Tibalt, Lunatic :1mana::symr:
Planeswalker - Tibalt
[+1]: Target creature gets +2/+0 until end of turn.
[-1]: Discard a card from your hand, then draw a card
[-7]: You gain an emblem that reads: "Sacrifice a permanent: Deal 1 damage to target creature or player."
[2HP]
Interesting card! Requires the right format and it might be a very low pick draft card. Or like a combo card in a narrow format! Instant might be nicer!
Was thinking about this guy when I was ruminating on my friend's modern cube and thinking about how lame UG tempo has been seeming and how much more relevant combat is and how nice it is to see extra cards.
Jungle Bug2UG
Creature - Insect (R?)
Flash, flying
When Jungle Bug enters that there battlefield, draw a card.
3/3
Tell us a little about your set.
My initial impression is that you could probably trim an ability or a couple lines of text. 4 ability planeswalkers always strike me as a little overkill.
Man whisper in darkness is such a cute card! I wonder if it's broken, I like it a lot. Feels very interactive and right to me. I like your temple vampire too. Fresh new face on an old fave.
Man would that guy ever be the king of standard creature matchups. Great first strikers are such an interesting aspect of a format.
It is funny how 3 power guys for 2 are really never that popular. Occasionally when they are red they make some waves but I guess turn 4 plays (especially accelerated ones) and very fair removal spells do a good enough job of neutering them. Boy would that 3/2 make your shocks go farther though.
The Original Travis T:
I can't imagine this sort of card would be very good for the game. Can you imagine what something like this would do to tie breakers and pairings?`
Narcisistic Revival5BB
Enchantment (R)
At the beginning of your upkeep, return target creature card in your graveyard to the battlefield if it doesn't share a creature type with any creature on the battlefield. Even the dead pride their uniqueness.
Being a person who has played debtors knell, I always found that card pretty fair so I don't really feel like it needs to be worse. I like that you've built limitations into it, but they don't really give people too many interesting decisions to manage, more like made it randomly not as good in some games. It could probably be cheaper. People keep forgetting that reanimator spells have inherent limitations, yes they can consistently do unfair things sometimes but it's still a matter of jumping through hoops and often not having jumped through enough of them to get proper value. Right now you have a 7cc black enchantment that doesn't necessarily do anything, requires work for it to do anything, and will never do anything the turn it was cast.
Wooooo heres a good card! I like the idea of black trying to replace drawn cards with raise dead, it's usually worse than drawing a card, but it gives black cards a more mechanical flavor and edge.
LichefireBR
Instant (U)
Lichefire deal 2 damage to target creature or player, return a creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
Ah poop clerical errors, I guess I should have edited myself more! Rhetorically, you've got me there, I would ask you to read past any time my bleary over use of language gets tedious it was early in the morning here and please if there's any ideas you are having trouble with, ask. This tendency to dismiss rather than explore is actually central to what we've been talking about ( I hope I made that much clear ).
The first paragraph discusses the premise that we are all being trained by our interactions here, and broaches the subject of how inconsequential these discussions and proposed ideas are. That because we want to discuss our sweet ideas, we quickly learn the format that is most likely to get us approval / constructive interaction.
Paragraph two introduces what type of thinking is most popular here and that we are all trained to work with what I now have identified as a wrongheaded attitude. It surfaces because it is quite prevelant , and there are very few people willing to invest time in discussing cards on any other level than citing trends and the odd quote from a designer, or as you've also graciously done, offer criticism on form or simple errors. I propose that this environment / atmosphere is training people into quizmasters and test markers as opposed to designers.
The third paragraph explains how this thread is an example of this as we've offered our pal here very little help in sorting out what the impact of 3 power first strikers are and how various factors like rarity, cost, colour and context can break it or mitigate its relevance. I use it as an example that we are not interested in design or actually getting down and dirty with some of the fundamentals that RE is brining up here, we seem to be more interested in trend spotting and playing battle historian with each other.
The rest is me sorta talking directly to RE about how I hope I haven't put words in his mouth and about my experience with ground medium sized first strikers (that I could remember bleary eyes at six am).
So yeah, we are trained to write for our audience. Our audience has been trained to come at us with their history of normal magic releases and attempt to find a solid line of criticism that will be most satisfying if it sorta shuts the person down and sends them back to the drawing board (just my cynical observation). The idea here is that, he knows his audience doesn't care about his card's context, and there is an understanding that most people are playing their own test marking game. So he asks what's okay, because he's not really sure where the line is when you take out limited, because of this dumb idea of an objective too good or obsoleting cards. Never making it to standard or limited isnt a drawback the same way "cannot block" is. So 3/2 first strike for RR is a thing you can expect to have a real uphill battle discussing, despite the fact it would need a really sweet creature type to start ruining legacy.
Does that make any sense? I really just wanted to make light of the complainer sort of negative atmosphere you see a lot of here, but I guess under examination there was a much larger unsaid portion that needed to be explained to see where I was coming from.
If I've made any more use errors or mistakes, of course id appreciate your continuing to provide me with the sweet editing service and just quote the bits that give you the most grief!
Because the atmosphere here trains us to jump through silly hoops? As thought exercises we are never really at any risk of ruining formats or obsoleting (lol as if that was even a thing) precious existing designs forever, what we are trained to respond to is the criticism and disdain of our peers for our work we excitedly present to them. Even if you can handle criticism well, it's no fun when you post your lovely idea and you barely get any discussion of it because it is along the normal lines of response to just throw out some pithy precedence argument about why it cannot be and everyone else that thinks in a similar way on the board considers it case closed. We are all just trained to work in these avenues because at the end of the day this is social and very much peer based and the prevailing memes are rather oppressive or at least they create an unhelpful atmosphere.
RE may not have cared about its impact on limited, one of the only places that a card like this would matter at most of its potential costs, but he is at least somewhat a product of this way of thinking that forces him to be considerate of the history of 3/2 first strikers as if it were subject to the same context as those and also just to the way every clod on this site has trained each other into becoming a magic design quizmaster as opposed to an actual game designer.
Have you noticed here how little discussion of how 3/2s at various costs might impact or find a home in various formats and more of a discussion for the precedence for 3 power common and uncommon first strikers at various rarities. If RE was looking for help in making his set, we haven't given it too him, we've just been throwing facts at his feet about the history of similar cards in various unrelated formats in an effort to prove to him or ourselves that what he's doing is okay or dangerous.
Sorry to include you in this RE, I don't mean to put words or intentions in your mouth, I just don't think a lot of people understand how the atmosphere here affects folks and stifles discussion.
I wana ask RE what he's worried about regarding a 3 power first striker, I know I've played in a number of formats where such a creature would rule the board when it came down. I know my Rakdos Augermage would rule the board in jitte wars when it came down against any deck that was removal light enough to spend it on my dark confidant. In onslaught draft too, the puny morphs would quiver and wait to slowly turn into beasts when I had my 3/2 or 3/4 first strikers ruling the ground.
There have been other times where my 3/1 firststrikers didn't feel unblockable or like an impenetrable wall because there was a pinger in the format or a tapper or everyone could remove something with 2 or less toughness no problem.
Oh yeah, I probably should have had an addendum, in limited paying 1BB to kill things is usually great and fine. Our Alabran here pointed out how much theros has taught him about relativity. I'm usually all for that, context means a lot to me in card evaluation and also design evaluation. I'll point out that I wasn't really talking about limited when I made my post. I should have added something in there about that. A 3cc black spell that threw shade on a creature would be amazing in theros limited, well probz not amazing because they've been leaning on creatures trying to make them resilient, but it'd be pretty amazing still. I'll have you know murder would not have been so popular in the standard portion of the tournament though. Hero's downfall is even looking pretty shabby if it weren't for ghost dad, pro white and the number of planeswalkers running around in the format. Killing stuff for 3 feels really bad especially with the way they've been making creatures these days.
What's the difference between uncommon and any other rarity for a set that is not played in Limited anyway?
What if someone on a forum were to complain about how it was too strong in limited to be a reasonable uncommon!>?
Wasn't it a few sets ago you could either have a 2/2 first striker for 2R or a 3/3 one that couldn't block at common?
If it's easy to throw 2 damage around your card isn't too horrible for common, but dangerous. I would make it easy to put 2 points on something, but also make two toughness relatively vulnerable and rare.
Planeswalker - Tibalt
[+1]: Target creature gets +2/+0 until end of turn.
[-1]: Discard a card from your hand, then draw a card
[-7]: You gain an emblem that reads: "Sacrifice a permanent: Deal 1 damage to target creature or player."
[2HP]
Was thinking about this guy when I was ruminating on my friend's modern cube and thinking about how lame UG tempo has been seeming and how much more relevant combat is and how nice it is to see extra cards.
Jungle Bug 2UG
Creature - Insect (R?)
Flash, flying
When Jungle Bug enters that there battlefield, draw a card.
3/3
My initial impression is that you could probably trim an ability or a couple lines of text. 4 ability planeswalkers always strike me as a little overkill.
Next:
"We're really not so different you and I."
It is funny how 3 power guys for 2 are really never that popular. Occasionally when they are red they make some waves but I guess turn 4 plays (especially accelerated ones) and very fair removal spells do a good enough job of neutering them. Boy would that 3/2 make your shocks go farther though.
I can't imagine this sort of card would be very good for the game. Can you imagine what something like this would do to tie breakers and pairings?`
Being a person who has played debtors knell, I always found that card pretty fair so I don't really feel like it needs to be worse. I like that you've built limitations into it, but they don't really give people too many interesting decisions to manage, more like made it randomly not as good in some games. It could probably be cheaper. People keep forgetting that reanimator spells have inherent limitations, yes they can consistently do unfair things sometimes but it's still a matter of jumping through hoops and often not having jumped through enough of them to get proper value. Right now you have a 7cc black enchantment that doesn't necessarily do anything, requires work for it to do anything, and will never do anything the turn it was cast.
Wooooo heres a good card! I like the idea of black trying to replace drawn cards with raise dead, it's usually worse than drawing a card, but it gives black cards a more mechanical flavor and edge.
Lichefire BR
Instant (U)
Lichefire deal 2 damage to target creature or player, return a creature card from your graveyard to your hand.
Kinda wana bump him to 3 points.
The first paragraph discusses the premise that we are all being trained by our interactions here, and broaches the subject of how inconsequential these discussions and proposed ideas are. That because we want to discuss our sweet ideas, we quickly learn the format that is most likely to get us approval / constructive interaction.
Paragraph two introduces what type of thinking is most popular here and that we are all trained to work with what I now have identified as a wrongheaded attitude. It surfaces because it is quite prevelant , and there are very few people willing to invest time in discussing cards on any other level than citing trends and the odd quote from a designer, or as you've also graciously done, offer criticism on form or simple errors. I propose that this environment / atmosphere is training people into quizmasters and test markers as opposed to designers.
The third paragraph explains how this thread is an example of this as we've offered our pal here very little help in sorting out what the impact of 3 power first strikers are and how various factors like rarity, cost, colour and context can break it or mitigate its relevance. I use it as an example that we are not interested in design or actually getting down and dirty with some of the fundamentals that RE is brining up here, we seem to be more interested in trend spotting and playing battle historian with each other.
The rest is me sorta talking directly to RE about how I hope I haven't put words in his mouth and about my experience with ground medium sized first strikers (that I could remember bleary eyes at six am).
So yeah, we are trained to write for our audience. Our audience has been trained to come at us with their history of normal magic releases and attempt to find a solid line of criticism that will be most satisfying if it sorta shuts the person down and sends them back to the drawing board (just my cynical observation). The idea here is that, he knows his audience doesn't care about his card's context, and there is an understanding that most people are playing their own test marking game. So he asks what's okay, because he's not really sure where the line is when you take out limited, because of this dumb idea of an objective too good or obsoleting cards. Never making it to standard or limited isnt a drawback the same way "cannot block" is. So 3/2 first strike for RR is a thing you can expect to have a real uphill battle discussing, despite the fact it would need a really sweet creature type to start ruining legacy.
Does that make any sense? I really just wanted to make light of the complainer sort of negative atmosphere you see a lot of here, but I guess under examination there was a much larger unsaid portion that needed to be explained to see where I was coming from.
If I've made any more use errors or mistakes, of course id appreciate your continuing to provide me with the sweet editing service and just quote the bits that give you the most grief!
Sorry RE!
Because the atmosphere here trains us to jump through silly hoops? As thought exercises we are never really at any risk of ruining formats or obsoleting (lol as if that was even a thing) precious existing designs forever, what we are trained to respond to is the criticism and disdain of our peers for our work we excitedly present to them. Even if you can handle criticism well, it's no fun when you post your lovely idea and you barely get any discussion of it because it is along the normal lines of response to just throw out some pithy precedence argument about why it cannot be and everyone else that thinks in a similar way on the board considers it case closed. We are all just trained to work in these avenues because at the end of the day this is social and very much peer based and the prevailing memes are rather oppressive or at least they create an unhelpful atmosphere.
RE may not have cared about its impact on limited, one of the only places that a card like this would matter at most of its potential costs, but he is at least somewhat a product of this way of thinking that forces him to be considerate of the history of 3/2 first strikers as if it were subject to the same context as those and also just to the way every clod on this site has trained each other into becoming a magic design quizmaster as opposed to an actual game designer.
Have you noticed here how little discussion of how 3/2s at various costs might impact or find a home in various formats and more of a discussion for the precedence for 3 power common and uncommon first strikers at various rarities. If RE was looking for help in making his set, we haven't given it too him, we've just been throwing facts at his feet about the history of similar cards in various unrelated formats in an effort to prove to him or ourselves that what he's doing is okay or dangerous.
Sorry to include you in this RE, I don't mean to put words or intentions in your mouth, I just don't think a lot of people understand how the atmosphere here affects folks and stifles discussion.
I wana ask RE what he's worried about regarding a 3 power first striker, I know I've played in a number of formats where such a creature would rule the board when it came down. I know my Rakdos Augermage would rule the board in jitte wars when it came down against any deck that was removal light enough to spend it on my dark confidant. In onslaught draft too, the puny morphs would quiver and wait to slowly turn into beasts when I had my 3/2 or 3/4 first strikers ruling the ground.
There have been other times where my 3/1 firststrikers didn't feel unblockable or like an impenetrable wall because there was a pinger in the format or a tapper or everyone could remove something with 2 or less toughness no problem.
What if someone on a forum were to complain about how it was too strong in limited to be a reasonable uncommon!>?
Wasn't it a few sets ago you could either have a 2/2 first striker for 2R or a 3/3 one that couldn't block at common?
If it's easy to throw 2 damage around your card isn't too horrible for common, but dangerous. I would make it easy to put 2 points on something, but also make two toughness relatively vulnerable and rare.