Just an idea I had for a Mox. Might be busted because it is a free sac outlet that gives you mana, but you can o ly use it once per turn without shenanigans so I was curious if it was just on the cusp of being too good.
Blood Mox0
Artifact T, sacrifice a creature: Add one mana of any color.
So the reason moxen are good is because the let you ramp into additional consistent mana super fast. This one will be far less broken because you have to get a creature out first for it to be meaningful, unless you're running a bunch of ornithopters or something.
I'd say less powerful than almost every mox except Mox Tantalite
It's like Springleaf Drum and Phyrexian Tower had a baby? Both are pretty balanced and playable cards, the only thing that worries me is that artifact sacrifice outlets that exist in magic either cost 2 mana up front(spawning pit, altar of dementia,) or cost mana to activate the sac Claws of gix
"As an additional cost to cast Blood Mox, sacrifice a creature and pay 1 life."
...Not that I'm opposed to the design you recommended but you kind of just designed a different card.
Bringing this up as I've seen it before. I don't think you get what people are looking for here.
Most of the time, people post to seek two things:
1) to verify syntax/semantics (AKA: Does the card actually work according to the rules and do what it is intended to do).
2) to verify pragmatics (AKA: is there any objection to its power level relative to similar cards, whether too powerful or not powerful enough. Also, are there any problems that would emerge with other cards if this card was created?)
Having an alternate suggestion made without context addresses neither of those points. If you had said something like "Having a free sac outlet usable each turn that doesn't cost a land drop (note that high market technically costs you a mana it could otherwise provide each time you use it) and that can create problems with artifact-related synergies... especially as this card is not labeled as legendary (While tantellite wasn't legendary, it didn't contribute to strategies that let players storm out with 0-cost artifacts). Perhaps make the sacrifice an additional cost to stop that cost from being treated as a feature."... That would be useful criticism.
When you don't "show your work" for a suggestion, however, it's less useful.
I would have totally understood and accepted a point of interest such as,
"The main concept of a mox has always been it plays for free, and doesn't require additional costs. Ideally, no matter what, this wants to hit the board for free."
However, the points of interest you're highlighting don't make much sense to me. And you're essentially doing the exact same thing you're complaining about, only backwards.
While I do feel the necessity to keep such content true to its roots and legacy, I also find need and acceptance for adaptation where it breathes new life into the design, and allows it to exist in new worlds and time frames. This—while also retaining a great measure of its original power (and grandeur to that respect). The functionality I suggested does exactly that. Whereas, the original version posted is/and would be an absolute turd, far from the scope of power that's true and respectful to the legacy of Mox.
Sadly, this wouldn't be the first time. There have been a few otherundershot Mox (and Lotus) designs throughout modern history. The last thing we want to do though—is repeat this mistake. And that would be my main point of interest here in what I'm suggesting. Also, my best advice to you in the aspirations of your future designs. Please strive to break this habit, and do not allow yourself to repeat this mistake going into the future.
The argument I made above (in quotes) was a hypothetical argument made against Creedmoor’s design as an example of constructive criticism to PROMOTE your design rather than a criticism of your design.
Calling the original card a turd and saying that any attempt to make a Mox that is somewhat balance is a failure because moxen aren’t supposed to be balanced... also not the best feedback.
back to the original card, I think that the current design is balanced for standard but would find abuse in other places. I think that fixing it in other places (where a free sac outlet is desirable) would break the card in a standard environment. Making it a legend like amber and opal should keep this thing pretty much balanced everywhere, though.
The argument I made above (in quotes) was a hypothetical argument made against Creedmoor’s design as an example of constructive criticism to PROMOTE your design rather than a criticism of your design.
Calling the original card a turd and saying that any attempt to make a Mox that is somewhat balance is a failure because moxen aren’t supposed to be balanced... also not the best feedback.
back to the original card, I think that the current design is balanced for standard but would find abuse in other places. I think that fixing it in other places (where a free sac outlet is desirable) would break the card in a standard environment. Making it a legend like amber and opal should keep this thing pretty much balanced everywhere, though.
I think when it comes to designing a mox, there will always be a high chance of shenanigans appearing. I think the more important thing to look at is how broken will it be across the board? How many decks will play it? Is it just one or two deck archetypes that make it a constructed playable card? I think this design is fairly strong but also not going to destroy any meta by any means.
As a "mox" (a card that costs 0 mana and can tap to produce 1 mana) it seems quite balanced, and probably on the weaker side. I think only very specific decks would want it. As a free sac outlet that gives you a small benefit, it's good for decks that want it. So I see this mainly as a commander type card. Depsite costing 0 and no mana to activate, the fact that it has to tap limits its usefulness as far as sac outlets go.
I think the card's power level is good, and would be a card I would consider in any deck that plays Phyrexian Tower.
As a "mox" (a card that costs 0 mana and can tap to produce 1 mana) it seems quite balanced, and probably on the weaker side. I think only very specific decks would want it. As a free sac outlet that gives you a small benefit, it's good for decks that want it. So I see this mainly as a commander type card. Depsite costing 0 and no mana to activate, the fact that it has to tap limits its usefulness as far as sac outlets go.
I think the card's power level is good, and would be a card I would consider in any deck that plays Phyrexian Tower.
This is pretty much how I felt; my main reason for posting it was because I thought it was interesting and wanted to make sure that there was no obvious broken combos in sight. Thanks for summing it up!
"As an additional cost to cast Blood Mox, sacrifice a creature or pay 3 life."
I agree with this additional cost idea, though I'd just go with sac the creature only. We regularly see Moxen where there is additional cost to get the mox, like Mox Diamond or Chrome Mox, but having the cost be attached to the activation instead makes it feel less Mox-like to me.
"As an additional cost to cast Blood Mox, sacrifice a creature or pay 3 life."
I agree with this additional cost idea, though I'd just go with sac the creature only. We regularly see Moxen where there is additional cost to get the mox, like Mox Diamond or Chrome Mox, but having the cost be attached to the activation instead makes it feel less Mox-like to me.
That's what I originally suggested, but I strongly feel that this concept should cover 'the ritual of providing one's own blood'.
The spike from the traditional 2 life to 3 helps to cover the additional domain that a free mana provides. 2 life simply isn't enough to preserve challenge.
That's what I originally suggested, but I strongly feel that this concept should cover 'the ritual of providing one's own blood'.
The spike from the traditional 2 life to 3 helps to cover the additional domain that a free mana provides. 2 life simply isn't enough to preserve challenge.
3 life is barely a cost though - you pay 3 life to fetch a shockland and put it into play untapped, and that uses your land drop for the turn. If the cost was 6 life and the Mox was Legendary, then it might be balanced (for a mox anyway)
Sacing a creature actually is a loss of card advantage, which will meaningfully impact the decision of how to play this card. Sacing a creature would never be the right choice if you got to choose between that and the lifeloss.
That's what I originally suggested, but I strongly feel that this concept should cover 'the ritual of providing one's own blood'.
The spike from the traditional 2 life to 3 helps to cover the additional domain that a free mana provides. 2 life simply isn't enough to preserve challenge.
3 life is barely a cost though - you pay 3 life to fetch a shockland and put it into play untapped, and that uses your land drop for the turn. If the cost was 6 life and the Mox was Legendary, then it might be balanced (for a mox anyway)
6 life would be over-the-top. It would totally devalue and demystify the concept of a "mox". Of which, should always live up to the legacy of exotic power. To do this, when additional costs are added, they must be within reason. Typically, additional costs are taboo here. Specifics and boundaries are favored instead to preserve the exotic power of a free drop.
Even in the case you presented, recognize that a 3 life cost between both designs demands you to choose one or the other. A truly strategic player know they will not be able to do both without risking a game-losing move.
That's what I originally suggested, but I strongly feel that this concept should cover 'the ritual of providing one's own blood'.
The spike from the traditional 2 life to 3 helps to cover the additional domain that a free mana provides. 2 life simply isn't enough to preserve challenge.
3 life is barely a cost though - you pay 3 life to fetch a shockland and put it into play untapped, and that uses your land drop for the turn. If the cost was 6 life and the Mox was Legendary, then it might be balanced (for a mox anyway)
6 life would be over-the-top. It would totally devalue and demystify the concept of a "mox". Of which, should always live up to the legacy of exotic power. To do this, when additional costs are added, they must be within reason. Typically, additional costs are taboo here. Specifics and boundaries are favored instead to preserve the exotic power of a free drop.
Even in the case you presented, recognize that a 3 life cost between both designs demands you to choose one or the other. A truly strategic player know they will not be able to do both without risking a game-losing move.
7 life wouldn't be too much. You are radically over estimating the value of life vs mana. 1 more mana is the difference between going off on turn 1 and losing to the opponent going off on their turn; while anything less than 10 life would be a roughly of 1.5 turns off an opponent's clock.
7 life wouldn't be too much. You are radically over estimating the value of life vs mana. 1 more mana is the difference between going off on turn 1 and losing to the opponent going off on their turn; while anything less than 10 life would be a roughly of 1.5 turns off an opponent's clock.
Except your stuff gets countered or destroyed on turn 1 and now you're 6 life behind.
7 life wouldn't be too much. You are radically over estimating the value of life vs mana. 1 more mana is the difference between going off on turn 1 and losing to the opponent going off on their turn; while anything less than 10 life would be a roughly of 1.5 turns off an opponent's clock.
Except your stuff gets countered or destroyed on turn 1 and now you're 6 life behind.
And you pick up and move to game 2. Do you really not know how legacy works. This is a glass cannon card not a midrange control card. Its all about asking "do you have it?" If the answer is no then they win. There is a degree of "do you have a second one?" But it doesn't go more than that unless neither player would even want this card.
You don’t balance a card so anyone can play it. You balance a card against what will be done with it. Mox are only used for degenerative combos. Not only turn 1 combos but only degenerative combos. The closest thing to a fair use mox was opal in affinity and with opal, affinity could act like a degenerative combo.
7 life wouldn't be too much. You are radically over estimating the value of life vs mana. 1 more mana is the difference between going off on turn 1 and losing to the opponent going off on their turn; while anything less than 10 life would be a roughly of 1.5 turns off an opponent's clock.
Except your stuff gets countered or destroyed on turn 1 and now you're 6 life behind.
And you pick up and move to game 2. Do you really not know how legacy works. This is a glass cannon card not a midrange control card. Its all about asking "do you have it?" If the answer is no then they win. There is a degree of "do you have a second one?" But it doesn't go more than that unless neither player would even want this card.
You don’t balance a card so anyone can play it. You balance a card against what will be done with it. Mox are only used for degenerative combos. Not only turn 1 combos but only degenerative combos. The closest thing to a fair use mox was opal in affinity and with opal, affinity could act like a degenerative combo.
Which is more capable than ever now that we have so many counterspells that can be cast for free.
You're suggesting staining the class of an elite brand under the false pretense of a biased suggestion.
This is not okay. Not for a Mox—and not for anything else.
Blood Mox 0
Artifact
T, sacrifice a creature: Add one mana of any color.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
I'd say less powerful than almost every mox except Mox Tantalite
"As an additional cost to cast Blood Mox, sacrifice a creature and pay 1 life."
...Not that I'm opposed to the design you recommended but you kind of just designed a different card.
Bringing this up as I've seen it before. I don't think you get what people are looking for here.
Most of the time, people post to seek two things:
1) to verify syntax/semantics (AKA: Does the card actually work according to the rules and do what it is intended to do).
2) to verify pragmatics (AKA: is there any objection to its power level relative to similar cards, whether too powerful or not powerful enough. Also, are there any problems that would emerge with other cards if this card was created?)
Having an alternate suggestion made without context addresses neither of those points. If you had said something like "Having a free sac outlet usable each turn that doesn't cost a land drop (note that high market technically costs you a mana it could otherwise provide each time you use it) and that can create problems with artifact-related synergies... especially as this card is not labeled as legendary (While tantellite wasn't legendary, it didn't contribute to strategies that let players storm out with 0-cost artifacts). Perhaps make the sacrifice an additional cost to stop that cost from being treated as a feature."... That would be useful criticism.
When you don't "show your work" for a suggestion, however, it's less useful.
"The main concept of a mox has always been it plays for free, and doesn't require additional costs. Ideally, no matter what, this wants to hit the board for free."
However, the points of interest you're highlighting don't make much sense to me. And you're essentially doing the exact same thing you're complaining about, only backwards.
While I do feel the necessity to keep such content true to its roots and legacy, I also find need and acceptance for adaptation where it breathes new life into the design, and allows it to exist in new worlds and time frames. This—while also retaining a great measure of its original power (and grandeur to that respect). The functionality I suggested does exactly that. Whereas, the original version posted is/and would be an absolute turd, far from the scope of power that's true and respectful to the legacy of Mox.
Sadly, this wouldn't be the first time. There have been a few other undershot Mox (and Lotus) designs throughout modern history. The last thing we want to do though—is repeat this mistake. And that would be my main point of interest here in what I'm suggesting. Also, my best advice to you in the aspirations of your future designs. Please strive to break this habit, and do not allow yourself to repeat this mistake going into the future.
Calling the original card a turd and saying that any attempt to make a Mox that is somewhat balance is a failure because moxen aren’t supposed to be balanced... also not the best feedback.
back to the original card, I think that the current design is balanced for standard but would find abuse in other places. I think that fixing it in other places (where a free sac outlet is desirable) would break the card in a standard environment. Making it a legend like amber and opal should keep this thing pretty much balanced everywhere, though.
I think when it comes to designing a mox, there will always be a high chance of shenanigans appearing. I think the more important thing to look at is how broken will it be across the board? How many decks will play it? Is it just one or two deck archetypes that make it a constructed playable card? I think this design is fairly strong but also not going to destroy any meta by any means.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
I think the card's power level is good, and would be a card I would consider in any deck that plays Phyrexian Tower.
This is pretty much how I felt; my main reason for posting it was because I thought it was interesting and wanted to make sure that there was no obvious broken combos in sight. Thanks for summing it up!
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
"As an additional cost to cast Blood Mox, sacrifice a creature or pay 3 life."
I agree with this additional cost idea, though I'd just go with sac the creature only. We regularly see Moxen where there is additional cost to get the mox, like Mox Diamond or Chrome Mox, but having the cost be attached to the activation instead makes it feel less Mox-like to me.
That's what I originally suggested, but I strongly feel that this concept should cover 'the ritual of providing one's own blood'.
The spike from the traditional 2 life to 3 helps to cover the additional domain that a free mana provides. 2 life simply isn't enough to preserve challenge.
3 life is barely a cost though - you pay 3 life to fetch a shockland and put it into play untapped, and that uses your land drop for the turn. If the cost was 6 life and the Mox was Legendary, then it might be balanced (for a mox anyway)
Sacing a creature actually is a loss of card advantage, which will meaningfully impact the decision of how to play this card. Sacing a creature would never be the right choice if you got to choose between that and the lifeloss.
6 life would be over-the-top. It would totally devalue and demystify the concept of a "mox". Of which, should always live up to the legacy of exotic power. To do this, when additional costs are added, they must be within reason. Typically, additional costs are taboo here. Specifics and boundaries are favored instead to preserve the exotic power of a free drop.
Even in the case you presented, recognize that a 3 life cost between both designs demands you to choose one or the other. A truly strategic player know they will not be able to do both without risking a game-losing move.
Except your stuff gets countered or destroyed on turn 1 and now you're 6 life behind.
You don’t balance a card so anyone can play it. You balance a card against what will be done with it. Mox are only used for degenerative combos. Not only turn 1 combos but only degenerative combos. The closest thing to a fair use mox was opal in affinity and with opal, affinity could act like a degenerative combo.
Which is more capable than ever now that we have so many counterspells that can be cast for free.
You're suggesting staining the class of an elite brand under the false pretense of a biased suggestion.
This is not okay. Not for a Mox—and not for anything else.
Seriously, what Magic do you play?