Fight for Survival2G Sorcery
Target opponent flips 5 coins, then puts a +1/+1 counter on a creature you control for each flip he or she lost. Put your choice of a trample, reach, or shield counter on a creature you control for each flip that player lost. You can only choose one counter of each this way for each creature you control. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but also the bite and the fangs.
Happy St. Patrick's Day! Just wanted to drop something fun and luck based for the occasion. Originally had considered 1G for this, trying to weigh it with Increasing Savagery, because that cost against the aspect of luck screams so much excitement. The fact you get a shield counter though should warrant a little elevation.
Why are you having the opponent flip? It's a very strange choice that feels it was done just to confuse players.
Ignoring that, this does a little too much for too little. The median of 2-3 "victories" resulting in 4-6 counters requires a higher cost. I don't know if that higher cost is something like [mana]ggg[mana] or MV 4+. But two is far too cheap.
Fight for Survival2G Sorcery
Target opponent flips 5 coins, then puts a +1/+1 counter on a creature you control for each flip he or she lost. Put your choice of a trample, reach, or shield counter on a creature you control for each flip that player lost. You can only choose one counter of each this way for each creature you control. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but also the bite and the fangs.
Happy St. Patrick's Day! Just wanted to drop something fun and luck based for the occasion. Originally had considered 1G for this, trying to weigh it with Increasing Savagery, because that cost against the aspect of luck screams so much excitement. The fact you get a shield counter though should warrant a little elevation.
You card is significantly undercosted. For 4 mana Increasing Savagery buffs one creature, which means your opponent can can destroy that creature to effectively counter the effect.
Your card buffs up to 5 of your creatures, including with a shield counter after you have seen where your opponent has placed the counters they have to place. Your bonuses will be more spread and harder for your opponent to interact with with a single removal spell.
Also, having you opponent the flip the coins is bad design for no good reason. It negates the one interesting use of this effect by building around cards like Krark's Thumb to manipulate the coin flips in your favor.
The central idea of the card is interesting, but the execution turned out sloppy and undercosted because you were trying to be cute.
Because it makes the design more interactive and fun.
So with your card, if I flip a coin and win, nothing happens. But if I lose, something bad happens. Compare that psychologically with me flipping a coin and winning and something good happens; and if I lose, nothing happens.
Or see the various D20 designs - you get something good for playing the card, then something better if you roll well. Here there's a risk (albeit a very small one) that I spend 3 mana and get nothing.
I sort of agree that flipping coins is more fun than doing nothing. But this way around, you're emphasising the downside of losing rather than the upside of winning.
Note that it's only interactive in the same way that shuffling your deck is interactive - you're doing something with your hands, sure, but you don't have any choice about it. It's just a game action. I personally find that more like a chore than especially fun.
I agree with rowan that really cards like this are for Chance Encounter. Otherwise I feel like I'd rather just have Gaea's Anthem - it's just more reliable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood within this cloak to kill. There is only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof." - V, V for Vendetta. Alan Moore
I think putting the pressure on your opponent has amazing suspense.
I honestly don't feel like cards should have to coincide with all available synergies to be great. The fact that it leaves out Krark's Thumb and Chance Encounter is almost irrelevant because it doesn't need them to be great. It's better in a scenario to allow players to break free from them. It also opens design space for contra versions of such effects and creates a new archetype.
As for the cost, I think it's a bold-faced bluff to suggest you would play this outside of draft if it was 3G (even one more mana). I can honestly say that I wouldn't.
As for the cost, I think it's a bold-faced bluff to suggest you would play this outside of draft if it was 3G (even one more mana). I can honestly say that I wouldn't.
and you belive this is a problem? 80%+ of all cards only see play in the formats of limited and "cards I own" that is where most cards should be costed at. Unless you are specifically aiming for a game changer in specific formats.
I think putting the pressure on your opponent has amazing suspense.
But, like... you can't flip a coin well. It's got to be a 50/50 thing. So, if you're an expert with sleight of hand or something and can actually affect the result, it goes against the spirit of the request. I can't see how there's any more suspense for them doing it or me doing it.
I'll concede maybe I feel more responsible if I win or lose if I'm doing the physical coin flipping, but that actually just reinforces the point I made before about psychologically it feeling better if you win if you win, rather than nothing happens if you win.
And on Arena or MTGO, it'd be handled by an algorithm - no opportunity to show off how high I can flip and still catch the coin or whatever (and equally, no chance the coin falls on the floor and we argue if it counts or not). Is that what you mean by suspense? Because I swear for 90% of coin flip cards, I and my playgroup roll dice because we already have dice on the table, and getting an actual coin from someone's actual wallet/purse is slow and who even has cash on them in 2023.
And even if it's an actual, physical coin being flipped for meaningful stakes within the context of a game you're playing, I actually think less is more, weirdly. A high stakes win/lose off a single coin would be (for me) more suspenseful than 5 flips that lead to the same win/loss. A bit like getting the topdeck you need to get lethal damage vs. getting the three topdecks in a row that allow you to win a game that, 99 times out of 100, you'd have lost. I feel like that leads to both players feeling cheated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood within this cloak to kill. There is only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof." - V, V for Vendetta. Alan Moore
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorcery
Target opponent flips 5 coins, then puts a +1/+1 counter on a creature you control for each flip he or she lost. Put your choice of a trample, reach, or shield counter on a creature you control for each flip that player lost. You can only choose one counter of each this way for each creature you control.
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but also the bite and the fangs.
Happy St. Patrick's Day! Just wanted to drop something fun and luck based for the occasion. Originally had considered 1G for this, trying to weigh it with Increasing Savagery, because that cost against the aspect of luck screams so much excitement. The fact you get a shield counter though should warrant a little elevation.
Ignoring that, this does a little too much for too little. The median of 2-3 "victories" resulting in 4-6 counters requires a higher cost. I don't know if that higher cost is something like [mana]ggg[mana] or MV 4+. But two is far too cheap.
I think I have to agree with the cost. The fact that you can get a shield especially should push this to 3 CMC.
As for fun, that's 80% subjective so I'll pass.
You card is significantly undercosted. For 4 mana Increasing Savagery buffs one creature, which means your opponent can can destroy that creature to effectively counter the effect.
Your card buffs up to 5 of your creatures, including with a shield counter after you have seen where your opponent has placed the counters they have to place. Your bonuses will be more spread and harder for your opponent to interact with with a single removal spell.
Also, having you opponent the flip the coins is bad design for no good reason. It negates the one interesting use of this effect by building around cards like Krark's Thumb to manipulate the coin flips in your favor.
The central idea of the card is interesting, but the execution turned out sloppy and undercosted because you were trying to be cute.
So with your card, if I flip a coin and win, nothing happens. But if I lose, something bad happens. Compare that psychologically with me flipping a coin and winning and something good happens; and if I lose, nothing happens.
Or see the various D20 designs - you get something good for playing the card, then something better if you roll well. Here there's a risk (albeit a very small one) that I spend 3 mana and get nothing.
I sort of agree that flipping coins is more fun than doing nothing. But this way around, you're emphasising the downside of losing rather than the upside of winning.
Note that it's only interactive in the same way that shuffling your deck is interactive - you're doing something with your hands, sure, but you don't have any choice about it. It's just a game action. I personally find that more like a chore than especially fun.
I agree with rowan that really cards like this are for Chance Encounter. Otherwise I feel like I'd rather just have Gaea's Anthem - it's just more reliable.
I honestly don't feel like cards should have to coincide with all available synergies to be great. The fact that it leaves out Krark's Thumb and Chance Encounter is almost irrelevant because it doesn't need them to be great. It's better in a scenario to allow players to break free from them. It also opens design space for contra versions of such effects and creates a new archetype.
As for the cost, I think it's a bold-faced bluff to suggest you would play this outside of draft if it was 3G (even one more mana). I can honestly say that I wouldn't.
And cards like Raze the Effigy and Twinferno are living proof of this.
But, like... you can't flip a coin well. It's got to be a 50/50 thing. So, if you're an expert with sleight of hand or something and can actually affect the result, it goes against the spirit of the request. I can't see how there's any more suspense for them doing it or me doing it.
I'll concede maybe I feel more responsible if I win or lose if I'm doing the physical coin flipping, but that actually just reinforces the point I made before about psychologically it feeling better if you win if you win, rather than nothing happens if you win.
And on Arena or MTGO, it'd be handled by an algorithm - no opportunity to show off how high I can flip and still catch the coin or whatever (and equally, no chance the coin falls on the floor and we argue if it counts or not). Is that what you mean by suspense? Because I swear for 90% of coin flip cards, I and my playgroup roll dice because we already have dice on the table, and getting an actual coin from someone's actual wallet/purse is slow and who even has cash on them in 2023.
And even if it's an actual, physical coin being flipped for meaningful stakes within the context of a game you're playing, I actually think less is more, weirdly. A high stakes win/lose off a single coin would be (for me) more suspenseful than 5 flips that lead to the same win/loss. A bit like getting the topdeck you need to get lethal damage vs. getting the three topdecks in a row that allow you to win a game that, 99 times out of 100, you'd have lost. I feel like that leads to both players feeling cheated.