MTG Salvation

Quote from Flatline »

So it would appear that I'm the only one that likes the new Shimmering Seraph better than the old one (the original version won the day with 6 votes, the new version has gotten one thus far). I suppose it could just be a better day for cards (there is some good stuff today). I agree that the old version is stronger, but the new version is plenty strong, and more fun IMO. Anyway, any thoughts on the new version would be appreciated, as I really like it and am wondering if I'm missing something obvious.

For what it's worth, I like it but liked the cards I voted more. I considered giving it a mention anyway.

Quote from Tilwin »

Wtf?! I've been doing this wrong for years
MtgSalvation, teaches you proper English.
It still looks super weird to me... but gotcha! Singular ends with s, you can put 's, plural, go with the apostrophe only.

Yes, I had it wrong too before doing research for my articles. I even wrote it wrong in the first version of my article and another user (can't remember who) corrected me. I did further research and I discovered he was right, so I updated the article and learned something new myself. Anyway, now you got it right!

Quote from void_nothing »

Actually, wouldn't you know it - Magic's style guide calls for two instances of "S" when forming a possessive of a name that already ends in S. Cf. Erebos's Emissary.

The determining factor is if the noun is singular or plural: singular nouns (including proper nouns) ending in "s" get the Saxon genitive as "s's", while plural nouns ending in "s" get it as "s'". I know this from research for my "Mark of Quality" articles (link to article index in signature).

Quote from Flatline »

You know, I almost included the text "~ is not an uncard", on the card, since I knew you wouldn't want to be represented by an uncard, but then I figured the irony made the card even funnier. Anyway, I'm glad you didn't hate it at least.

It really does, and that's the main reason I didn't hate it. And not only that, if you had "this is not an uncard" in the rules text then I wouldn't have liked it, because what would have it meant ruleswise? It would be as bad as Steamflogger Boss or the flavor text of Obsidian Fireheart, and by that I mean really bad to me. For example, once I opened an Obsidian Fireheart in a Zendikar booster pack and I gave it as a gift (not a trade) to my best friend, who also plays Magic (I taught him myself, and I'm about to start teaching the game to two more guys I knew recently), as soon as possible, just to free myself of it.
I like the fact that your card makes perfect sense ruleswise once you define the concept of "uncards", which wouldn't be hard to do. Just do it like Tabak did for the expansion symbol caring cards: list the cards in the CR. Then it wouldn't even need to be an uncard anymore technically, but the flavor you gave it is really hilarious.

Quote from Rudyard »

green has reach because it doesn't have flying. but reach is basically one half of flying & white has flying. i could have given the card flying, but it has no power and has defender, so reach and flying are functionally the same on this card 99% of the time.

In this case it's true that they function very similarly, but my main concern is about the color pie, not about the functionality of reach in this specific case (where you're right anyway).

reach made more sense flavorwise, the wall reaches high into the air, it doesn't lift off the ground...

This is also true, but I was talking about mechanics, honestly I didn't even think about flavor.

Quote from Flatline »

Votes: Sagharri (Dang it! I've been meaning to post the same card in blue for awhile now. You beat me to it. ), netn10 (I have a similarish card posted in the current round of the MCC.)
HM: Rudyard (It should prolly be , or at least )

I had no idea we had so many Snoop fans in the DCC. Perhaps you all just like Plants. BTW, sorry Bravelion! I know how much you love uncards.

Courageous Cat
Legendary Creature - Human Cat (M)
Vigilance, protection from uncards
When Courageous Cat enters the battlefield, exile all uncards from the battlefield. Then search each opponent's hand, graveyard and library for up to eighty three total uncards and exile those cards.
4/4

"There! Now we can play some real Magic!"

No problem! By the way, I know a few songs by Snoop Dogg too, it's not my favorite singer/rapper but it's not bad. It's true that personally I don't like uncards, but I still accept them in the game because, as MaRo would say, they're just not made for me. By the way, the same exact thing is also true for cards that only function in multiplayer (Command Tower comes to mind). As for your card, I often think about I would represent my real self on a card, and there are some things you definitely guessed right. First of all the color, I identify myself as heavy primary white in real life, with a little extra from each other color but black. I'm talking about color philosophies here, not mechanics. I like to think of myself kind of like Sarkhan: spanning four colors with one heavy primary one (Sarkhan is primary red and has been every color but white, so it also makes for a nice mirror). You also guessed that I'm quite big physically, probably not enough to be a 4/4 though (an elephant in Magic is a 3/3...). I find very hilarious the fact that you showed my "hatred" for uncards in a card that has to be an uncard itself to make any sense. Someday I will try to do a planeswalker cards of myself... (Edit: I have an idea for a creature card. You will see it in the DCC after the cycle of Curses is over.)
Well, I guess tomorrow it will be the first time I'll vote for an uncard... look what you made me do!
(I don't know if I'm allowed to link to streaming sites, so I'm not doing it, but anyway it's a quote said by Nelson Muntz in the Simpsons episode "The Haw-Hawed Couple", one of my favorites in the whole Simpsons series. Nelson is also one of my favorite characters.)

Quote from scrad_the_wanderer »

Votes: Flatline, bravelion

Ancient of Balance 1U
Creature - Avatar
Ancient of Balance enters the battlefield under no player's control.
5/5

Is this doable?

Unfortunately, no. The CR have this to say (emphasis mine):

Quote from Comprehensive Rules (DTK Edition) »

110.2. A permanent’s owner is the same as the owner of the card that represents it (unless it’s a token; see rule 110.5a). A permanent’s controller is, by default, the player under whose control it entered the battlefield. Every permanent has a controller.

Also, a controller is needed for the process of casting (again emphasis mine):

Quote from Comprehensive Rules (DTK Edition) »

601.2a The player announces that he or she is casting the spell. That card (or that copy of a card) moves from where it is to the stack. It becomes the topmost object on the stack. It has all the characteristics of the card (or the copy of a card) associated with it, and that player becomes its controller. The spell remains on the stack until it’s countered, it resolves, or an effect moves it elsewhere.

608.3. If the object that’s resolving is a permanent spell, its resolution involves a single step (unless it’s an Aura). The spell card becomes a permanent and is put onto the battlefield under the control of the spell’s controller.

Also, if it has no controller, who can declare it as an attacker or blocker? If an effect requires a player to do something to the creature, who does it? In the end, that is definitely not doable in the rules as they are now.

No problem, I actually prefer if someone else does it for now, even though I can do it if no one else does. I'll gladly leave the job to Guesswork, letting him know that I'm still available if some days he's not able to post the thread for whatever reason.

Quote from Callahan09 »

Force Spike can potentially counter anything for U as well

Yes, but it has an "unless" clause and it's from quite a long time ago. I'm not sure how it fits today's design standards.

Also, I kind of based it off of the idea that my card is to Cancel as Murderous Cut is to Murder. Seem pretty appropriate to me.

That comparison is very reasonable, but would you really want your card to be potentially stronger than Counterspell, which is a card that today doesn't get reprinted because it's considered too strong?

Quote from Flatline »

Does anybody want to put the thread up in May? I could do it for the first week if you like, but after that I'm going on vacation and WILL NOT be able to do it. I don't even plan on competing in May. Anyway, it would be much appreciated if anybody wants to volunteer, and I'll gladly take the reigns back from you in June if you like.

I may be able to do it, but I would need to post the thread a few hours earlier than you usually do. If that's not a problem and nobody else is volunteering, I'm here. Just let me know.

Quote from zarepath »

I really like these Cornerstone designs, but Ruby Cornerstone is just WAY too good -- ramp, repeatable removal, and repeatable card advantage at uncommon is just crazy. It's significantly better than Outpost Siege at a cheaper cost. I do love the ideas of these designs, though.

Actually, it's not removal as it can only target opponents. It cannot target creatures, and it was intentional. You may be right that it's still too good though, it would need to be playtested. There is still the option to not make them all cost the same amount of mana, being colored artifacts that give you three modes and you have to choose one with the first always being adding mana of the artifact's color should be more than enough to tie them together as a cycle even if you give them different mana costs.

Quote from CryoZenith »

Again... no. I fail to see how reliably killing your opponent on turn 4 constitutes a drawback.

D'OH! I didn't think of milling at all, and I didn't understand the purpose of the card at all. I just thought that was meant to be an ordinary drawback, because it just looks like one (and honestly if you're not into milling it is). I just completely misunderstood the card, I'm sorry. It can happen.

Oops! I think I missed the "unless" then... In my mind I had it counter the spell and in addition to the spell being countered the opponent could choose to sacrifice a creature, and if he did you got a Zombie. So this is EITHER counter a spell OR opponent may sacrifice a creature and if he does you get a Zombie, and the opponent gets to choose which one it is? Oh well, in that case everything changes... you're right, it could probably be at just UB then, even if I agree that R&D wouldn't probably print it for less than three mana. I misread the card, sorry. And also, I didn't realize that the first time. My bad! I'm sorry but today hasn't exactly been the simplest of days to me.

Quote from Link »

I find it amusing that the people who commented on this disagreed. FortuitousEntitiy and CryoZentith both found it overcosted, while bravelion83 thought it was undercosted. It's interesting to see how people's thought process differs.
My original version of this card cost UB. I added one mana for submission to the DCC because I thought more people would think like bravelion83. In the future I'll keep it in mind to further push what I think is acceptable power level. If this were to see print in a Standard set, I fear it would almost certainly cost more than two mana.

May this also be due to the fact that it takes a moment to realize that YOU get the Zombie token and not the countered spell's controller? I had to stop a moment myself when reading that card to understand it well. At first I read it as though the countered spell's controller got the token in exchange for his or her spell, kind of like Path to Exile gives THEM a land in exchange for the creature (ignore power level for the sake of this discussion). If Grave Denial worked like Path, it would definitely be overcosted. As it is, I don't see any realistic way this could less than three mana, when today's base for counterspells, Cancel, costs three mana, whether you like it or not. At the contrary, I wouldn't be surprised to see R&D increasing the cost of this if it was to be printed for real, seeing the trend counterspells have taken in the last few years (and note that I'm one of those players who agrees with that). That's why I said what I said. But here in Italy we have a saying that goes "The world is beautiful because it's varied" ("Il mondo è bello perché è vario")! I see this in a way and other people see it in a different way, and there's nothing wrong with that!

Quote from CryoZenith »

Oh, basically, my thought process when churning out the card was to just use the Isochron Scepter template, since it's already something that is correct wording and clearly defined. But your way makes more sense.

The difference is with the Scepter you can do multiple copies of the exiled card, so the copy has to stay in exile to be available to be copied again. But as you sacrifice the token to be able to cast the exiled card, you will have a single use of that spell vith your ability. At that point, you might as well directly cast the card itself from exile, making the ability much simpler and easier to read.

No, you're not! Absolutely! Nobody is! And I assure you my intentions were good, and still are, and that I welcome the discussion, it's just that I feel like I've taken it all too far, both here and in the MCC discussion. But it's surely just a momentary feeling, don't be afraid. It'll pass soon. It's just the weakest part of me showing up, I'm used to this in real life by now... it probably just never showed up here on the forum, at least not like this. Well, now you also know this part of me. It was this what I referred to when talking about "confidence issues" in response to my first article. But I'd be able to continue for a long time, so let's end it here. Everything's right!

Ok, now I definitely feel like I've detonated two major bombs lately here in the CCC forum: the MCC rubric (but I'll talk about it in that thread) and the strategic voting in the DCC. I'm feeling quite bad right now because of this. I'm feeling responsible for this. Maybe I should have said nothing and keep it all for myself. But as in real life, that's just not me, at least not anymore. Now I can't keep anything for myself. Sorry if that side of myself has taken over lately. I'm really sorry.

Also, I can assure you, and I'd be ready to swear it, that I only did strategic voting in the last few days of March, when I had the chance to win. Except for those few days, I've never done that since I'm participating in the DCC (all months since last October if I remember well). I also don't think that anybody does that regularly. Surely somebody else has also done that occasionally, but not regularly. In the end I agree that nothing needs to change in the DCC.