No, I questioned the ability to counterspell the end clause (which you still should not be able to do).
That was the exact subject for several posts.
However, the Sundial was presented first so that I would contest it still, I'm sure 'to make me eat my words again'.
It's not about right or wrong anymore, or helping someone see the light. It's about abusive indulgences.
I'm just going to use the 'until end of turn' clause to move this along. As I mentioned, I was going to word it this way to begin with, but worried it was too incoherent.
There has been some quite unnecessary rudeness on this thread, and that's not very constructive. That said I very much agree with others that the core concept of a card that acts as both a ritual effect and combo protection is a recipe for a banned card. Not only does it look overpowered, it also looks unfun.
I like the concept of exiling the opponent's hand until end of turn. That seems really neat for green. But this is not the kind of card to put that effect on. I could much more easily see a creature that sacrifices to do it as a sorcery. I could even see a bigger creature that does it every turn. Or you could keep it as a sorcery and replace the ritual effect with a cantrip. I think that would be entirely fair and balanced. No, it's not the card you wanted, but the card you wanted is highly problematic. I do hope you can see why. Many things would be problematic if you stapled a ritual on top, and protection for a combo is pretty high on that list.
Rituals are dangerous, and I doubt wizards would print the card you suggested even if it had only the ritual ability. They learned their lesson toying with fast mana.
No, I questioned the ability to counterspell the end clause (which you still should not be able to do).
That was the exact subject for several posts.
However, the Sundial was presented first so that I would contest it still, I'm sure 'to make me eat my words again'.
It's not about right or wrong anymore, or helping someone see the light. It's about abusive indulgences.
I'm just going to use the 'until end of turn' clause to move this along. As I mentioned, I was going to word it this way to begin with, but worried it was too incoherent.
I showed you that Turn to Mist creates an delayed triggered ability which can be responded to. That was purely intended to help you. Same with other people I assume but it gets Frustrating to see you vehemently defending something that is wrong when people already explained why it is wrong. That's the reason I made the video If you don't trust the people on this forum to know how the rules work I show you something that definitively knows how they work.
Why does it always take multiple pages of discussion for the wording?
Why can't it just be " Wording x is wrong/ allows you to do y" "Oh how should I word it if my intend is z" "Oh then you should word it this way"
It is ok to be wrong but to vehemently defend wrongness gets frustrating, esp. when people try to help.
I know you don't like some wordings but they are still the correct ones.
You can argue over how you feel sth. is a bad wording and should be changed but until it does it is the correct wording.
And using the correct wording creates a baseline of understanding how your custom card works.
Heck I didn't like the change to "deal X damage to any target" from "deal x damage to any creature, player or planeswalker" but If i make a custom card I would still use the "deal x damage to any target" because that is the correct way of doing things now.
Well, it certainly is an odd judgement if you think this in a sorcery effect is OP.
Just stop. You were already proven flat wrong about your understanding of the rules, so why are you even pretending you understand anything about game balance.
Cards that untap lands are strong. Full stop. Cloud of Faeries and Peregrine Drake are banned in Pauper for enabling storm and combos, Time Spiral was banned in Urza Block constructed, and there are entire archetypes built around Arbor Elfand none of those cards untap MORE lands than their mana value, which yours does. There's a reason modern formats ban effects like Seething Song and Rite of Flame - Immediately getting more mana out of an effect than you put in makes the gameplay unbalanced.
Rather than spouting off like you're an expert in something you're not, maybe you should listen and learn from people who actually know what they are talking about.
Trying to entirely discredit me with the vagueness of a simple misconception.
None of those points are relevant. Pauper isn't a relevant format.
Gotta love how your arguments always revolve around a bunch of "broken" content you release, yet seemingly, masked as perfectly balanced combo material.
We all love the second-rating, the repetition, and the metaphors; stripped of all gold...
You should find actual arguments, because saying things like “great cope” or “none of those points are relevant” are just further demonstrating that you don’t have the knowledge base to make a coherent point supporting your beliefs and instead have to resort to dismissiveness to try and dodge facts you don’t like but cannot meaningfully refute, like a child being told that eating ice cream all day is bad for them and their counter argument is “Nuh-Uh!”
Trying to entirely discredit me with the vagueness of a simple misconception.
None of those points are relevant. Pauper isn't a relevant format.
Gotta love how your arguments always revolve around a bunch of "broken" content you release, yet seemingly, masked as perfectly balanced combo material.
We all love the second-rating, the repetition, and the metaphors; stripped of all gold...
Well all those cards are actually played A LOT in commander...at this point actually I have this doubt I wanna clear myself off.
Trying to entirely discredit me with the vagueness of a simple misconception.
None of those points are relevant. Pauper isn't a relevant format.
Gotta love how your arguments always revolve around a bunch of "broken" content you release, yet seemingly, masked as perfectly balanced combo material.
We all love the second-rating, the repetition, and the metaphors; stripped of all gold...
What language is your first? You seem to have a very poetic bend that doesn't quite parse perfectly into this tongue.
I've long made (10 years ago) a green spell that untaps up to three lands for one gree. It's a green dark ritual. It's good, but it's not broken.
Also note that pieces such as this, which are apart of a complex puzzle, see proper balance when your core gaming rules meet fair regulation; and don't allow exploitative means to hotfix the challenge factor of sourcing all the pieces together at once.
I've long made (10 years ago) a green spell that untaps up to three lands for one gree. It's a green dark ritual. It's good, but it's not broken.
What..that doesn't make sense at all. Untapping lands have always been broken even at fair costs. And excuse me but unless you are a game designer working for WoTC, why would we know or care about stuff you designed in like 10 years Ago.
Also note that pieces such as this, which are apart of a complex puzzle, see proper balance when your core gaming rules meet fair regulation; and don't allow exploitative means to hotfix the challenge factor of sourcing all the pieces together at once.
Really dude stop using so many words to make you look smart and complex, people can barely understand the **** you are talking about most of the time.
I've long made (10 years ago) a green spell that untaps up to three lands for one gree. It's a green dark ritual. It's good, but it's not broken.
Also note that pieces such as this, which are apart of a complex puzzle, see proper balance when your core gaming rules meet fair regulation; and don't allow exploitative means to hotfix the challenge factor of sourcing all the pieces together at once.
Yeah, because you changed the part that wasn't the real problem of the card. The exile effect was badly worded and put of color for green, but not broken. G > Untap 2 lands is where the game balance problem lay.
Here's demonstration for you
T1: Forest, Utopia Sprawl
T2: Ancient Tomb or City of Traitors, tap out, play your spell, tap all again = 1 Green, 2 of whatever you chose with Utopia Sprawl and 4 Colorless to spend on turn 2
It was already explained to you multiple times why untapping two lands for one mana is broken and you chose to be willfully ignorant of the reality of game balance. And just because you came up with a more broken version of the effect 10 years ago, doesn't mean it is any less a bad idea now than it was then. (Untappingthreelandscanproducewaymoremanathanadarkritual)
But please, keep arguing with people more experienced, involved and knowledgeable than you so we can continue to see how little you actually understand this game you purport to be an expert in.
Mulligans are part of the game, you don’t get to make a broken card and then b**** about a rule already inherent regular play.
And again you demonstrate your lack of experience if you think it’s that unlikely to get Tron by turn three or Forest/Sprawl/City/your card on turn 2 even without mulligans.
Mulligans have been part of magic in one form or another from day one, where they have never been a part of casino games. I cannot sideboard in a game of blackjack or split my pairs into two hands in a game of Magic. Your comparison is completely irrelevant and poorly considered, like most argument you try to make.
Mulligans have been part of magic in one form or another from day one, where they have never been a part of casino games. I cannot sideboard in a game of blackjack or split my pairs into two hands in a game of Magic. Your comparison is completely irrelevant and poorly considered, like most argument you try to make.
Yes, but unless you had no lands in your opening hand, you had to draw one less card to mulligan.
This preserved the aspect of challenge for deck-building and proper mathematical proportioning.
Not being able to play the game sucks, and not knowing how to play the game sucks.
So it's obvious to sustain interest in the product, this cheap rule was enacted rather than teaching players how to proportion their contents.
Mulligans have been part of magic in one form or another from day one, where they have never been a part of casino games. I cannot sideboard in a game of blackjack or split my pairs into two hands in a game of Magic. Your comparison is completely irrelevant and poorly considered, like most argument you try to make.
Yes, but unless you had no lands in your opening hand, you had to draw one less card to mulligan.
This preserved the aspect of challenge for deck-building and proper mathematical proportioning.
Not being able to play the game sucks, and not knowing how to play the game sucks.
So it's obvious to sustain interest in the product, this cheap rule was enacted rather than teaching players how to proportion their contents.
Oh that was far from the first mulligan rule. Don’t you know your history? Originally you could mulligan only once and only if you had no land or all lands.
But go play with your friends and see how many more games result in screw/flood without the more updated version of the mulligan. As always, your lack of experience playing the actual game with actual people is shining a light on how little you know about what is actual good gameplay versus whatever bulls*** you want to blather about thinking it is.
It should result in that if your mathematical proportions are sound.
Then first aspect of building a deck, based on several different types of cards, is how to balance those proportions.
Let's stop blaming content with combo potential and start blaming the faulty hotfix that allows players to circumvent the challenge of card combos.
Or you can design for the game that exists instead of the one that is only played in your head. It seems far more reasonable for the one person who isn't on board to get on board rather than everyone else change gears.
Look, you posted your card here looking for feedback. You constantly get the same feedback from everyone here on your cards regarding balance, gameplay, templating and rules application and all you do is argue. If you don’t like the feedback you get here, then stop posting. This clearly isn’t the community you want to be a part of, so go find one that agrees with you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That was the exact subject for several posts.
However, the Sundial was presented first so that I would contest it still, I'm sure 'to make me eat my words again'.
It's not about right or wrong anymore, or helping someone see the light. It's about abusive indulgences.
I'm just going to use the 'until end of turn' clause to move this along. As I mentioned, I was going to word it this way to begin with, but worried it was too incoherent.
I like the concept of exiling the opponent's hand until end of turn. That seems really neat for green. But this is not the kind of card to put that effect on. I could much more easily see a creature that sacrifices to do it as a sorcery. I could even see a bigger creature that does it every turn. Or you could keep it as a sorcery and replace the ritual effect with a cantrip. I think that would be entirely fair and balanced. No, it's not the card you wanted, but the card you wanted is highly problematic. I do hope you can see why. Many things would be problematic if you stapled a ritual on top, and protection for a combo is pretty high on that list.
Rituals are dangerous, and I doubt wizards would print the card you suggested even if it had only the ritual ability. They learned their lesson toying with fast mana.
But hey, let's try to keep it civil, shall we?
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
I showed you that Turn to Mist creates an delayed triggered ability which can be responded to. That was purely intended to help you. Same with other people I assume but it gets Frustrating to see you vehemently defending something that is wrong when people already explained why it is wrong. That's the reason I made the video If you don't trust the people on this forum to know how the rules work I show you something that definitively knows how they work.
Why does it always take multiple pages of discussion for the wording?
Why can't it just be " Wording x is wrong/ allows you to do y" "Oh how should I word it if my intend is z" "Oh then you should word it this way"
It is ok to be wrong but to vehemently defend wrongness gets frustrating, esp. when people try to help.
I know you don't like some wordings but they are still the correct ones.
You can argue over how you feel sth. is a bad wording and should be changed but until it does it is the correct wording.
And using the correct wording creates a baseline of understanding how your custom card works.
Heck I didn't like the change to "deal X damage to any target" from "deal x damage to any creature, player or planeswalker" but If i make a custom card I would still use the "deal x damage to any target" because that is the correct way of doing things now.
Well, it certainly is an odd judgement if you think this in a sorcery effect is OP.
Just stop. You were already proven flat wrong about your understanding of the rules, so why are you even pretending you understand anything about game balance.
Cards that untap lands are strong. Full stop. Cloud of Faeries and Peregrine Drake are banned in Pauper for enabling storm and combos, Time Spiral was banned in Urza Block constructed, and there are entire archetypes built around Arbor Elfand none of those cards untap MORE lands than their mana value, which yours does. There's a reason modern formats ban effects like Seething Song and Rite of Flame - Immediately getting more mana out of an effect than you put in makes the gameplay unbalanced.
Rather than spouting off like you're an expert in something you're not, maybe you should listen and learn from people who actually know what they are talking about.
Trying to entirely discredit me with the vagueness of a simple misconception.
None of those points are relevant. Pauper isn't a relevant format.
Gotta love how your arguments always revolve around a bunch of "broken" content you release, yet seemingly, masked as perfectly balanced combo material.
We all love the second-rating, the repetition, and the metaphors; stripped of all gold...
Well all those cards are actually played A LOT in commander...at this point actually I have this doubt I wanna clear myself off.
What format do you play?
What language is your first? You seem to have a very poetic bend that doesn't quite parse perfectly into this tongue.
I was thinking over the effect and pondered if I could make it even more fun and interactive.
What do you all think?
This was already debated.
I've long made (10 years ago) a green spell that untaps up to three lands for one gree. It's a green dark ritual. It's good, but it's not broken.
Also note that pieces such as this, which are apart of a complex puzzle, see proper balance when your core gaming rules meet fair regulation; and don't allow exploitative means to hotfix the challenge factor of sourcing all the pieces together at once.
What..that doesn't make sense at all. Untapping lands have always been broken even at fair costs. And excuse me but unless you are a game designer working for WoTC, why would we know or care about stuff you designed in like 10 years Ago.
Really dude stop using so many words to make you look smart and complex, people can barely understand the **** you are talking about most of the time.
Yeah, because you changed the part that wasn't the real problem of the card. The exile effect was badly worded and put of color for green, but not broken. G > Untap 2 lands is where the game balance problem lay.
Here's demonstration for you
T1: Forest, Utopia Sprawl
T2: Ancient Tomb or City of Traitors, tap out, play your spell, tap all again = 1 Green, 2 of whatever you chose with Utopia Sprawl and 4 Colorless to spend on turn 2
If you go to turn 3, it can get even worse
T1: Urza's Tower, Expedition Map
T2: Urza's Mine, Sac Map to get Power Plant
T3: Urza's Power Plant, play and sac Chromatic Star for G, play your spell, have 10 Colorless on turn 3 play Ugin and have 3 left over
It was already explained to you multiple times why untapping two lands for one mana is broken and you chose to be willfully ignorant of the reality of game balance. And just because you came up with a more broken version of the effect 10 years ago, doesn't mean it is any less a bad idea now than it was then. (Untapping three lands can produce way more mana than a dark ritual)
But please, keep arguing with people more experienced, involved and knowledgeable than you so we can continue to see how little you actually understand this game you purport to be an expert in.
Seriously, just let players put all the cards into their hand at the start of the game. Why bother shuffling to draw at all?
And again you demonstrate your lack of experience if you think it’s that unlikely to get Tron by turn three or Forest/Sprawl/City/your card on turn 2 even without mulligans.
And arranging your deck with content to help put that probability in your favor is also supposed to be apart of it.
Allowing players to circumvent the challenge of the opening draw is just blatantly wrong.
Go to any casino, sit down at the table, and ask them to let you mulligan until you get pocket aces.
What are they going to tell you? And why?
'Apart' and 'a part' are not the same thing. Do you know which is which?
That I'm playing roulette.
Yes, but unless you had no lands in your opening hand, you had to draw one less card to mulligan.
This preserved the aspect of challenge for deck-building and proper mathematical proportioning.
Not being able to play the game sucks, and not knowing how to play the game sucks.
So it's obvious to sustain interest in the product, this cheap rule was enacted rather than teaching players how to proportion their contents.
Oh that was far from the first mulligan rule. Don’t you know your history? Originally you could mulligan only once and only if you had no land or all lands.
But go play with your friends and see how many more games result in screw/flood without the more updated version of the mulligan. As always, your lack of experience playing the actual game with actual people is shining a light on how little you know about what is actual good gameplay versus whatever bulls*** you want to blather about thinking it is.
Then first aspect of building a deck, based on several different types of cards, is how to balance those proportions.
Let's stop blaming content with combo potential and start blaming the faulty hotfix that allows players to circumvent the challenge of card combos.
Or, we can stop blaming what should be perfectly okay and fine designs for the fact of this broken fundamental.
We are able to call almost anything broken if it's based on what it combos with.
There are so many two-card infinite combos. Alone, the designs are fine.
And even as a combo—with the proper fundamentals–they are fine.
I'm not designing anything different. Let's stop acting like I am.