Peak Preparedness1W Enchantment
During your untap step, you may skip untapping up to three lands you control that could be untapped. Then, draw a card if two or more lands are not untapped this way. If an odd number of lands are not untapped this way, you may also put a Clue, Treasure, Food, or 0/1 colorless Thompter artifact creature token with flying onto the battlefield. Remember we have to always be stronger.
Questioning if this would be better as a function that allows you to tap out during your turn and then rewards you for it. Certainly seems less interactive and challenging that way. I know there's the responsibility to provide enough functionality that it's not worthless, and this means being intuitive to the flow of the game to a certain degree if necessary. As it is, I think it certainly makes up for everything that the second effect clause allows one land to be left untapped in order to create a token as an imperative alternative bonus option.
Questioning if this would be better as a function that allows you to tap out during your turn and then rewards you for it.
So… if you could tap out for this, it would basically read as:
Peak Preparedness
Enchantment : Draw a card. Activate this ability only during your turn. : create a clue, food, or treasure token or a 0/1 colorless thopter artifact creature token with flying. Activate this ability only during your turn and no more than once per turn.
Your card is slightly different in that is counts number of tapped lands (meaning that dorks, rocks, and infinite mana engines don’t generate infinite card draw) but this still seems to be an amazingly efficient card draw effect in the color that should be worst at card draw.
The fact of doing something for free is where I'm concerned. I did just mention this before. It comes off blatant as a something for nothing that it's rewarding you for something you're already doing. I actually think this is achievable (and can be great) but this application lacks the style for that finish.
I'm pretty content with the version posted. As I was when I questioned the contrastive potential.
Don't call it incredibly efficient, because compared to contemporaries of that band Howling Mine, this doesn't give you something for nothing.
Don't call it incredibly efficient, because compared to contemporaries of that band Howling Mine, this doesn't give you something for nothing.
Howling Mine gives your opponent a card BEFORE you get any benefit from it, so it is significant card disadvantage unless you have a mechanism to tap the mine before their upkeep (which is still a cost).
The fact of doing something for free is where I'm concerned. I did just mention this before. It comes off blatant as a something for nothing that it's rewarding you for something you're already doing. I actually think this is achievable (and can be great) but this application lacks the style for that finish.
This doesn't actually give you something for nothing; as Rosy pointed out, choosing not to untap two lands is equivalent to tapping two lands, so pay 2 = a card. This is incredibly undercosted and you have put it in the color that is the worst at card draw.
Peak Preparedness W
Enchantment
During your untap step, you may skip untapping any number of lands that could have untapped. If you do, draw a card for each two lands not untapped this way. If an odd number of lands are not untapped this way, you may also put a Clue, Treasure, Food, or 0/1 colorless Thompter creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
You get points for the creativity of the effect, but the usual balance and color pie issues are gonna hurt you. 5/10
Now, how can this card be better?
This needs to be blue and more than MV 1 for the power-level this is carrying. For better gameplay, it should either be an all-or-nothing choice. As written, you can simply choose not to untap the lands you already plan not to use during the turn and draw cards. Making the player have to choose either draw a bunch or have mana to cast spells on their turn balances the efficiency of the cards draw itself.
Peak Preparedness 2U
Enchantment
You may choose not to untap you lands during your untap step. If you do, draw a card for every two lands you control. If you control an odd number of lands, create a Clue, Food, Treasure, or 0/1 colorless Thompter artifact creature token.
(Yes, I know "Thompter" was a typo, but it made me giggle so I kept it.)
Captain Lawrence Oates was a true gentleman, and I am reminded of his (apocryphal) final words "I am just going outside and may be some time." by this cards philosophy. It is brutal but very civilized, the true test of the essence of civilization that white hopes towards. Your thoughts upon a clause to remind us we all can only bear witness to greatness rather than recount it ourselves for heroism is sacrifice?
Reap, since you want to be taken seriously but don't want to gain the skills or knowledge to do this then at least stop doing things that undermine your competence. Don't compare cards. You almost never link relevant cards, most of the time linking irrelevant or cards that just don't support your point. Two cards that both draw cards aren't immediately comparable. A card that only ever draws one card a turn can't be compared to a card with the potential to draw multiple cards a turn.
Moving on.
This effect isn't in White's pie. Further, it fits with White's current strategy too well to be added to White's share. Also, this does too much. Its card draw, life gain, chump blockers, or color fixing. Finally, its too strong. Ignoring the majority of its text you have an obnoxiously powerful card.
Card W
Enchantment
A tapped land you control doesn't uptap during your untap step. Create a treasure token.
This card is absurdly strong and very out of color and all I did was prune away excess text from your card. That excess text just adds more flexibility and power.
I did originally cost this at 2. I'm intrigued the difference of one mana, or even two, given the scale of power one is suggesting.
Certainly at 4 it becomes unplayable? How much less unplayable at 3 that it costs you a turn?
Certainly Howling Mine was a light example. Consider how no one provided a contemporary that does. Certainly we know this is true? There are many that provide something for nothing (or next to nothing). You don't have to tap down. You get the benefit even if you don't tap down. Bazaar of Baghdad
Consider for the cost Balance of Power. Seems balanced right? Not nearly competitive enough.
Once again, one must consider that despite the option of an effect is there, the opportunity to use it may not be.
How many cards will you actually be able to afford to draw from this in those opening turns it hits the battlefield.
What difference does that make of the cost? I'm going to return this to the original cost.
I can't say I'm won by any of the other arguments though. The potential is simply hopeful at best. Not assured as so many other effects are—Dark Confidant.
I did originally cost this at 2. I'm intrigued the difference of one mana, or even two, given the scale of power one is suggesting.
Certainly at 4 it becomes unplayable? How much less unplayable at 3 that it costs you a turn?
Certainly Howling Mine was a light example. Consider how no one provided a contemporary that does. Certainly we know this is true? There are many that provide something for nothing (or next to nothing). You don't have to tap down. You get the benefit even if you don't tap down. Bazaar of Baghdad
Consider for the cost Balance of Power. Seems balanced right? Not nearly competitive enough.
Once again, one must consider that despite the option of an effect is there, the opportunity to use it may not be.
How many cards will you actually be able to afford to draw from this in those opening turns it hits the battlefield.
What difference does that make of the cost? I'm going to return this to the original cost.
No one else provided an example of a similar effect because no one else is underestimating this effect. They understand it and don't need an existing comparison to contextualize its power. Since you do let me provide the similar card. Greed this isn't the best card but look how your card compares. Both costs 2 mana to draw. Yours has a severe limitation on when that mana is spendt while greed just needs one of its mana to be black. However, greed costs 4 mana to put into play while yours costs 1. Further, greed is in the color where you pay life to draw cards and it does exactly that. While your card is in the color of bad at drawing cards limited to once per turn and doesn't do that. Shifting to the right color, blue. The color of paying mana to draw cards. And upping the cost to three and maybe dropping the extra clause of anything but a clue and you have a viable card.
This cannot equate to paying mana to draw a card because it doesn't enable you to use accessory mana outlets to abuse the effect.
Let's stop suggesting that it's the same.
I would consider a limiter so the effect only allows a single card to be drawn, as a "up to three lands" style effect.
Note that this effect cannot stack in multiples because you have to select lands that "could be untapped". Once chosen to be skipped for the effect, they cannot be untapped anymore when the second trigger goes to resolve.
I would consider a limiter so the effect only allows a single card to be drawn, as a "up to three lands" style effect.
This is the most reasonable thing you’ve said this entire thread. This still wouldn’t fit in white, but it at least doesn’t create the rampant and flexible card advantage of the original.
Note that this effect cannot stack in multiples because you have to select lands that "could be untapped". Once chosen to be skipped for the effect, they cannot be untapped anymore when the second trigger goes to resolve.
You are correct that effect doesn't stack. However, you can still use multiples for the most out of color effect on the card. Every copy in play lets you leave a single land untapped to get a treasure which is straight color fixing. Which isn't a white effect. Your card is still massivly out of color pie. Though good on you for working towards fixing it.
What a wonderful blind theory that effects needs to be unjustly quartered to a single color, and that's healthy for the game.
...Are you saying that the color pie, one of the most central pillars of card design for MTG, is bad?
Yes, it is healthy for some effects to be denied to some colors. Red cannot answer enchantments. Black cannot answer artifacts. These are effects that are "quartered" to certain colors because otherwise you could make single color decks of any colors with answers to every solution. The color pie exists to force players to use multiple colors to answer a wide array of challenges while weighing the pros of versatility against the con of a potentially risky mana base.
That tension is one of the things that makes the game work.
Your idea that every color should be able to do every task in its own way is simply wrong. You have more credit when claiming that white needs to have access to mana and card advantage, which has been addressed in recent times. White card advantage comes through permanents that can offer no more than one card per turn (Older cards like mentor of the meek and dawn of hope are now considered color bends by the people who make magic). White can grab basic plains from your deck to your hand, throw a plains onto the battlefield (from hand or deck) if you are behind on lands, or return permanents with low mana value (potentially including lands) from your graveyard.
This is the "white way" of doing those tasks. Your card is not white.
Magic card design is a prescriptive study requiring specific protocols and wording (what you call "copes" or "ruleslawyering") akin to programming, not a descriptive art akin to common writing. You are not going to get magic card design from what it is to where you want it to be.
Peak Preparedness 1W
Enchantment Tap a land you control : Create a clue, food, or treasure token or a 0/1 colorless thopter artifact creature token with flying. Activate this ability only once during your turn. Tap two lands you control : Draw a card. Activate this ability only once during your turn.
Maybe tapping the lands as a cost could solve a great deal of the wording this this card.
Can we just acknowledge the nazification of the "color pie"?
Be kind to your imagination. Colors should be able to do things if they can do them creatively and stylishly.
If you want a game where anything can be played in the same deck with no restrictions, go play Yugioh.
if any color can have every effect, there is no reason to have colors anymore. It’s a basic design principle of the game.
A good designer can create successfully within the restrictions of the system they are creating for. A bad one whines about how rules shouldn’t apply to them. We see which category you fall into.
if any color can have every effect, there is no reason to have colors anymore. It’s a basic design principle of the game.
A good designer can create successfully within the restrictions of the system they are creating for. A bad one whines about how rules shouldn’t apply to them. We see which category you fall into.
Negative sir. They would still have fantasy principals.
Nowhere does it say that. A bad designer is the same as a bad scientist; one who doesn't fully understand the science.
I've tried to explain the fundamentals of the game on a functionality base. You still don't get it.
You don't understand the science of this game based on its dynamics of physics. You can't unjustly quarter some effects and say you have a perfectly balanced game. You have to shamefully, purposely under-develop certain sides periodically so the others can lead. This should not be a thing. Domain influence of the game based on its most basic dynamics and fundamentals should be balanced across the board for core-essential effects—with the fantasy element changing the scope and perception of how it is done. Shaping that pillar into something unique.
Do you see which category I fall into now?
Of course, we all should know, the difference between poison and medicine is in the dose.
But you, and MTG, are legendarily terrible with overdosing.
That's a pretty on point description of your approach to posting on this forum.
You are the definition of a bad designer:
-You refuse to actually participate in the game you are designing for
-You refuse to listen to feedback to learn and improve yourself
-You are more interested in you "artistic creativity" than actual quality of gameplay
-Because you refuse to play the game, you don't actually know what good gameplay is
-Because you refuse to play the game, you reference examples that are irrelevant or outdated
-Even when proven wrong you refuse to accept that anyone might know more than you
-You repeatedly use terminology incorrectly or make words up, and assume its other people's fault that you aren't understood
Whenever you try "tried to explain the fundamentals of the game on a functionality base" (which isn't a coherent sentence, btw) everyone reading it is just reminded of how little you know and how over inflated your ego is.
In context of your "a game designer is like a scientist" metaphor, you are a game designer the same way my 5 year old nephew is a scientist when he pours water from one cup into another and shouts "I'm doing an experiment!"
If you actually have an interest in improving as a designer (though I doubt your ego will allow you to think its possible), I recommend reading some articles from the past 20 years about why the color pie is important and how it works. Since the guy writing these articles has been designing the game since 1995, you can assume he knows what he is talking about.
if any color can have every effect, there is no reason to have colors anymore. It’s a basic design principle of the game.
A good designer can create successfully within the restrictions of the system they are creating for. A bad one whines about how rules shouldn’t apply to them. We see which category you fall into.
Negative sir. They would still have fantasy principals.
Nowhere does it say that. A bad designer is the same as a bad scientist; one who doesn't fully understand the science.
I've tried to explain the fundamentals of the game on a functionality base. You still don't get it.
You don't understand the science of this game based on its dynamics of physics. You can't unjustly quarter some effects and say you have a perfectly balanced game. You have to shamefully, purposely under-develop certain sides periodically so the others can lead. This should not be a thing. Domain influence of the game based on its most basic dynamics and fundamentals should be balanced across the board for core-essential effects—with the fantasy element changing the scope and perception of how it is done. Shaping that pillar into something unique.
Do you see which category I fall into now?
Of course, we all should know, the difference between poison and medicine is in the dose.
But you, and MTG, are legendarily terrible with overdosing.
Mindless spam—s**tposting.
"You obviously lack understanding. As all cultures develop linguistically, they create a new Alphabet and use that alphabet to describe new experiences, but they are also declining in fully literate population. This means the decreasing percentage value is a kind of timeline progression.
Timeline of language development says Eldar arrive; develop astronomy (and an thus an Observatory); they flee their forest due to an eruption; they dont develop a word for Hair until after 'Sauron' builds his Tower (which means they dont know what Hair is until the Rings of Power).
This means Eldar and Elves and Dwarves are bald, and hairless until they grow hair in the second age. Physically they look more Alien without hair.
The Dwarves likewise dont develop a word for Beard until the appearance of Gandalf. So Dwarves dont have beards until the Third Age.
It means that the Lord of the Rings is a Sci-fi about the collapse of a technologically advanced and Alien civilization called the Eldar and the destruction of their Alien Technology (the Astronomical Observatory occupied by Sauron) as 'Evil'. So the Golden Age of the Return of the King is a fiction and the World has slipped into barbarity."
- Valianttheywere
There are OTHER PEOPLE in world besides yourselves.
Yes, and I am asking why you believe that they are being positively influenced by you. There is no need to treat me with hostility. You have a very unique way of thinking and I am simply trying to understand it better in order to properly evaluate what you are putting out.
Are you okay?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
During your untap step, you may skip untapping up to three lands you control that could be untapped. Then, draw a card if two or more lands are not untapped this way. If an odd number of lands are not untapped this way, you may also put a Clue, Treasure, Food, or 0/1 colorless Thompter artifact creature token with flying onto the battlefield.
Remember we have to always be stronger.
Questioning if this would be better as a function that allows you to tap out during your turn and then rewards you for it. Certainly seems less interactive and challenging that way. I know there's the responsibility to provide enough functionality that it's not worthless, and this means being intuitive to the flow of the game to a certain degree if necessary. As it is, I think it certainly makes up for everything that the second effect clause allows one land to be left untapped in order to create a token as an imperative alternative bonus option.
So… if you could tap out for this, it would basically read as:
Peak Preparedness
Enchantment
Your card is slightly different in that is counts number of tapped lands (meaning that dorks, rocks, and infinite mana engines don’t generate infinite card draw) but this still seems to be an amazingly efficient card draw effect in the color that should be worst at card draw.
I'm pretty content with the version posted. As I was when I questioned the contrastive potential.
Don't call it incredibly efficient, because compared to contemporaries of that band Howling Mine, this doesn't give you something for nothing.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffHowling Mine gives your opponent a card BEFORE you get any benefit from it, so it is significant card disadvantage unless you have a mechanism to tap the mine before their upkeep (which is still a cost).
This doesn't actually give you something for nothing; as Rosy pointed out, choosing not to untap two lands is equivalent to tapping two lands, so pay 2 = a card. This is incredibly undercosted and you have put it in the color that is the worst at card draw.
You get points for the creativity of the effect, but the usual balance and color pie issues are gonna hurt you. 5/10
Now, how can this card be better?
This needs to be blue and more than MV 1 for the power-level this is carrying. For better gameplay, it should either be an all-or-nothing choice. As written, you can simply choose not to untap the lands you already plan not to use during the turn and draw cards. Making the player have to choose either draw a bunch or have mana to cast spells on their turn balances the efficiency of the cards draw itself.
Peak Preparedness 2U
Enchantment
You may choose not to untap you lands during your untap step. If you do, draw a card for every two lands you control. If you control an odd number of lands, create a Clue, Food, Treasure, or 0/1 colorless Thompter artifact creature token.
(Yes, I know "Thompter" was a typo, but it made me giggle so I kept it.)
Moving on.
This effect isn't in White's pie. Further, it fits with White's current strategy too well to be added to White's share. Also, this does too much. Its card draw, life gain, chump blockers, or color fixing. Finally, its too strong. Ignoring the majority of its text you have an obnoxiously powerful card.
This card is absurdly strong and very out of color and all I did was prune away excess text from your card. That excess text just adds more flexibility and power.
Certainly at 4 it becomes unplayable? How much less unplayable at 3 that it costs you a turn?
Certainly Howling Mine was a light example. Consider how no one provided a contemporary that does. Certainly we know this is true? There are many that provide something for nothing (or next to nothing). You don't have to tap down. You get the benefit even if you don't tap down. Bazaar of Baghdad
Consider for the cost Balance of Power. Seems balanced right? Not nearly competitive enough.
Once again, one must consider that despite the option of an effect is there, the opportunity to use it may not be.
How many cards will you actually be able to afford to draw from this in those opening turns it hits the battlefield.
What difference does that make of the cost? I'm going to return this to the original cost.
I can't say I'm won by any of the other arguments though. The potential is simply hopeful at best. Not assured as so many other effects are—Dark Confidant.
Let's stop suggesting that it's the same.
I would consider a limiter so the effect only allows a single card to be drawn, as a "up to three lands" style effect.
Note that this effect cannot stack in multiples because you have to select lands that "could be untapped". Once chosen to be skipped for the effect, they cannot be untapped anymore when the second trigger goes to resolve.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThis is the most reasonable thing you’ve said this entire thread. This still wouldn’t fit in white, but it at least doesn’t create the rampant and flexible card advantage of the original.
This has always intrigued me, and once I wanted to believe as well, but then I saw the light.
Simply put, this would a very fair and creative way of doing it. Absolute masterpiece. The crowd raves, "Good job king!".
...Are you saying that the color pie, one of the most central pillars of card design for MTG, is bad?
Yes, it is healthy for some effects to be denied to some colors. Red cannot answer enchantments. Black cannot answer artifacts. These are effects that are "quartered" to certain colors because otherwise you could make single color decks of any colors with answers to every solution. The color pie exists to force players to use multiple colors to answer a wide array of challenges while weighing the pros of versatility against the con of a potentially risky mana base.
That tension is one of the things that makes the game work.
Your idea that every color should be able to do every task in its own way is simply wrong. You have more credit when claiming that white needs to have access to mana and card advantage, which has been addressed in recent times. White card advantage comes through permanents that can offer no more than one card per turn (Older cards like mentor of the meek and dawn of hope are now considered color bends by the people who make magic). White can grab basic plains from your deck to your hand, throw a plains onto the battlefield (from hand or deck) if you are behind on lands, or return permanents with low mana value (potentially including lands) from your graveyard.
This is the "white way" of doing those tasks. Your card is not white.
Magic card design is a prescriptive study requiring specific protocols and wording (what you call "copes" or "ruleslawyering") akin to programming, not a descriptive art akin to common writing. You are not going to get magic card design from what it is to where you want it to be.
You are above such noise, it is disappointing you would pander to it :*(. I still have faith in you despite this incredible blunder.
Dude what kind of drugs are you on?
Maybe tapping the lands as a cost could solve a great deal of the wording this this card.
Can we just acknowledge the nazification of the "color pie"?
Be kind to your imagination. Colors should be able to do things if they can do them creatively and stylishly.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffIf you want a game where anything can be played in the same deck with no restrictions, go play Yugioh.
if any color can have every effect, there is no reason to have colors anymore. It’s a basic design principle of the game.
A good designer can create successfully within the restrictions of the system they are creating for. A bad one whines about how rules shouldn’t apply to them. We see which category you fall into.
Negative sir. They would still have fantasy principals.
Nowhere does it say that. A bad designer is the same as a bad scientist; one who doesn't fully understand the science.
I've tried to explain the fundamentals of the game on a functionality base. You still don't get it.
You don't understand the science of this game based on its dynamics of physics. You can't unjustly quarter some effects and say you have a perfectly balanced game. You have to shamefully, purposely under-develop certain sides periodically so the others can lead. This should not be a thing. Domain influence of the game based on its most basic dynamics and fundamentals should be balanced across the board for core-essential effects—with the fantasy element changing the scope and perception of how it is done. Shaping that pillar into something unique.
Do you see which category I fall into now?
Of course, we all should know, the difference between poison and medicine is in the dose.
But you, and MTG, are legendarily terrible with overdosing.
Mindless spam—s**tposting.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
StaffThat's a pretty on point description of your approach to posting on this forum.
You are the definition of a bad designer:
-You refuse to actually participate in the game you are designing for
-You refuse to listen to feedback to learn and improve yourself
-You are more interested in you "artistic creativity" than actual quality of gameplay
-Because you refuse to play the game, you don't actually know what good gameplay is
-Because you refuse to play the game, you reference examples that are irrelevant or outdated
-Even when proven wrong you refuse to accept that anyone might know more than you
-You repeatedly use terminology incorrectly or make words up, and assume its other people's fault that you aren't understood
Whenever you try "tried to explain the fundamentals of the game on a functionality base" (which isn't a coherent sentence, btw) everyone reading it is just reminded of how little you know and how over inflated your ego is.
In context of your "a game designer is like a scientist" metaphor, you are a game designer the same way my 5 year old nephew is a scientist when he pours water from one cup into another and shouts "I'm doing an experiment!"
If you actually have an interest in improving as a designer (though I doubt your ego will allow you to think its possible), I recommend reading some articles from the past 20 years about why the color pie is important and how it works. Since the guy writing these articles has been designing the game since 1995, you can assume he knows what he is talking about.
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/value-pie-2003-08-18-0
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/bleed-story-2011-06-13
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/council-colors-2016-08-22
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/mechanical-color-pie-2017-2017-06-05
https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/mechanical-color-pie-2021-changes-2021-10-18
"You obviously lack understanding. As all cultures develop linguistically, they create a new Alphabet and use that alphabet to describe new experiences, but they are also declining in fully literate population. This means the decreasing percentage value is a kind of timeline progression.
Timeline of language development says Eldar arrive; develop astronomy (and an thus an Observatory); they flee their forest due to an eruption; they dont develop a word for Hair until after 'Sauron' builds his Tower (which means they dont know what Hair is until the Rings of Power).
This means Eldar and Elves and Dwarves are bald, and hairless until they grow hair in the second age. Physically they look more Alien without hair.
The Dwarves likewise dont develop a word for Beard until the appearance of Gandalf. So Dwarves dont have beards until the Third Age.
It means that the Lord of the Rings is a Sci-fi about the collapse of a technologically advanced and Alien civilization called the Eldar and the destruction of their Alien Technology (the Astronomical Observatory occupied by Sauron) as 'Evil'. So the Golden Age of the Return of the King is a fiction and the World has slipped into barbarity."
- Valianttheywere
I think this answers all your points quite well.
Also consider, that OTHER PEOPLE who design Magic read these.
My insights can help them become better developers, and under the dynamics game (and product development) more vividly.
What leads you to believe that you are accomplishing this goal?
Yes, and I am asking why you believe that they are being positively influenced by you. There is no need to treat me with hostility. You have a very unique way of thinking and I am simply trying to understand it better in order to properly evaluate what you are putting out.
Are you okay?