I would simplify the payment to have it always be you paying. Currently there's a lot of different variables here and it could do with less to make it easier to comprehend and to play with. Also, reference should be Panharmonicon and Hushbringer for wording.
Favored Champions
Creature- Human Warrior (M)
If a permanent entering or leaving the battlefield would cause a triggered ability of a permanent to trigger, you may pay . If you do, choose one—
That ability does not trigger
That ability triggers an additional time.
5/4
As Panharmonicon doesn't loop, this shouldn't either.
I would also suggest making this a little cheaper and smaller to make it easier to use. The cost is a pretty significant restriction compared to Panharmonicon. This also comes with a body, but it's also more vulnerable to removal. A 4 mana 4/4 maybe.
Onogo Storyteller1G Creature - Human Druid (Rare) T: Add one mana of any color. If you control a beast creature, you gain 1 life.
0/3
Seems solid. The payoff for beasts here is a little unexciting though for a rare. Feels more like an uncommon.
I would be interested in seeing a version more like:
Onogo Storyteller1G Creature - Human Druid (Rare) T: Add one mana of any color. T: Add two mana of any one color. Spend this mana only to cast Beast spells.
0/3
That might be a bit strong, but something like that I think could be good.
Goremad Ogre2R Creature - Ogre Barbarian (Common)
Whenever Goremad Ogre and one or more beast creatures you control attack, Goremad Ogre gets +1/+1 until end of turn.
3/2
Sure.
Fangfury2GG Instant (Uncommon)
Choose one or both -
• Beast creatures you control gain indestructible and hexproof until end of turn.
• Target creature you control fights target creature you don't control.
I think the choose one or both template here is unnecessarily complex/confusing. I would do:
Fangfury2GG Instant (Uncommon)
Beast creatures you control gain indestructible and hexproof until end of turn. Target creature you control fights up to one target creature you don't control.
Wildcrag Elemental1RR Creature - Elemental Beast (Common)
Whenever Wildcrag Elemental or another beast creature enters the battlefield under your control, Wildcrag Elemental deals 1 damage to target opponent.
2/3
Actually pretty decent for a common. I like it. Helps push the archetype.
Preychaser Baloth2RG Creature - Beast (Uncommon)
Other beast creatures you control get +1/+0.
4/4
Patinapalm Savage2G Creature - Elf Druid (Uncommon)
Whenever a beast creature enters the battlefield under your control, you may draw a card.
2/2
Yep, solid designs.
Vorpalclaw Stomphowler4G Creature - Beast (Uncommon)
When Vorpalclaw Stomphowler enters the battlefield, you may destroy target artifact or enchantment.
4/4
Not much to comment on here without seeing the rest of the set. Sure.
Primal Discovery2G Sorcery (Common)
Search your library for a forest card and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
If you control a beast creature, instead search your library for a forest and/ or a mountain card, put one onto the battlefield tapped and the other into your hand, then shuffle your library.
I know it's a common, but still, this seems unnecessarily weak compared to Cultivate.
This can get non basic lands, but that isn't always relevant, especially for commons, and I don't know how if it's a good idea to interact with non basic lands here anyway.
My inclination is to do:
"Search your library for a basic land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
If you control a beast creature, instead search your library for up to two basic land cards, put one onto the battlefield tapped and the other into your hand, then shuffle your library."
I would be interested in trying a more pushed version that gets you a double Rampant Growth as well. Depends on the needs of the set I guess.
Rageclaws1R Enchantment - Aura (Uncommon)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature gets +3/+0 and has trample.
When Rageclaws is put into the graveyard from the battlefield, if it was attached to a beast, return it to your hand.
Huh. I like it. Interested in what the right stats/cost for this are. This seems like a good guess at it.
(Assuming CMC 1)
Looks good. Compared to Cabal Therapy, which WotC have suggested might be printed oneday without the flashback, this has more flexibility, but can't discard multiple copies at once. Looks strong but within reason.
A little maybe. The main thing is blue doesn't usually do life payments and combining it with card draw is a black thing. I would sooner change the cost to something like exiling cards from your graveyard.
Cloudrat Ranger3BB Creature - Giant Warrior (Uncommon)
When Cloudrat Ranger enters the battlefield, create three 1/1 black Rat creature tokens.
Tap three untapped Rats you control: Cloudrat Ranger gets +2/+0 and gains flying until end of turn.
3/3
Appropriate colour shift.
Vengevoice2WW Creature - Angel (Mythic)
Flying
Whenever you cast a spell, if it's the second creature spell you cast this turn, you may return Vengevoice from your graveyard to the battlefield.
4/3
Oooh vengevine in white is a nice idea. White could do with more of this sort of value card.
Heretical Act8B
Sorcery (Rare)
This spell costs 1 less to cast for each creature on the battlefield.
Creatures get -13/-13 until end of turn.
Sure. This is stronger than Blasphemous Act overall, and I wonder whether it's a bit much. Black is supposed to be strong at removal though, so maybe not.
Phyrexian Laboratory1UU Enchantment (Rare)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life and draw a card.
I don't think this works in blue. It's not a break, but it's not an effect blue needs to have and encroaches on black's space. Could be justified if it worked really well with the set's themes I guess, but otherwise I'd say not.
Accelerated Procession3R Enchantment (Rare)
If an effect would create one or more creature tokens under your control, it creates twice that many of those tokens instead. Those tokens have haste and "At the beginning of the end step, sacrifice this token."
Slightly scary in the burst potential, think Sneak Attack, but, by comparison, I don't think that will be so easy to pull off that it's a problem.
Magic SlipU Instant (Common)
Counter target noncreature spell unless it's controller pays 1.
Morbid - Counter that spell unless it's controller pays 13 instead if a creature died this turn.
The 13 tax is nice as a reference to Tragic Slip, but with tragic slip I think the very high number works better, here I think it reads a lot more awkwardly, the high number feels more arbitrary and unnecessary by comparison. I would say just make this 'counter that spell instead'.
Knight of MarrowgrainBR Creature - Kithkin Knight (Uncommon)
First strike, lifelink
2/2
Just plain good design. Nothing to complain about here. Interesting combination of keywords for the colours- lifelink is rarely used on cards compared to or , which I guess is partly due to often being pushed as more aggressive. I think it's a cool idea to throw in some more for .
Dualcaster Sage1UU Creature - Human Wizard (Rare)
When Dualcaster Sage enters the battlefield, copy target artifact or creature spell.
2/2
This needs flash to function, and I think would line things up better anyway.
Timberbolt1G Instant (Uncommon)
Choose one -
• Target creature gets +3/+0 until end of turn.
• Timberbolt deals 4 damage to target creature with flying.
I would suggest TimberboltG Instant (Uncommon)
Choose one -
• Target creature gets +3/+0 until end of turn.
• Timberbolt deals 3 damage to target creature with flying.
I think that's too good.
The second effect on its own is fairly good for that cost, let alone with the tap ability on top.
I question whether this is actually a fun effect even if balanced more appropriately. Just has the potential to bring games to a grinding halt, largely invalidating most of your opponents' creatures. Looks brutal to play against.
I don't like it, simply.
Yes, certainly not in the sense you were describing
And if they were intentionally pushing toxic players out of their community, I wouldn't find that to be abuse. Not a very difficult concept, really. Which part are you unable to understand?
Abuse as in "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse", yes I think it would be abusive. Moderating the community should be done through much better, more calculated means.
Yes, you have posted in this thread. My point stands. If anything, it is made stronger.
Good to know.
Moderating the community should be done in a better way than releasing a product that might offend a vocal minority within it? Do tell us how you think that is abusive.
Intentionally designing products specifically to try to exclude people you don't like is designing products with a bad effect, bad purpose, and not how products are supposed to be designed. Hence, as per the definition provided, that would be abusive use of product design.
Releasing products 'that might offend a vocal minority' is not, but that's not what you said and you know it.
I mean, yeah, it is good to know, as good to know as you stating that you've posted.
This is very circular. Do you have a point? Is there a different lingua franca we could be using to communicate this more accurately? I generally mostly know English, but I could try a different dialect of it.
Do *you* have a point?
I've made my argument/s about what I think of this product. If you'd like to respond to that, feel free. But gesturing vaguely at how you don't like other peoples' arguments is not going to be constructive. What am I supposed to say in response to "I have yet to see a reasonable criticism of this product that doesn't boil down to a slipepry slope fallacy, entitlement, or just plain emotional knee jerk foolishness"? Try to debate whether or not some of the criticisms I and other have made are reasonable? Why would I do all the work for you? I'll respond to your argument against my argument when you've actually made one.
So your answer to a certain amount of toxic attitudes within the community is for the company who controls the game to abuse their power by intentionally screwing with those players to try to essentially bully them out of participating in the game?
Yes, we're promoting a very healthy community here.
WotC as a for-profit company is incentivized to push the limits and see what it can get away in order to get the most money it can possibly get from players. If you don't have any interest in separating the reasonable criticisms (whether or not you fully agree with them) from the toxic attitudes and chalk it all up to the rather simplistic sense of 'entitlement', you're getting in the way of the pushback the community needs in order to keep the affordability of the game in line.
How is anyone at WotC or Hasbro "abusing their power" though? There is no intentionally screwing with or bullying players who are upset about literally anything. If they feel like enough is enough, they're free to quit. Whiners gonna whine.
So you don't think it would abusing WotC's power to intentionally push players out of the game because you don't think it would be possible to intentionally do that, the thing you wanted?
Interesting take.
I have yet to see a reasonable criticism of this product that doesn't boil down to a slipepry slope fallacy, entitlement, or just plain emotional knee jerk foolishness. If you have such something that doesn't fall into one of those categories, why not post it in one of the 11 pages here, or the 900 threads on Reddit, or the 10,000 posts on Facebook or the...
I have posted in this thread.
I don't think that they are abuaing their power.
Yes, certainly not in the sense you were describing
And if they were intentionally pushing toxic players out of their community, I wouldn't find that to be abuse. Not a very difficult concept, really. Which part are you unable to understand?
Abuse as in "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse", yes I think it would be abusive. Moderating the community should be done through much better, more calculated means.
Yes, you have posted in this thread. My point stands. If anything, it is made stronger.
I honestly hope this entire thing was constructed to push a certain entitled segment of the playerbase out of the game.
So your answer to a certain amount of toxic attitudes within the community is for the company who controls the game to abuse their power by intentionally screwing with those players to try to essentially bully them out of participating in the game?
Yes, we're promoting a very healthy community here.
WotC as a for-profit company is incentivized to push the limits and see what it can get away in order to get the most money it can possibly get from players. If you don't have any interest in separating the reasonable criticisms (whether or not you fully agree with them) from the toxic attitudes and chalk it all up to the rather simplistic sense of 'entitlement', you're getting in the way of the pushback the community needs in order to keep the affordability of the game in line.
How is anyone at WotC or Hasbro "abusing their power" though? There is no intentionally screwing with or bullying players who are upset about literally anything. If they feel like enough is enough, they're free to quit. Whiners gonna whine.
So you don't think it would abusing WotC's power to intentionally push players out of the game because you don't think it would be possible to intentionally do that, the thing you wanted?
Interesting take.
I have yet to see a reasonable criticism of this product that doesn't boil down to a slipepry slope fallacy, entitlement, or just plain emotional knee jerk foolishness. If you have such something that doesn't fall into one of those categories, why not post it in one of the 11 pages here, or the 900 threads on Reddit, or the 10,000 posts on Facebook or the...
I honestly hope this entire thing was constructed to push a certain entitled segment of the playerbase out of the game.
So your answer to a certain amount of toxic attitudes within the community is for the company who controls the game to abuse their power by intentionally screwing with those players to try to essentially bully them out of participating in the game?
Yes, we're promoting a very healthy community here.
WotC as a for-profit company is incentivized to push the limits and see what it can get away in order to get the most money it can possibly get from players. If you don't have any interest in separating the reasonable criticisms (whether or not you fully agree with them) from the toxic attitudes and chalk it all up to the rather simplistic sense of 'entitlement', you're getting in the way of the pushback the community needs in order to keep the affordability of the game in line.
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/159890858953/hello-maro-today-is-my-birthday-and-i-was#notes
Could do Advisor or Knight in
Could also do a little rearranging and go for:
My thoughts would be
Favored Champions
Creature- Human Warrior (M)
If a permanent entering or leaving the battlefield would cause a triggered ability of a permanent to trigger, you may pay
- That ability does not trigger
- That ability triggers an additional time.
5/4As Panharmonicon doesn't loop, this shouldn't either.
I would also suggest making this a little cheaper and smaller to make it easier to use. The
Seems solid. The payoff for beasts here is a little unexciting though for a rare. Feels more like an uncommon.
I would be interested in seeing a version more like:
Onogo Storyteller 1G
Creature - Human Druid (Rare)
T: Add one mana of any color.
T: Add two mana of any one color. Spend this mana only to cast Beast spells.
0/3
That might be a bit strong, but something like that I think could be good.
Sure.
I think the choose one or both template here is unnecessarily complex/confusing. I would do:
Fangfury 2GG
Instant (Uncommon)
Beast creatures you control gain indestructible and hexproof until end of turn. Target creature you control fights up to one target creature you don't control.
Actually pretty decent for a common. I like it. Helps push the archetype.
Hmmmm...
Interesting. Based on other cards like Bronzehide Lion this should be fine. Reminds me of Wooly Thoctar and Isamaru, Hound of Konda.
A touch on the bland side, but it has its appeal I guess.
Yep, solid designs.
Not much to comment on here without seeing the rest of the set. Sure.
I know it's a common, but still, this seems unnecessarily weak compared to Cultivate.
This can get non basic lands, but that isn't always relevant, especially for commons, and I don't know how if it's a good idea to interact with non basic lands here anyway.
My inclination is to do:
"Search your library for a basic land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
If you control a beast creature, instead search your library for up to two basic land cards, put one onto the battlefield tapped and the other into your hand, then shuffle your library."
I would be interested in trying a more pushed version that gets you a double Rampant Growth as well. Depends on the needs of the set I guess.
Huh. I like it. Interested in what the right stats/cost for this are. This seems like a good guess at it.
Another sure.
Looks good. Compared to Cabal Therapy, which WotC have suggested might be printed oneday without the flashback, this has more flexibility, but can't discard multiple copies at once. Looks strong but within reason.
Appropriate colour shift.
Oooh vengevine in white is a nice idea. White could do with more of this sort of value card.
Sure. This is stronger than Blasphemous Act overall, and I wonder whether it's a bit much. Black is supposed to be strong at removal though, so maybe not.
I don't think this works in blue. It's not a break, but it's not an effect blue needs to have and encroaches on black's space. Could be justified if it worked really well with the set's themes I guess, but otherwise I'd say not.
Slightly scary in the burst potential, think Sneak Attack, but, by comparison, I don't think that will be so easy to pull off that it's a problem.
The 13 tax is nice as a reference to Tragic Slip, but with tragic slip I think the very high number works better, here I think it reads a lot more awkwardly, the high number feels more arbitrary and unnecessary by comparison. I would say just make this 'counter that spell instead'.
Just plain good design. Nothing to complain about here. Interesting combination of keywords for the colours- lifelink is rarely used on
This needs flash to function, and I think would line things up better anyway.
What card is this referencing? Lightning Bolt?
I would suggest
Timberbolt G
Instant (Uncommon)
Choose one -
• Target creature gets +3/+0 until end of turn.
• Timberbolt deals 3 damage to target creature with flying.
Compared to Giant Growth and Aerial Volley, I think this would reasonable.
The second effect on its own is fairly good for that cost, let alone with the tap ability on top.
I question whether this is actually a fun effect even if balanced more appropriately. Just has the potential to bring games to a grinding halt, largely invalidating most of your opponents' creatures. Looks brutal to play against.
I don't like it, simply.
Intentionally designing products specifically to try to exclude people you don't like is designing products with a bad effect, bad purpose, and not how products are supposed to be designed. Hence, as per the definition provided, that would be abusive use of product design.
Releasing products 'that might offend a vocal minority' is not, but that's not what you said and you know it.
Do *you* have a point?
I've made my argument/s about what I think of this product. If you'd like to respond to that, feel free. But gesturing vaguely at how you don't like other peoples' arguments is not going to be constructive. What am I supposed to say in response to "I have yet to see a reasonable criticism of this product that doesn't boil down to a slipepry slope fallacy, entitlement, or just plain emotional knee jerk foolishness"? Try to debate whether or not some of the criticisms I and other have made are reasonable? Why would I do all the work for you? I'll respond to your argument against my argument when you've actually made one.
Yes, certainly not in the sense you were describing
Abuse as in "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse", yes I think it would be abusive. Moderating the community should be done through much better, more calculated means.
Good to know.
So you don't think it would abusing WotC's power to intentionally push players out of the game because you don't think it would be possible to intentionally do that, the thing you wanted?
Interesting take.
I have posted in this thread.
So your answer to a certain amount of toxic attitudes within the community is for the company who controls the game to abuse their power by intentionally screwing with those players to try to essentially bully them out of participating in the game?
Yes, we're promoting a very healthy community here.
WotC as a for-profit company is incentivized to push the limits and see what it can get away in order to get the most money it can possibly get from players. If you don't have any interest in separating the reasonable criticisms (whether or not you fully agree with them) from the toxic attitudes and chalk it all up to the rather simplistic sense of 'entitlement', you're getting in the way of the pushback the community needs in order to keep the affordability of the game in line.