Proximity ErrorU Instant
Omen (When you cast this spell or whenever it leaves the stack, you may scry 1, then draw a card. If you do, your opponent may fateseal 1.)
Tap target creature and remove it from combat and/or exile all abilities it has on the stack. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step. In close proximity, but not on target. Just like always. Woe upon the world where you could make such a mistake more than once and have the opportunity to learn nothing from it.
Just tinkering with some Deus Ex Machina disrupts. Utilizing a Net.1 DXM for this spell (this is the scale I've been grading them by in my head). It's basically based on the net card advantage it can provide, measured by average (since some of them are erratic). I actually think Omen could be a Net.0, since it's a 1 for 1 exchange between both sides. My theory for this concept springs from the thought that very tactical DXM spells could be/become more powerful (more tactical) than hard removal spells; considering the net card advantage potential, combination potential, and mana curve adjustment potential.
Tap target creature and remove it from combat. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
Wow, there's actually an improved Take Into Custody in there. I don't know what the rest of that nonsense is about a double Opt and abilities on the stack, but baby steps I suppose.
Even assuming your Omen ability only triggered once as you intend it too, this is severely undercosted.
Scry 1 is effectively worth about half a card, so your card is a net gain of +1.5 cards (again, assuming you worded the ability correctly to only happen once). Fateseal, since you opponent will inherently have less information about what is in your hand and deck, is a lot less impactful because it is harder for them to determine what card you do or don't need at that moment, especailly after you already scry/drew into a card you wanted.
A tap/freeze/draw instant usually costs 2U, so this card would need to cost about 1UU or 3U for it to be balanced.
Again, this assumes you'd templated the omen ability to only happen once... which you didn't... again (see above where Shlameel understood from reading it that it triggers twice to demonstrate that your wording is incorrect)
You are ignoring the opponent's ability to fateseal 1, which offsets any costs on the draw.
Fateseal 1 is not at all equivalent to scry 1 draw a card.
Your card does too much. At one mana the omen ability alone is what you get on an instant. Though it would be an undercosted instant but not so much that you could stick another ability on it.
As shown in the first response one mana almost gets you the first half of your card ignoring the bull ability. If this wasn't doing so much the cost could probably drop to 3 but as it it needs to cost 4 at least.
Even if the fateseal 100% offset the scry (which it doesn’t) you are still drawing a card and freeze tapping which is 3 mana by itself, plus you add the utility of being able to stop an attacker after they attacked and countering some abilities.
Doing more things = costing more mana
This is a 4 mana card, as anyone who actually knows anything about Magic would understand
The fact that you think (a) that a better version of a 1 mana spell should still cost 1 mana and (b) that you are comparing a bounce spell to a tap/freeze/scry/draw/counter demonstrates how disconnected you are from the realities of gameplay and balance.
You are ignoring that this doesn't force them to cast the spell again (risking counter) and pay all its costs over—AND also risk discard (by having it return to the hand).
And you are ignoring that, by tapping and not untapping instead of bouncing you are actually removing their card from multiple combat steps as an attacker and blocker and also preventing them from reusing any desirable enters the battlefield effects, which are very coming on creatures these days.
It’s almost like you’d understand better how to strategically value different effects if you actually played the game instead of just pulling guesses out of your butthole.
Look, Crippling Chill and multiple other cards already do tap/freeze/draw at 3 mana. Your card adds to that effect scry (big bonus), counter (small bonus), use as combat trick (big bonus) and fateseal (small drawback), and anyone with half a brain would understand the reasoning “more effects = more costs”
Crippling Chill + Able to counter a bunch of abilities + Usable after attackers have been declared/combat tricks cast = 3U
All that Stuff + Scry 1 - Fateseal 1 = 2UU
Note: Scry 1 before you draw is significantly more powerful than your opponent fatesealing 1 afterwards, because you got to filter for a better chance at a card you knew you needed and your opponent - who can't see whats already in your hand - has to guess if the card on top is helpful for you or not. Scry 1 is worth about half a card of card advantage, but getting fatesealed is a negligible drawback.
As to the Unsummon question, if you bounce my creature before/during my attack, I can likely replay it in the second main phase and have it to block and then attack the next turn. If you crippling chill my creature before my attack, I miss that attack, then blocking on your turn, then attacking my next turn then blocking on your turn.
But, even if you were right about them being comparable, Bounce-a-creature-and-draw-a-card is still a ~3 mana spell, so your argument fails even if you were right about their power levels being similar.
That's not how rarity works. Complexity wise, this is a rare, but that doesn't change the cost to balanced the combination of effect and card advantage. This effect might be MORE costed more expensive at common if the particular set's limited needs dictated it, but there is always a cost floor to make a spell balanced in wider formats.
Now, what this has to do with Divert, I don't know, but the fact that effects WERE undercosted in the past doesn't mean that they SHOULD be undercosted now. A broken card is still broken regardless if it was printed 25 years ago or last week.
So that's typically 4, reduced to 1 by the offset that it's only a targeted spell, plus an opponent has an opportunity to reverse it if they don't tap out and have 2 available.
So this is basically the same numbers you've presented to me.
Difference being, in comparison to Unsummon, they're saved X mana, and an entire turn, since the card is tapped down and not returned to the hand.
Countering an ETB/attacks ability is aesthetic here, like it or not. Since when isolated to a creature, this reduces the interactivity so dramatically from something like Trickbind, that it's almost incomparable; or at least—understood by an experienced player–reduces any additional costs to an abysmal fractionated value (so that one can essentially cancel it out of the equation).
With Unsummon, they're allowed to keep their ETB effect, but with Proximity Error, they're allowed to keep their creature.
Again, your lack of experience actually playing the game is showing. The utility of stopping a creature from attacking or blocking for two turn cycles is far stronger than bouncing a creature against most decks, again because they can usually recast the spell in the second main phase and have it available to block. Keeping a creature out of combat that long gives control decks time to stabilize and/or sweep the board, and tempo decks time to gain offensive advantage so that the tapped player has lost momentum when their creature becomes usable again.
Further, Unsummon does not scry, draw a card, or counter any abilities, so it shows spectacular ignorance to think adding all those things to what you believe is a 1 mana spell would still be a 1 mana spell.
As a side note, Divert only interacts with a tiny subset of spells that have a single target, where counterspell counters any spell and twincast doesn't care if its target has one, none or a lot of targets. You can't Divert a Nexus of Fate, Casualties of War, or Entreat the Angels, but all three can be counterspelled and/or twincasted, so your comparison - as usual - is completely ignorant of the actual comparable gameplay values of the cards you are citing.
You are regurgitating a surplus of what I said (and acknowledged) attempting to change the context in favor of your argument.
The opinion that stopping a creature from attacking for two turns is more powerful than bouncing it lacks game experience, imo.
This is only relevant to (in your words) "a tiny subset of creatures with haste".
The fact that this would provide an effective answer against aggro is a godsend—lest you don't realize how over-the-top aggro is.
Furthermore, the reason Divert is so underplayed coincides with why this would struggle to see competitive play abroad. It's more resolute to have a definitive answer to a spell than a temporary disruption. People will play Disallow over any of the aforementioned all day. It gets the threat out of the way without another thought about it. This being said, complaining about a soft-lock being broken is just silly on your part. The only spells that break this threshold are hard-locks.
You are regurgitating a surplus of what I said (and acknowledged) attempting to change the context in favor of your argument.
The opinion that stopping a creature from attacking for two turns is more powerful than bouncing it lacks game experience, imo.
You haven’t played magic in more than a decade, so your opinion of game experience is as useful as your opinion of how good someone is at flying a spaceship.
This is only relevant to (in your words) "a tiny subset of creatures with haste".
I never said those words, so you’re just making s*** up now. Literally search the whole thread. Nowhere.
And Unsummon is significantly worse against haste creatures than your card.
The fact that this would provide an effective answer against aggro is a godsend—lest you don't realize how over-the-top aggro is.
Actually, this would be great against aggro, which is why I said above that it removes a threat/blocker to give control 2 turns to help stabilize and tempo 2 turns to gain momentum on offense.
Furthermore, the reason Divert is so underplayed coincides with why this would struggle to see competitive play abroad. It's more resolute to have a definitive answer to a spell than a temporary disruption.
People don’t play divert because it’s only legal in Legacy/Vintage (where it’s effect isn’t relevant to most competitive decks) and commander (where most single target spells aren’t worth the card slot to try redirecting)
People will play Disallow over any of the aforementioned all day.
Disallow sees almost no maindeck play any more now that Counterspell is Modern legal.
It gets the threat out of the way without another thought about it. This being said, complaining about a soft-lock being broken is just silly on your part. The only spells that break this threshold are hard-locks.
What are you talking about? This isn’t a “soft-lock”, it’s removal, pure and simple.
As a side note, Divert only interacts with a tiny subset of spells that have
So, furthermore, I said this would be useful against aggro. Just for clarity since you seem to have read it backwards.
The fact of Counterspell being played over Disallow is common sense. And it's not relevant to the point I was making (that hard removal is convention over soft-removal). Why? It's mostly as effective, and cheaper—which is one of the primary points of interest that I highlighted over how I theorize that spells like this could defy convention and take place in the right competitive deck over hard removals (by reducing the mana curve average).
Also, you really should stop using my absence from Magic as an excuse like you do. I was a World Class Pokemon TCG through 2017 when I stopped playing. I wrote a blog that highlighted strategy building; such as deck engine structure; providing extensions to key content with alike contents; creating splits and spreads between alike content—and primary card advantage options (straight draw, wheel, and direct retrieval); and using mathematical proportion to secure percentile clench for key content in the opening game, and sustainability into the mid-and-end game.
And guess what else, before this even I was a World Class Pangya player. A fantasy golf MMO, where I studied, and broke down the dynamics of the game engine playing entirely by memory and figuring out the mathematical dynamics of all the game engine's different quirks and modifiers from scratch.
As a side note, Divert only interacts with a tiny subset of spells that have
So, furthermore, I said this would be useful against aggro. Just for clarity since you seem to have read it backwards.
The fact of Counterspell being played over Disallow is common sense. And it's not relevant to the point I was making (that hard removal is convention over soft-removal). Why? It's mostly as effective, and cheaper—which is one of the primary points of interest that I highlighted over how I theorize that spells like this could defy convention and take place in the right competitive deck over hard removals (by reducing the mana curve average).
Also, you really should stop using my absence from Magic as an excuse like you do. I was a World Class Pokemon TCG through 2017 when I stopped playing. I wrote a blog that highlighted strategy building; such as deck engine structure; providing extensions to key content with alike contents; creating splits and spreads between alike content—and primary card advantage options (straight draw, wheel, and direct retrieval); and using mathematical proportion to secure percentile clench for key content in the opening game, and sustainability into the mid-and-end game.
And guess what else, before this even I was a World Class Pangya player. A fantasy golf MMO, where I studied, and broke down the dynamics of the game engine playing entirely by memory and figuring out the mathematical dynamics of all the game engine's different quirks and modifiers from scratch.
If you think I don't know how to play Magic, or that I couldn't step-in and immediately take an awesome presence, you're wrong.
If you think I don't understand the physics of development for this game and the dynamics of its interactions, you're wrong.
What we have here...is an authoritarian sickness...in its latest stages which causes authoritarian direction against even the most trivial of things.
Let's stop putting a stick in our spokes.
Yeah, thanks for making my point that I never said anything about haste and wasn’t even talking about your Unsummon argument at the time.
And yeah, your lack of experience is your problem - and being special at Pokémon or some golf mmo is a different skill set entirely.
But sure, get on Arena and play me some games. Or MTGO. Or Spelltable. Put your money where your overly active mouth is if you think you’re such a hot stuff Magic player because you were good at computer golf.
I wrote a blog that highlighted strategy building; such as deck engine structure; providing extensions to key content with alike contents; creating splits and spreads between alike content—and primary card advantage options (straight draw, wheel, and direct retrieval); and using mathematical proportion to secure percentile clench for key content in the opening game, and sustainability into the mid-and-end game.
If you honestly think there's anything more to Magic than this—you need to question what it is you think you know more about Magic as a TCG game than I do.
I wrote a blog that highlighted strategy building; such as deck engine structure; providing extensions to key content with alike contents; creating splits and spreads between alike content—and primary card advantage options (straight draw, wheel, and direct retrieval); and using mathematical proportion to secure percentile clench for key content in the opening game, and sustainability into the mid-and-end game.
If you honestly think there's anything more to Magic than this—you need to question what it is you think you know more about Magic as a TCG game than I do.
The fact that you believe they are similar is all the proof anyone needs to tell you know nothing about magic. Your obvious utter lack of understanding of magic on the most basic of levels is at the core of every criticism lobbed at you. If not for your profound ability to ignore others opinions you may have grown as a designer by now but you still make the simplest mistakes. Though as you lack the desire to grow it doesn't matter what anyone says. You can continue being the largest fish in your solitary box.
Proximity ErrorU Instant
Omen (When you cast this spell or whenever it leaves the stack, you may scry 1, then draw a card. If you do, your opponent may fateseal 1.)
Tap target creature and remove it from combat and/or exile all abilities it has on the stack. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step. In close proximity, but not on target. Just like always. Woe upon the world where you could make such a mistake more than once and have the opportunity to learn nothing from it.
You don't get to add a bunch of weird abilities on top of Opt and not charge extra mana for it. If you wanted to compensate with fateseal, it'd be more like fateseal 3, and the fateseal would need to come before the draw. No scry.
Crippling Chill costs more than 1 mana. Making it super weird doesn't change that.
Stop defending your game design skills, and demonstrate them: take the criticism and come back with a balanced card. No excuses. No explanations why the card is great as is. No description of how smart you are. No argument that I or Rowanalpha just don't get it. You say you are a game designer, so prove it. Show me a balanced card.
Getting the design wrong doesn't mean you're a bad designer. Being unwilling to reevaluate your decisions does.
Instant
Omen (When you cast this spell or whenever it leaves the stack, you may scry 1, then draw a card. If you do, your opponent may fateseal 1.)
Tap target creature and remove it from combat and/or exile all abilities it has on the stack. It doesn't untap during its controller's next untap step.
In close proximity, but not on target. Just like always. Woe upon the world where you could make such a mistake more than once and have the opportunity to learn nothing from it.
Just tinkering with some Deus Ex Machina disrupts. Utilizing a Net.1 DXM for this spell (this is the scale I've been grading them by in my head). It's basically based on the net card advantage it can provide, measured by average (since some of them are erratic). I actually think Omen could be a Net.0, since it's a 1 for 1 exchange between both sides. My theory for this concept springs from the thought that very tactical DXM spells could be/become more powerful (more tactical) than hard removal spells; considering the net card advantage potential, combination potential, and mana curve adjustment potential.
Wow, there's actually an improved Take Into Custody in there. I don't know what the rest of that nonsense is about a double Opt and abilities on the stack, but baby steps I suppose.
Scry 1 is effectively worth about half a card, so your card is a net gain of +1.5 cards (again, assuming you worded the ability correctly to only happen once). Fateseal, since you opponent will inherently have less information about what is in your hand and deck, is a lot less impactful because it is harder for them to determine what card you do or don't need at that moment, especailly after you already scry/drew into a card you wanted.
A tap/freeze/draw instant usually costs 2U, so this card would need to cost about 1UU or 3U for it to be balanced.
Again, this assumes you'd templated the omen ability to only happen once... which you didn't... again (see above where Shlameel understood from reading it that it triggers twice to demonstrate that your wording is incorrect)
Any particular reason you sited to omit the removing abilities it has on the stack?
This would include abilities that trigger when it attacks—but also (if used then) when it enters the battlefield.
Your card does too much. At one mana the omen ability alone is what you get on an instant. Though it would be an undercosted instant but not so much that you could stick another ability on it.
As shown in the first response one mana almost gets you the first half of your card ignoring the bull ability. If this wasn't doing so much the cost could probably drop to 3 but as it it needs to cost 4 at least.
That's not this.
Doing more things = costing more mana
This is a 4 mana card, as anyone who actually knows anything about Magic would understand
You are ignoring that this doesn't force them to cast the spell again (risking counter) and pay all its costs over—AND also risk discard (by having it return to the hand).
It’s almost like you’d understand better how to strategically value different effects if you actually played the game instead of just pulling guesses out of your butthole.
Look, Crippling Chill and multiple other cards already do tap/freeze/draw at 3 mana. Your card adds to that effect scry (big bonus), counter (small bonus), use as combat trick (big bonus) and fateseal (small drawback), and anyone with half a brain would understand the reasoning “more effects = more costs”
I'm not sure about your math.
[:;]
Base Tapdown Effect: Take Into Custody = U
Take Into Custody + Draw a Card = Crippling Chill = 2U
Crippling Chill + Able to counter a bunch of abilities + Usable after attackers have been declared/combat tricks cast = 3U
All that Stuff + Scry 1 - Fateseal 1 = 2UU
Note: Scry 1 before you draw is significantly more powerful than your opponent fatesealing 1 afterwards, because you got to filter for a better chance at a card you knew you needed and your opponent - who can't see whats already in your hand - has to guess if the card on top is helpful for you or not. Scry 1 is worth about half a card of card advantage, but getting fatesealed is a negligible drawback.
As to the Unsummon question, if you bounce my creature before/during my attack, I can likely replay it in the second main phase and have it to block and then attack the next turn. If you crippling chill my creature before my attack, I miss that attack, then blocking on your turn, then attacking my next turn then blocking on your turn.
But, even if you were right about them being comparable, Bounce-a-creature-and-draw-a-card is still a ~3 mana spell, so your argument fails even if you were right about their power levels being similar.
Could even be a rare by old school standards.
That's not how rarity works. Complexity wise, this is a rare, but that doesn't change the cost to balanced the combination of effect and card advantage. This effect might be MORE costed more expensive at common if the particular set's limited needs dictated it, but there is always a cost floor to make a spell balanced in wider formats.
Now, what this has to do with Divert, I don't know, but the fact that effects WERE undercosted in the past doesn't mean that they SHOULD be undercosted now. A broken card is still broken regardless if it was printed 25 years ago or last week.
Typically, you're looking at Counterspell + Twincast.
So that's typically 4, reduced to 1 by the offset that it's only a targeted spell, plus an opponent has an opportunity to reverse it if they don't tap out and have 2 available.
So this is basically the same numbers you've presented to me.
Difference being, in comparison to Unsummon, they're saved X mana, and an entire turn, since the card is tapped down and not returned to the hand.
Countering an ETB/attacks ability is aesthetic here, like it or not. Since when isolated to a creature, this reduces the interactivity so dramatically from something like Trickbind, that it's almost incomparable; or at least—understood by an experienced player–reduces any additional costs to an abysmal fractionated value (so that one can essentially cancel it out of the equation).
With Unsummon, they're allowed to keep their ETB effect, but with Proximity Error, they're allowed to keep their creature.
Further, Unsummon does not scry, draw a card, or counter any abilities, so it shows spectacular ignorance to think adding all those things to what you believe is a 1 mana spell would still be a 1 mana spell.
As a side note, Divert only interacts with a tiny subset of spells that have a single target, where counterspell counters any spell and twincast doesn't care if its target has one, none or a lot of targets. You can't Divert a Nexus of Fate, Casualties of War, or Entreat the Angels, but all three can be counterspelled and/or twincasted, so your comparison - as usual - is completely ignorant of the actual comparable gameplay values of the cards you are citing.
The opinion that stopping a creature from attacking for two turns is more powerful than bouncing it lacks game experience, imo.
This is only relevant to (in your words) "a tiny subset of creatures with haste".
The fact that this would provide an effective answer against aggro is a godsend—lest you don't realize how over-the-top aggro is.
Furthermore, the reason Divert is so underplayed coincides with why this would struggle to see competitive play abroad. It's more resolute to have a definitive answer to a spell than a temporary disruption. People will play Disallow over any of the aforementioned all day. It gets the threat out of the way without another thought about it. This being said, complaining about a soft-lock being broken is just silly on your part. The only spells that break this threshold are hard-locks.
Lol what? Are you okay? Seriously, that post is so absurdly divorced from logic and reality that I wonder if you are high or something.
You haven’t played magic in more than a decade, so your opinion of game experience is as useful as your opinion of how good someone is at flying a spaceship.
I never said those words, so you’re just making s*** up now. Literally search the whole thread. Nowhere.
And Unsummon is significantly worse against haste creatures than your card.
Actually, this would be great against aggro, which is why I said above that it removes a threat/blocker to give control 2 turns to help stabilize and tempo 2 turns to gain momentum on offense.
People don’t play divert because it’s only legal in Legacy/Vintage (where it’s effect isn’t relevant to most competitive decks) and commander (where most single target spells aren’t worth the card slot to try redirecting)
Disallow sees almost no maindeck play any more now that Counterspell is Modern legal.
What are you talking about? This isn’t a “soft-lock”, it’s removal, pure and simple.
So, furthermore, I said this would be useful against aggro. Just for clarity since you seem to have read it backwards.
The fact of Counterspell being played over Disallow is common sense. And it's not relevant to the point I was making (that hard removal is convention over soft-removal). Why? It's mostly as effective, and cheaper—which is one of the primary points of interest that I highlighted over how I theorize that spells like this could defy convention and take place in the right competitive deck over hard removals (by reducing the mana curve average).
Also, you really should stop using my absence from Magic as an excuse like you do. I was a World Class Pokemon TCG through 2017 when I stopped playing. I wrote a blog that highlighted strategy building; such as deck engine structure; providing extensions to key content with alike contents; creating splits and spreads between alike content—and primary card advantage options (straight draw, wheel, and direct retrieval); and using mathematical proportion to secure percentile clench for key content in the opening game, and sustainability into the mid-and-end game.
http://pkmntcgkill.blogspot.com
And guess what else, before this even I was a World Class Pangya player. A fantasy golf MMO, where I studied, and broke down the dynamics of the game engine playing entirely by memory and figuring out the mathematical dynamics of all the game engine's different quirks and modifiers from scratch.
http://pangyaxo.blogspot.com
If you think I don't know how to play Magic, or that I couldn't step-in and immediately take an awesome presence, you're wrong.
If you think I don't understand the physics of development for this game and the dynamics of its interactions, you're wrong.
What we have here...is an authoritarian sickness...in its latest stages which causes authoritarian direction against even the most trivial of things.
Let's stop putting a stick in our spokes.
Yeah, thanks for making my point that I never said anything about haste and wasn’t even talking about your Unsummon argument at the time.
And yeah, your lack of experience is your problem - and being special at Pokémon or some golf mmo is a different skill set entirely.
But sure, get on Arena and play me some games. Or MTGO. Or Spelltable. Put your money where your overly active mouth is if you think you’re such a hot stuff Magic player because you were good at computer golf.
If you honestly think there's anything more to Magic than this—you need to question what it is you think you know more about Magic as a TCG game than I do.
You don't get to add a bunch of weird abilities on top of Opt and not charge extra mana for it. If you wanted to compensate with fateseal, it'd be more like fateseal 3, and the fateseal would need to come before the draw. No scry.
Crippling Chill costs more than 1 mana. Making it super weird doesn't change that.
Stop defending your game design skills, and demonstrate them: take the criticism and come back with a balanced card. No excuses. No explanations why the card is great as is. No description of how smart you are. No argument that I or Rowanalpha just don't get it. You say you are a game designer, so prove it. Show me a balanced card.
Getting the design wrong doesn't mean you're a bad designer. Being unwilling to reevaluate your decisions does.
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.
That would be worth 2 cards, or like scry 5.