Treacherous Dragon2RR Creature — Dragon
Treacherous Dragon enters the battlefield under an opponent's control of your choice.
Flying It lives to bite the hand that feeds. It takes pleasure in every drop of blood tainted and impure.
Thrash Loyalties1RR Sorcery
Gain control of up to three target creatures with power and toughness 1 or less until end of turn. Untap those creatures. They gain haste until end of turn. "I've seen loyalties taken by force, and I've seen them taken by cunning. I've seen them taken by promise as well and shatter all the rest. By far the most absolute form. It binds me to this very day—and I expect it to endure forever."
—Strahd von Zarovich
One of my takes on trips. A triple Threaten or Act of Treason. It's intended to be a combo materia for things like Hunted Phantasm and Hunted Troll. I would have liked it to extend to Hunted Dragon as well, but there's no way to jack up the range and domain influence without it becoming questionably unhealthy.
would you care to elaborate on what's the point of the dragon? If it were a 10/10, I'd see a combo kill with Phthisis (assuming you can handle one hit), but as is, I don't get it.
Thrash loyalties looked rather weak to me too, until I figured out that it's permanent control. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to spell out "gain control of ... permanently" or something like that. I know it's redundant and Wizards doesn't do it, but this card, being red and adding haste, begs to be misinterpreted.
1. From a flavor perspective, "Thrashes" are indeed the name of groups of viashino in Jund and Jund is all about sacrificing creatures for devour so Thrash Loyalty makes a lot of sense... until you put a quote from a D&D character in the flavor text. What happened here?
2. It seems that you occasionally switch back and forth from demanding that cards have "domain influence" (AKA; They would be playable in their desired format) vs. having "an element of challenge" (AKA: They are combo pieces that require additional cards). You have a habit of commenting on other people's combo cards to suggest that they have more domain influence and post on competitive cards demanding that they are weakened so they have an element of challenge to them. Just pointing this out for future reference.
3. The dragon is both A) a realistic design that could be printed one day and B) terrible. This is a card very much akin to force of savagery in that it could be used but probably wouldn't be worth it. To be clear, I actually kind of like the fact that this card is bad. Me calling it bad does not mean that it needs to be fixed or changed in any way. It's just a comment that the card is not powerful.
If I cast this card AND toss a chump blocker in front of the first attack AND cast some manner of control magic (but take note that control magic and the like are played virtually nowhere) and my opponent uses Doom Blade to kill the dragon in the end, my opponent used 1 card to essentially take out 3 of my own. Which is terrible.
Nice cards. I like that the dragon is terrible. Shows not every custom cards needs to be format defining. Could easily see print. Hopefully in a set with Brand or similar effects.
The other spell is also weak. Which is again a good thing.
Domain Influence is the amount of net gain that a card's effect has over the game's contents and its dynamics.
We don’t really know what the domain influence means as you define it in very nebulous terns.
When you talk about net gain, are you referring to card advantage? The strength of a card? The versatility of a card? Are you referring to how much a card meaningfully provides to a format? Do you refer to the net gain for the game as a whole?
How does one objectively measure domain influence? Card advantage is measurable. Card power can be measured by a number of metrics such as play percentage and presence in top 8 decks. You shared an odd formula you used once to calculate odds of getting use out of a card in a game of Pokémon. Do you have a formula for domain influence?
If someone sees a design, how can that person systematically judge its domain influence and come to the same conclusions as you without simply asking you? If the answer is “be more creative/daring” then there doesn’t really seem to be any aystem. Without a system, there is no real legitimacy that we can give to domain influence as a meaningful measure of a card.
If there is no objective measure, then what makes your view of domain influence more accurate than those of players who actually play the game? Shouldn’t their superior knowledge of the rules and the formats played give others a huge advantage in measuring domain influence. You can say that you are more creative or daring but you can’t really prove that claim as those terms are subjective as well.
I think this is the first time I can honestly say you've designed cards that are, all at once, creative, reasonably balanced, work as written, not overpowered.
The power level of these cards is going to depend entirely on the overall abilities of cards around them, like sacrifice effects for thrash loyalities. If I have anything to add, its that Thrash may well be too narrow, as 1/1 creatures are not super common outside of tokens so you living your dream of stealing the 2/2s from a hunted dragon may not be out of reach at 2RR instead of 1RR.
Thrash More Loyalties 2RR
Gain control of up to three target creatures with power and toughness 2 or less until end of turn. Untap those creatures. They gain haste until end of turn.
Domain Influence is the influence that an effect has over the domain.
If it soft locks a permanent, that's a small amount of domain influence. If it removes a permanent, that's a large amount of domain influence. If an effect overcomes a buff (such as regeneration), that adds domain influence. If it's dampened by a condition (such as absorb), that lessens domain influence. If an effect only draws you cards, that's a variable domain influence. If it allows all players to draw cards, that's an invariable domain influence.
And so on, and so on.
This is something I've coined by studying the dynamics of the game, and how the conditions of effects directly or indirectly affect the outcome of the game. I've mentioned this before, when I said that hard removal possesses too much domain influence for it to not be in every color. And for all alike effects, the same. The color wheel is still a considerable element (especially in terms of flavor and fantasy), but the concept of it having certain effects locked into certain colors was simply an ideal, one that goes against the reality of the game and its dynamics.
I don't have a set amount of domain influence for anything. That's not how I measure it. I do everything by heart, keeping a mental image of how much domain influence it should have abroad, when checked against every other effect, contents, and condition. If you're looking for something like a points system, that's going to be very tricky. As the measures of domain influence are so erratic. A permanent is worth like 1 point. Removal is worth like 3 (but is possibly infinite). It's not really necessary to have a points system. You'll be too bogged down trying to factor "perfect numbers" you'll lose touch with other important aspects (such as risk, challenge, and fantasy).
That's not how I measure it. I do everything by heart, keeping a mental image of how much domain influence it should have abroad, when checked against every other effect, contents, and condition
So you arbitrarily say something has much or little domain influence you can always just arbitrarily change it when someone points something out so its a pretty useless measure.
Further more since noone (and I am including myself here) can check against every other effect it will always be a bad measure. But it can be helped when knowing the big players of a given format (for which the card is designed) and since you lack that part (as you said yourself you are not playing actively esp. sanctioned formats) your own measurement system with arbitrarily set values is done better by others. That is due to the fact that they usually know the main other "effects,contents and conditions" that could apply to the card.
And most people who critique your cards do not forget the other important aspects you call them risk challenge and fantasy the risk/challenge part is embedded in the floor/ceiling of a card and the fantasy part is the flavor part. People usually address those things.
With that all said both cards are fine both in wording and design.
The dragon is a good Johnny/Jenny card albeit a bit weak but that playertype usually like the challange.
Thrash Loyalties is more of a SB card for a sac deck as against a lot of decks it either gets nothing or only one creature but against the right deck it can be a nice 3 for 1. So also a bit on the weaker end but perfectly acceptable.
would you care to elaborate on what's the point of the dragon?
Appears to be best played in multiplayer: Give the dragon to the guy on the left who is worried about what the guy on the right is doing, and you have 10 power with haste. Pretty solid
I think both of these cards are pretty good designs, but I'd change "Power and toughness of 1" to "Power of 1 and/or toughness of 1" just to make it a little more flexible. I also might make the dragon 3 toughness so that you can threaten to bolt it if it comes your way!