You moved forward to justify your 'minority' as a 'true reflection of the majority'.
No i did not.
I never justified anything I merly explained all the different situations we could have here.
And you also did not "[I] explain[ed] why it's not, and just how impatient and irresponsible that really is." you went on about anti-vaxx (which I agree with user explains a lot about your approach) not in how that relates to Magic design at all.
Funny how that "Delusions of grandeur " comment comes from you.
Let's say this Forum is a proper reflection of the general consensus of the Magic player base then The people generally don't think your designs are proper or fun. If that's the case you should listen to the feedback given to you on here to improve your design skills.
Now let's say you are right and this forum isn't at all the general consensus aka just a minority. Then in the best case we don't know what the general magic playing population want or find fun but you do, If that's the case you'd still need to show us that you are correct by showing us that more players like your designs than not. If you don't want to do that why post on this forum at all If you don't/rarely listen to feedback and if you think you are correct and we are not.
In the worst case neither you nor us know what the majority wants and likes, in that case you should still listen to our feedback since that just increases your sample size and increases your chance to make more people happy with your design and improve on them sure you don't have to apply every point of feedback directly but you still should listen to it to gather what people like or dislike.
Unfortunately the other pieces in the combo are already pretty resilient to removal. Overall many of the cards that interact quite favorably with your Gisa are.
Sure in most cases you still need a sac outlet but there are enough cheap ones or ones which are resilient to removal themselves like Woe Strider or any of the many non creature sac outlets.
I think the deck user meant is the yawgmoth sacrifice decks where this would just slot in easily
what exactly stops you from playing the commander decks as "base rules" decks?
Unless you change the deck in some form, there will always be cards that references a Commander, the Command Zone, Color Identity, and multiplayer over 1 v 1.
Yes most of the time its less than 5 cards per deck which can be removed or ignored whats the problem with doing that?
Bought all planechase cards before the anthology came out and my commandergroup plays it regularly since. Before the shutdowns at least biweekly (our commander playgroup meets weekly). And while there are some randomness feelbads there are some awesome comebacks. The planechase games usually take an hour or so longer which is the biggest downside for our group as we start relatively late so we tend to have only one or two games on planechase night where we usually have 3 or 4.
We mostly play from one deck, but sometimes play the map variant or "draft" the planechase cards for the round.
I also have most of the archenemy cards and we play that much less about once every couple of months.
While I get your point Grapefruit I think its fine since its not really a longstanding tradition as it started with MH1 before that we had 3 cards with "Force of" Force of Will, Force of Savagery and Force of Nature with 2 of those not being alt cast cards.
I don't think it's a problem at this point in time to have one or two more cards with names like that that don't do alt costs.
That's not how I measure it. I do everything by heart, keeping a mental image of how much domain influence it should have abroad, when checked against every other effect, contents, and condition
So you arbitrarily say something has much or little domain influence you can always just arbitrarily change it when someone points something out so its a pretty useless measure.
Further more since noone (and I am including myself here) can check against every other effect it will always be a bad measure. But it can be helped when knowing the big players of a given format (for which the card is designed) and since you lack that part (as you said yourself you are not playing actively esp. sanctioned formats) your own measurement system with arbitrarily set values is done better by others. That is due to the fact that they usually know the main other "effects,contents and conditions" that could apply to the card.
And most people who critique your cards do not forget the other important aspects you call them risk challenge and fantasy the risk/challenge part is embedded in the floor/ceiling of a card and the fantasy part is the flavor part. People usually address those things.
With that all said both cards are fine both in wording and design.
The dragon is a good Johnny/Jenny card albeit a bit weak but that playertype usually like the challange.
Thrash Loyalties is more of a SB card for a sac deck as against a lot of decks it either gets nothing or only one creature but against the right deck it can be a nice 3 for 1. So also a bit on the weaker end but perfectly acceptable.
For Commander he is only allowed one as the only cards you can have multiples of in commander are Basic Lands and cards that specifically state that you can play more of them.
the difference being this doesn't have a drawback. In what way is having 1 life a risk during your own turn? (high cost) or (low cost + quirk) has been the template for time warp effects for decades now, and won't change anytime soon. A custom card should reflect that. If you want to template it differently, there should be good reason to do so.
Do you have a reason? If not, it needs to change.
There is a big reason. It was explained in a previous post. This spell cannot be used in a bundle of scenarios, because it will lose you the game. And even if you have a response backup, so long as it's not sufficient.
The drawback of skipping your untap step is absolutely not greater than risking losing the game.
Given that, I just think it triggers attention deficit that there would be two miracles that both allow extra turns.
Mine though certainly is more creative, and probably is the creativity that should have been shown firsthand for such a dynamic concept.
Use the card when your opponent is tapped out shuts down most of the scenarios that would lead to a game loss not being able to untap make the extra turn mute without setup since you either cant play cards/attack the turn you cast savor so you have more mana to play stuff/attack in the extra turn or you cant play stuff/attack in your extra turn since nothing of yours untap thats what i meant when saying you need more setup to make Savor the moment not into a Explore aka just drawing a card and make a land drop.
It is unlikely that one would lose the game in the extra turn one would likely not play self damaging cards on upkeep if they played your card making it wholly depending on the opponent and you can avoid that pretty easily. So the risk of losing the game is minimal with your card while the reward is huge, with Savor the risk is nonexistent but the reward is minimal great if you haven't completely build your deck around it. Making the drawback not worth it in most cases. Whereas your drawback is negligible in most cases.
And as I said before if it just changed your life to 1 even after that turn then we can talk about risk of dying and even then it would still be a pretty strong card. Then you would actually be incentivised to build your deck accordingly.
There is a reason we havent had a 5 mana unconditional extra turn card in standard for 12 Years since it's exeptionally strong.
And savor the moments drawback is significantly higher than yours since you know you need to work around that way more than yours to have it not just be a glorified 3 mana Explore for savor the moment you need to build your deck to make use of it. For your card that is not really necessary the only workaround yours has is when to play it.
Yes without miracle your card is slightly weaker than Temporal ManipulationTime WarpCapture of Jingzhou but those are still pretty strong cards and I'd argue that with miracle your card is stronger than those
No i did not.
I never justified anything I merly explained all the different situations we could have here.
And you also did not "[I] explain[ed] why it's not, and just how impatient and irresponsible that really is." you went on about anti-vaxx (which I agree with user explains a lot about your approach) not in how that relates to Magic design at all.
You did not really adress any point I made like the last time i pressed you to adress something.
Is your Modus operandi just ignore when someone makes a good point when you have no rebuttal for it.
Obscure and Deflect.
Let's say this Forum is a proper reflection of the general consensus of the Magic player base then The people generally don't think your designs are proper or fun. If that's the case you should listen to the feedback given to you on here to improve your design skills.
Now let's say you are right and this forum isn't at all the general consensus aka just a minority. Then in the best case we don't know what the general magic playing population want or find fun but you do, If that's the case you'd still need to show us that you are correct by showing us that more players like your designs than not. If you don't want to do that why post on this forum at all If you don't/rarely listen to feedback and if you think you are correct and we are not.
In the worst case neither you nor us know what the majority wants and likes, in that case you should still listen to our feedback since that just increases your sample size and increases your chance to make more people happy with your design and improve on them sure you don't have to apply every point of feedback directly but you still should listen to it to gather what people like or dislike.
GravecrawlerEdit: corrected by WizardMNGeralf's Messenger and all the other Undying creatures
Blood Ghast
Sure in most cases you still need a sac outlet but there are enough cheap ones or ones which are resilient to removal themselves like Woe Strider or any of the many non creature sac outlets.
I think the deck user meant is the yawgmoth sacrifice decks where this would just slot in easily
3 Blooming Marsh
4 Chord of Calling
1 Dryad Arbor
4 Eldritch Evolution
2 Forest
4 Geralf's Messenger
2 Grist, the Hunger Tide
1 Hapatra, Vizier of Poisons
4 Ignoble Hierarch
1 Khalni Garden
2 Nurturing Peatland
2 Overgrown Tomb
1 Prosperous Innkeeper
1 Reclamation Sage
4 Strangleroot Geist
1 Swamp
3 Twilight Mire
1 Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth
4 Verdant Catacombs
3 Wall of Roots
1 Yavimaya, Cradle of Growth
4 Yawgmoth, Thran Physician
4 Young Wolf
1 Zulaport Cutthroat
And this is a deck /combo thats viable and proven to work as it 6-0 a modern challange last
weekmonth.It would still be a fine addition even without hexproof but hexproof might put it over the top
Yes most of the time its less than 5 cards per deck which can be removed or ignored whats the problem with doing that?
We mostly play from one deck, but sometimes play the map variant or "draft" the planechase cards for the round.
I also have most of the archenemy cards and we play that much less about once every couple of months.
I don't think it's a problem at this point in time to have one or two more cards with names like that that don't do alt costs.
So you arbitrarily say something has much or little domain influence you can always just arbitrarily change it when someone points something out so its a pretty useless measure.
Further more since noone (and I am including myself here) can check against every other effect it will always be a bad measure. But it can be helped when knowing the big players of a given format (for which the card is designed) and since you lack that part (as you said yourself you are not playing actively esp. sanctioned formats) your own measurement system with arbitrarily set values is done better by others. That is due to the fact that they usually know the main other "effects,contents and conditions" that could apply to the card.
And most people who critique your cards do not forget the other important aspects you call them risk challenge and fantasy the risk/challenge part is embedded in the floor/ceiling of a card and the fantasy part is the flavor part. People usually address those things.
With that all said both cards are fine both in wording and design.
The dragon is a good Johnny/Jenny card albeit a bit weak but that playertype usually like the challange.
Thrash Loyalties is more of a SB card for a sac deck as against a lot of decks it either gets nothing or only one creature but against the right deck it can be a nice 3 for 1. So also a bit on the weaker end but perfectly acceptable.
Use the card when your opponent is tapped out shuts down most of the scenarios that would lead to a game loss not being able to untap make the extra turn mute without setup since you either cant play cards/attack the turn you cast savor so you have more mana to play stuff/attack in the extra turn or you cant play stuff/attack in your extra turn since nothing of yours untap thats what i meant when saying you need more setup to make Savor the moment not into a Explore aka just drawing a card and make a land drop.
It is unlikely that one would lose the game in the extra turn one would likely not play self damaging cards on upkeep if they played your card making it wholly depending on the opponent and you can avoid that pretty easily. So the risk of losing the game is minimal with your card while the reward is huge, with Savor the risk is nonexistent but the reward is minimal great if you haven't completely build your deck around it. Making the drawback not worth it in most cases. Whereas your drawback is negligible in most cases.
And as I said before if it just changed your life to 1 even after that turn then we can talk about risk of dying and even then it would still be a pretty strong card. Then you would actually be incentivised to build your deck accordingly.
And savor the moments drawback is significantly higher than yours since you know you need to work around that way more than yours to have it not just be a glorified 3 mana Explore for savor the moment you need to build your deck to make use of it. For your card that is not really necessary the only workaround yours has is when to play it.
Yes without miracle your card is slightly weaker than Temporal ManipulationTime WarpCapture of Jingzhou but those are still pretty strong cards and I'd argue that with miracle your card is stronger than those