MTG Salvation

Quote from Legend »

Like this?

Uplift (Common)
2W
Sorcery
Target creature gets +2/+2 and gains flying until end of turn.
Foretell W (As you draw this card, you may reveal it and pay W.)
When this card is foretold, target creature gets +1/+1 and gains flying until end of turn.

Yes, that works just fine.

There is a huge problem with the mechanic as currently written: If an ability of an object would trigger, but the object's identity isn't known to all players at that time, it doesn't trigger.


An ability that reads "When you draw this card, ..." necessarily triggers from the hand, a zone that (usually) contains cards whose identity is only known to the player who owns the cards in it. Because of this, such an ability will never trigger. It doesn't matter that the card is revealed upon resolution, because an ability can't resolve if it never triggers.

Therefore, it is impossible for forebode to be an ability word in this state. You must change some part of the mechanic, or make it a keyword ability, in order for it to work.

Assuming that by "Type cards in your graveyard", you actually mean "[type] cards in your graveyard", where [type] can be substituted for any card type in the game, then yes, that is the best wording you can get for your desired effect.

Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »

I know how they work, you just seem to be missing the point that there's potentially no other way to word this operating function without this adaptation to the terminology and how it functions; using the context of the word also as the conjunction that changes the operating function of the terminology Non-Human. When these two terms are together in the same sentence, the conjunction of also literally changes the context of the term Non-Human, so that it means something else entirely, and defines any creature that possesses a type that isn't human.

It's as if nobody here even understands the concept of term context in the English language.

Do you understand how languages work? You're not the one who gets to decide that a word does what you say it does by virtue of you saying it. The only place where "also" works the way it works is in your little imaginary world, where only you are right and everyone else's opinions don't matter because they're not good enough for your high horse.

If there's "potentially no other way to word this operating function" (whatever that's supposed to mean), then maybe what you're asking for is fundamentally incompatible with Magic's rules system, and your attempt to shoehorn whatever you want into the system is futile. All of your designs so far are examples of this shoehorning in one way or another, and they've all failed.

Even if your idea did work with the recently-mentioned facade mechanic, you still haven't explained why your idea is good or how it improves the game. It's objectively not intuitive and just emphasizes a technicality of the game for zero good reason. You might think your idea is good, but the rest of us don't. If you claim our opinions don't matter, then a forum meant for sharing opinions isn't the right place to post your ideas.

How much longer are you going to stay on your high horse? Your ego is way too large.

"I know everything there is about my mechanic. All your arguments are 'empty,' 'weak,' 'biased,' or whatever other adjective I want to use to deflect them."

Yet, you can't even answer IcariiFA's rules concerns correctly? Maybe you should take a step back and realize that the criticism against your mechanic means you don't know as much as you think you do. It's more than evident enough that your knowledge of the game's rules is pitifully small, despite the "extensive experience" that you keep on pointing at.

Get your mechanic to work properly first. I don't think you'll be able to on your own.

Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »

I am not beyond criticism, but I have yet to see a single credible argument from anybody. It would be nice if you had one, but so far no one has explained or provided anything irrefutable. For the record, I have not worked on MTG content in a few years, but before that I gained extensive experience with content development through private practice.

All of the arguments we're giving you are credible. You're just refusing to see why they're credible. You keep using your "extensive experience" as a comfort blanket to try and justify why you don't want to get over your biases. Your "extensive experience" means absolutely nothing to any of us, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The more you do, the less genuine we know your ideas are.

How is Crescendo overly complicated? This is just another empty statement, in a paragraph of empty statements, that doesn't explain (or elaborate) on any significant details in your favor. There's no wall of text involves. As composed, the ability (yes it is a Keyword ability) works flawlessly alongside a counter to effortlessly keep track of the Crescendo stack.

Again, refusing to see through to the other side. Rose-tinted lens.

Could I design one for every color at common rarity? Yeah maybe—but this is not necessarily something that one develops to be printed at the common level.

You're using a poorly-designed mechanic to justify your poorly-designed mechanic. Sure, that works, but only if you want people to think of your mechanic as being at least as poorly designed as the example mechanic.

Some people like the challenge. And furthermore, this could easily serve as an evaluation of improvisational talent, that enables management to wane out the meek from the mighty. There's really nothing wrong credible that can be said against the aspect of challenge here. It might just seem controversial to those who can't meet the demand, but this demand is apart of the job (it's a dynamic qualification), so attempting to oppress it here is absurd.

Okay, so you like the challenge of content development. Why are you so afraid of hearing others say that you've failed at what you've done?

Failure isn't inherently bad. It's a sign that person who has failed has to improve. But you're just not willing to accept the fact that we think your mechanic is bad.

Willow's does not clean up anything. It's actually an underwhelming use of a keyword ability. All it does is place a counter on the card at designated time, something that's more simply spelled out as a traditional effect. And even the simple flavor it provides doesn't eclipse the fact of how unnecessary and tacky it truly is. If you really think otherwise, I mean you're really going to provide me with a little more detail than this so that I might understand where you're coming from. I'm trying really hard to see the legitimacy...but it's just not there for me.

Forcing a player to use a counter to track something about the game state, when the player has other options to do so, is "unnecessary and tacky." This is especially so if the counter has no actual rules relevance.

The tone with which you're carrying out this discussion is so closed to the point where I'm surprised people are arguing with as much patience as they've been giving you.

You're not arguing in good faith. You're deflecting any criticism that comes your way. All you're doing is pitching an idea that you came up with due to "innovation" reasons, claiming that your "extensive experience" means you know more than all of us do. You claim that all the criticism you get is full of "empty, biased statements," yet the reality is that your opinion is so biased to the point where you're afraid to actually address others' concerns. You default to "No, you're wrong" in one way or another, since you're not actually able to argue for why your idea is a good idea. I can come up with many examples if you wish.

Since you're so adamant in your opinion, why are you even posting here? You're obviously not willing to look outside your rose-tinted lens to see what people actually have to say, so all it is is a waste of time for both parties. It's abundantly evident that you don't want your view changed on any of this. Surely, your "extensive experience" means you don't need any of us to contribute our viewpoints, and that you can keep going on your path on your own. Using the tone you've been using in the discussion so far just makes people not want to discuss with you.

The core reason of why this mechanic even came to be, according to you, is "innovation." "Innovation" means "implementing an idea that nobody has ever done before," but it doesn't automatically mean that the idea is inherently good. You then make a huge logical leap and say that "My idea is good due to my 'extensive experience,'" which is not logically valid. Because of this, your entire argument isn't valid. I'm sure I don't have to point out examples in history where designing something for "innovation" led to terrible results.

You might as well just make a different game, rather than pitch ideas for Magic designs. Magic has a bunch of conventions and standards that you're throwing out the window for no reason other than "innovation." By doing so, you're no longer designing for Magic anymore, so of course none of what we say is going to make you budge, since we don't even know what game you are designing for.

Also:

---

Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »

As for your "unnecessary duplication" argument, the sacrifice trigger will not duplicate. That operation takes wing as a state-based effect that puts the permanent into the graveyard superseding the stack—with no time-frame beyond this that enables the operating function to trigger an additional time (or trigger in any exponential fashion).

This is hilariously incorrect. Read your proposed cards again, read the reminder text again, and then try to realize why you're wrong. I'm sure you'd be able to, with your "extensive experience" and all.

Quote from WizardMN »

Once a spell starts to resolve (which it would need to do in order to have any of its effects including being exiled) it will continue to resolve even if it leaves the stack in the middle of resolution.

The parenthetical text isn't correct.

"You may cast ~ from your graveyard" isn't a spell ability, and the exile instruction is part of the same ability as the sentence before it. Therefore, the exile will happen as part of taking advantage of the permission granted by the static ability, immediately after the spell has finished being cast. If the exile instruction were to happen as part of the resolution, either the exile instruction needs to specifically mention when the exile action happens, or some form of triggered ability needs to be involved.

Regardless of how good this mechanic actually is designed, I feel like you missed a huge opportunity:

A triggered ability that appears in the text of another triggered ability or an activated ability means that the former is what's known as a delayed triggered ability. The delayed triggered ability won't do anything on its own; rather, it gets created when the triggered or activated ability encompassing it resolves.

Let's take the first card.

Suppose an instant or sorcery card enters my graveyard. The ability triggers, and so I choose to exile it. Since I choose to exile it, I return each other card exiled with Necrotic Spellplasm to my graveyard (not very relevant in this scenario). Then, because there are further instructions in the triggered ability, those are followed. Since it's a delayed triggered ability, a delayed triggered ability is set up that triggers whenever Spellplasm deals combat damage to a player. All is normal here; whenever Spellplasm deals combat damage to a player, I can cast a copy of the exiled card exactly once.

Then suppose a second instant or sorcery card enters my graveyard. The ability triggers, and so I choose to exile it. Since I choose to exile it, I return each other card exiled with Necrotic Spellplasm to my graveyard (the first instant or sorcery card exiled this way). Then, a delayed triggered ability will be created that triggers whenever Spellplasm deals combat damage to a player. However, note that the first delayed triggered ability still exists. This means, that if Spellplasm deals combat damage to a player, I will be able to cast a copy of my most recently-exiled instant or sorcery card twice.

This holds true in general. Assuming Spellplasm never leaves the battlefield for any reason, whenever the Nth instant or sorcery card is put into a graveyard and I choose to exile it, it makes it so that whenever Spellplasm deals combat damage to a player, I can cast a copy of that exiled instant or sorcery card up to N times.

Now let's look at the second card.

The second card is actually much more simple, in that the combat damage triggered ability is already there, and there aren't multiple generated copies to manage. This means that no matter how many instant or sorcery cards I exile with Spellplasm, I will only ever be able to cast a copy of the Nth exiled card once per combat damage event.

Would cards like Daxos of Meletis allow you to use colored mana that is not in your identity?

Scenario:

With Daxos of Meletis as both my commander and attacker, I successfully deal combat damage to my opponent an they end up exiling Graveborn Muse.

Would I be able to cast Graveborn Muse as per Daxos' ability?

Lost Archives is way too strong to see the light of day. It would warp both Standard and modern away from multicolor as it became adopted as a 4 of in most decks.

Here is an alternative wording (same functionality):
Lost Archives
Land U
T:Add 1 to your mana pool.
When ~ enters the battlefield, you may pay 1. If you do, draw a card.

Radiant Fountain already sees constructed play, and "you may pay 1. If you do, draw a card" is radically stronger than gain 2.

A version which always entered tapped and let you pay 2 to draw a card on ETB is probably somewhere near balanced.

Quote from bakgat »

And just BTW I was responding directly to Golden who has the distinct air of a verificationist about him. Maybe I should have had some quotes in my post. Sorry if it was misleading.

So explain how a religionist would "determine" origins, test/prove their theories, and then gain some kind of knowledge that could actually be useful in making future predictions.

OTOH if none of that is important to you, and you take comfort in blind faith (which many many do, I'm not knocking it), that's fine. I was simply explaining why I personally don't find religion to be very interesting or useful when it comes to a topic like this.

Quote from Thought Criminal »

I like the little twist you put on the typical idea of spell-morph. There are two things I'm wondering about your intentions of how the mechanic is to work, though:

1) Does the token that's left behind ever "enter the battlefield"? Or does the permanent just change from being a nontoken to a token permanent?

Thanks!
1: The creature object remains in the battlefield, and changes from a card to a token. Auras, blocking assignments, marked damage, everything remains. The card goes on to become a new object, a spell on the stack (this is as usual, cards become new objects whenever they change zones.)

Quote from Thought Criminal »

2) Can a face down sorcery with emerge be cast any time you have priority as a special action, or only when you would normally be able to cast a sorcery?

Instants already can be cast whenever you have priority; the "special action" part indicates not using the stack (this is so a morph can't be killed in response to flipping it.) It's not needed in Emerge because "Cast" is already an action that doesn't use the stack (rather, the result of the Cast action is adding an object to the stack.) Eg: you can't make an opponent discard a card in response to him casting that card, and neither can you kill a face down creature in response to it Emerging because it's a cast action.

Now, on sorcery vs. instant timing, I did use "cast it as a sorcery" in the reminder text of the sorcery, and "cast it as an instant" in the reminder of the instant. I think it plays better (more guessing options for the opponent), and allows making sorcery effects that you wouldn't want to happen as instants.

Quote from Thought Criminal »

I think the mana cost of Wisp Carapace could be lowered a bit, considering its emerge cost allows it to do the same thing for the same cost but with an extra effect as well.

The extra effect already costs 3 more however. I think the 3G instant is already playable without the Emerge, so the card becomes quite strong with the additional emerge option (no need to perfectly balance the two modes, I'd say this card would be played without emerge 25% of the time in limited, and that's ok.)