Phyrexian Death Trap Artifact
If a nonland source would add mana to a player's mana pool, that player loses that much life instead.
Whenever a nonland permanent enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, that player sacrifices it. Then, sacrifice Phyrexian Death Trap. "By all means Roebærf—there's no such thing as a grave too deep."
—Jin Gitaxias
What do you think about a colorless phyrexian mana symbol? You pay 2 or 2 life. I'm sure it's been thought-of and mentioned before, and something like this is where it truly begins to have flavor. The oe is supposed to be a unified ligature, but non-unicode and all.
This is too expensive to function as a hate cars. I can't think of a situation in which this would actually cause loss of life so just make it shut down mana production on a 2MV card so it can actually be played in time to function.
The second ability is interesting but attached to the first part feels bad as it's just increasing the cost for an effect it doesn't want.
Generic(not colorless, that's a different thing 1 vs C) phyrexian mana is probably a better route to go for phyrexian mana than the current one. But 2 mana for 2 life wouldn't translate well as the cards would have to be costed assuming you're using the more convient option.
You could easily seperate them with two different phyrexian symbols. One for generic, with the circle (two mana or 2), and one for true colorless with the diamond (one or 2. Generic mana has always been elevated, so it would be linear to what's known and accepted as the standard. It doesn't need to state any numbers. If one did both symbols, even more so, and nothing else needs to change. It just reinforces itself. Seeing as how generic phyrexian mana would only be permanents, I can't see how that would be an issue to begin with. So easy to balance the tables there. Every permanent is likely to fall into the same tiers they would have otherwise.
This would be
In that case.
Exactly what you're asking that you can pay 2 and then also 2 life.
For what this does, it can't cost any cheaper than it currently is. Permanent destruction at 4 is based. Additionally, mana disruption, and questioning life loss. Players can use artifacts to trigger the death trap without it claiming creatures or planeswalkers. That's apart of the beauty of it. Originally, both effects were two-sided, but I tilted the second ability towards opponent's anyways to give the design that special edge it needed, as to not be totally an expense on the player, with so potentially little reward. This way preserves challenge and interactivity for both sides better (considering the expense of the casting player).
Since Phyrexian mana is already significantly overpowered, making it more efficient is not a good idea. If this was regular phyrexian mana (2 life or one generic) this would be mostly fine, because you’d have to pay 8 to drop this without any mana investment. Casting it for no mana and 4 life is too little to be able to drop this on your turn 1.
I think this would actually be better as two separate artifacts. The first ability is a good hoser for mana rocks and the like, but if your opponent can get rid of it just by casting (and then saccing) a permanent it’s not going to do much to slow your opponent down.
Casting for free is certainly a concern. But considering the play around, it doesn't seem overpowered still.
It doesn't stop removal or burn—or draw.
Your opponent is in an unfavorable spot, but it's not like it's entirely restrictive.
For only four life, yes it would be overpowered. Not stopping those don't matter because you aren't playing it to stop those. That would be like saying Mishra's Workshop isn't broken because it can't cast instants. A card not doing what it isn't supposed to do is irrelevant. A card is overpowered not because it does everything but because it does the thing it does too efficiently.
If this costs your theoretical Phyrexian hybrid mana where its either 2 life or 2 mana then it would be overpowered because a four life cost is cheap to stop the opponent's first play or lock them out of extra mana. If it was instead a generic Phyrexian mana where they could pay 2 life to pay 1 mana then it would be barely playable as the second effect cannibalizes the utility of the first effect. Without the Phyrexian mana at all this is unplayable as its too late and too easily countered to effectively lock an opponent out of mana and stop the next play without any bonus isn't worth the set of up four mana.
If you split the abilities into two different artifacts each could receive an appropriate cost so they could be playable without being broken or underpowered.
At this point, you're responsible for explaining why cheap artifact destruction isn't significant as a counter-balance.
Then, I have to explain why, whatever your point of interest is subjective, biased, conditional, etc. (if possible).
Are we trying to villainize disagreement? People are going to be wrong. It's not wrong to feel that way in either case.
Certainly, any non-land permanent is more significant a loss, whereas using a cheap artifact destruction spell is entirely at loss on the Phyrexian Death Trap player. You can pay 4 life and cast it for free—but you're really just digging your own grave.
At this point, you're responsible for explaining why cheap artifact destruction isn't significant as a counter-balance.
Then, I have to explain why, whatever your point of interest is subjective, biased, conditional, etc. (if possible).
Are we trying to villainize disagreement? People are going to be wrong. It's not wrong to feel that way in either case.
Certainly, any non-land permanent is more significant a loss, whereas using a cheap artifact destruction spell is entirely at loss on the Phyrexian Death Trap player. You can pay 4 life and cast it for free—but you're really just digging your own grave.
Actually, the issue was that you didn’t really offer any support to your argument. “It dies to removal” is never a meaningful reason to say something is underpowered, because everything else dies to removal too.
The more relevant discussion though is, should these abilities be on the same card? Both are interesting in a vacuum, but the first ability is significantly weakened by putting the second with it, because it’s much harder to remove if your opponent can’t take the effect off the board with anything sitting in their hand.
Sidenote: As interesting as “If a nonland source would add mana to a player's mana pool, that player loses that much life instead.” is, the life loss will never be relevant. There are almost no effects that involuntarily add mana to a player’s mana pool and a player can just choose not to activate their mana rocks until they find a way to remove the effect.
It would be better without the “instead” so the player would have an actual dilemma of whether getting the mana was worth losing the life with it.
At this point, you're responsible for explaining why cheap artifact destruction isn't significant as a counter-balance.
If you're serious about openly debating then I'm game. Just remember that in a debate when your position is unclear and you are asked to clarify. If you can't or won't then you have conceded your position as undefendable.
Let's start with your point. why cheap artifact destruction isn't significant as a counter-balance?
Simple, Cheap answers have never successfully reined in broken cards. If you want to debate this point I'm open to any examples of this occurring. pure speculation will not make the cut in a debate.
Now let's talk about why your card is broken. As is, it's a sideboard card that stalls the affected strategies by one or more turns without consuming any meaningful resources and starts working on the first turn of the game.
Are there answers to it? Of course. However, the answers either aren't as efficient as this or they fundamentally disrupt the expected play pattern. If you need an example of this, Chrome Mox is the most efficient answer to this card but a player will usually keep a hand that assumes their mox will produce mana and start their combo. Losing it is sometimes worse than skipping one or two turns.
However, if you have to spend mana on your card, then it suddenly stops being nearly as powerful due to the second ability. If you remove this ability and make it cost mana then you have a powerful but reasonable hate card.
If it let them add the mana, that would just create a loophole that allows the card/effect to slip into irrelevancy.
People can afford it; people can undo it; they can chain combo to victory so the life loss isn't significant.
The instead clause acts as a safety against this, so that the card does what it was intended to do.
Furthermore, I did provide a significant argument when I explained how the life loss is significant to playing for free. Dying to removal was just a part of that greater point of interest.
Bottom line—the free play isn't a carefree option.
If it let them add the mana, that would just create a loophole that allows the card/effect to slip into irrelevancy.
People can afford it; people can undo it; they can chain combo to victory so the life loss isn't significant.
The instead clause acts as a safety against this, so that the card does what it was intended to do.
Furthermore, I did provide a significant argument when I explained how the life loss is significant to playing for free. Dying to removal was just a part of that greater point of interest.
Bottom line—the free play isn't a carefree option.
My point was that, as written, the life loss is meaningless because they are never going to activate the mana sources to generate the mana. I think it’s more interesting if they can get the mana by paying life, but the current version should just say “Nonland sources your opponent control cannot generate mana” because it has the same net effect on the game.
Furthermore, I did provide a significant argument when I explained how the life loss is significant to playing for free. Dying to removal was just a part of that greater point of interest.
Bottom line—the free play isn't a carefree option.
Your argument for it being free not being a problem are
It doesn't stop removal or burn—or draw.
and
Artifact destruction is incredibly cheap
I answered both of these. To recap, obviously it doesn’t stop removal burn or draw. That’s irrelevant. And cheap removal has never stopped broken cards from being broken.
If you believe you’ve made an argument not covered look over your own posts and try to find it. 4 life isn’t a significant draw back for stalling the opponent one or more turns. Especially when the decks you are stalling don’t care if you’re at 1 or 20 as their game plan kills you either way.
You’ve agreed removal is irrelevant. Now address whether or northern 4 life is significant when against decks that kill you from 20. As those are the type of decks this is used against and would be oppressive. If you want to know what decks I mean a simple list is storm, ad nauseam, manaless dredge.
Artifact
If a nonland source would add mana to a player's mana pool, that player loses that much life instead.
Whenever a nonland permanent enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, that player sacrifices it. Then, sacrifice Phyrexian Death Trap.
"By all means Roebærf—there's no such thing as a grave too deep."
—Jin Gitaxias
What do you think about a colorless phyrexian mana symbol? You pay 2 or 2 life. I'm sure it's been thought-of and mentioned before, and something like this is where it truly begins to have flavor. The oe is supposed to be a unified ligature, but non-unicode and all.
The second ability is interesting but attached to the first part feels bad as it's just increasing the cost for an effect it doesn't want.
Generic(not colorless, that's a different thing 1 vs C) phyrexian mana is probably a better route to go for phyrexian mana than the current one. But 2 mana for 2 life wouldn't translate well as the cards would have to be costed assuming you're using the more convient option.
This would be
In that case.
Exactly what you're asking that you can pay 2 and then also 2 life.
For what this does, it can't cost any cheaper than it currently is. Permanent destruction at 4 is based. Additionally, mana disruption, and questioning life loss. Players can use artifacts to trigger the death trap without it claiming creatures or planeswalkers. That's apart of the beauty of it. Originally, both effects were two-sided, but I tilted the second ability towards opponent's anyways to give the design that special edge it needed, as to not be totally an expense on the player, with so potentially little reward. This way preserves challenge and interactivity for both sides better (considering the expense of the casting player).
I think this would actually be better as two separate artifacts. The first ability is a good hoser for mana rocks and the like, but if your opponent can get rid of it just by casting (and then saccing) a permanent it’s not going to do much to slow your opponent down.
It doesn't stop removal or burn—or draw.
Your opponent is in an unfavorable spot, but it's not like it's entirely restrictive.
If this costs your theoretical Phyrexian hybrid mana where its either 2 life or 2 mana then it would be overpowered because a four life cost is cheap to stop the opponent's first play or lock them out of extra mana. If it was instead a generic Phyrexian mana where they could pay 2 life to pay 1 mana then it would be barely playable as the second effect cannibalizes the utility of the first effect. Without the Phyrexian mana at all this is unplayable as its too late and too easily countered to effectively lock an opponent out of mana and stop the next play without any bonus isn't worth the set of up four mana.
If you split the abilities into two different artifacts each could receive an appropriate cost so they could be playable without being broken or underpowered.
You pay 4 life into Raze the Effigy. Your play is ruined and you're out 4 life.
It's not even a reasonable strategic option in 99% of cases. You would want to play the table and tempt them to waste off their reserves.
It almost supports that it should be cheaper, but we all should know, the presence of removal never invalidates self-worth (or utility).
It's still every bit worth the cost of 4, and then moreso with the 2 mana/2 life split.
So you were given consistent feedback from multiple sources and your response was “nah, you’re wrong”
Why post it in the first place if you aren’t interested in listening?
EDIT: You also ignored the fact that any non land permanent is removal for this, so Raze the Effigy isn’t even necessary to kill it.
At this point, you're responsible for explaining why cheap artifact destruction isn't significant as a counter-balance.
Then, I have to explain why, whatever your point of interest is subjective, biased, conditional, etc. (if possible).
Are we trying to villainize disagreement? People are going to be wrong. It's not wrong to feel that way in either case.
Certainly, any non-land permanent is more significant a loss, whereas using a cheap artifact destruction spell is entirely at loss on the Phyrexian Death Trap player. You can pay 4 life and cast it for free—but you're really just digging your own grave.
Actually, the issue was that you didn’t really offer any support to your argument. “It dies to removal” is never a meaningful reason to say something is underpowered, because everything else dies to removal too.
The more relevant discussion though is, should these abilities be on the same card? Both are interesting in a vacuum, but the first ability is significantly weakened by putting the second with it, because it’s much harder to remove if your opponent can’t take the effect off the board with anything sitting in their hand.
Sidenote: As interesting as “If a nonland source would add mana to a player's mana pool, that player loses that much life instead.” is, the life loss will never be relevant. There are almost no effects that involuntarily add mana to a player’s mana pool and a player can just choose not to activate their mana rocks until they find a way to remove the effect.
It would be better without the “instead” so the player would have an actual dilemma of whether getting the mana was worth losing the life with it.
Let's start with your point. why cheap artifact destruction isn't significant as a counter-balance?
Simple, Cheap answers have never successfully reined in broken cards. If you want to debate this point I'm open to any examples of this occurring. pure speculation will not make the cut in a debate.
Now let's talk about why your card is broken. As is, it's a sideboard card that stalls the affected strategies by one or more turns without consuming any meaningful resources and starts working on the first turn of the game.
Are there answers to it? Of course. However, the answers either aren't as efficient as this or they fundamentally disrupt the expected play pattern. If you need an example of this, Chrome Mox is the most efficient answer to this card but a player will usually keep a hand that assumes their mox will produce mana and start their combo. Losing it is sometimes worse than skipping one or two turns.
However, if you have to spend mana on your card, then it suddenly stops being nearly as powerful due to the second ability. If you remove this ability and make it cost mana then you have a powerful but reasonable hate card.
People can afford it; people can undo it; they can chain combo to victory so the life loss isn't significant.
The instead clause acts as a safety against this, so that the card does what it was intended to do.
Furthermore, I did provide a significant argument when I explained how the life loss is significant to playing for free. Dying to removal was just a part of that greater point of interest.
Bottom line—the free play isn't a carefree option.
My point was that, as written, the life loss is meaningless because they are never going to activate the mana sources to generate the mana. I think it’s more interesting if they can get the mana by paying life, but the current version should just say “Nonland sources your opponent control cannot generate mana” because it has the same net effect on the game.
If you believe you’ve made an argument not covered look over your own posts and try to find it. 4 life isn’t a significant draw back for stalling the opponent one or more turns. Especially when the decks you are stalling don’t care if you’re at 1 or 20 as their game plan kills you either way.
You’ve agreed removal is irrelevant. Now address whether or northern 4 life is significant when against decks that kill you from 20. As those are the type of decks this is used against and would be oppressive. If you want to know what decks I mean a simple list is storm, ad nauseam, manaless dredge.
Would any of you—in a sanctioned event (with the grand prize on the line)—make that free play paying 4 life?