of normal mana generation
- Sacrifice trigger isn't duplicated senselessly
- Balance changes
When you argue for a change in convention, you should take care to think it through and ask yourself, why does the convention work the way it does? Is the change I'm proposing an improvement to that functionality or a detriment? I think you'll find that in this community, a change to convention that's strictly detrimental is not going to be well-accepted and you can avoid trainwrecks like this thread in the future by self-editing to a small extent.
EDIT: It occurs to me that you can implement the Piggy Bank design quite effectively using fading/vanishing as long as you're willing to use subtraction in card text
Nothing conventional to MTG operating functions is necessarily essential to the game. Most everything is open to adaptation and optimization. Some operating functions are so golden (or so solid) there is no need to adapt them, but most others are simply carried on blindly uphold their heritage. Now that I've explained this, I'd like to explain that I AM not having any major troubles with anything here. I know this works perfectly as it is, and I know that this is a great example of good innovation.
In regards to your next major point of interest:
First of all, counters are not required to have a name in MTG. They are traditionally given a title for flavor purposes. In addition to that, naming counters genuinely opens up design space in theme-based sets, that enables other content to dynamically interact with them (without disrupting other types of counters—that are irrelevant to the desired effect). There is really no need for that here, so there's no need for the counter used to track Crescendo to have a name or a title.
Second of all, Crescendo doesn't even use traditional counters as it's composed. The keyword instructs players to use a counter to keep track of the Crescendo stack. It doesn't place a physical counter onto the card, so it's technically not even relevant to traditional MTG counter-based functions.
I used to regularly get nagged on the official forum by the old crew there about keeping track of game-based elements. They would even complain about things that were common sense to keep track of. This adaptation effectively ends that argument once and for all, and innovates something new that can be put to good use elsewhere.
As for the concept of your design, what you've provided in support of it is the typical empty statement (biased, subjective, and conditional). I personally don't think what you've presented is a "funnier" name (in the sense that it possesses an irrefutable greater element of entertainment). Maybe for you personally, but outside of an Un-set, I would say it lacks the major elements of entertainment that fuel fantasy gaming (action, suspense, horror, science fiction, realism, and/or mystery).
Even as an element of comedy, what you've presented is rather bland in comparison, and almost tasteless; lacking the seriousness it needs to bring the fantasy to life. Considering this, I feel like it's a more generic name than Crescendo.
Regarding the rarity issue, I didn't even provide a rarity to the cards I created. This argument you've presented is entirely fabricated and made-up from no point of interest whatsoever. I'm assuming that you meant flavor here? Well, once again, I don't find that this concept actually captures the fantasy flare as well as you idealize it to. It might be relevant to you (and your interests), the concept is a little too kiddy, and probably isn't as universal as it needs to be to capture a majorities (so that the flavor it provides is a significant benefactor).
As for record keeping, the operating function you've used does not enable information to be kept track of in any manner superior to Crescendo. What Crescendo provides is (in the least) an equally solid, and direct method of "keeping track of persistent information". It's as simple as a single die. And if you think it gets any cleaner than that, I'd love to hear your elaboration on this.
Furthermore, nothing about the mana dispensed here is any more complicated than the original Upwelling that innovated this operating function. The mana of my Artifact cycle empties at the end of the turn, and even in multiples, the operating function is easily tracked by a few three-sided dice, a single ten-sided die, or a single twenty-sided die.
As for your "unnecessary duplication" argument, the sacrifice trigger will not duplicate. That operation takes wing as a state-based effect that puts the permanent into the graveyard superseding the stack—with no time-frame beyond this that enables the operating function to trigger an additional time (or trigger in any exponential fashion).
Your closing statement is going out on another limb with an empty, biased, conditional statement that caters to favorable conditions that haven't even truly been proven to exist. It simply seeks to get by on the vagueness of suggestion and no contest, without truly disproving the legitimacy opposing side, or without proving that the favorable side is truly in possession of the suggested quality itself.
Who? What? Where?
When? Why? How?
These are the aspects you need to explain to form a presentable counter-argument. Your arguments lack detail entirely.
I actually took plenty of consideration into this function. Most people just blindly develop MTG content, but I am not one of those people. I have extensive experience with developing for this game, and I know the dynamics of fantasy, mathematical proportion, and interactivity which drive the entertainment (and functionality) of MTG as a card game. I can often tell (in a flash calculation) how adaptable or not a design, operating function, or innovation is to the game or not.
In closing, nothing about this innovation with Crescendo is detrimental at all, that's just another empty, biased, favorable statement that has yet to be reasonably explained and proven (which I don't think is even possible).
What crescendo tries to achieve is overly complicated. As is, referencing triggered abilities makes it impossible to print at common, and that's before you get to the wall of text involved in making the narrative concept of a "crescendo" work. Your idea is not a keyword ability. It really should just be a one of card, perhaps a single cycle at most at a higher rarity. The complexity here isn't worth it.
You state also state in your OP that the most important thing about your mechanic is how it challenges designers/developers. That is just the wrong way to prioritize anything about MTG. The game is about fun, and mechanics that express exciting, flavorful ideas into the game that have depth and go beyond their first read. Lenticular. But the main point is players having fun. Not challenging designers to make narrow, complicated cards.
Willows solution (disregarding the unset flavor) is much closer to where this mechanic wants to be. It cleans up the wording to be contemporary and have proper triggers while making the card much easier to understand. However it still reflects a high complexity card and a very strict design space.
I can certainly commend the concept of wanting to capture the idea of a crescendo mechanically into a keyword, but this isn't it. Stict to a couple cards with the cresendo idea and nix keywording it. Don't make it the focus of a set/block.
I am not beyond criticism, but I have yet to see a single credible argument from anybody. It would be nice if you had one, but so far no one has explained or provided anything irrefutable. For the record, I have not worked on MTG content in a few years, but before that I gained extensive experience with content development through private practice.
How is Crescendo overly complicated? This is just another empty statement, in a paragraph of empty statements, that doesn't explain (or elaborate) on any significant details in your favor. There's no wall of text involves. As composed, the ability (yes it is a Keyword ability) works flawlessly alongside a counter to effortlessly keep track of the Crescendo stack.
And Crescendo is not at all impossible to print at the common level either. Here, I'll provide an example.
Asian Golddigger
Creature — Human Vampire
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life.
"She offers you eternal sanctuary, in the hands that bleed you dry."
3/2
Could I design one for every color at common rarity? Yeah maybe—but this is not necessarily something that one develops to be printed at the common level.
There's really no significant relevance to this argument at all.
I would think uncommon to the be least rarity you'd see Crescendo in, with a design something like this:
Shifting Puzzle Box
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, put the top card of your library on the bottom of your library.
"Some puzzles are like the sands of time, and threaten to wear away their beholder before the depths of their mysteries can ever be fathomed."
You say it's wrong to prioritize the aspect of challenge in content development, but the example you've given doesn't provide a credible reason. The aspect of challenge is what drives the game. It's one of the greatest fundamental elements and fun-factors. It doesn't have to be a big challenge, it can be as simple as getting a creature onto the battlefield and enchanting it. But inevitably fulfilling that challenge is what makes the game fun.
Content development can be no different. Some people like the challenge. And furthermore, this could easily serve as an evaluation of improvisational talent, that enables management to wane out the meek from the mighty. There's really nothing wrong credible that can be said against the aspect of challenge here. It might just seem controversial to those who can't meet the demand, but this demand is apart of the job (it's a dynamic qualification), so attempting to oppress it here is absurd.
Willow's does not clean up anything. It's actually an underwhelming use of a keyword ability. All it does is place a counter on the card at designated time, something that's more simply spelled out as a traditional effect. And even the simple flavor it provides doesn't eclipse the fact of how unnecessary and tacky it truly is. If you really think otherwise, I mean you're really going to provide me with a little more detail than this so that I might understand where you're coming from. I'm trying really hard to see the legitimacy...but it's just not there for me.
You're not arguing in good faith. You're deflecting any criticism that comes your way. All you're doing is pitching an idea that you came up with due to "innovation" reasons, claiming that your "extensive experience" means you know more than all of us do. You claim that all the criticism you get is full of "empty, biased statements," yet the reality is that your opinion is so biased to the point where you're afraid to actually address others' concerns. You default to "No, you're wrong" in one way or another, since you're not actually able to argue for why your idea is a good idea. I can come up with many examples if you wish.
Since you're so adamant in your opinion, why are you even posting here? You're obviously not willing to look outside your rose-tinted lens to see what people actually have to say, so all it is is a waste of time for both parties. It's abundantly evident that you don't want your view changed on any of this. Surely, your "extensive experience" means you don't need any of us to contribute our viewpoints, and that you can keep going on your path on your own. Using the tone you've been using in the discussion so far just makes people not want to discuss with you.
The core reason of why this mechanic even came to be, according to you, is "innovation." "Innovation" means "implementing an idea that nobody has ever done before," but it doesn't automatically mean that the idea is inherently good. You then make a huge logical leap and say that "My idea is good due to my 'extensive experience,'" which is not logically valid. Because of this, your entire argument isn't valid. I'm sure I don't have to point out examples in history where designing something for "innovation" led to terrible results.
You might as well just make a different game, rather than pitch ideas for Magic designs. Magic has a bunch of conventions and standards that you're throwing out the window for no reason other than "innovation." By doing so, you're no longer designing for Magic anymore, so of course none of what we say is going to make you budge, since we don't even know what game you are designing for.
Also:
---
This is hilariously incorrect. Read your proposed cards again, read the reminder text again, and then try to realize why you're wrong. I'm sure you'd be able to, with your "extensive experience" and all.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Let me introduce myself. My screename is IcariiFA. I've been on these forums for over a decade, though my old profile was lost when the forum transitioned to Curse. I've been designing cards since the day I got here, from a complete novice with amateur ideas to today. What's today? After last year I am one of the top designers on this forum and certainly the one with the most peer awarded victories in a single run. Not only that, I one of the only people on these boards that actually has a game development degree and has done any form of professional work on that matter. When I critique you card for complexity, it come from a lot more than "private practice" and is CERTAINLY credible.
You want a more direct argument against everything wrong instead of "empty" statements? Here's a lesson:
That's a good start. I suggest you go read about New World Order and refresh yourself on the comp rules before you tell one of the most qualified people on these forums that they aren't credible.
All of the arguments we're giving you are credible. You're just refusing to see why they're credible. You keep using your "extensive experience" as a comfort blanket to try and justify why you don't want to get over your biases. Your "extensive experience" means absolutely nothing to any of us, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The more you do, the less genuine we know your ideas are.
Again, refusing to see through to the other side. Rose-tinted lens.
You're using a poorly-designed mechanic to justify your poorly-designed mechanic. Sure, that works, but only if you want people to think of your mechanic as being at least as poorly designed as the example mechanic.
Okay, so you like the challenge of content development. Why are you so afraid of hearing others say that you've failed at what you've done?
Failure isn't inherently bad. It's a sign that person who has failed has to improve. But you're just not willing to accept the fact that we think your mechanic is bad.
Forcing a player to use a counter to track something about the game state, when the player has other options to do so, is "unnecessary and tacky." This is especially so if the counter has no actual rules relevance.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
I'm not simply deflecting anything. I am providing sound logic that has yet to be reasoned against with any significant cause. Nothing provided thus far as been significant. Provide me with one clear point—your greatest argument of why the keyword I presented isn't absolutely perfect as it is.
I claim that a statement is empty and biased when the poster fails to explain their statement—when that statement fails to disprove my point of interest. You're either not explaining anything in support of your claim—or the reason that you're providing isn't significant (or relevant) within enough reason to champion my argument. How can anyone even present themselves in debate like this? It's such an embarrassment.
I have given everyone a fair chance to debate and explain their reasoning. I posted here to share my idea in hopes of intelligent conversation. I am not oppressing anyone here, I simply demand a legitimate argument that undeniably explains how or why my Keyword and its operating function isn't absolutely perfect as it is.
I am not saying that it's good because of experience. I am saying that it's good because it neatly and effectively summarizes and operating function, and does so in a stylish manner. My experience has only helped me to envision this design, and recognize that its without any flaws.
"Create" was a bad innovation. If they were going to use a single word, it should have been Summon, because at least that word is relevant to the concept of the game, and retains the fantasy element when it plays out.
It's not incorrect. There is no time-frame for the sacrifice ability to trigger an additional time, and the comprehensive rulings team would never etch out the fine details explaining that it does.
Self-proclaimed top designer or not—the proof is in the pudding. Trust me when I say I'm one for repeating myself. However many times it takes, I want you to fully understand the legitimacy or fallacy of whatever it is I explain.
Nothing you've provided in your list is credible, especially given the fact that nothing in your list proves or explains how the operating function of my Keyword is malfunctional, improficient, or counter-productive.
And furthermore, your list fails to prove or explain how any other method is more fluid, functional, stylish, or significantly beneficial to the game. There needs to be an important reason why. That's apart of proving legitimacy. It can't even be a vague reason—just for the sake of providing a reason. To a debate, your logic has to be absolutely sound—obliterating even the benefit of doubt—so that there is absolutely no way to reason against it.
Let me break down your list for you and refute it bit by bit so that you might be able to see things in a greater light.
First — Taking another person's empty statement (or a another person's logical statement without the explanative) counts as an empty statement. If they explained why the phrase is as much trouble as claimed, or you personally understand why, I need you to explain that. Because I personally, even as a new player, would have never had trouble with understanding the concept of "an ability triggering".
Second — There are little to no memory issues involves with every turn triggers, especially not when you're using a counter to keep track of a single ability triggering multiple times.
Third — Crescendo doesn't cut anything off in the way you've explained. The sequence would trigger consecutively, and players would be able to cut-in on select instances at their acknowledgable discretion. Otherwise, all the triggers stack on top of one another neatly and resolve together neatly one after the next. It opens interactivity, but otherwise the stack is more likely to be too tremendous to bother with.
Fourth — There are no lines of text needed moreso that what's provided. The printed abilities on the card trigger an exponential number of times so long as the time-frame is provided that allows it to do so. A counter is used to keep track of how many times the abilities trigger. Nothing further needs explained that isn't in the natural responsibilities of each player to source from the comprehensive rulings.
Fifth — Nothing about my wording is wrong, and nowhere is it demanded for counters to have names or titles in MTG. It's conventionally so by heritage, but isn't necessarily essential to the game or the functionality of an effect.
Sixth — It's not necessary for the Crescendo to have a cut-off point. One would implement a cut-off point (such as I originally provided) if the balance of power demands it. In the creature example I provided, it's essential to the balance of power for Crescendo to have no cut-off point. It's a powerful creature for a single mana. Could have been a Zombie. But above all else needs this liability to counter-balance its power and cost. In general, there is no definite need for a cut-off point to Crescendo. This aspect would be subject to special cases, and decided upon on a case-by-case basis. This is not a legitimate argument.
Seventh — It would not be implemented easier. It would be equally as functional without going all types of out of the way to explain the functionality. My keyword is a brushed up version of the operating function. That can not only be used with counter-based effects, but is adaptable so that it can be used with other triggered abilities that would otherwise have nothing to do with counters or counter-based effects.
Eighth — It needs to be open source because abilities of cards trigger at different times, so the operating function of Crescendo needs to be able to adapt to which and whenever those abilities trigger during the turn. That is what the word composure provides. It makes it functional through-out the entire course of the turn, embodying all the various possible conditions for if-and-when an ability triggers.
For the sake of being proficient, an ability should cover all these bases from the start, rather than have to double-back later to cover them for some expanded adaptation of the effect (such as an Enchantment, Aura, Equipment, etc.—that can grant the ability to possibly any card).
I'm not denying anyone of what's rightfully theirs. Re-direct to comment in OP of this section and report back when you've got even just a single clear point that explains why Crescendo and its operating function is malfunctional, improficient, or counter-productive.
Auto-carding Epic was simply intended as contrast to the fact that Crescendo is kind of epic, and for that reason isn't the type of thing you develop to implement into the game at common rarity.
I have no problem accepting you don't like my concept. I just refuse to let anyone bash the legitimacy of this concept with and empty, biased, subjective, or conditional statement that simply attempts to get by on no contest.
Appropriating a keyword to do something frivolous, and more simply spelled out as a traditional effect is tacky. There's no need to appropriate a keyword for this, especially in a way (or taking the form of a concept) that isn't universally all counters and their respective concepts. Verse counters don't even relate to the concept of being "Fattened". Charge counters would be far close to home, but even then the concept of being "Fattened" has no fair relevancy to the machines and artifacts that predominantly use Charge counters. It needs to be universal across the board, or it needs to be spelled out as a traditional effect. The logic here is pretty simple.
"I know everything there is about my mechanic. All your arguments are 'empty,' 'weak,' 'biased,' or whatever other adjective I want to use to deflect them."
Yet, you can't even answer IcariiFA's rules concerns correctly? Maybe you should take a step back and realize that the criticism against your mechanic means you don't know as much as you think you do. It's more than evident enough that your knowledge of the game's rules is pitifully small, despite the "extensive experience" that you keep on pointing at.
Get your mechanic to work properly first. I don't think you'll be able to on your own.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Almost. Cumulative upkeep offers the option to not pay for the amount of age counters, and if the payment isn't made, the relevant permanent gets sacrificed. This doesn't involve the ability to sacrifice at all, nor to avoid any sort of payment.
Essentially, it boils down to:
You must pay ~'s cumulative upkeep cost if able.
When/Whenever/At [something], [something else] for each age counter on ~.
The second ability is what makes it look weird. After all, if the second ability is just going to make the optional portion of the first ability mandatory, why not just change the first ability to have that part be mandatory instead?
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Good luck to your futile endeavors. I advise others to leave the troll alone.
I'm sorry you feel that way, but this is entirely delusion.
You have all failed to provide me a single clear point, that reasonably explains how Crescendo (and its operating function) is significantly malfunctional, improficient, or counter-productive. I had hoped for better, but it figures. Nobody has anything intelligible to input as always.
If you're posting in a forum based on the criticism of custom cards, you should be able to take criticism.
Thread closed.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝