Came up with this concept when tinkering over Crescendo. The idea revolves around a set of Enchantment cards whose effects are stacked based on the number of copies you've played. I thought that this would be unique with the hotfix package I had in mind for fixing the game pace in MTG.
Example
When this card enters the battlefield, apply the corresponding effect equal to the number of copies you control of this card.
• Draw a card.
• Draw two cards.
• Draw three cards.
• Shuffle all copies of this card you control on the battlefield into your library, then draw seven cards.
Then came up this is as a centerpiece card that can bring them all together.
The Golden Monkey3 Legendary Artifact
When The Golden Monkey enters the battlefield, you may search your library for up to three Enchantment cards, reveal them, and put them into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
If The Golden Monkey is put into your graveyard from anywhere, discard three cards.
I like this version of Crescendo. It's similar to the Kindle effect, but the memory aid works better with enchantments on the battlefield. I just wonder how often the 4th tier will actually happen in a game without a lot of tutor support. Also, I would word it like so:
"Crescendo - When this enchantment enters the battlefield, do <X>, where X is the number of enchantments named CARDNAME you control:
<1> blah
<2> bleh
<3> bluh
<4> etc."
That is a reasonable ability. It eats up so much text space that you couldn't really have other effects but it could easily be worth using.
The monkey is crazy broken. Its a risk to even put in your deck but it's level of brokenness far out weighs the risk.
Well, the numbers are supposed to be superscript, but those characters aren't permitted. I do realize the amount of text space it eats up. I had considered that when pondering over the notion, and had said that they don't have to exceptionally powerful effects to be significant. They simply need to be affordable, or a comfortable expense, and everything will come into proportion. I was actually going to pitch this concept before the Dominaria spoilers began, and now find it kind of awkward how this concept almost resembled their new Saga collection. I think the Saga concept is neat, but poorly implemented as always, as I can see a lot of the content is blatantly overcost so that deck construction is threatened with utter adulteration trying to make explicit use of any given Saga over 4 mana. They seem to have no concept of mathematical proportion over there whatsoever, and how odd with Richard Garfield supposedly having a PhD in math.
As for The Golden Monkey, you really think so, even as a legendary?
I had figured that alone brings a strong amount of balance to it. It does something nice a step up from the traditional legendary, as a card you can see great benefit from packing 4-of in your deck. Back in the Odyssey days, Legendaries were troublesome to make use of. You wanted to pack 4-of, but that only ended up adulterating your deck, and you ended up with lots of dead draws and cards you couldn't make any use of. With the new legendary function they have, I guess there is some more adaptability, but the discard effect prevents it from being directly abused like that. You can play a second, net three enchantments, but when the other is put into your graveyard, you'll have to discard three cards. I guess there is a slight chance you can discard three other cards, but the resource loss is still very significant, so I wouldn't say it becomes overpowered even then (as much as it just adds a bit of powerful, fun interactivity).
The monkey is so broken because being legendary isn't an actual draw back. After the first one you empty your hand before the second one so you discard three while your hand is empty then tutor up three new enchantments. Also there is no risk to running it out since at worst you are down one card and potentially added key cards to the graveyard. Its so incredibly busted that I have to question your understanding of the game to think its not insanely busted.
The monkey is so broken because being legendary isn't an actual draw back. After the first one you empty your hand before the second one so you discard three while your hand is empty then tutor up three new enchantments. Also there is no risk to running it out since at worst you are down one card and potentially added key cards to the graveyard. Its so incredibly busted that I have to question your understanding of the game to think its not insanely busted.
It's not that, it's just that I know the wording can be configured so that they discard after enchantments would be tutored. I'm just not entirely decided on the best timing for that, so that is plays out as a significant drawback (or restriction limit). I figure "end of turn" would be the obvious. Then you'd have to play out all three enchantments before the end of the turn, which is possible I guess, but how often does that make it broken? One or two mana enchantments would just be made more fun if anything.
As for emptying the hand, I supposed that's also possible, but probably more of the exception than the rule? It would be ideal, but it truly plays out to what percentile clench that it's a significant factor?
For a 60-card deck, having just 4 copies of any given card gives you a 46% chance of drawing one copy of the card in your opening hand of 7 cards. The way probability works, this probable factor is more likely to play out to the lesser side of a coin flip, something like 2 out of 5, rather than 1 out of 2; because it veers so far from the 100% mark. As you veer up towards the 100% mark, your chances of the odds playing out to your success increases, but you have to actually surpass the 100% mark before it becomes a significant probable success factor that you can really rely on. And even then, due to the way probability works, you will still only have a 99.9% chance of success. But the farther you push the rate past the 100% mark, the farther down the chance of success (landing that 0.01%) is likely to occur. From this, the probability that the odds with work against you becomes something more like 1 out of 50‒to 1 out of 100 games (and continues to increase the higher past the 100% you go).
In Pokemon TCG, this is securable with Supporter card arrays, combining alike-Supporters (straight draw, wheel draw, purge draw, and direct retrieval) to increase the probable success rate in the opening hand, as well as provide technical extensions on other cards and the number of their copies. Not sure how familiar you are with that game, but for example, You would do 4 Cheren, but then 2 Tierno, to give you a total of 6 straight draw cards, This gives you a 70% chance of getting a straight draw in your opening hand. Or you would pack 3 Skyla in addition to your 4 Max Elixir, where the copies of Skyla can provide an extension on Max Elixir (effectively giving your 3 technical copies). When the number of actual copies grinds down to just 1 or 2, the extension provided by Skyla boosts your probable success late in the game, as the technical copies from direct retrieval help to push the percentile clench past that no-mans-land 50% mark.
This is just to explain how probability works, as probability would be a big factor in the implementation of these Ascendo cards, as well as in the hotfixing of the game pace. And with much greater complexity, it's also the factor that decides how often a player would be able to get a second copy of The Golden Monkey in their hand, empty their hand out, and then play it successfully. I realize that one only really needs to get down to two or three useless cards, but still I find that in competitive play, you don't even really have that to spare, so the typical player would truly need to empty their entire hand out.
Hate to really play off probable success here, although it's a considerable factor. I'd rather devise a better timing mechanism if needed, so that the drawback could do what it needs to do far more reliably.
A changing effect based on the number of copies of something you've cast is pretty interesting and the said design space has only been done in a scaling, Kindle sort of sense before. Such a mechanic is unusable in Commander, but hey, some things just are, and that's fine. As long as it's on common and uncommon a lot it could be cool in Limited.
A card that reads, more or less, "3: Your whole combo in hand" cannot be printed with any drawback. Tutoring three enchantments is something that can't be done at less than the cost of tutoring one. Hell, the much more restricted in use Three Dreams costs 4W.
The idea of a card that gives you "three wishes" is compelling but hasbeendone before.
Idyllic saw no play in Standard. It's only 20 bucks because of legacy/vintage. Three Dreams is literally a junk bin rare.
I'm not saying The Golden Monkey doesn't push the envelope, but moreso, once the restriction is fixed with a better timing mechanism possible, do you still feel it would be over-the-top?
I would opine that 3 for three tutors of any kind is literally unfixable because any harsh enough drawback would basically just make the thing swingy rather than actually balanced.
The only way to balance such an effect is to actually increase the cost.
Example
When this card enters the battlefield, apply the corresponding effect equal to the number of copies you control of this card.
The Golden Monkey 3
Legendary Artifact
When The Golden Monkey enters the battlefield, you may search your library for up to three Enchantment cards, reveal them, and put them into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
If The Golden Monkey is put into your graveyard from anywhere, discard three cards.
The monkey is crazy broken. Its a risk to even put in your deck but it's level of brokenness far out weighs the risk.
"Crescendo - When this enchantment enters the battlefield, do <X>, where X is the number of enchantments named CARDNAME you control:
<1> blah
<2> bleh
<3> bluh
<4> etc."
Well, the numbers are supposed to be superscript, but those characters aren't permitted. I do realize the amount of text space it eats up. I had considered that when pondering over the notion, and had said that they don't have to exceptionally powerful effects to be significant. They simply need to be affordable, or a comfortable expense, and everything will come into proportion. I was actually going to pitch this concept before the Dominaria spoilers began, and now find it kind of awkward how this concept almost resembled their new Saga collection. I think the Saga concept is neat, but poorly implemented as always, as I can see a lot of the content is blatantly overcost so that deck construction is threatened with utter adulteration trying to make explicit use of any given Saga over 4 mana. They seem to have no concept of mathematical proportion over there whatsoever, and how odd with Richard Garfield supposedly having a PhD in math.
As for The Golden Monkey, you really think so, even as a legendary?
I had figured that alone brings a strong amount of balance to it. It does something nice a step up from the traditional legendary, as a card you can see great benefit from packing 4-of in your deck. Back in the Odyssey days, Legendaries were troublesome to make use of. You wanted to pack 4-of, but that only ended up adulterating your deck, and you ended up with lots of dead draws and cards you couldn't make any use of. With the new legendary function they have, I guess there is some more adaptability, but the discard effect prevents it from being directly abused like that. You can play a second, net three enchantments, but when the other is put into your graveyard, you'll have to discard three cards. I guess there is a slight chance you can discard three other cards, but the resource loss is still very significant, so I wouldn't say it becomes overpowered even then (as much as it just adds a bit of powerful, fun interactivity).
It's not that, it's just that I know the wording can be configured so that they discard after enchantments would be tutored. I'm just not entirely decided on the best timing for that, so that is plays out as a significant drawback (or restriction limit). I figure "end of turn" would be the obvious. Then you'd have to play out all three enchantments before the end of the turn, which is possible I guess, but how often does that make it broken? One or two mana enchantments would just be made more fun if anything.
As for emptying the hand, I supposed that's also possible, but probably more of the exception than the rule? It would be ideal, but it truly plays out to what percentile clench that it's a significant factor?
For a 60-card deck, having just 4 copies of any given card gives you a 46% chance of drawing one copy of the card in your opening hand of 7 cards. The way probability works, this probable factor is more likely to play out to the lesser side of a coin flip, something like 2 out of 5, rather than 1 out of 2; because it veers so far from the 100% mark. As you veer up towards the 100% mark, your chances of the odds playing out to your success increases, but you have to actually surpass the 100% mark before it becomes a significant probable success factor that you can really rely on. And even then, due to the way probability works, you will still only have a 99.9% chance of success. But the farther you push the rate past the 100% mark, the farther down the chance of success (landing that 0.01%) is likely to occur. From this, the probability that the odds with work against you becomes something more like 1 out of 50‒to 1 out of 100 games (and continues to increase the higher past the 100% you go).
In Pokemon TCG, this is securable with Supporter card arrays, combining alike-Supporters (straight draw, wheel draw, purge draw, and direct retrieval) to increase the probable success rate in the opening hand, as well as provide technical extensions on other cards and the number of their copies. Not sure how familiar you are with that game, but for example, You would do 4 Cheren, but then 2 Tierno, to give you a total of 6 straight draw cards, This gives you a 70% chance of getting a straight draw in your opening hand. Or you would pack 3 Skyla in addition to your 4 Max Elixir, where the copies of Skyla can provide an extension on Max Elixir (effectively giving your 3 technical copies). When the number of actual copies grinds down to just 1 or 2, the extension provided by Skyla boosts your probable success late in the game, as the technical copies from direct retrieval help to push the percentile clench past that no-mans-land 50% mark.
This is just to explain how probability works, as probability would be a big factor in the implementation of these Ascendo cards, as well as in the hotfixing of the game pace. And with much greater complexity, it's also the factor that decides how often a player would be able to get a second copy of The Golden Monkey in their hand, empty their hand out, and then play it successfully. I realize that one only really needs to get down to two or three useless cards, but still I find that in competitive play, you don't even really have that to spare, so the typical player would truly need to empty their entire hand out.
Hate to really play off probable success here, although it's a considerable factor. I'd rather devise a better timing mechanism if needed, so that the drawback could do what it needs to do far more reliably.
A card that reads, more or less, "3: Your whole combo in hand" cannot be printed with any drawback. Tutoring three enchantments is something that can't be done at less than the cost of tutoring one. Hell, the much more restricted in use Three Dreams costs 4W.
The idea of a card that gives you "three wishes" is compelling but has been done before.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I'm not saying The Golden Monkey doesn't push the envelope, but moreso, once the restriction is fixed with a better timing mechanism possible, do you still feel it would be over-the-top?
The only way to balance such an effect is to actually increase the cost.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝