Your missing quite a few words to work right but your intent comes across. I have to ask though. What part of this is green? Other than lands green isn't known for animating things and it isn't know for interacting with instant and sorcerys.
Looking past that. This is laughably bad. Other than for the sake of saying a color which shouldn't get counterspells gets a counterspell why would this be made?
Green uses energy (spell in case) to replenish nature (elemental token)
Red can use offensive way (stealing spells controller transforming in permanents?) .Green uses is more defensive (protection against bad spells giving an opponent advantage )
Green/Red is the color focused on permanents .
Blue is inverse.Blue is the color of anti-permanents (manipulation of battlefield through bounce,transformation and etc)
Counter is disolution .Elementalization is indisolution.
Also red can manipulate the stack for resolution purposes (bolt bend)
Blue manipulate permanents and uses the stack por disolution purposes (counterspell)
It's not equal a counterspell directly. But is a form of transformation with lot of uses.A color bend than a break.Form is very green/red.It'a cool solution for green/red uses on ofensive and defensive .
First, red and blue are the colors of instants sorcery. So while green is a color of permanents its not a red/green overlap.
While you've mentioned green doing something that isn't a case for using its opponents to do said thing. Bouncing an opponents permanent and bouncing your own permanents isn't a 100% overlap.
Indisolution isn't a word. So what you think you meant us lost here.
Mentioning what blue and red do doesn't make a case for a green card at all.
Putting a creature on the bottom of the deck isn't destruction but blue still can't do it. When you spell does something just because it also does something else or its technically something else the main thing still has to be in color and this is a counterspell in a color that doesn't need counterspells.
Green uses in a defensive form (maybe only targeting spells opponents control and instant/sorceries ?)
Red uses more offensive ways.(Stealing spells) ?
All colors can use the stack .
Red is body above mind.Blue is mind above body and green is mind-body in harmony.
Elementalization 2GG
Instant {U}
Target spell becomes an x/x elemental with no abilities under the spell's owner's control
A stack interation for Green/Red because cards like counterspells and Alrund Epiphany.Its very green .
Did ReapThaWhirlwind get a new account?
Taking the last part first, that's not even a complete sentence, and counterspell/Epiphany have nothing to do with red/green, and your card doesn't even have anything to do with red, so the statement is complete gibberish.
Gameplay wise, it doesn't make sense in green; it is a Blue spell in line with Swan Song. Its a significantly less powerful variant of Swan Song due to its higher cost and greater power of the token it gives the opponent, but it is mechanically the same aside of the knobs being turned.
Green doesn't interact with spells. The closest it gets is granting hexproof to targeted creatures, but that is interacting with the permanent rather than the spell itself. Since there is no red in the spell's cost, red's abilities are irrelevant to the discussion.
Rules wise, a spell cannot be put on the battlefield, so it would have to make token instead.
Here is correct templating (wrong color not withstanding)
Elementalization 2GG
Instant {U}
Counter target spell. Its controller creates an X/X green Elemental creature token, where X is the countered spell's mana value.
"
Rules wise, a spell cannot be put on the battlefield, so it would have to make token instead."
A spell cannot change attributes on the stack? In this case it transforms to a creature spell with no abilities.
About Epiphany people are complaining about the lack of stack interaction to work against these big spells .Counterspell is only blue.
Of course it works "like a counterspell" ,but it can shape spells for different things (creatures,lands,enchantments and other permanents).In this case a red version is better if it's possible .
People complaining about Epiphany isn't a problem with green, its a problem with Epiphany. You don't fix a broken card by giving other colors access to abilities they shouldn't have.
But lets say you want to make a green answer to Epiphany.
Chronosaurus 3GG
Creature - Dinosaur (R)
Vigilance, Reach
If an opponent would begin an extra turn, that player skips that turn instead.
4/6
There, an answer that is balanced, in color pie for green, and standard playable.
There's already a guy on this forum who declares himself smarter than everyone else and argues the consistent feedback he gets from every other person here. Don't be another of him.
Yes, the specific answer to Epiphany is to ban it, because it was likely a power level mistake to begin with.
Yes, the card I put above is a narrow answer, but it answers the specific problem bard you brought up in a way that fits in green. It will have applications in any meta where extra turns cards are predominant, and would likely be a popular card in commander. That's the purpose of sideboard cards: to answer specific threats that become dominant in the meta.
Just because people want an effectively green counterspell, doesn't mean it should exist. Colors are defined by their strengths AND weaknesses, and if you start putting all abilities in every color it defeats the purpose of having multiple colors. Look at what card can do, rather than just saying cards can do anything you want them to because you feel like it.
"Just because people want an effectively green counterspell, doesn't mean it should exist."
It' not equal a counterspell . It's very similar to chaos warp and polymorph effects.
Chaos Warp is noted to be a color break that one of the head designers (Mark Rosewater) regrets making. It is not an example of good card design.
Green can’t interact with spells (other than stopping counterspells) any more than red should deal with enchantments or black should deal with artifacts.
Generally speaking, it is really hard to make good and balanced cards if you are approaching the design with the goal of 1) answering a specific card, 2) having the answer be in a specific color rather than being where it would naturally be, and 3) wanting that card to be competitive in main decks. It just isn’t a mission that ends well.
"Just because people want an effectively green counterspell, doesn't mean it should exist."
It' not equal a counterspell . It's very similar to chaos warp and polymorph effects.
Its not a blue spell, its similar to a red or blue spell.
Then why is it green?
Also this specific card is so laughably bad that no deck would ever run it. So complaining about a viable answer being only a sideboard card is hilarious.
You could also go ahead and just make it a 3/3 Elemental, as doing the mana value isn't going to be as intuitive from any perspective.
Green can already do a surplus of vanilla creatures that are Power-for-Toughness above par for their costs. This as a combo for that will be 3 over par. Even on a one mana spell it will be 1 over par.
Considering that—this could even cost 1G—granted that it creates a 3/3 Elemental creature.
Even if this card is used a lot ,the opponent will get a lot of creatures to use against you.
It won't be used a lot. It won't be used at all. Its awful. No one is saying its out on power level. Everyone is saying it doesn't fit the color pie.
you can use in your own spells or new variants from this card can be created ,like transforming into land or enchantments.
A bad use for a bad card doesn't suddenly make it in pie. Now a redesign to a bad card such as dropping the cost to 1 and limiting to only target your owns spells and you have a card I could see in a color other than blue. But probably not green still.
And the spell if not "countered" .The spell card becomes a elemental creature card.The player can bounce .
A minor technicality that doesn't help at all. In the 1-10% of games where it matters it only decreases the power level. It doesn't shift it into pie.
This card is better solution than Beast Within because this card only works on stack and it's a solution for green lack of global magic .
As far as color pie breaks go, I agree. This is better than beast within. Unplayable color pie breaks are always better than staple color pie breaks. Though color pie breaks shouldn't be made at all.
This card is better solution than Beast Within because this card only works on stack and it's a solution for green lack of global magic .
It working on spells on the stack is what makes it, by definition, a break in green. Green passively interacts with spells on the stack in two ways: Hexproof and "Cannot be countered". Blue and white can counter spells and red can redirect them, but black and green cannot directly interact with the spells that are resolving. Giving green what is - yes - effectively a counterspell is bad because it gives green a tool to overcome a fundamental weakness of the color, as much as giving enchantment removal to red or direct damage to blue would be. Each color is defined by what it can and cannot do, and cards take away a color's weakness drive the game to a single color being more powerful that all the others. Your card design want to ignore a fundamental pillar of the game, which is what makes it bad for gameplay.
If you are on here looking for genuine feedback to improve as a designer, listen to the to what all the other experienced players here (read: everyone except Reap) are saying to you and find a different approach to solving the problem you set out to.
If you continue to argue the point, you're clearly just trying to be argumentative or actively trying to troll. In either case, kindly find a different forum to bother.
All colors need some stack interation because Magic is much more powerful these days. White for example can exile temporalily spells (banish effect on stack) .I 'm not defending only green.
All colors need some stack interation because Magic is much more powerful these days. White for example can exile temporalily spells (banish effect on stack) .I 'm not defending only green.
All colors need stack interation ,not only blue.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that each color needs weaknesses.
Kindly stop wasting everyone's time if you have no intention of listening to the feedback you are given.
All colors need some stack interation because Magic is much more powerful these days. I 'm not defending only green.
All colors need stack interation ,not only blue.
If you can find a way for each color to interact with the stack that isn't counterspell(but bad) then we can have a legitimate discussion. However, if you just want to staple downsides onto counterspells and give them to other colors your going to meet stanch resistance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Instant {U}
Target spell becomes an x/x elemental with no abilities under the spell's owner's control
A stack interation for Green/Red because cards like counterspells and Alrund Epiphany.Its very green .
https://archidekt.com/user/71716
Looking past that. This is laughably bad. Other than for the sake of saying a color which shouldn't get counterspells gets a counterspell why would this be made?
Red can use offensive way (stealing spells controller transforming in permanents?) .Green uses is more defensive (protection against bad spells giving an opponent advantage )
Green/Red is the color focused on permanents .
Blue is inverse.Blue is the color of anti-permanents (manipulation of battlefield through bounce,transformation and etc)
Counter is disolution .Elementalization is indisolution.
Also red can manipulate the stack for resolution purposes (bolt bend)
Blue manipulate permanents and uses the stack por disolution purposes (counterspell)
It's not equal a counterspell directly. But is a form of transformation with lot of uses.A color bend than a break.Form is very green/red.It'a cool solution for green/red uses on ofensive and defensive .
First, red and blue are the colors of instants sorcery. So while green is a color of permanents its not a red/green overlap.
While you've mentioned green doing something that isn't a case for using its opponents to do said thing. Bouncing an opponents permanent and bouncing your own permanents isn't a 100% overlap.
Indisolution isn't a word. So what you think you meant us lost here.
Mentioning what blue and red do doesn't make a case for a green card at all.
Putting a creature on the bottom of the deck isn't destruction but blue still can't do it. When you spell does something just because it also does something else or its technically something else the main thing still has to be in color and this is a counterspell in a color that doesn't need counterspells.
Green uses in a defensive form (maybe only targeting spells opponents control and instant/sorceries ?)
Red uses more offensive ways.(Stealing spells) ?
All colors can use the stack .
Red is body above mind.Blue is mind above body and green is mind-body in harmony.
Did ReapThaWhirlwind get a new account?
Taking the last part first, that's not even a complete sentence, and counterspell/Epiphany have nothing to do with red/green, and your card doesn't even have anything to do with red, so the statement is complete gibberish.
Gameplay wise, it doesn't make sense in green; it is a Blue spell in line with Swan Song. Its a significantly less powerful variant of Swan Song due to its higher cost and greater power of the token it gives the opponent, but it is mechanically the same aside of the knobs being turned.
Green doesn't interact with spells. The closest it gets is granting hexproof to targeted creatures, but that is interacting with the permanent rather than the spell itself. Since there is no red in the spell's cost, red's abilities are irrelevant to the discussion.
Rules wise, a spell cannot be put on the battlefield, so it would have to make token instead.
Here is correct templating (wrong color not withstanding)
Elementalization 2GG
Instant {U}
Counter target spell. Its controller creates an X/X green Elemental creature token, where X is the countered spell's mana value.
Rules wise, a spell cannot be put on the battlefield, so it would have to make token instead."
A spell cannot change attributes on the stack? In this case it transforms to a creature spell with no abilities.
About Epiphany people are complaining about the lack of stack interaction to work against these big spells .Counterspell is only blue.
Of course it works "like a counterspell" ,but it can shape spells for different things (creatures,lands,enchantments and other permanents).In this case a red version is better if it's possible .
But lets say you want to make a green answer to Epiphany.
Chronosaurus 3GG
Creature - Dinosaur (R)
Vigilance, Reach
If an opponent would begin an extra turn, that player skips that turn instead.
4/6
There, an answer that is balanced, in color pie for green, and standard playable.
Limited specific cards like this are not good.
People want flexible versions of cards .
Or ban epiphany or create adequate answers for other colors except blue and black .
Yes, the specific answer to Epiphany is to ban it, because it was likely a power level mistake to begin with.
Yes, the card I put above is a narrow answer, but it answers the specific problem bard you brought up in a way that fits in green. It will have applications in any meta where extra turns cards are predominant, and would likely be a popular card in commander. That's the purpose of sideboard cards: to answer specific threats that become dominant in the meta.
Just because people want an effectively green counterspell, doesn't mean it should exist. Colors are defined by their strengths AND weaknesses, and if you start putting all abilities in every color it defeats the purpose of having multiple colors. Look at what card can do, rather than just saying cards can do anything you want them to because you feel like it.
It' not equal a counterspell . It's very similar to chaos warp and polymorph effects.
Chaos Warp is noted to be a color break that one of the head designers (Mark Rosewater) regrets making. It is not an example of good card design.
Green can’t interact with spells (other than stopping counterspells) any more than red should deal with enchantments or black should deal with artifacts.
Generally speaking, it is really hard to make good and balanced cards if you are approaching the design with the goal of 1) answering a specific card, 2) having the answer be in a specific color rather than being where it would naturally be, and 3) wanting that card to be competitive in main decks. It just isn’t a mission that ends well.
Then why is it green?
Also this specific card is so laughably bad that no deck would ever run it. So complaining about a viable answer being only a sideboard card is hilarious.
Given that this is a give-and-take, it definitely wants to cost 1 less.
Beast Within as a prime example.
You could also go ahead and just make it a 3/3 Elemental, as doing the mana value isn't going to be as intuitive from any perspective.
Green can already do a surplus of vanilla creatures that are Power-for-Toughness above par for their costs. This as a combo for that will be 3 over par. Even on a one mana spell it will be 1 over par.
Considering that—this could even cost 1G—granted that it creates a 3/3 Elemental creature.
Even if this card is used a lot ,the opponent will get a lot of creatures to use against you.
you can use in your own spells or new variants from this card can be created ,like transforming into land or enchantments.
And the spell if not "countered" .The spell card becomes a elemental creature card.The player can bounce .
It won't be used a lot. It won't be used at all. Its awful. No one is saying its out on power level. Everyone is saying it doesn't fit the color pie.
A bad use for a bad card doesn't suddenly make it in pie. Now a redesign to a bad card such as dropping the cost to 1 and limiting to only target your owns spells and you have a card I could see in a color other than blue. But probably not green still.
A minor technicality that doesn't help at all. In the 1-10% of games where it matters it only decreases the power level. It doesn't shift it into pie.
Great, now both of them are arguing about how pointed out examples of color pie breaks demonstrate that their cards are okay.
If Reap is arguing in favor of your card design, you've definitely messed up.
It working on spells on the stack is what makes it, by definition, a break in green. Green passively interacts with spells on the stack in two ways: Hexproof and "Cannot be countered". Blue and white can counter spells and red can redirect them, but black and green cannot directly interact with the spells that are resolving. Giving green what is - yes - effectively a counterspell is bad because it gives green a tool to overcome a fundamental weakness of the color, as much as giving enchantment removal to red or direct damage to blue would be. Each color is defined by what it can and cannot do, and cards take away a color's weakness drive the game to a single color being more powerful that all the others. Your card design want to ignore a fundamental pillar of the game, which is what makes it bad for gameplay.
If you are on here looking for genuine feedback to improve as a designer, listen to the to what all the other experienced players here (read: everyone except Reap) are saying to you and find a different approach to solving the problem you set out to.
If you continue to argue the point, you're clearly just trying to be argumentative or actively trying to troll. In either case, kindly find a different forum to bother.
All colors need stack interation ,not only blue.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that each color needs weaknesses.
Kindly stop wasting everyone's time if you have no intention of listening to the feedback you are given.