Traumatic Stress FactorUR Enchantment
Contravoyance (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, you may look at the top 7 cards of your library, then put one of them on the top of it and the rest on the bottom in any order.)
The first time a loyalty ability of a Planeswalker would be activated with + in the cost, the cost of that ability is {-1} instead.
Would also accept 1R as the cost. The multicolor is what pushed me to Dues Ex Machina tag this one.
I am working on another one that allows a loyalty ability requiring -6 (or maybe -7) as the cost to remove only a single loyalty counter instead.
Slip of the TongueUUR Instant
Slip of the Tongue deals 3 damage, divided as you choose among any number of target players. Then, if any of those players has 13 life or less, you may counter target spell that player controls. For every living lie—there's a living joke.
Alt Flavor Text 1
If there's such a thing as too much insult to injury, certainly the warlocks have mastered this of themselves.
Alt Flavor Text 2
If the warlocks have taught me anything, it's that for every living lie, there's a living joke.
Wanted this to do 3 damage really, but I honestly can't shake how feelbad that is for what this does. I'd like to preserve the continuance of the game the best I can. Live by the code if you're going to fly the flag.
Traumatic Stress Factor, this is a brutal counter to planeswalkers. Yet it isn't over bearing. Still, it might be undercosted. As for the wording of the effect. I think you can clean it up by specifying +. "The first time a player would activate a planeswalker's loyalty ability with + in the cost. They must pay -1 instead." Possibly with the stylized box for planeswalker's loyalty ability cost box in the rules text. It's debatable if this is an elegant solution but I'm for it.
Slip of the tongue, this is just a bad card. At its absolute best its less restricted more costly Countersquall. Yes the added versatility of countering anything and not requiring a spell to target are valuable. But, it's restriction of only countering when at 13 or less life is significant.
I am on board with the context update, but I think this composure is more coherent and less polarizing.
As for Slip of the Tongue, better to compare it to the original Suffocating Blast, which sadly never saw the glory that its contemporaries did; Absorb / Undermine / Vindicate.
Also, here's a re-work on the Contravoyance DXM that I came up with today. The original was just so wordy and I think a bit redundant and overbearing alongside some of the others.
Also, here's a re-work on the Contravoyance DXM that I came up with today. The original was just so wordy and I think a bit redundant and overbearing alongside some of the others.
It is telling that the part that makes the ability "wordy" is the same part that doesn't work under the rules, no matter what you say.
As for Slip of the Tongue, better to compare it to the original Suffocating Blast, which sadly never saw the glory that its contemporaries did; Absorb / Undermine / Vindicate.
That is actually a significantly worse comparison. Suffocating Blast is a powerful limited card being double removal. While Slip of the tongue, like Countersquall, only damages a player meaning its not relevant unless you are winning. It isn't the card advantage that Suffocating Blast is.
Damaging a player and damaging a creature are radically different despite both dealing damage. It's better to think about them as life loss vs giving -1/-1. It will allow you to properly see what your cards are doing even if it obscures synergy.
As for Slip of the Tongue, better to compare it to the original Suffocating Blast, which sadly never saw the glory that its contemporaries did; Absorb / Undermine / Vindicate.
So we shouldn't compare your 3 mana spell that damages a player while (maybe) countering a spell to the 3 mana spell that damages a player while (definitely) countering a spell? What?
This card is three mana for 2/3 of a Lava Spike for most of the game, and the blue/red deck that wants to drill down life totals fast doesn't want to play a 3 mana counterspell. You could cost this at UR and it would a little playable then.
Traumatic Stress Factor UR
Enchantment
Contravoyance (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, you may look at the top 7 cards of your library, then put one of them on the top of it and the rest on the bottom in any order.)
The first time a loyalty ability of a Planeswalker would be activated with + in the cost, remove a loyalty counter from that Planeswalker as the cost instead.
I'm assuming this should say "The first time a loyalty ability of a Planeswalker would be activated each turn..."
Carth the Lion has templating that can modify activation costs and replace it with a -1 loyalty symbol.
The first time a loyalty ability of a planeswalker is activated each turn, if paying the activation cost for ability would add loyalty to the planeswalker, that loyalty ability's activation cost is <-1> instead.
Setting aside that your still triggered ability still doesn't work the way you want, why is this a keyword? Why are any of these keywords? A keyword is supposed to remind players what an ability does without them having to read reminder text (or leave it off) each time, but your keywords all are made up words with different card filtering mechanics each time? There are 3 dozen of them and all do slightly different things, so you are using more card space to make them keywords instead of saving space. Pick on and stick with it.
Decks that want counterspells aren't interested in a conditional, harder-to-cast Cancel, and decks that want burn spells aren't interested in an expensive, weak Lava Spike.
No actual deck would play it, emphasis because whatever made-up niche scenario you come up with doesn't count.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
Contravoyance (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, you may look at the top 7 cards of your library, then put one of them on the top of it and the rest on the bottom in any order.)
The first time a loyalty ability of a Planeswalker would be activated with + in the cost, the cost of that ability is {-1} instead.
Would also accept 1R as the cost. The multicolor is what pushed me to Dues Ex Machina tag this one.
I am working on another one that allows a loyalty ability requiring -6 (or maybe -7) as the cost to remove only a single loyalty counter instead.
Slip of the Tongue UUR
Instant
Slip of the Tongue deals 3 damage, divided as you choose among any number of target players. Then, if any of those players has 13 life or less, you may counter target spell that player controls.
For every living lie—there's a living joke.
Alt Flavor Text 1
If there's such a thing as too much insult to injury, certainly the warlocks have mastered this of themselves.
Alt Flavor Text 2
If the warlocks have taught me anything, it's that for every living lie, there's a living joke.
Wanted this to do 3 damage really, but I honestly can't shake how feelbad that is for what this does. I'd like to preserve the continuance of the game the best I can. Live by the code if you're going to fly the flag.
Slip of the tongue, this is just a bad card. At its absolute best its less restricted more costly Countersquall. Yes the added versatility of countering anything and not requiring a spell to target are valuable. But, it's restriction of only countering when at 13 or less life is significant.
As for Slip of the Tongue, better to compare it to the original Suffocating Blast, which sadly never saw the glory that its contemporaries did; Absorb / Undermine / Vindicate.
Also, here's a re-work on the Contravoyance DXM that I came up with today. The original was just so wordy and I think a bit redundant and overbearing alongside some of the others.
It is telling that the part that makes the ability "wordy" is the same part that doesn't work under the rules, no matter what you say.
That is actually a significantly worse comparison. Suffocating Blast is a powerful limited card being double removal. While Slip of the tongue, like Countersquall, only damages a player meaning its not relevant unless you are winning. It isn't the card advantage that Suffocating Blast is.
Damaging a player and damaging a creature are radically different despite both dealing damage. It's better to think about them as life loss vs giving -1/-1. It will allow you to properly see what your cards are doing even if it obscures synergy.
So we shouldn't compare your 3 mana spell that damages a player while (maybe) countering a spell to the 3 mana spell that damages a player while (definitely) countering a spell? What?
This card is three mana for 2/3 of a Lava Spike for most of the game, and the blue/red deck that wants to drill down life totals fast doesn't want to play a 3 mana counterspell. You could cost this at UR and it would a little playable then.
I'm assuming this should say "The first time a loyalty ability of a Planeswalker would be activated each turn..."
Carth the Lion has templating that can modify activation costs and replace it with a -1 loyalty symbol.
The first time a loyalty ability of a planeswalker is activated each turn, if paying the activation cost for ability would add loyalty to the planeswalker, that loyalty ability's activation cost is <-1> instead.
Setting aside that your still triggered ability still doesn't work the way you want, why is this a keyword? Why are any of these keywords? A keyword is supposed to remind players what an ability does without them having to read reminder text (or leave it off) each time, but your keywords all are made up words with different card filtering mechanics each time? There are 3 dozen of them and all do slightly different things, so you are using more card space to make them keywords instead of saving space. Pick on and stick with it.
You can't just heavy-pack it in your deck and swing it around belligerently. That doesn't make it unplayable.
This would top off one of your counterspell blocks as a 2-of extension.
It's borderline overstated. And for what it does (and how it limits it)—it just wants to be fair.
No actual deck would play it, emphasis because whatever made-up niche scenario you come up with doesn't count.