MTG Salvation

@Apoquallyp.
You can playtest in whatever way you want, just as you can jump out a window anytime. That doesn't make it a good idea. R&D is the only authority on MtG plytesting, they know what they are doing. You can change plenty of things while still being effective because it's not the same creating custom cards as real ones (as you say what works for R&D isn't necessarily the always the best), but if you want to do it well, the intelligent choice is to imitate R&D in most scenarios. Costing the card as average allows things to be compared by design not by power level of costing, the flatter the power level, the better you can see this.
You say the design is bad, costing it at a flat power level would allow you to better judge whether this is true. Making decisions like that are what you are doing when costing at a flat power level. You can jump the process, but with enough experience, this should rarely ever be a good idea as you can avoid it in the first place. Design is far from an easy process, I won't claim to know the answer nor will I say R&D do, but I think what I have just said is a good precedent at least.

@Jaxck.
Just going to ignore me? You keep telling me that I am being non-constructive and then when I respond you keep ignoring me? Are you really busy or something or do you just not care enough to say anything in response? Even just a 'I don't want to talk about it' would be better than this. I am just commenting honestly and providing genuine feedback, if what I am doing is a problem, tell me what exactly I am doing that makes it so. Until you do, I am not going to do anything different.

EDIT: Anyway, this should move soon on before it becomes inappropriate for the thread.

Tritop Rager is pretty strong. Could be too much.
Jungle Fall might be a stretch colour-wise, but I guess it's okay as a one-of.
Barbadora should have a may to avoid your opponent taking advantage of it to LD you.

I'll consider changes for Cast Out, any suggestions?

I NEVER said that I don't see the value in 'Ruin'. In fact, NONE of my comments were entirely negative. Every single on of my arguments against 'Ruin' were done using words like 'maybe'. At no point was I just bashing the idea, at no point was I being non-constructive. All of my criticisms were given entirely with the intent to HELP you. And these are all in relation to the discussion of the problem of implementation only. I am not going to stop commenting in the way I do unless I am actually doing anything different than anybody would expect.
You are accusing me of being aggressive and overly negative, but by doing so I cannot help but feel that you may be doing exactly the same. I could all kinds of offensive things, insulting you and your designs, but I am not. I am trying to be polite here, providing feedback that I think is genuinely useful and doing so with justification and suggestions for improvement. What am I doing wrong? If I am actually causing serious offence to you, please, tell me exactly what I said that was out of place. If you can provide a valid argument I will be happy to listen to it and take action to rectify any problems I am causing. But I will also ask you to take my comments more casually, as it is a mistake to do otherwise, and read further into what I am trying to say because to me it seems that I am doing no wrong.

I hope we can come to some kind of conclusion because this seems to be an ongoing issue, and I am trying to solve it fairly. Thank you.

UPDATE:

Usual tweaks, cards added, more archetypes added to OP.

The second to last of my Runin archetypes. This one is based around +1/+1 counters, featuring reinforce strongly, as it represents the vast majority of cards that put +1/+1 counters on creatures. Key cards for this strategy are reinforce cards, cards that support +1/+1 counters, creatures that work well to put counters on and protection/disruption to pull in the victory.

Call to the Vordr ( )
Instant (R)
Put a 2/2 white spirit creature token and a 2/2 green dryad creature token onto the battlefield
Reinforce 2 ( ) ( , Discard this card: Put two +1/+1 counters on target creature.)
Efficient reinforce cost and base card, even more efficient together.

Alesava, Voice of the Forest ( )
Legendary Creature- Elf Warrior (R)
Hexproof
Whenever any number of +1/+1 counters are placed on a creature you control, put that many 1/1 green saproling creature tokens onto the battlefield.
2/3
The green rare legend, load up on counters and get more creatures than you'll need.

Skybreaker's Passing ( )
Instant (R)
Exile target creature or enchantment with converted mana cost 3 or less.
Reinforce 1 ( ) ( , Discard this card: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.)
Clear out cheap obstacles so you can gain the advantage, reinforce when you don't need to.

Rising Champion ( )
Creature- Human Warrior (U)
Other creatures you control get +1/+1 as long as Rising Champion has a +1/+1 counter on it.
3/3
Can turns your creature base into a deadly strike, acts as a combat trick with reinforce.

Rampant Wurm ( )
Creature- Wurm (U)
Rampant Wurm has trample as long as it has a +1/+1 counter on it.
When Rampant Wurm enters the battlefield, return target card with reinforce from your graveyard to your hand.
4/4
Very much a build around uncommon for this archetype.

Deepwood Ranger ( )
Creature- Elf Warrior (U)
Flash
Reinforce 3 ( ) ( , Discard this card: Put three +1/+1 counters on target creature.)
3/3
Counters if you want them, creature if you don't. Same same but different.

Watchkeep Captain ( )
Creature- Human Soldier (U)
Whenever a +1/+1 counter is placed on a creature you control, untap that creature.
2/2
Turns reinforce into even more of a combat trick.

Honourable Strike ( )
Instant (U)
Destroy target attacking or blocking creature
Reinforce 1 ( ) ( , Discard this card: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.)
Cheap, easy to get removal and it has reinforce? Be careful, this triggers Honoured. Skill testing card in limited.

Arm With Faith ( )
Instant (U)
Put a +1/+1 counter on up to two target creatures.
Fated ( ) (As you draw this card, you may reveal it and pay .)
When Arm with Faith becomes fated, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.
One of the only ways to get +1/+1 counters other than reinforce.

Alesan Druid ( )
Creature- Elf Druid (C)
When Alesan Druid enters the battlefield, put a +1/+1 counter on another target creature
Reinforce 1 ( ) ( , Discard this card: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.)
1/1
Cheap counters to get your deck rolling.

Thornback Roamer ( )
Creature- Beast (C)
Reinforce 3 ( ) ( , Discard this card: Put three +1/+1 counters on target creature.)
3/3
Stock reinforce creature, nothing much else.

Guard of the Realm ( )
Creature- Elf Warrior (C)
Honoured- When Guard of the Realm dies, if it attacked or blocked this turn, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature you control
3/2
Good common to put counters on, goes well with white honoured cards you might pick up

Plow Hauler ( )
Creature- Ox (C)
When Plow Hauler enters the battlefield, you gain 2 life.
2/4
Value common to put counters on.

Aspirant of Daramr ( )
Creature- Human Soldier (C)
Reinforce ( ) ( , Discard this card: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.)
1/1
Very cheap reinforce creature to start putting counters on.

Urasus Ambassador ( )
Creature- Human Advisor (C)
Urasus Ambassador gets +1/+1 and has vigilance as long as you control a creature with a +1/+1 counter on it.
2/4
Solid common with incentive to encourage the archetype.

-

Thanks for reading. , the final archetype is coming soon.

I don't think this is easier to implement than DFC, their main issue is logistics because of the way cards are printed. They have plenty of other issues, but they would be used a lot more often it not for logistics. Ruin on the other hand, seems to be very difficult to find an implementation that works very well, and it doesn't have nearly as much appeal as DFC in terms of design. It's a good idea, but DFC is better generally as they would be a staple if magic was only digital.

No, the goal in a playtest is not to see how powerful a card can be. The goal is to see what power level it should be, ONCE the set has completed design (i.e. cards are playtested first for design quality). Power level should never be determined in a vacuum, it is always relative to the set. Some cards are designed and/or developed with only constructed formats in mind, but this is still relative to the set in that you can only have so many of those card and they still need to make some sense in their design and balancing in limited. Cards when created by R&D are costed to be average at first, then progressively increased, or not, until they are at the appropriate level. It is always the sort of doctrine of 'good until proved weak', or overpowered very occasionally. Given that R&D are the only professionals at magic design, their advice should be taken in most circumstances. Play with the card at 5, because it is the better cost to observe true power level of a design. At higher power levels it is harder to get a sense of this because the card tends to just win games well, you don't get a very good comparison. (this one of the main reasons R&D do it this way).

Dragon-Style Twins isn't as weak as you would think. If the current standard were a little different it could be good. Anyway I said to balance based on Twins, not balance at the exact same power level. Just in relation to, using it as a reference. Power-level is best done conservatively in design, power cards can break playtests before you get to real balancing.

@sirgog.
Yeah, the rules and practicality problems are much more frustrating when everything else is working well. One of the hardest parts of design is taking a good idea and throwing it away because it's not working in practice. I know partly because one of my earliest mechanics was like this. Ruin looks like it might be the same. Don't give up yet, though, not quite yet.

Should cost based on Dragon-Style Twins.

The thing is, if there's a lot of work or shortcuts involved in simply making something work, you have to re-evaluate whether what you are doing is actually worth it. I'm not sure if 'Ruin' is actually worth how many complicating issues that would have to be worked around. I have yet to see a version that I would be happy with and not just grudgingly accept as an option.

Counters are functionally different from double-faced cards, so are any other method. Things can care about double-faced cards, so if DFC's are used, it needs to be consistent. The overlay's can be used to simulate it effectively, and counters can also. But counters are more misleading and create more complexity in remembering what they do.

My question is, what are you really doing different with this? If you are going to be redesigning things, why not include some more fundamental changes that can't be done in modern day due to history? Like enchantment creatures from the start, better use of keywording (e.g. milling becomes discard cards from the library), modern development to allow more free card design.