Pernicious CharityBG Sorcery
Each player searches their library for a card and puts it into their hand.
During each player's next turn, if that player casts a spell, he or she loses 3 life. The most poisoned hearts give only with the intentions of taking away.
Too bad they didn't think of anything like this to push the triggers for 'day/night' in the new Innistrad set.
Typically, good development schematic is built around this exact content.
I wanted to make it 5 life to really give gravity to the restriction, but I dialed it down to 3 to prime continuance of the game.
Making people remember things for too long without a marker is difficult. Ignoring that, the "price" is way too cheap. 3 life is woefully insignificant a cost for tutoring a card even if both players are tutoring. Though at 3 mana you start entering territory where being a group tutor may not be worth it. This sits at a place where its difficult to get its powerlevel at a playable yet not broken level.
Remembering that during your next turn doesn't qualify for that by any reasonable standard.
If you can't remember your next turn, or each players next turn, why are you playing a turn based game?
I honestly think that 3 life is woeful enough, that is why I dialed it down from 5.
I felt that, by itself, 5 life is woeful—but when you factor in fetch lands and other life sapping effects that are so prominent, it reaches into that territory naturally. As a developer, you are responsible for preserving both as much interactivity and continuance of the game as possible.
I just can't image someone not finding great use for this for what it does and the cost.
I'm not as overall concerned concerned with the memory, just because the player casting it ill likely be motivated to remember for their opponents.
Cost wise, its not under costed since your opponents will be better able to use what they search before you do. Green doesn't really seem to fit though, this could easily be mono-black, or more likely, BW.
However, the wording is ambiguous: Do you intend them to lose three life if they cast and number of spells? 3 life per spell? If my opponent casts a spell on my end step before their turn starts, do they still lose life?
If it was 3 life for each then it would likely say so.
That's where the context of the wording composure typically demands to begin being more descriptive (for coherence).
Yeah, you do need to be more descriptive. Your card says, "During each player's next turn, if that player casts a spell, he or she loses 3 life." setting aside that its templated incorrectly no matter what your intention, it doesn't make clear what happens if that player casts another spell. Just because you know what you want a card to mean, doesn't mean you can slap words out imprecisely and expect other people to just know what you were thinking.
If you want them to only lose life once, it should say.
"At the beginning of each player's next end step, if that player has cast a spell other than Pernicious Charity that turn, that player loses 3 life." (Note: wording necessary to prevent active player from losing life due to having cast this spell only on their turn)
If you want them to lose 3 life each time they cast a spell, it should say.
"Until the beginning of each players' next end step, whenever that player casts a spell they lose 3 life."
In cEDH, if I cast this spell and search my library for any card, I'm going to win the game this turn, and none of the life loss fluff matters. I'd venture It doesn't matter even if I somehow don't win, 3 life is so low as to be meaningless.
In cEDH, if I cast this spell and search my library for any card, I'm going to win the game this turn, and none of the life loss fluff matters. I'd venture It doesn't matter even if I somehow don't win, 3 life is so low as to be meaningless.
If you're playing CEDH, you're also adding up to three Force of Wills into opposing hands. Surely it would be wrong to use this card to go off; You'd use it to make sure no one is going off.
There's also a functionality difference there that something in the library isn't necessarily your priority that it's not an active threat. However, the aforementioned allows you to directly assess an active threat and gives you the option of.
There's also a functionality difference there that something in the library isn't necessarily your priority that it's not an active threat. However, the aforementioned allows you to directly assess an active threat and gives you the option of.
Extirpate does nothing against the card they tutored into their hand because the you don't know what they tutored for and likelyhood is (and in commander always) there wont be another copy of the card in their graveyard after they tutor anyway.
Oko, Thief of Crowns was a design mistake because the playtesters were so focused on using its ability to turn your own permanents into 3/3 elk for offense/defense that they missed that the more powerful usage was to remove your opponent's more powerful threats by turning them into elk. They broke the card because the tested how they wanted it to be played not how it would be played. You see, you keep coming up with these cards and you answer to their flaws is "Oh, but I'll also have this card and that card and the other card so its not a problem" without actually learning things like how people actually play the game so you can design actual good cards. All your designs are based on how you think people "should" play because its what you want, not because its will actually be used for in the game.
The name implies everything. Being able to turn down opponent's creatures is well-know—via Beast Within/Pongify—minus even in Oko the potential to swat an opponent's death spell and salvage yourself a 3/3 creature.
I'd imagine they compared it to this, and figured it would be fine. If there was something they missed it's the domain influence variance when any single effect can go on repeat. That of course would be...really really odd for them to remain oblivious too after so long...and so much physical example (Garruk Wildspeaker/Isochron Scepter).
Totally possible though—but probably neglected on purpose.
Tbis sums up your problem perfectly. Person A "Verifiable Fact." You "While I could verify or even engage with this fact in good faith I choose to assume it wrong and will not waver from my stance."
Don't immediately dismiss. Look around to check the validity because this is 100% the case told to us by Wizards. Their play testers didn't realize how oppressive turning opponents artifacts into elks was. They saw that it could be used to shut down big plays but figured their was work around. They never considered turning the opponents oven into an elk which shut down their game plan with a maindeck powerhouse.
My concern, if I could speak on one, is that this form cuts away from interactivity a little too much by forcing the opponent to search.
I have considered that against the original design, it could be more interactive to allow choice of tutor, especially since the combination of a one-sided tutor plus a life trip is there to back it up. I can't imagine a player who will skip out on the draw though. Really, you'll get at least a land to thin your deck and increase consistency of your draw, without putting anything potentially compromising into your hand right away.
Providing an option kinda just prays on the naivety of less strategic players, and allows them to pass on a strategic move, masked in a merciful form.
My concern, if I could speak on one, is that this form cuts away from interactivity a little too much by forcing the opponent to search.
I have considered that against the original design, it could be more interactive to allow choice of tutor, especially since the combination of a one-sided tutor plus a life trip is there to back it up. I can't imagine a player who will skip out on the draw though. Really, you'll get at least a land to thin your deck and increase consistency of your draw, without putting anything potentially compromising into your hand right away.
Providing an option kinda just prays on the naivety of less strategic players, and allows them to pass on a strategic move, masked in a merciful form.
Lets set aside that this is just a worse Demonic Tutor since it gives your opponents card advantage and costs two colors.
The drawback isn't a drawback because the player casting it will cast the card they draw this turn instead of waiting until their next turn, since the life loss doesn't effect the casting player until their next turn. Or they (or their opponents) just search up an instant so that they don't have to cast it on their next turn and can still get the value from it while avoiding the life loss.
Also, the player casting this spell isn't going to be affected by the life loss either since they will cast this spell
Since you need to edit your that wording doesn't work anyway, make sure too you add that players have to shuffle after searching their decks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorcery
Each player searches their library for a card and puts it into their hand.
During each player's next turn, if that player casts a spell, he or she loses 3 life.
The most poisoned hearts give only with the intentions of taking away.
Too bad they didn't think of anything like this to push the triggers for 'day/night' in the new Innistrad set.
Typically, good development schematic is built around this exact content.
I wanted to make it 5 life to really give gravity to the restriction, but I dialed it down to 3 to prime continuance of the game.
If you can't remember your next turn, or each players next turn, why are you playing a turn based game?
I honestly think that 3 life is woeful enough, that is why I dialed it down from 5.
I felt that, by itself, 5 life is woeful—but when you factor in fetch lands and other life sapping effects that are so prominent, it reaches into that territory naturally. As a developer, you are responsible for preserving both as much interactivity and continuance of the game as possible.
I just can't image someone not finding great use for this for what it does and the cost.
Cost wise, its not under costed since your opponents will be better able to use what they search before you do. Green doesn't really seem to fit though, this could easily be mono-black, or more likely, BW.
However, the wording is ambiguous: Do you intend them to lose three life if they cast and number of spells? 3 life per spell? If my opponent casts a spell on my end step before their turn starts, do they still lose life?
That's where the context of the wording composure typically demands to begin being more descriptive (for coherence).
Yeah, you do need to be more descriptive. Your card says, "During each player's next turn, if that player casts a spell, he or she loses 3 life." setting aside that its templated incorrectly no matter what your intention, it doesn't make clear what happens if that player casts another spell. Just because you know what you want a card to mean, doesn't mean you can slap words out imprecisely and expect other people to just know what you were thinking.
If you want them to only lose life once, it should say.
"At the beginning of each player's next end step, if that player has cast a spell other than Pernicious Charity that turn, that player loses 3 life."
(Note: wording necessary to prevent active player from losing life due to having cast this spell only on their turn)
If you want them to lose 3 life each time they cast a spell, it should say.
"Until the beginning of each players' next end step, whenever that player casts a spell they lose 3 life."
If you're playing CEDH, you're also adding up to three Force of Wills into opposing hands. Surely it would be wrong to use this card to go off; You'd use it to make sure no one is going off.
There's also a functionality difference there that something in the library isn't necessarily your priority that it's not an active threat. However, the aforementioned allows you to directly assess an active threat and gives you the option of.
Also, Extirpate.
Extirpate does nothing against the card they tutored into their hand because the you don't know what they tutored for and likelyhood is (and in commander always) there wont be another copy of the card in their graveyard after they tutor anyway.
Oko, Thief of Crowns was a design mistake because the playtesters were so focused on using its ability to turn your own permanents into 3/3 elk for offense/defense that they missed that the more powerful usage was to remove your opponent's more powerful threats by turning them into elk. They broke the card because the tested how they wanted it to be played not how it would be played. You see, you keep coming up with these cards and you answer to their flaws is "Oh, but I'll also have this card and that card and the other card so its not a problem" without actually learning things like how people actually play the game so you can design actual good cards. All your designs are based on how you think people "should" play because its what you want, not because its will actually be used for in the game.
The name implies everything. Being able to turn down opponent's creatures is well-know—via Beast Within/Pongify—minus even in Oko the potential to swat an opponent's death spell and salvage yourself a 3/3 creature.
I'd imagine they compared it to this, and figured it would be fine. If there was something they missed it's the domain influence variance when any single effect can go on repeat. That of course would be...really really odd for them to remain oblivious too after so long...and so much physical example (Garruk Wildspeaker/Isochron Scepter).
Totally possible though—but probably neglected on purpose.
Don't immediately dismiss. Look around to check the validity because this is 100% the case told to us by Wizards. Their play testers didn't realize how oppressive turning opponents artifacts into elks was. They saw that it could be used to shut down big plays but figured their was work around. They never considered turning the opponents oven into an elk which shut down their game plan with a maindeck powerhouse.
I have considered that against the original design, it could be more interactive to allow choice of tutor, especially since the combination of a one-sided tutor plus a life trip is there to back it up. I can't imagine a player who will skip out on the draw though. Really, you'll get at least a land to thin your deck and increase consistency of your draw, without putting anything potentially compromising into your hand right away.
Providing an option kinda just prays on the naivety of less strategic players, and allows them to pass on a strategic move, masked in a merciful form.
Lets set aside that this is just a worse Demonic Tutor since it gives your opponents card advantage and costs two colors.
The drawback isn't a drawback because the player casting it will cast the card they draw this turn instead of waiting until their next turn, since the life loss doesn't effect the casting player until their next turn. Or they (or their opponents) just search up an instant so that they don't have to cast it on their next turn and can still get the value from it while avoiding the life loss.
Also, the player casting this spell isn't going to be affected by the life loss either since they will cast this spell
Since you need to edit your that wording doesn't work anyway, make sure too you add that players have to shuffle after searching their decks.