Since they already have more than a fighting chance with this heavily undercosted and superpowered extra turn spell the extra "restriction" Wizard proposed are fine.
Players will already be unable to use this if they have any effects that cause them to lose life at the beginning of their upkeep. They won't be able to use it in the face of burn, or pingers, vampiric damage, life sapping counterspells, and so on.
Except you are already in blue and control when the spell is cast so all those issues are minor since you will cast this either when you have protection up, are sure the opponent cant do any damage or you lose anyway and casting this is a last ditch effort to draw/do something to win the game.
And if you insist the card to do what you intended to do anyways then word it that way FetalTadpole's wording for example.
//
Take an extra turn after this one. At the beginning of that turns upkeep your life total becomes 1. At the beginning of that turns end step gain life equal to the life lost that turn.
//
This is the shortest I could think of that should work within the rules.
However I already think even if the Life stays at one I still think this is a overpowered card where the card it was (presumably) inspired from Temporal Mastery Costs 7 mana and exiles itself where as your card costs 4 (two colored but still 3 mana less) has a drawback that is negligeble as you cast it when the coast is clear anyway.
Nevermind that your version is easier to miracle.
It's just that the only way to spell it out is kind of incoherent.
It's not really necessary, since the context could suggest that 'only during that turn' specifically.
I figured this would be a nice, easy one for you all. Here comes the underhand softball. Go'head, knock it out of the park.
Yeah but the rules work the way they do and as you have been told time and time again it is bad design to change the rules to fit your cards if there are ways to do it without needing that. WizardMNs solution is a not 1 to 1 solution but one which makes it similar enough isn't as cluttered as the alternative.
Golden Opportunity2WU Sorcery
Take an extra turn after this one. During that turn, your life total becomes 1.
Miracle 1 [i](You may cast this card for its miracle cost when you draw it if it's the first card you draw this turn.)
I am guessing you want the life to go back to normal after that turn, if that's the case this card doesn't do that it would be 1 even after.
If that is your intent with that card it is too strong IMO since the 2 drawbacks (being at one for a turn and being 2 colored) are too little for a n effect that costs 5 usually. Adding to that being able to miracle it for 2 makes it broken.
If your intent was the same as the card currently functions (Setting your like to 1 even after that turn) it's still strong (and probably still broken) but not that bad as what I imagine you intented.
In both cases I think this needs an exile clause like most modern Instant/sorcery based extra turn spells to prevent easy recursion shenannigans.
Also I Personally would drop the miracle as it adds a lot of power to an already extremly overpowered card.
P.S. There is a way to word it to make it do what you (probably) intended.
Thanks for your Calvin and Hobbs explanation. But you realize if you turned that in to your teacher you would get an F.
Same as your card designs when you hand in something that doesn't work you can't just ask the teacher to grade it as it was intended/implied. If your assignement is to make a Magic card and you make something that does not work as such you'd get an F.
If they are a good teacher they'd tell you what you could do to make your intentions work (Like how many people here try to make your card do what you want it to do).
I am glad that you now atleast listen to some of that help to make it work.
Now for the Final Version
Impulsive Wish U/R mana
Sorcery
As you cast Impulsive Wish, you may place the top four cards of your library outside of the game.
Put a random card placed outside of the game by a card named Impulsive Wish into your hand.
He wished for disgrace, but not for the means to foresee his own.
Final version.
(The quote is here so people know what version I am referring to since you might edit it which makes it difficult sometimes to follow a thread since its hard to get what people are talking about)
It's ok it's an interesting take on cantrips I agree that it is (especially the first played instance) nothing more than something like a thought scour that "places outside the game" instead of milling cards. I do not think people will use these to power up their wishes since there are more cards that recur stuff from graveyard than wishes and in addition the cards "placed outside the game" are still just random cards from your deck whereas with a wish its easier to get a silver bullet from you SB. In your example it would be easier just to have both in SB in the first place when you are playing burning wish anyway since you are never guaranteed to "place outside the game" the banefire and when you draw your wish but dont have banefire "potg" and you need that kind of effect you'd get demonfire anyway. (unless you have both in sb which would be best practice anyway when playing wish) And if it were in your graveyard instead of "Potg" there are more than 3 ways in red to get it out of there and in your hand with wishes there would only be 3 (wish , burning wish and your card).
Where I think your card gets interesting is in multiples since you don't have to "potg" on the second one and outside the game is an open zone for you it basically becomes U/R draw a card (might be one from the ones that got put there earlier) or draw a random card out of the 3 you placed there earlier which might be an interesting choice to make.
Powerwise I'd think its 2/5 not too strong due to sorcery speed but fine enough in some decks
Designwise i'd give it a 3/5 as it certainly looks interesting but most of that fades away since the use of putting random cards outside of the game isn't well used and could have just as easily been exile as it would have opened up a litte more designspace that way and still make it less complex in the process.
I would fully undestand all this upset behavior over UB if would actually substract something to the game. Like, for example, less or no more standard or core sets, stopping to develop a lore of the magic story, a real contamination between magic multiverse and other IP worlds.
But no. It will concern the game only in the terms of supplementals set, they will not even affect standard, and their lore is totally separate and still non-existent within in-game real lore. As a Vorthosian myself I'm perfectly cool with it.
This is simply an element that is not substractive, but addictive to the game, and therefore, making in more richer and makes happy anybody that loves their favorite IP portrait officially as magic cards.
Well we have the D&D set it is not supposed to be part of UB but it is a nondirect lore and is is there insetead of the core set. Furthermore fore some it is substractive it substracts their immersion. And while I agree it is silly to get up and leave midgame i can fully understand them not wanting to play against UB and asking the other person to play a different deck for the next time or using the deck with the UB cards less often. The same already happens both in format choice and level of competetiveness and this might just add the flavor level as well.
For people who dislike UB in general its similar to people that don't like lets say Planeswalkers you add something but that something detracts their enjoyment, there are people that quit bc of planeswalkers just as there will be people that do because of UB.
There will be plenty of people who will enjoy UB (and plenty of them) that's why I think this is at least a step in the right direction (with the mtg flavored reprints) But all that could have been avoided by making them either silver bordered or Godzilla treatment from the start. (I'd like silver bordered more since I don't want to see UB cards in a tournament setting but I am ok with Godzilla treatment since atleast I dont have to play with the UB versions.
so after watching the crocodile and the goat video here's my feedback:
Production wise when you add background Music set that volume a bit down and/or choose something that has consistent volume as sometimes the music is as loud as you which makes you hard to understand sometimes IMO.
I would love for sample decklists to be included though that probably would make the research time longer for you
It really doesn't. And this has already been discussed and explained in detail.
Apparently it hasn't since everyone here knows how it works and tells you but you just don't accept it. The reason Prime time works multiple times and disenchant doesn't is since it has 2 triggering situations just like Elder Gargaroth triggers both on attacking and blocking. Disenchant doesn't have a Trigger the or here references the choosing of targets.
Still waiting on an explanation on your math as well but it looks like just like you try to work the rules to work for your card instead of the other way around you do the same for math. With card game rules it's just bad design with the math it is factually wrong. Seems to be your modus operandi is use big words to sound smart an when somebody points to a flaw either say its not your fault its the fault of the ruleset, avoid talking about it or more big hollow words where you either don't know the meaning of or go back into "The ruleset of english is at fault" mode (Since you mean sth different with an established word and its not your fault that not everyone else uses it correctly)
These are terms I coined to describe my method of systematic mathematical proportion in tcg deck structure. And now we are getting too off topic.
That you coind them checks out since this is not the first time you use words despite those words meaning different things.
Systematic there seems to be hardly any system to it as the math you showed doesn't do anything Probability related or even proportion related and the other one you won't explain.
I'm just going to describe that you are finding the average and that's not within the method of systematic mathematical proportion that I use, and have proven immensely accurate and successful.
So you are saying Proven mathematical concepts (that don't calculate averages, like at all) work worse at calculating the same thing as your Unexplained, unproven method. If you can't explain it with math that is actually proven to do the things it set's out to do it can never be more accurate (or accurate at all).
Additionally, I would suggest you don't test any of my decks online, but try them on tabletop. The online venue had corruption issues that I wasn't able to resolve despite vehement and persistent efforts. But apparently, corruptee fed kiddies were/are pirating card codes and set up a racket there, so it doesn't surprise me at all.
To test that out your "method of systematic mathematical proportion" One would not need to use PKMN or MTG cards so that online thing and the "corruption" thing doesn't matter since mathematically it doesn't matter if it's TCGs or uno cards .But since you added that in it just sounds like the old "the Shuffler is broken in this game , in paper this never happens" which in most cases is just plain wrong and delusional if not outright admittance that you don't shuffle properly.
The calculator is not finding the average thats not how hypergeometric calculations work.
Here is the Definition
In probability theory and statistics, the hypergeometric distribution is a discrete probability distribution that describes the probability of k successes (random draws for which the object drawn has a specified feature) in n draws, without replacement, from a finite population of size N that contains exactly K objects with that feature, wherein each draw is either a success or a failure.
Which describes drawing cards from a Deck exactly with k being the amount of cards we want to get in the starting hand(1+). n being our starting hand (7) out of N (60) cards with K being the amount of cards we play that we want to get.
Percentile clench and over 100% Probability are not a thing in probability calculations.
What you mean with procentile clecnh is just the probability of drawing a card from a certain set of cards thus hypergeometric distribution to calculate that, and that never goes above 100% since thats not thing in ANY probability calculation. The highest it can go is 100%
The Math you Provided for the 47/48 % doesn't calculate anything as far as probability goes.
You didn't provide how you came to the "184% percentile clench"
So care to backup your Math since the numbers don't add up if you have a four of the chance of having one or more in your starting hand is (given a deck of size 60 which is the minimum for contructed decks) is ~ 39,9% (which you can calculate yourself on sites like stattrek which is significantly lower than your number. If you mean with mulligan the number goes up depending on how low you are willing to go.
With willingness to go to 6 its:
(about 60% to see no copy of a chosen card in your starting seven again check for your self on sites like stattreck so)
The chance to get it in the first hand + the chance to not get it in the first but the second so
0,399+ (0,60*0,399) = 0,399 + 0,239 = 0,638 = 63,8% and that is significantly higher than your number and just goes up from there up to about 97% if your willing to go to one.
if you have 7 of a card (so 3/4 split of similar cards) the base chance is not 82% like you said but about 60% (again you can check for your self on math sites )
The way that probability works, percentages at or below the 50% threshold actually play out with less success than they suggest they have. So 4 copies is going to play out worse than 50% across 5 games.
No that is not how probability works you are right that just because the probability is like 50% that does not mean 50% of 5 games you are going to have it it means your chance is in each of those games is 50% chance to have it the the "threshold of 50%" or any arbitrary number you plug in doesn't matter about that. And it can play out worse or better not just worse. What you essentially said was if I flip a coin 5 times and I said head five times there is no possibility that it lands on it 3 times or more which is not the case.
I think what you meant is the chance to have it 3+/5 times which is the same as not having it 3+/5 times if the chance is 50% so even if you meant that that was just mathematically wrong.
So giving all that I'd like you to back up your math.
Edit: Removed An Error I made Point hasn't changed.
I mean, by that same argument, isn't 1v1 Commander a sign that WotC is trying to get rid of the Partner mechanic?
No, because Partner is a mechanic actually made by WotC done multiple times, and the recent set Commander Legends proves they crazy love the mechanic and will to put it in future sets as well.
On the other hand, not a single card in Magic that was made for commander ever mention the existence of Commander Damage. We have cards that outright mention commanders and command zone, but nothing that cares about commander damages. Which means that if this rules wouldn't exist, it would literally change nothing to the life to new players approaching to the format because not a single card would ever need an errata to fix that.
I think he meant the fact that in MTGO 1v1 commander partner does not work you cant have 2 commanders.
"Putting codes in these products to get the same cards in MTG-Arena is basically free for WotC and they should absolutely do it for all products." I think besides wizards themselves that is something everyone can get behind.
Using such a league system is a good idea to sell the product. And sorf of solution to a Point I totally forgot about LGS were often sitting on lots of non commander precons like the theme decks etc. so for them it is just not profitable to buy that many if any to sell, I think that also helped the decline of set specific regular precons.
I think in my whole life as Magic Player I've only bought like 4 different set associated 60Card precons and none of those were to play precons vs. precons. That may have been due to how I got into Magic which was Playing with a friends deck and ultimately building a deck from his cards and buying it off of him.
I personally never found any appeal in the 60card set associated precons mainly because the Limiting Cardpool since most of the cards have to come from the same set, and also that they spread the decks thinly so you only get a one of card that works really well with the core mechanic and like 4 different one offs of cards that have litte to no conection to the decks theme instead of multiples of the cards that kinda make the deck. That always lead me even with the limited amount of precons I bought either not play them or like changing out more than 50% of the cards before even playing.
I do remember the time when I didn't have an MTGO account yet and playing the trial but I found for me It became really boring after a couple of games. I mean I do like the "board game appeal" but I personally don't think Setprecons is the way to go for that as even just casually those are pretty underwhelming and don't show of what magic has to offer.
For reference I think I bought an UB Precon from one of the OG Mirrodin sets, The UB from Coldsnap, The rats deck which had jitte in it and The izzet deck and the most recent being the Izzet intro pack from return to ravnica. There might have been more but thats the ones I remember.
In comparison I've bought at least one of the commander precons most of the time because the issues I have with set60 card precons are not really there. However I personally don't like the Commander Set Precons that much especially when they tie it to a set mechanic that mostly synergizes with itself as it has the same limitations the set 60 card precons have.
Casually I play both Commander,Limited and "Regular" mostly Multiplayer with a 1-on-1 here and there, and I play Competetive. For bias clarity
Except you are already in blue and control when the spell is cast so all those issues are minor since you will cast this either when you have protection up, are sure the opponent cant do any damage or you lose anyway and casting this is a last ditch effort to draw/do something to win the game.
And if you insist the card to do what you intended to do anyways then word it that way FetalTadpole's wording for example.
//
Take an extra turn after this one. At the beginning of that turns upkeep your life total becomes 1. At the beginning of that turns end step gain life equal to the life lost that turn.
//
This is the shortest I could think of that should work within the rules.
However I already think even if the Life stays at one I still think this is a overpowered card where the card it was (presumably) inspired from Temporal Mastery Costs 7 mana and exiles itself where as your card costs 4 (two colored but still 3 mana less) has a drawback that is negligeble as you cast it when the coast is clear anyway.
Nevermind that your version is easier to miracle.
Yeah but the rules work the way they do and as you have been told time and time again it is bad design to change the rules to fit your cards if there are ways to do it without needing that. WizardMNs solution is a not 1 to 1 solution but one which makes it similar enough isn't as cluttered as the alternative.
I am guessing you want the life to go back to normal after that turn, if that's the case this card doesn't do that it would be 1 even after.
If that is your intent with that card it is too strong IMO since the 2 drawbacks (being at one for a turn and being 2 colored) are too little for a n effect that costs 5 usually. Adding to that being able to miracle it for 2 makes it broken.
If your intent was the same as the card currently functions (Setting your like to 1 even after that turn) it's still strong (and probably still broken) but not that bad as what I imagine you intented.
In both cases I think this needs an exile clause like most modern Instant/sorcery based extra turn spells to prevent easy recursion shenannigans.
Also I Personally would drop the miracle as it adds a lot of power to an already extremly overpowered card.
P.S. There is a way to word it to make it do what you (probably) intended.
Same as your card designs when you hand in something that doesn't work you can't just ask the teacher to grade it as it was intended/implied. If your assignement is to make a Magic card and you make something that does not work as such you'd get an F.
If they are a good teacher they'd tell you what you could do to make your intentions work (Like how many people here try to make your card do what you want it to do).
I am glad that you now atleast listen to some of that help to make it work.
Now for the Final Version
(The quote is here so people know what version I am referring to since you might edit it which makes it difficult sometimes to follow a thread since its hard to get what people are talking about)
It's ok it's an interesting take on cantrips I agree that it is (especially the first played instance) nothing more than something like a thought scour that "places outside the game" instead of milling cards. I do not think people will use these to power up their wishes since there are more cards that recur stuff from graveyard than wishes and in addition the cards "placed outside the game" are still just random cards from your deck whereas with a wish its easier to get a silver bullet from you SB. In your example it would be easier just to have both in SB in the first place when you are playing burning wish anyway since you are never guaranteed to "place outside the game" the banefire and when you draw your wish but dont have banefire "potg" and you need that kind of effect you'd get demonfire anyway. (unless you have both in sb which would be best practice anyway when playing wish) And if it were in your graveyard instead of "Potg" there are more than 3 ways in red to get it out of there and in your hand with wishes there would only be 3 (wish , burning wish and your card).
Where I think your card gets interesting is in multiples since you don't have to "potg" on the second one and outside the game is an open zone for you it basically becomes U/R draw a card (might be one from the ones that got put there earlier) or draw a random card out of the 3 you placed there earlier which might be an interesting choice to make.
Powerwise I'd think its 2/5 not too strong due to sorcery speed but fine enough in some decks
Designwise i'd give it a 3/5 as it certainly looks interesting but most of that fades away since the use of putting random cards outside of the game isn't well used and could have just as easily been exile as it would have opened up a litte more designspace that way and still make it less complex in the process.
Well we have the D&D set it is not supposed to be part of UB but it is a nondirect lore and is is there insetead of the core set. Furthermore fore some it is substractive it substracts their immersion. And while I agree it is silly to get up and leave midgame i can fully understand them not wanting to play against UB and asking the other person to play a different deck for the next time or using the deck with the UB cards less often. The same already happens both in format choice and level of competetiveness and this might just add the flavor level as well.
For people who dislike UB in general its similar to people that don't like lets say Planeswalkers you add something but that something detracts their enjoyment, there are people that quit bc of planeswalkers just as there will be people that do because of UB.
There will be plenty of people who will enjoy UB (and plenty of them) that's why I think this is at least a step in the right direction (with the mtg flavored reprints) But all that could have been avoided by making them either silver bordered or Godzilla treatment from the start. (I'd like silver bordered more since I don't want to see UB cards in a tournament setting but I am ok with Godzilla treatment since atleast I dont have to play with the UB versions.
Production wise when you add background Music set that volume a bit down and/or choose something that has consistent volume as sometimes the music is as loud as you which makes you hard to understand sometimes IMO.
I would love for sample decklists to be included though that probably would make the research time longer for you
Apparently it hasn't since everyone here knows how it works and tells you but you just don't accept it. The reason Prime time works multiple times and disenchant doesn't is since it has 2 triggering situations just like Elder Gargaroth triggers both on attacking and blocking. Disenchant doesn't have a Trigger the or here references the choosing of targets.
Still waiting on an explanation on your math as well but it looks like just like you try to work the rules to work for your card instead of the other way around you do the same for math. With card game rules it's just bad design with the math it is factually wrong. Seems to be your modus operandi is use big words to sound smart an when somebody points to a flaw either say its not your fault its the fault of the ruleset, avoid talking about it or more big hollow words where you either don't know the meaning of or go back into "The ruleset of english is at fault" mode (Since you mean sth different with an established word and its not your fault that not everyone else uses it correctly)
That you coind them checks out since this is not the first time you use words despite those words meaning different things.
Systematic there seems to be hardly any system to it as the math you showed doesn't do anything Probability related or even proportion related and the other one you won't explain.
So you are saying Proven mathematical concepts (that don't calculate averages, like at all) work worse at calculating the same thing as your Unexplained, unproven method. If you can't explain it with math that is actually proven to do the things it set's out to do it can never be more accurate (or accurate at all).
To test that out your "method of systematic mathematical proportion" One would not need to use PKMN or MTG cards so that online thing and the "corruption" thing doesn't matter since mathematically it doesn't matter if it's TCGs or uno cards .But since you added that in it just sounds like the old "the Shuffler is broken in this game , in paper this never happens" which in most cases is just plain wrong and delusional if not outright admittance that you don't shuffle properly.
Here is the Definition
Which describes drawing cards from a Deck exactly with k being the amount of cards we want to get in the starting hand(1+).
n being our starting hand (7) out of N (60) cards with K being the amount of cards we play that we want to get.
Percentile clench and over 100% Probability are not a thing in probability calculations.
What you mean with procentile clecnh is just the probability of drawing a card from a certain set of cards thus hypergeometric distribution to calculate that, and that never goes above 100% since thats not thing in ANY probability calculation. The highest it can go is 100%
The Math you Provided for the 47/48 % doesn't calculate anything as far as probability goes.
You didn't provide how you came to the "184% percentile clench"
With willingness to go to 6 its:
(about 60% to see no copy of a chosen card in your starting seven again check for your self on sites like stattreck so)
The chance to get it in the first hand + the chance to not get it in the first but the second so
0,399+ (0,60*0,399) = 0,399 + 0,239 = 0,638 = 63,8% and that is significantly higher than your number and just goes up from there up to about 97% if your willing to go to one.
if you have 7 of a card (so 3/4 split of similar cards) the base chance is not 82% like you said but about 60% (again you can check for your self on math sites )
No that is not how probability works you are right that just because the probability is like 50% that does not mean 50% of 5 games you are going to have it it means your chance is in each of those games is 50% chance to have it the the "threshold of 50%" or any arbitrary number you plug in doesn't matter about that. And it can play out worse or better not just worse. What you essentially said was if I flip a coin 5 times and I said head five times there is no possibility that it lands on it 3 times or more which is not the case.
I think what you meant is the chance to have it 3+/5 times which is the same as not having it 3+/5 times if the chance is 50% so even if you meant that that was just mathematically wrong.
So giving all that I'd like you to back up your math.
Edit: Removed An Error I made Point hasn't changed.
I think he meant the fact that in MTGO 1v1 commander partner does not work you cant have 2 commanders.
Using such a league system is a good idea to sell the product. And sorf of solution to a Point I totally forgot about LGS were often sitting on lots of non commander precons like the theme decks etc. so for them it is just not profitable to buy that many if any to sell, I think that also helped the decline of set specific regular precons.
I personally never found any appeal in the 60card set associated precons mainly because the Limiting Cardpool since most of the cards have to come from the same set, and also that they spread the decks thinly so you only get a one of card that works really well with the core mechanic and like 4 different one offs of cards that have litte to no conection to the decks theme instead of multiples of the cards that kinda make the deck. That always lead me even with the limited amount of precons I bought either not play them or like changing out more than 50% of the cards before even playing.
I do remember the time when I didn't have an MTGO account yet and playing the trial but I found for me It became really boring after a couple of games. I mean I do like the "board game appeal" but I personally don't think Setprecons is the way to go for that as even just casually those are pretty underwhelming and don't show of what magic has to offer.
For reference I think I bought an UB Precon from one of the OG Mirrodin sets, The UB from Coldsnap, The rats deck which had jitte in it and The izzet deck and the most recent being the Izzet intro pack from return to ravnica. There might have been more but thats the ones I remember.
In comparison I've bought at least one of the commander precons most of the time because the issues I have with set60 card precons are not really there. However I personally don't like the Commander Set Precons that much especially when they tie it to a set mechanic that mostly synergizes with itself as it has the same limitations the set 60 card precons have.
Casually I play both Commander,Limited and "Regular" mostly Multiplayer with a 1-on-1 here and there, and I play Competetive. For bias clarity