Knight of ReinforcementsWW Creature — Human Knight
Whenever Knight of Reinforcements attacks, you may search your library for a white creature card with a converted mana cost 2 or less, revel it, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards. When the opposing forces saw the reinforcements called in early and gathered suddenly, they thought to make a hasty withdrawal; yet back through unfavorable lands—time and space—thus turning the tide of the entire battle.
2/2
Battle Schematics1WW Enchantment
Juxtapose (As you cast this spell or when it resolves or leaves the stack, you may look at the top three cards of your library and put one of those cards into your hand. If you do, shuffle a card from your hand and the remaining cards into your library.)
Whenever a creature you control dies, you may search your library for up to three creature cards with a combined converted mana cost equal to or less than that creature, reveal them, and put them into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards. "Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized." —Daniel Burnham
Deus Ex Machina (As you cast this spell or when it resolves or leaves the stack, you may put the cards in your hand on the bottom of your library in any order, then draws that many cards.)
Considering a concept in which does away with all the individual names for the Deus Ex Machina keywords and simply names them all Deus Ex Machina (yet retaining their individual effects). This, to do away with what could be hostile identities and sovereignty between them. The only exception to this would be Sanctity, which would remain as it is for its uniqueness and force majeure. Also, a definite change is remaining the first Deus Ex Machina, self-titled, and then moving Juxtapose to the above effect. I really want this effect to give you a free card if you don't have any in hand, but it appears too much of a jumble of words to do it that way.
I had originally considered restricting the effect of the Knight to monowhite, but ultimately decided it's best to allow it the blending power to call in things such as Bant Sureblade and Boros Challenger, etc.
The knight is very strong but because it has to attack and get it to your hand its possibly fine for larger formats. For standard it easily overwhelms the opponent as the first attack always gets a second copy.
Battle Schematics, what is the cost? Based on the strength of effect I would guess 3WW at minimum. Regardless of cost it would probably only be used as an engine for cycling 0 cost creatures. Meaning if its costed aggressively enough its broken and if it isn't its worthless. Overall one of the worst desgined cards I've seen.
If you plan on labeling all various forms of deus ex mechanic with a single name, essentially having one mechanic with multiple effects, what will the cards look like without reminder text?
Literally all keywords in existence can work without reminder text but distinguishing which benefit a card grants without the reminder text would be impossible with your proposed idea.
The effect of the Knight is good, but it should cost 1WW so it can't fetch other copies of itself and swarm the board. I think it's really great otherwise, it'a very white way of tutoring creatures/getting card advantage.
Battle Schematics, though, I have questions.
Juxtapose is a lot. I'm guessing you've posted about it elsewhere, but seeing it for the first time I can say that it's challenging to work out at first. So you get the best card from the top three of your library in exchange for the rest and the worst card in your hand getting shuffled back into your library? I'm sure at some point, someone brought the awkward wording of the timing (I guess to still get the effect if the spell is countered?), which I'd echo. It's not what I'd call an elegant mechanic, it seems to want to do something relatively simple in a much more complex way.
For Schematics itself, do you get three creatures with the dead creature's CMC (or less), or do the three fetched creatures' CMCs total up to the dead creature's CMC? So to get three bears, would you need a dead creature of CMC 2 or 6+? The latter is, I think, interesting ground to cover for white while the former is troubling. Being able to fetch up the remaining copies of a creature that was threatening enough to remove in the first place would be frustrating to play against. Even getting a single replacement card is potent. I'd probably shift it to something more like:
"Whenever a creature you control with converted mana cost five or less dies, you may search your library for up to three creature cards with a total converted mana cost equal to or less than that creature, reveal them, and put them into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards."
I think the effect you're shooting for is interesting, and a great effect in white that combines "don't touch my guys" with a go wide with weenie and/or go large with one or two finishers (both common white creature-based strategies). I just think it needs a bit of fine tuning on power level.
I'm mostly just going to agree with whats already been stated.
MikeyG made a good point about making it so it cannot search out extras of itself, either by increasing its own cost, or just specifying that is search for cards "not named Knight of Reinforcements". Otherwise, good card design and I could easily see this popping up in a standard set.
Since we've trodden the Deus Ex Machina ground before, you know the beats: Timing doesn't work like you want it too, doesn't need to be a keyword if they're all different anyway, blah blah blah, you don't like it but that's how the rules work, that's not what force majeure means, etc. Now I'm just going to pretend that part of the card doesn't exist for the duration.
I like the idea of Battle Schematics, but the analysis above that it is overly powerful for its cost is correct. It also feels more like a Black/Green card to me than White. I think the most reasonable balance step would be to make it search for either only one creature or creatures costing less (but not equal too) the one that died.
The Knight is too strong. Others are right to suggest 3 mana.
Once again, the addition of Deus Ex mechanics feels quite taped on, especially on a card like this which is already doing something kinda similar with its main effect. Battle Schematics is also getting too many cards, both in terms of power level, and the amount of control it gives you to search for multiple cards like this, especially problematic for getting multiple combo pieces at once- it's too much consistency. This should probably just search for a creature card each time. That would still be strong anyway.
I was going to mention that I was getting the notion of the Deus Ex Machina making the card over-the-top. I did notion this to myself, but there is a theory or method to the madness here, which stems from my longstanding aspiration and study into fixing the flow the of the cards.
Essentially, this effect potentially provides a 'micro-adjustment' in advanced response to hard removal. This promotes a healthy game pace. In the event there is no removal, it simply provides a subtle acceleration, levied by an even exchange. The concept here is preparing for the worst, which is ideally what someone such as myself has a chief priority to do, when we set out on a task such as 'fixing the flow of the cards'. This is the exact pivotal point or transition that makes or breaks a game pace. Hard removal. While the effect covers creatures very effectively, the Deus Ex Machina helps to cover itself.
Just theoretical right now, and I do understand how a surmounting effect like this feels guilty having a pseudo-cantrip tagged onto it. I totally agree, and don't honestly feel like an effect this strong should have one; yet the theory is that: It may need one.
As for the Knight, it's been long established and well understood that a 2 drop Knight, or any 2 mana creature can get away with effects like this (or even stronger). It's apparent that such cards are self-balanced by the frailty of a being a non-evasive creature, and one with meager power and toughness on the grand scale.
I think it's powerful, but certainly acceptable by all means.
Whelp, everyone gave well thought out feedback, consistently making similar points, and Reap opted to pontificate on why he was completely ignoring all of it, while incorrectly using the word 'notion' as a verb in the process.
No one is surprised by this.
At least we've gotten this cycle steamlined down to a half dozenish posts now.
Whelp, everyone gave well thought out feedback, consistently making similar points, and Reap opted to pontificate on why he was completely ignoring all of it...
Including that part where I said, "I totally agree" ??
Including that part where I said, "I totally agree" ??
You said that in the context of agreeing that your
psuedo-cantrip mechanic was strong on an already overpowered card but argued that you felt it was for some reason still necessary (it's not) and the rest of your post dismisses the power level issues with your cards off-hand so, yes, my analysis stands.
Whelp, everyone gave well thought out feedback, consistently making similar points, and Reap opted to pontificate on why he was completely ignoring all of it...
Including that part where I said, "I totally agree" ??
The fact that you used the words "I totally agree" does little in this contact to signal actual agreement, much less comprehension of the problems at hand.
Your argument in the previous post boils down to "I get that this is a card the generates card advantage and that tacking on additional card filtering can feel a bit like overkill but it's my job as a designer to avoid 'feel-bad' moments. The thought that you can play this card and essentially waste the card is a genuine problem that I am hoping to prevent here"
1. Can you please use more common speech and cut back on the flowery language? Some of your posts go to such extremes that other posters can barely understand what you are trying to say, much less respond. If you actually seek to talk about card design, speaking in a way that other people can't understand is not a virtue... and trying to "eliminate" criticism from people without a big vocabulary can remove some valuable voices.
2. This card is not dead when the opponent lacks removal. Your creatures can still very much die in combat, which is an almost universal problem... and there are plenty of sacrifice effects like spawning pit and ashnod's altar. Did you think you were creating an effect like karmic justice that only cares if a spell or ability kills your creature? Even in that situation, this card would likely need to cost in order to give you two creatures (because white card advantage would be more costly compared with other colors as it is not a central part of the color pie... and because comparable cards like Lurking Predator, Wild Pair or Martyr's Bond have similar cost.
3. While is sounds contradictory, almost every poster here agrees that a card having fail states is not a failure of the card. A kill spell does not need to be able to target hexproof and indestructible creatures to be a good kill spell. A creature does not need to have hexproof and indestructible to be a good creature. A card draw effect does not need to be immune to counterspells to be worth playing. An enchantment does not need to reward you instantly to "make up for" potentially doing nothing. Allowing a card to fail is not a bad thing and trying to absolutely make sure that it does not can actually make a design look clumsy.
I'm honestly tired of talking to you or responding to your cards, so I think I'll stop. If you walk into a room with people who all disagree with you... over and over... and never display the basic insight that maybe you are the one who is mistaken... the conversation is dead.
If you can't accept criticism without instant refutation, there's no point in discussing this card... or any other card... for me or anyone else, to be honest. As Rowanalpha said, we're lucky that we're getting this endless cycle down smaller.
Knights are fine as is. They have squad Hawks and the 2/2 for 3 that have potentially stronger effects. I like this one.
What's up with all those other words on the next card? Make it cost 4 and just have the search ability.
Knights are fine as is. They have squad Hawks and the 2/2 for 3 that have potentially stronger effects. I like this one.
What's up with all those other words on the next card? Make it cost 4 and just have the search ability.
There's a big difference between the Knight and Squad hawk. The hawk only finds other squad Hawks, where this one finds its other knights, and then all those Knights together go looking for other creatures. That's a huge booster n card advantage.
1. Can you please use more common speech and cut back on the flowery language? Some of your posts go to such extremes that other posters can barely understand what you are trying to say, much less respond. If you actually seek to talk about card design, speaking in a way that other people can't understand is not a virtue... and trying to "eliminate" criticism from people without a big vocabulary can remove some valuable voices.
You do realize how this sounds, correct? You are basically asking him to speak unintelligently. To dumb down his words... All the while talking about "flowery", but use the word seek rather than want or try. Also not everyone understands the term virtue. To some it's just a name on a piece of cardboard. I'm just saying to please don't do what someone else does then try to criticize them for it... Especially when calling them out for it.
And no, Sorry but I still say the knight is fine as is. It gets no value if you remove it. It can grab 1 card if it gets blocked and destroyed. What's it going to do in most cases? Get blocked and die only to have searched up another of itself to also be blocked and die? Yes it can get out of hand in some matchups. But the same can be said for goyf, grimflayer, stoneforge, bob, etc. No. Those cards are actually very powerful and can get out of hand very easily. This is on a far less power level than those cards.
[quote from="Rosy Dumplings »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/818655-knight-of-reinforcements-battle-schematics?comment=11"]
1. Can you please use more common speech and cut back on the flowery language? Some of your posts go to such extremes that other posters can barely understand what you are trying to say, much less respond. If you actually seek to talk about card design, speaking in a way that other people can't understand is not a virtue... and trying to "eliminate" criticism from people without a big vocabulary can remove some valuable voices.
You do realize how this sounds, correct? You are basically asking him to speak unintelligently. To dumb down his words... All the while talking about "flowery", but use the word seek rather than want or try. Also not everyone understands the term virtue. To some it's just a name on a piece of cardboard. I'm just saying to please don't do what someone else does then try to criticize them for it... Especially when calling them out for it.
In general terms, I understand your criticism. Intelligent discourse should be encouraged.
On the other hand, look at your comparison. On the one hand, I use words like "seek", "virtue", and "discourse" in otherwise straightforward sentences. On the other hand.
This, to do away with what could be hostile identities and sovereignty between them.
The only exception to this would be Sanctity, which would remain as it is for its uniqueness and force majeure.
I did notion this to myself, but there is a theory or method to the madness here, which stems from my longstanding aspiration and study into fixing the flow the of the cards.
In the event there is no removal, it simply provides a subtle acceleration, levied by an even exchange.
While I may use bigger words on conversation, I try to make my points directly. I do not misuse French terms for the purpose of making impact, arguing with native French speakers to do so (which has happened). I do not misuse notion as a verb to make myself sound smart. I use terms that are commonly used in card creation discussion rather than taking out my thesaurus (Such as referring to "design space" rather than "domain"). I don't talk about how grammar says I am technically right when my efforts to speak intelligently leads me to using a word in a way that runs counter to its specific meaning in MTG (such as Reap's ongoing misuse of "or" in Deus Ex abilities in spite of his assertion that it would not trigger twice).
I am not asking for unintelligent conversation. I am asking for easily intelligible conversation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Creature — Human Knight
Whenever Knight of Reinforcements attacks, you may search your library for a white creature card with a converted mana cost 2 or less, revel it, and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
When the opposing forces saw the reinforcements called in early and gathered suddenly, they thought to make a hasty withdrawal; yet back through unfavorable lands—time and space—thus turning the tide of the entire battle.
2/2
Battle Schematics 1WW
Enchantment
Juxtapose (As you cast this spell or when it resolves or leaves the stack, you may look at the top three cards of your library and put one of those cards into your hand. If you do, shuffle a card from your hand and the remaining cards into your library.)
Whenever a creature you control dies, you may search your library for up to three creature cards with a combined converted mana cost equal to or less than that creature, reveal them, and put them into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized."
—Daniel Burnham
Deus Ex Machina (As you cast this spell or when it resolves or leaves the stack, you may put the cards in your hand on the bottom of your library in any order, then draws that many cards.)
Considering a concept in which does away with all the individual names for the Deus Ex Machina keywords and simply names them all Deus Ex Machina (yet retaining their individual effects). This, to do away with what could be hostile identities and sovereignty between them. The only exception to this would be Sanctity, which would remain as it is for its uniqueness and force majeure. Also, a definite change is remaining the first Deus Ex Machina, self-titled, and then moving Juxtapose to the above effect. I really want this effect to give you a free card if you don't have any in hand, but it appears too much of a jumble of words to do it that way.
I had originally considered restricting the effect of the Knight to monowhite, but ultimately decided it's best to allow it the blending power to call in things such as Bant Sureblade and Boros Challenger, etc.
Battle Schematics, what is the cost? Based on the strength of effect I would guess 3WW at minimum. Regardless of cost it would probably only be used as an engine for cycling 0 cost creatures. Meaning if its costed aggressively enough its broken and if it isn't its worthless. Overall one of the worst desgined cards I've seen.
Literally all keywords in existence can work without reminder text but distinguishing which benefit a card grants without the reminder text would be impossible with your proposed idea.
Battle Schematics, though, I have questions.
Juxtapose is a lot. I'm guessing you've posted about it elsewhere, but seeing it for the first time I can say that it's challenging to work out at first. So you get the best card from the top three of your library in exchange for the rest and the worst card in your hand getting shuffled back into your library? I'm sure at some point, someone brought the awkward wording of the timing (I guess to still get the effect if the spell is countered?), which I'd echo. It's not what I'd call an elegant mechanic, it seems to want to do something relatively simple in a much more complex way.
For Schematics itself, do you get three creatures with the dead creature's CMC (or less), or do the three fetched creatures' CMCs total up to the dead creature's CMC? So to get three bears, would you need a dead creature of CMC 2 or 6+? The latter is, I think, interesting ground to cover for white while the former is troubling. Being able to fetch up the remaining copies of a creature that was threatening enough to remove in the first place would be frustrating to play against. Even getting a single replacement card is potent. I'd probably shift it to something more like:
"Whenever a creature you control with converted mana cost five or less dies, you may search your library for up to three creature cards with a total converted mana cost equal to or less than that creature, reveal them, and put them into your hand. Shuffle your library afterwards."
I think the effect you're shooting for is interesting, and a great effect in white that combines "don't touch my guys" with a go wide with weenie and/or go large with one or two finishers (both common white creature-based strategies). I just think it needs a bit of fine tuning on power level.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
MikeyG made a good point about making it so it cannot search out extras of itself, either by increasing its own cost, or just specifying that is search for cards "not named Knight of Reinforcements". Otherwise, good card design and I could easily see this popping up in a standard set.
Since we've trodden the Deus Ex Machina ground before, you know the beats: Timing doesn't work like you want it too, doesn't need to be a keyword if they're all different anyway, blah blah blah, you don't like it but that's how the rules work, that's not what force majeure means, etc. Now I'm just going to pretend that part of the card doesn't exist for the duration.
I like the idea of Battle Schematics, but the analysis above that it is overly powerful for its cost is correct. It also feels more like a Black/Green card to me than White. I think the most reasonable balance step would be to make it search for either only one creature or creatures costing less (but not equal too) the one that died.
Once again, the addition of Deus Ex mechanics feels quite taped on, especially on a card like this which is already doing something kinda similar with its main effect. Battle Schematics is also getting too many cards, both in terms of power level, and the amount of control it gives you to search for multiple cards like this, especially problematic for getting multiple combo pieces at once- it's too much consistency. This should probably just search for a creature card each time. That would still be strong anyway.
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
Essentially, this effect potentially provides a 'micro-adjustment' in advanced response to hard removal. This promotes a healthy game pace. In the event there is no removal, it simply provides a subtle acceleration, levied by an even exchange. The concept here is preparing for the worst, which is ideally what someone such as myself has a chief priority to do, when we set out on a task such as 'fixing the flow of the cards'. This is the exact pivotal point or transition that makes or breaks a game pace. Hard removal. While the effect covers creatures very effectively, the Deus Ex Machina helps to cover itself.
Just theoretical right now, and I do understand how a surmounting effect like this feels guilty having a pseudo-cantrip tagged onto it. I totally agree, and don't honestly feel like an effect this strong should have one; yet the theory is that: It may need one.
As for the Knight, it's been long established and well understood that a 2 drop Knight, or any 2 mana creature can get away with effects like this (or even stronger). It's apparent that such cards are self-balanced by the frailty of a being a non-evasive creature, and one with meager power and toughness on the grand scale.
I think it's powerful, but certainly acceptable by all means.
No one is surprised by this.
At least we've gotten this cycle steamlined down to a half dozenish posts now.
Including that part where I said, "I totally agree" ??
You said that in the context of agreeing that your
psuedo-cantrip mechanic was strong on an already overpowered card but argued that you felt it was for some reason still necessary (it's not) and the rest of your post dismisses the power level issues with your cards off-hand so, yes, my analysis stands.
The fact that you used the words "I totally agree" does little in this contact to signal actual agreement, much less comprehension of the problems at hand.
Your argument in the previous post boils down to "I get that this is a card the generates card advantage and that tacking on additional card filtering can feel a bit like overkill but it's my job as a designer to avoid 'feel-bad' moments. The thought that you can play this card and essentially waste the card is a genuine problem that I am hoping to prevent here"
1. Can you please use more common speech and cut back on the flowery language? Some of your posts go to such extremes that other posters can barely understand what you are trying to say, much less respond. If you actually seek to talk about card design, speaking in a way that other people can't understand is not a virtue... and trying to "eliminate" criticism from people without a big vocabulary can remove some valuable voices.
2. This card is not dead when the opponent lacks removal. Your creatures can still very much die in combat, which is an almost universal problem... and there are plenty of sacrifice effects like spawning pit and ashnod's altar. Did you think you were creating an effect like karmic justice that only cares if a spell or ability kills your creature? Even in that situation, this card would likely need to cost in order to give you two creatures (because white card advantage would be more costly compared with other colors as it is not a central part of the color pie... and because comparable cards like Lurking Predator, Wild Pair or Martyr's Bond have similar cost.
3. While is sounds contradictory, almost every poster here agrees that a card having fail states is not a failure of the card. A kill spell does not need to be able to target hexproof and indestructible creatures to be a good kill spell. A creature does not need to have hexproof and indestructible to be a good creature. A card draw effect does not need to be immune to counterspells to be worth playing. An enchantment does not need to reward you instantly to "make up for" potentially doing nothing. Allowing a card to fail is not a bad thing and trying to absolutely make sure that it does not can actually make a design look clumsy.
I'm honestly tired of talking to you or responding to your cards, so I think I'll stop. If you walk into a room with people who all disagree with you... over and over... and never display the basic insight that maybe you are the one who is mistaken... the conversation is dead.
If you can't accept criticism without instant refutation, there's no point in discussing this card... or any other card... for me or anyone else, to be honest. As Rowanalpha said, we're lucky that we're getting this endless cycle down smaller.
What's up with all those other words on the next card? Make it cost 4 and just have the search ability.
There's a big difference between the Knight and Squad hawk. The hawk only finds other squad Hawks, where this one finds its other knights, and then all those Knights together go looking for other creatures. That's a huge booster n card advantage.
You do realize how this sounds, correct? You are basically asking him to speak unintelligently. To dumb down his words... All the while talking about "flowery", but use the word seek rather than want or try. Also not everyone understands the term virtue. To some it's just a name on a piece of cardboard. I'm just saying to please don't do what someone else does then try to criticize them for it... Especially when calling them out for it.
And no, Sorry but I still say the knight is fine as is. It gets no value if you remove it. It can grab 1 card if it gets blocked and destroyed. What's it going to do in most cases? Get blocked and die only to have searched up another of itself to also be blocked and die? Yes it can get out of hand in some matchups. But the same can be said for goyf, grimflayer, stoneforge, bob, etc. No. Those cards are actually very powerful and can get out of hand very easily. This is on a far less power level than those cards.
You do realize how this sounds, correct? You are basically asking him to speak unintelligently. To dumb down his words... All the while talking about "flowery", but use the word seek rather than want or try. Also not everyone understands the term virtue. To some it's just a name on a piece of cardboard. I'm just saying to please don't do what someone else does then try to criticize them for it... Especially when calling them out for it.
In general terms, I understand your criticism. Intelligent discourse should be encouraged.
On the other hand, look at your comparison. On the one hand, I use words like "seek", "virtue", and "discourse" in otherwise straightforward sentences. On the other hand.
While I may use bigger words on conversation, I try to make my points directly. I do not misuse French terms for the purpose of making impact, arguing with native French speakers to do so (which has happened). I do not misuse notion as a verb to make myself sound smart. I use terms that are commonly used in card creation discussion rather than taking out my thesaurus (Such as referring to "design space" rather than "domain"). I don't talk about how grammar says I am technically right when my efforts to speak intelligently leads me to using a word in a way that runs counter to its specific meaning in MTG (such as Reap's ongoing misuse of "or" in Deus Ex abilities in spite of his assertion that it would not trigger twice).
I am not asking for unintelligent conversation. I am asking for easily intelligible conversation.