Last Nerve1R Instant
Double all mana costs, activation costs, and additional costs target player would pay during his or her next turn. You're about to find what you thought to make life so much easier for you has instead made it deathly hard for you to bare through the coming hours.
Interesting effect. Taxing is a fit for white and the cost seems balanced. The wording would need to be tweaked to maintain the spirit of the card in gameplay, but its a neat card.
Have you considered making it affect all opponents until your next turn? Then it would both affect other players during the rest of your turn after casting it, and it would be more relevant for Commander (which I think would really love this card).
Have you considered making it affect all opponents until your next turn?
Yes, but I believe it would be over-the-top then, and failing to preserve the aspect of challenge of a multi-player game.
It might be overwhelming for some to grasp, but this is a match in which the deck is stacked against you, and the only way you may transcend (beyond the likes of possessing natural raw talent) is by forcing yourself through the raw difficulty, danger, and challenge. The darkest masters know this and embrace it. And in development, one does this by forcing challenge and strategic decision, boundaries and limitations in design; rather than something that gives them a cheap pass through it all.
Well, the application in multiplayer will change depending if it affects only one person or everyone. If you can target only one person, its most effective at slowing down the one person who is way ahead or about to win the game, but if it can hit the whole rest of the table it is more generally useful as a "catch up" mechanism. Either works, just changes the utility.
One issue I did realize, though, is that tapping a card (say a Llanowar Elf) is part of its activation cost and, since you cannot tap the same permanent twice, this effectively locks out tap abilities all together, including (as written) tapping lands for mana. I'm sure that's not your intent. This could be remedied be by only "doubling" the mana paid and/or only having it affect non-mana abilities.
Based on existing cards, I think the wording that most fits the spirit of what you're trying to do is either:
Last Nerve 1W
Sorcery
During target player's next turn, if they would pay mana to cast a spell, activate an ability, or pay an additional cost, that player pays twice that much mana instead.
Last Nerve 1W
Sorcery
During target player's next turn, if they would pay a cost to cast a spell, activate a non-mana ability, or pay an additional cost, that player pays that cost twice instead.
The former only affects mana paid, but avoids locking out any tap abilities. The latter preserves doubling non-mana costs for something like Bone Splinters but, as I mentioned before, means that something like a Prodigal Pyromancer cannot be activated at all since it can't be tapped twice.
One issue I did realize, though, is that tapping a card (say a Llanowar Elf) is part of its activation cost and, since you cannot tap the same permanent twice, this effectively locks out tap abilities all together, including (as written) tapping lands for mana. I'm sure that's not your intent. This could be remedied be by only "doubling" the mana paid and/or only having it affect non-mana abilities.
That's definitely not the best way to work through that issue.
I would rather create a rule stating that, "if a tap cost has to be paid twice, it becomes 'exhausted' instead, and doesn't untap during its controller's untap."
That—or I would have a rule that states, "since a tap cost can't be paid twice, it's not included in effects that would increase the number of times activation costs have to be paid.
I think the first one is far more dynamic, interactive, and would be way healthier for the game.
I did change the functionality of the effect to 'target player' instead, to open up interactivity with oneself in the events of someone tries to Worst Fears, Mindslaver you. I also think it dynamic that Divert-type effects can take precedence here, and turn someone's poor 'Last Nerve' attempt against them.
Rewriting the comp rules isn't a solution, and keep suggesting that is lazy and a lack of creative problem solving.
Exert is a thing, so you could theoretically work that into the ability, but it would have to be specifically spelled out in your card text.
Last Nerve 1W
Sorcery
During target player's next turn, if they would pay a cost to cast a spell, activate a non-mana ability, or pay an additional cost, that player pays that cost twice instead. If paying a cost would tap any permanent twice in this way, exert it instead.
Its a little bit jury-rigged, but it works.
Of course, there are severalcardswith abilitieswhereExerting is part of the activation cost, but you can actually exert the same permanent multiple times, so that's not a huge problem. Also cards with the untap symbol won't be activatable twice, but that's overall a small subset of cards that locking them out for a turn won't meaningfully break the game.
I did change the functionality of the effect to 'target player' instead, to open up interactivity with oneself in the events of someone tries to Worst Fears, Mindslaver you.
If you want that functionality, this card needs to be an instant. By the time you've been Mindslavered or Worst Fearsed, it will be too late to proactively cast this on yourself to keep them from maximizing control of your turn. Instead, they'd control your turn and cast this so that your NEXT turn your are stymied once you're in control again.
Strongly disagree. This type of function just wants to be something put in the books, and functionality goes discrete and autonomous from there.
I've adapted the type to instant so that it can work as intended. I was impartial on the cost, with say Abeyance, Silence, Orim's Chant. This patches over a bit, but tempted to say this needs a Deus Ex Machina keyword.
To the latter, you have a clean, effective and balanced card here. Adding a hodge-podged card filtering effect to it will ruin the elegance of the card. Don't try staple an elephant onto a Ferrari.
To the former, just because you want the rules to change, doesn't mean they do. Anyone who just reads your card won't have your appendix of "how I think Magic should really work" and so won't play the card as you intend. You can spell out how you want the card to interact within the rules, or people will just think you can't design cards that make sense.
1W at instant is definitely the right cost for this.
Making it cantrip is reasonable, but the card doesn't make sense in red.
White is the color of taxing and interfering with your opponent's ability to take their turn, like with Thalia, Guardian of Thraben or your aformentioned Abeyance, Silence, Orim's Chant. Red disrupts tempo by destroying lands, not by taxing or preventing spells.
Wording issues aside, you have a good white card. More tweaking only makes it messier, not better.
I think it's acceptable color bend because red is supposed to be the representative of Chaos, science; it is everything, it can do almost anything. It's just suggested that a specific context is to be reflected in the application of.
We're talking about the Wilds of Space—unrelenting—unyielding at their worst.
The swirling masses; the crushing depths; of mass and energy; scientific interaction.
I strongly feel like this isn't represented nearly enough, especially for how precedent it truly is in life amongst those wilds.
Everything in that post after the semi-colon is meaningless word soup and adds nothing to the discussion.
No color can do everything, that defeats the purpose of the colors to balance the game. Yes, Red is about Chaos, but science is Blue's realm. Your card is about control and establishing a "law" to affect another player, which is the definition of white and, in fact, antithetical to Red's driver of impulse and chaos.
If you think you can cite an example of a red card that taxes other players in a similar way, please do so. However, you already made the case for white yourself with Abeyance, et al.
I think an effect like this in Red would definitely tax yourself in some way as well, a symmetrical effect, probably would be a sorcery that works until the end of your next turn, or an enchantment that you sacrifice at the end of your next turn. Also the wording is probably off a bit, "target player would pay " versus something like "Target player would have to pay" because a lot of costs are optional trigger stuff.
Instant
Double all mana costs, activation costs, and additional costs target player would pay during his or her next turn.
You're about to find what you thought to make life so much easier for you has instead made it deathly hard for you to bare through the coming hours.
Have you considered making it affect all opponents until your next turn? Then it would both affect other players during the rest of your turn after casting it, and it would be more relevant for Commander (which I think would really love this card).
Yes, but I believe it would be over-the-top then, and failing to preserve the aspect of challenge of a multi-player game.
It might be overwhelming for some to grasp, but this is a match in which the deck is stacked against you, and the only way you may transcend (beyond the likes of possessing natural raw talent) is by forcing yourself through the raw difficulty, danger, and challenge. The darkest masters know this and embrace it. And in development, one does this by forcing challenge and strategic decision, boundaries and limitations in design; rather than something that gives them a cheap pass through it all.
One issue I did realize, though, is that tapping a card (say a Llanowar Elf) is part of its activation cost and, since you cannot tap the same permanent twice, this effectively locks out tap abilities all together, including (as written) tapping lands for mana. I'm sure that's not your intent. This could be remedied be by only "doubling" the mana paid and/or only having it affect non-mana abilities.
Based on existing cards, I think the wording that most fits the spirit of what you're trying to do is either:
Last Nerve 1W
Sorcery
During target player's next turn, if they would pay mana to cast a spell, activate an ability, or pay an additional cost, that player pays twice that much mana instead.
Last Nerve 1W
Sorcery
During target player's next turn, if they would pay a cost to cast a spell, activate a non-mana ability, or pay an additional cost, that player pays that cost twice instead.
The former only affects mana paid, but avoids locking out any tap abilities. The latter preserves doubling non-mana costs for something like Bone Splinters but, as I mentioned before, means that something like a Prodigal Pyromancer cannot be activated at all since it can't be tapped twice.
That's definitely not the best way to work through that issue.
I would rather create a rule stating that, "if a tap cost has to be paid twice, it becomes 'exhausted' instead, and doesn't untap during its controller's untap."
That—or I would have a rule that states, "since a tap cost can't be paid twice, it's not included in effects that would increase the number of times activation costs have to be paid.
I think the first one is far more dynamic, interactive, and would be way healthier for the game.
I did change the functionality of the effect to 'target player' instead, to open up interactivity with oneself in the events of someone tries to Worst Fears, Mindslaver you. I also think it dynamic that Divert-type effects can take precedence here, and turn someone's poor 'Last Nerve' attempt against them.
Exert is a thing, so you could theoretically work that into the ability, but it would have to be specifically spelled out in your card text.
Last Nerve 1W
Sorcery
During target player's next turn, if they would pay a cost to cast a spell, activate a non-mana ability, or pay an additional cost, that player pays that cost twice instead. If paying a cost would tap any permanent twice in this way, exert it instead.
Its a little bit jury-rigged, but it works.
Of course, there are several cards with abilities where Exerting is part of the activation cost, but you can actually exert the same permanent multiple times, so that's not a huge problem. Also cards with the untap symbol won't be activatable twice, but that's overall a small subset of cards that locking them out for a turn won't meaningfully break the game.
If you want that functionality, this card needs to be an instant. By the time you've been Mindslavered or Worst Fearsed, it will be too late to proactively cast this on yourself to keep them from maximizing control of your turn. Instead, they'd control your turn and cast this so that your NEXT turn your are stymied once you're in control again.
I've adapted the type to instant so that it can work as intended. I was impartial on the cost, with say Abeyance, Silence, Orim's Chant. This patches over a bit, but tempted to say this needs a Deus Ex Machina keyword.
Let's keep this fight nice and clean.
To the former, just because you want the rules to change, doesn't mean they do. Anyone who just reads your card won't have your appendix of "how I think Magic should really work" and so won't play the card as you intend. You can spell out how you want the card to interact within the rules, or people will just think you can't design cards that make sense.
1W at instant is definitely the right cost for this.
White is the color of taxing and interfering with your opponent's ability to take their turn, like with Thalia, Guardian of Thraben or your aformentioned Abeyance, Silence, Orim's Chant. Red disrupts tempo by destroying lands, not by taxing or preventing spells.
Wording issues aside, you have a good white card. More tweaking only makes it messier, not better.
We're talking about the Wilds of Space—unrelenting—unyielding at their worst.
The swirling masses; the crushing depths; of mass and energy; scientific interaction.
I strongly feel like this isn't represented nearly enough, especially for how precedent it truly is in life amongst those wilds.
I also renig on the cantrip.
No color can do everything, that defeats the purpose of the colors to balance the game. Yes, Red is about Chaos, but science is Blue's realm. Your card is about control and establishing a "law" to affect another player, which is the definition of white and, in fact, antithetical to Red's driver of impulse and chaos.
If you think you can cite an example of a red card that taxes other players in a similar way, please do so. However, you already made the case for white yourself with Abeyance, et al.
I think an effect like this in Red would definitely tax yourself in some way as well, a symmetrical effect, probably would be a sorcery that works until the end of your next turn, or an enchantment that you sacrifice at the end of your next turn. Also the wording is probably off a bit, "target player would pay " versus something like "Target player would have to pay" because a lot of costs are optional trigger stuff.