Blood LetterB Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life. "I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
Squeezing the most value you can get into a draw one card for one; worth its slot in the deck; plus an aesthetic utility design.
Considering everything in your deck is supposed to be useful, you have to pitch two useful cards; or maybe it helps less fortune individuals un-mana screw themselves.
EDIT: If this was red, it would probably be [deals 1 damage to each player], so just each player losing 1 life would be reasonable to bring the clock down a bit here for the value. However, I honestly believe true overclocked element here is the choice to put the other cards into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library. This was intended to be useful with Maralen of the Mornsong, in that you can tutor a card from among them you need next with her ability. However, I don't think it creates enough challenge for the using player this way, and should force players to have to build around the challenge with extra consistency; so that's the edit I've chosen to make moving forward.
Blood LetterB Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library in any order. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life. "I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
Disregarding if the card could ever see print, it should either have you "surveil 3" or "scry 3", draw a card. The option to do either is overpowered for 1 mana value.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
This is Ponder. You made black Ponder. That's a blue card, Reap. Don't make black Ponder. Because of the colour pie. The colour pie, Reap. You've heard about the colour pie, right? Don't make black Ponder. Don't do it, Reap.
I could almost nearly conceive of a black Sorcery that milled 3 then let you return one of the milled cards to your hand. But that's one heck of a bend. And not at B. But this? Don't make black Ponder, Reap. Don't you do it.
"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
Being able to Scry or Surveil is definitely not worth an additional mana. It would barely be worth its place in the deck; and if you've ever tried using Mystic Speculation, you know this has been proven.
You're thinking about Grave Tutor, I believe. And you were very outspoken how you didn't like that one. As combo material, it's really only what you would hope for it to be. Furthermore, I'd like to point out how much closer this design is to Sign of the Cross, which no one would bat an eye at if printed.
It's not Ponder either, because Ponder doesn't force you to ditch two potentially good resources for one. It gives you an even greater option than 1 life in that you can totally reset the stack of your deck. Even Brainstorm is still a two-of in most deck concepts I've built, and hardly sees more copies than this. The reason for this is because it's redundant to itself. This effect would be somewhat of the middle ground between them. So it's alike Ponder, sure. Black has predominantly had draw effects. It would have made far more sense if it was suggested, "Why doesn't each player just lose 1 life?" That I can understand, because black is very akin to having to pay life for extra cards; Sign in Blood. I wasn't against an effect like that. But I felt like it's feel-bad to force restrictions like that all the time, and not provide some diversity for a change with an upper-hand effect.
I'd like to point out how much closer this design is to Sign of the Cross, which no one would bat an eye at if printed.
I'm not going to ask anyone to click the link but I will explain. Only reap could link a thread where everyone condems a card as unprintable and claim no one would bat an eye if it was printed.
This is a level of cognitive dissonance that is down right impressive.
The only argument was that it's "out of color", but the intention of the design was to extend utility to the color, by doing what it does in a unique way, by limiting the immediate resource draw from it. And guess what, not really that out of color for the resource it's working with.
Compared to March of Reckless Joy, as previously stated, there's no reason it couldn't exist and become an extension of utility to the color.
That is the essence of extending utilities to colors, boundaries and uniqueness, opposed to straightforwardness.
It would be nice if someone had a legitimate argument towards the functionality for once, instead of condemning creativity and pioneering; ingenuity and improvisation. These are the very essence of talent.
Does anyone have that to contribute for this design?
Compared to March of Reckless Joy, as previously stated, there's no reason it couldn't exist and become an extension of utility to the color.
That is the essence of extending utilities to colors, boundaries and uniqueness, opposed to straightforwardness.
OMG, you're right. If you ignore the reasons against it there are no reasons not to do it. And if you do it, then it having been done opens the door to do it again and better. This will steadily allow every color to do everything. Shoring up their weaknesses until there are no strengths and the game loaes any reason for color other than a vaneer of flavor. Its almost like that was a reason it wasn't done in the first place but because we're ignoring those it just seems brilliant.
I understand this argument, based on the fear that it will obsolete multicolor utility. However, if you think of this conversely, where I would run blue in a black deck for Ponder and Brainstorm, now I have something to splash black into a blue deck for Blood Letter; or splashing white for Sign of the Cross?
Exactly.
It's not only about existence; and not just about functionality and proficiency; but also about proportion. I think it's the general consensus that Magic is a game that suffers many for the inability to access of play; having no one to play with and span their horizons with various combinations. The more you play, the better you may get. But in product development, one must also dare to improvise and reach for ingenuity. You have to question your own conventions to reinvent your product, so that it becomes more dynamic and new again. Each color needs some self-sufficiency for core-essential game mechanics; and wants to be able to care for themselves; and pair with others without needing any adulterating wheel to botch the proficiency of the pair.
Let me ask, how would changing this to Surveil 3 be any different, and not out of color, when the essence of what it's doing is the same? To me, this is only the illusion of difference. Is this the type of people we want to be? Who connivingly use sleights of hand and smoke & mirrors tricks to defraud people that we are not going against our own precepts? Rather than being straightforward with what we're doing, and explaining it as inventing those precepts to breathe new life into the product and its physics? Yes, this is the big picture. What kind of people do we want to be seen as? I've always been straightforward with my adaptations of MTG policies, flavor, and game logic; but only now might that be appreciable? It's the person I want to be seen as; honest, true, and pure.
This is why it throws a yellow flag for me to reface the design as something like Surveil.
And now if not that, suggesting there is a way to "put this into color", what does one suggest? Say you had to redesign it.
And now if not that, suggesting there is a way to "put this into color", what does one suggest? Say you had to redesign it.
Okay, I'll bite.
First up, Legacy decks play Ponder and Brainstorm. Those are good cards because they let you find what you need, at the point when you need it, at a low mana cost. Both cards come with the drawback of having to go through the cards you didn't want but 1) Legacy decks have pretty powerful cards and 2) the fetchlands fix that. This is at the core of the whole archetype (I'll concede Force of Will is also very important, but it's the manipulation and card draw that sticks the blue decks together).
So it can't do what Ponder and Brainstorm do - you'll note that all those blue decks play both because of their massive utility. And this is a really delicate balance for Legacy - too much manipulation, and the format gets too consistent. That's why both Brainstorm and Ponder are restricted in Vintage.
Onto my redesign
Blood Letter B
Sorcery
Mill three cards. You may return a creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
There we go. Better Raise Dead. Cheaper than Corpse Churn, but not instant, so probably fairly printable in a set that cares about the graveyard a bit. And on-colour.
If you want the lifedrain as well, I mean I guess? It makes the card feel a bit unfocused, but add 1 to the mana cost (and maybe it drains for 2).
And if you want to make the original version, make it cost UB. That keeps it well below Legacy power level so no worries about format balance (Expressive Iteration this thing is fortunately not). And maybe you can have it mill 4 or be an instant. Roughly on par with Tainted Indulgence and a bit stronger than Diabolic Vision. But not black Ponder.
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
Hello there, it appears as though you're doing the same thing; fueling the graveyard by milling cards. In both, you're forced the ditch two cards, but the selection of which being forced is mostly aesthetic (creatures are still a very prominent and powerful resource). Costing Corpse Churn by one less doesn't actually create a new design; and it has nothing to do with the original design. The scam deck you posted looks to be powered by Grief and Orcish Bowmasters; Reanimate and Force of Will; making it no different from any other blue black control deck. Blood Letter would probably end up hurting that deck before helping it, because in the 99% scenario without Reanimate; it doesn't want to have to ditch any of its precious removal spells. The Brainstorm/Ponder combo will still reign supreme, invalidating the argument that Blood Letter would be superior to them.
Furthermore, I'd like to note, if this card were simply:
Blood LetterB
Sorcery
Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
Draw a card. This has to be the devil's work. I can't make any sense of it in all the time I've spent—and it looks as though our time is nearly out.
This version would be even more proficient in a vacuum, because it nets you a straight draw (helping to power through the stack); and doesn't force you to ditch any potentially useful resources. Further proving that less is more, and that this form creates the restrictions that it does to actually make the design more challenging and balanced; and not to overclock it.
Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
"I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
Squeezing the most value you can get into a draw one card for one; worth its slot in the deck; plus an aesthetic utility design.
Considering everything in your deck is supposed to be useful, you have to pitch two useful cards; or maybe it helps less fortune individuals un-mana screw themselves.
EDIT: If this was red, it would probably be [deals 1 damage to each player], so just each player losing 1 life would be reasonable to bring the clock down a bit here for the value. However, I honestly believe true overclocked element here is the choice to put the other cards into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library. This was intended to be useful with Maralen of the Mornsong, in that you can tutor a card from among them you need next with her ability. However, I don't think it creates enough challenge for the using player this way, and should force players to have to build around the challenge with extra consistency; so that's the edit I've chosen to make moving forward.
Sorcery
Look at the top three cards of your library. You may put one of those cards into your hand, then put the others into your graveyard or on the bottom of your library in any order. Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
"I want you to realize you spend a lot of time thinking you're the best—but not a lot of time being the best."
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
I could almost nearly conceive of a black Sorcery that milled 3 then let you return one of the milled cards to your hand. But that's one heck of a bend. And not at B. But this? Don't make black Ponder, Reap. Don't you do it.
You're thinking about Grave Tutor, I believe. And you were very outspoken how you didn't like that one. As combo material, it's really only what you would hope for it to be. Furthermore, I'd like to point out how much closer this design is to Sign of the Cross, which no one would bat an eye at if printed.
It's not Ponder either, because Ponder doesn't force you to ditch two potentially good resources for one. It gives you an even greater option than 1 life in that you can totally reset the stack of your deck. Even Brainstorm is still a two-of in most deck concepts I've built, and hardly sees more copies than this. The reason for this is because it's redundant to itself. This effect would be somewhat of the middle ground between them. So it's alike Ponder, sure. Black has predominantly had draw effects. It would have made far more sense if it was suggested, "Why doesn't each player just lose 1 life?" That I can understand, because black is very akin to having to pay life for extra cards; Sign in Blood. I wasn't against an effect like that. But I felt like it's feel-bad to force restrictions like that all the time, and not provide some diversity for a change with an upper-hand effect.
This is a level of cognitive dissonance that is down right impressive.
Compared to March of Reckless Joy, as previously stated, there's no reason it couldn't exist and become an extension of utility to the color.
That is the essence of extending utilities to colors, boundaries and uniqueness, opposed to straightforwardness.
It would be nice if someone had a legitimate argument towards the functionality for once, instead of condemning creativity and pioneering; ingenuity and improvisation. These are the very essence of talent.
Does anyone have that to contribute for this design?
Exactly.
It's not only about existence; and not just about functionality and proficiency; but also about proportion. I think it's the general consensus that Magic is a game that suffers many for the inability to access of play; having no one to play with and span their horizons with various combinations. The more you play, the better you may get. But in product development, one must also dare to improvise and reach for ingenuity. You have to question your own conventions to reinvent your product, so that it becomes more dynamic and new again. Each color needs some self-sufficiency for core-essential game mechanics; and wants to be able to care for themselves; and pair with others without needing any adulterating wheel to botch the proficiency of the pair.
Let me ask, how would changing this to Surveil 3 be any different, and not out of color, when the essence of what it's doing is the same? To me, this is only the illusion of difference. Is this the type of people we want to be? Who connivingly use sleights of hand and smoke & mirrors tricks to defraud people that we are not going against our own precepts? Rather than being straightforward with what we're doing, and explaining it as inventing those precepts to breathe new life into the product and its physics? Yes, this is the big picture. What kind of people do we want to be seen as? I've always been straightforward with my adaptations of MTG policies, flavor, and game logic; but only now might that be appreciable? It's the person I want to be seen as; honest, true, and pure.
This is why it throws a yellow flag for me to reface the design as something like Surveil.
And now if not that, suggesting there is a way to "put this into color", what does one suggest? Say you had to redesign it.
Okay, I'll bite.
First up, Legacy decks play Ponder and Brainstorm. Those are good cards because they let you find what you need, at the point when you need it, at a low mana cost. Both cards come with the drawback of having to go through the cards you didn't want but 1) Legacy decks have pretty powerful cards and 2) the fetchlands fix that. This is at the core of the whole archetype (I'll concede Force of Will is also very important, but it's the manipulation and card draw that sticks the blue decks together).
Blood Letter has the same manipulation, with the bonus of putting even more fuel in the graveyard for Reanimate and Murktide Regent. In fact, those cards and the blue core are the basis of a tier 1 deck: https://mtgdecks.net/Legacy/ub-scam-decklist-by-patrick-fernandes-1806334 Oh look, a Top 8 from literally three days ago.
So it can't do what Ponder and Brainstorm do - you'll note that all those blue decks play both because of their massive utility. And this is a really delicate balance for Legacy - too much manipulation, and the format gets too consistent. That's why both Brainstorm and Ponder are restricted in Vintage.
Onto my redesign
Blood Letter B
Sorcery
Mill three cards. You may return a creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
There we go. Better Raise Dead. Cheaper than Corpse Churn, but not instant, so probably fairly printable in a set that cares about the graveyard a bit. And on-colour.
If you want the lifedrain as well, I mean I guess? It makes the card feel a bit unfocused, but add 1 to the mana cost (and maybe it drains for 2).
And if you want to make the original version, make it cost UB. That keeps it well below Legacy power level so no worries about format balance (Expressive Iteration this thing is fortunately not). And maybe you can have it mill 4 or be an instant. Roughly on par with Tainted Indulgence and a bit stronger than Diabolic Vision. But not black Ponder.
Hello there, it appears as though you're doing the same thing; fueling the graveyard by milling cards. In both, you're forced the ditch two cards, but the selection of which being forced is mostly aesthetic (creatures are still a very prominent and powerful resource). Costing Corpse Churn by one less doesn't actually create a new design; and it has nothing to do with the original design. The scam deck you posted looks to be powered by Grief and Orcish Bowmasters; Reanimate and Force of Will; making it no different from any other blue black control deck. Blood Letter would probably end up hurting that deck before helping it, because in the 99% scenario without Reanimate; it doesn't want to have to ditch any of its precious removal spells. The Brainstorm/Ponder combo will still reign supreme, invalidating the argument that Blood Letter would be superior to them.
Furthermore, I'd like to note, if this card were simply:
Blood Letter B
Sorcery
Each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
Draw a card.
This has to be the devil's work. I can't make any sense of it in all the time I've spent—and it looks as though our time is nearly out.
This version would be even more proficient in a vacuum, because it nets you a straight draw (helping to power through the stack); and doesn't force you to ditch any potentially useful resources. Further proving that less is more, and that this form creates the restrictions that it does to actually make the design more challenging and balanced; and not to overclock it.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Staff