Fixed error with italics, a few minor balancing tweaks, card changed:
Groundbreaker Behemoth- from "Double Strike, Groundbreaker Behemeoth must be blocked if able" to "When Groundbreaker Behemoth enters the battlefield, destroy target permanent". No other changes to the card. Is this too similar to Angel of Despair?
@5colors.
Maybe
Infiltrate (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, look at a card chosen at random from that player's hand.) or (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, that player reveals a card at random from his or her hand.)
1- Unimaginable Force (looks to be the strongest)
2- Gardener of Wisdom (seems pretty good and does something I like)
3- Cognitive Violation (looks to be the strongest)
Not exactly an experienced drafter, but that's what I would pick .
Question (to anyone): I've long thought Flash would've made a great UR evergreen mechanic (prior to prowess). Did WotC decide against making Flash a color pair evergreen mechanic because it's french vanilla?
Flash is , primary in blue, then in green, just like hexproof.
@Thought Criminal.
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying. But, "If there was something about the guilds, their identities, and their mechanics that needed to be changed since RAV block, they would have already done so in RTR" is not entirely correct. Mark Rosweater himself, the lead designer of MtG in general and of both Ravnica blocks, said that RTR was overly conservative, so things should absolutely change in the next, probably more so than between the first two. It's not just about improvement, it's about novelty.
@Legend.
And why is that? Golgari is about the graveyard, it has never been said that Golgari are about cards that work from the graveyard. Just because there is a trend doesn't mean it matters, it could easily be a coincidence (and I am pretty sure it is in this case).
@Legend.
Better. Caring about the type makes it much more relevant of a connection and is also more interesting strategically. It also might make more sense as an ability word, IDK though.
The box is their box, always. Breaking WotC rules is thinking outside the box, it is the definition of doing so, it is unconventional thinking. There is no other box, except perhaps different variations on the WotC box, which would include more or less of other general design philosophy not implemented (but still known) by WotC.
There is no point in making something unconventional if you have no reason to do so unless you are not interested in making a polished product but a just-for-fun idea. In which case, direct the debate in that direction. If you don't want to be compared to WotC, then don't put yourself in that position, very few people are going to debate whether you should be doing exactly what you want to do with your own idea if it's not trying to be much more than that.
But otherwise, you will have to stand-up to criticism. Someone questioning whether you should be breaking a convention is not the same as them saying you can't break conventions, it is them saying you might not want to. Most likely, they are trying to help you, not trying to restrict your creativity by enforcing rules on you. The conventions being followed is just practicality, they are known to produce good designs, so they are an excellent guideline for CCD. You can absolutely break them, but you must either have a good justification or must not care about making a realistic set, otherwise you are most likely making a mistake. Not because the rules are there to be followed, but because it makes sense to do so.
If you think someone is being overly conservative and restricted in their argument against your design, explain why you think so, they will probably listen and you both might benefit from reaching a better understanding. Then, if they don't listen, that's their problem, you don't have to listen either. Report them even, if they are really disruptive. But otherwise, never assume that they are so, assume they are a reasonable, decent human being and are not here to throw around words without being willing to back it up.
Convert
This mechanic, while it functions pretty well and fits into the different sections of both it's component factions (Esper and Grixis) it has no clear mechanical identity when it is centred rather than divided. Esper cares about the artifact it makes, Grixis cares about the card being discarded, so what does do? While the four colours are not supposed to do anything at all unique from their component shards, they are supposed to be distinct and convert fails in this regard. I am looking for a replacement, which is annoying because Convert #2 (death-trigger tokens) works better in this regard but has too much overlap with Naya and Jund.
If I don't replace it, another possible change could be from a 2/2 into a 1/1 flying. This way the mechanic is not only more blue (which is supposed to be a primary) but also seems more interesting.
Endurance
Is Endurance interesting enough? I'm not sure, though I am leaning towards yes. Endurance started from the idea of a toughness theme, where this was the simplest possible execution and hence more of a backup or side plan. I tried to think of a way of making a mechanic that increased toughness, where the toughness matters part is done separately rather than the other way round. I decided to use it because I couldn't think of any good toughness boosting mechanc, though Endure, a version of this, remains in my alternatives list just in case.
My other concern, albeit even less of a concern, with Endurance is the number. 5 was chosen over 4 like in Ferocious because something like a one mana 4 toughness creature is very possible whereas a one mana four power creature is much, much harder to do. I figured that toughness 4 would be too easy to get and 5 would be more equivalent to Ferocious. Development is almost certainly the solution to this, and not likely very hard one at that, but it's still something worth considering now.
@Flisch
"Trying to make things that are outside the box is a useless exercise if you don't know where the box is in the first place"
Is the thing you are missing. Your point is the same in this regard at least.
Fixed error with italics, a few minor balancing tweaks, card changed:
Groundbreaker Behemoth- from "Double Strike, Groundbreaker Behemeoth must be blocked if able" to "When Groundbreaker Behemoth enters the battlefield, destroy target permanent". No other changes to the card. Is this too similar to Angel of Despair?
Haste is still a
Maybe
Infiltrate (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, look at a card chosen at random from that player's hand.) or
(Whenever this creature deals combat damage to a player, that player reveals a card at random from his or her hand.)
2- Gardener of Wisdom (seems pretty good and does something I like)
3- Cognitive Violation (looks to be the strongest)
Not exactly an experienced drafter, but that's what I would pick
Flash is
Potentially, yes, it maybe could have been better that way.
Yeah, the same th]lksdvkjsdnkj'dnbs.IJBVi-ubdsIDSKsdv-rnngg
I'm not sure what exactly you are saying. But, "If there was something about the guilds, their identities, and their mechanics that needed to be changed since RAV block, they would have already done so in RTR" is not entirely correct. Mark Rosweater himself, the lead designer of MtG in general and of both Ravnica blocks, said that RTR was overly conservative, so things should absolutely change in the next, probably more so than between the first two. It's not just about improvement, it's about novelty.
Exactly, that is unless an official statement says so (of which there is none).
All the other
And why is that? Golgari is about the graveyard, it has never been said that Golgari are about cards that work from the graveyard. Just because there is a trend doesn't mean it matters, it could easily be a coincidence (and I am pretty sure it is in this case).
Better. Caring about the type makes it much more relevant of a connection and is also more interesting strategically. It also might make more sense as an ability word, IDK though.
The box is their box, always. Breaking WotC rules is thinking outside the box, it is the definition of doing so, it is unconventional thinking. There is no other box, except perhaps different variations on the WotC box, which would include more or less of other general design philosophy not implemented (but still known) by WotC.
There is no point in making something unconventional if you have no reason to do so unless you are not interested in making a polished product but a just-for-fun idea. In which case, direct the debate in that direction. If you don't want to be compared to WotC, then don't put yourself in that position, very few people are going to debate whether you should be doing exactly what you want to do with your own idea if it's not trying to be much more than that.
But otherwise, you will have to stand-up to criticism. Someone questioning whether you should be breaking a convention is not the same as them saying you can't break conventions, it is them saying you might not want to. Most likely, they are trying to help you, not trying to restrict your creativity by enforcing rules on you. The conventions being followed is just practicality, they are known to produce good designs, so they are an excellent guideline for CCD. You can absolutely break them, but you must either have a good justification or must not care about making a realistic set, otherwise you are most likely making a mistake. Not because the rules are there to be followed, but because it makes sense to do so.
If you think someone is being overly conservative and restricted in their argument against your design, explain why you think so, they will probably listen and you both might benefit from reaching a better understanding. Then, if they don't listen, that's their problem, you don't have to listen either. Report them even, if they are really disruptive. But otherwise, never assume that they are so, assume they are a reasonable, decent human being and are not here to throw around words without being willing to back it up.
Convert
This mechanic, while it functions pretty well and fits into the different sections of both it's component factions (Esper and Grixis) it has no clear mechanical identity when it is centred rather than divided. Esper cares about the artifact it makes, Grixis cares about the card being discarded, so what does
If I don't replace it, another possible change could be from a 2/2 into a 1/1 flying. This way the mechanic is not only more blue (which is supposed to be a primary) but also seems more interesting.
Endurance
Is Endurance interesting enough? I'm not sure, though I am leaning towards yes. Endurance started from the idea of a toughness theme, where this was the simplest possible execution and hence more of a backup or side plan. I tried to think of a way of making a mechanic that increased toughness, where the toughness matters part is done separately rather than the other way round. I decided to use it because I couldn't think of any good toughness boosting mechanc, though Endure, a version of this, remains in my alternatives list just in case.
My other concern, albeit even less of a concern, with Endurance is the number. 5 was chosen over 4 like in Ferocious because something like a one mana 4 toughness creature is very possible whereas a one mana four power creature is much, much harder to do. I figured that toughness 4 would be too easy to get and 5 would be more equivalent to Ferocious. Development is almost certainly the solution to this, and not likely very hard one at that, but it's still something worth considering now.
"Trying to make things that are outside the box is a useless exercise if you don't know where the box is in the first place"
Is the thing you are missing. Your point is the same in this regard at least.