I don't think that "looking inside yourself and staying positive" is the only thing you can do. Some people are ruthless savages. Our shop owner will not tolerate this behaviour and has reprimanded repeated offenders, usually cooling down the situation. He runs the entire store by himself, so he's very involved and takes every issue seriously. This might not be the case for you but you could ask another authorative figure (for example the judge or respected player) to step up. For me, this is not being "weak", it is raising awareness and pointing out unacceptable behaviour.
Well, this sure became a much more vivid disucssion than I anticipated! The card in question was indeed Warren Instigator. I'm baffled by the spike because the card more than doubled in value in only a few days! This is not healthy. I don't think it's possible for anybody to "do their research" correctly with these kind of spikes occurring spontaneously. I'm ok with cards changing values over time but not this instantly.
With the upcoming goblin piledriver and the craze for goblin decks, I believe Instigator demand will only rise.
Anyway, I received the payment and shipped the card and that's that.
"The new location does seem more comfortable and is probably more comfortable for your players, but we're not concerned with the comfort of players, we're concerned with getting people in and getting them buying our products."'
How is NOT giving a 100-player based LGS access to magic products going to increase their sales?!
... That takes no slight of hand, and in fact is so easy to do that you would find some players doing it by accident (I've seen plenty of casuals who don't understand why mana-weaving is wrong).
Exacty, mana-weaving (stacking the deck so it has 2 cards, 1 land, 2 cards 1 land etc.) is the biggest issue and cutting a deck doesn't solve it at all.
I think it's perfectly fine if an opponent takes my deck and shuffles it. How can he "stack" my deck, if he can't look at the cards? Is OP telling me he can both distract me AND look at the cards in my deck AND cheat the best cards to the bottom half in one swift motion? I don't think so.
I was under the impression that was Ravnica, as the art looks suspiciously like the Precinct Captain and his soldier token.
Wait... OMG I never noticed that! That's SO COOL!
After looking at the pictures more carefully, I have my doubts. Here are my reasons:
1) The artists of the two pictures are different.
2) The first picture is a city landscape, the other looks like a vast empty battlefield
3) The armor and hair of both the captain and the soldier is different. In the second art, they're dressed up severely
Point 1 is not really an issue, but the opposiite is true: if it were the SAME artist, it would definitely be reference. Now i'm not sure
Point 2 makes me feel like the picture of spirit bonds is really not Ravnica
point 3 is not much of an issue, it could be the same characters but then several years later.
Regardless of these point, they are very similar and it's nice to believe it's an easter egg
I'm pro updating old names/conventions to modern standard. Removing the spellshaper creature type and going for an ability word is a sound logic.
That being said, I don't see why any spellshape ability should be limited to TAP or UNTAP. Compare to cycling: the first time the ability was shown, all cards were identical. Next time time around the costs varied, and ultimately the costs for cycling could be anything crazy like paying life or sacrificing a goat. I think the same applies here: as long as you discard a card, pay some cost (preferably the mana cost of the original spell) it feels lipellshaping to me, regardless of whether the creature is tapping, untapping or neither.
About the wording issue, I'm pretty sure the current rules don't allow that for the exact reason you stated. I do like the elegant wording and I would not accuse you of not knowing the rules, but applauding you for trying to update/innovate/discuss the rules to make the cards more grokkable. If you really insist on making something that works with the rules, try the following:
counter target spell, or counter target activated ability.
1) It's simple
2) if your set features a lot of spellshapers, players will experience what this wording thus: it counters spellshapers! Even though its not written out literally, it will PLAY the way you intented it work
3) but with one exception: the cards is useful outside of the vacuum of your set. This can actualy be a plus!
I can't believe nobody mentioned scepter of empires yet. Sure, it only hits players, but that's exactly what you want: kill opponents and enable bloodrush
~ Costs 1 less to cast for each life you lost this turn (Damage causes loss of life).
What I'm trying to go for with this costing is a card that's inspired by Avatar of Woe. Ideally, its name would be something like "Woe's Foreboding". First you damage yourself (Flame Rift would be an insane combo!). Then you cast this and kill your opponents creatures. Then you cast avatar of woe with reduced cost ;)!
I like the reasoning, and like my own submission I want to involve life as a cost too because it feels smart and pretty. However my "esthetical" self finds the combination of phyrexian mana and normal mana ugly.
1
1
With the upcoming goblin piledriver and the craze for goblin decks, I believe Instigator demand will only rise.
Anyway, I received the payment and shipped the card and that's that.
1
How is NOT giving a 100-player based LGS access to magic products going to increase their sales?!
3
Exacty, mana-weaving (stacking the deck so it has 2 cards, 1 land, 2 cards 1 land etc.) is the biggest issue and cutting a deck doesn't solve it at all.
I think it's perfectly fine if an opponent takes my deck and shuffles it. How can he "stack" my deck, if he can't look at the cards? Is OP telling me he can both distract me AND look at the cards in my deck AND cheat the best cards to the bottom half in one swift motion? I don't think so.
2
Instant
You pay 1 minute of oyur time and stop
wishing for a certain blue card to be
reprinted instead of paying Force of
Hoax's mana cost.
Counter target fake spoiler
1
After looking at the pictures more carefully, I have my doubts. Here are my reasons:
1) The artists of the two pictures are different.
2) The first picture is a city landscape, the other looks like a vast empty battlefield
3) The armor and hair of both the captain and the soldier is different. In the second art, they're dressed up severely
Point 1 is not really an issue, but the opposiite is true: if it were the SAME artist, it would definitely be reference. Now i'm not sure
Point 2 makes me feel like the picture of spirit bonds is really not Ravnica
point 3 is not much of an issue, it could be the same characters but then several years later.
Regardless of these point, they are very similar and it's nice to believe it's an easter egg
1
That being said, I don't see why any spellshape ability should be limited to TAP or UNTAP. Compare to cycling: the first time the ability was shown, all cards were identical. Next time time around the costs varied, and ultimately the costs for cycling could be anything crazy like paying life or sacrificing a goat. I think the same applies here: as long as you discard a card, pay some cost (preferably the mana cost of the original spell) it feels lipellshaping to me, regardless of whether the creature is tapping, untapping or neither.
About the wording issue, I'm pretty sure the current rules don't allow that for the exact reason you stated. I do like the elegant wording and I would not accuse you of not knowing the rules, but applauding you for trying to update/innovate/discuss the rules to make the cards more grokkable. If you really insist on making something that works with the rules, try the following:
counter target spell, or counter target activated ability.
1) It's simple
2) if your set features a lot of spellshapers, players will experience what this wording thus: it counters spellshapers! Even though its not written out literally, it will PLAY the way you intented it work
3) but with one exception: the cards is useful outside of the vacuum of your set. This can actualy be a plus!
1
2
I like the reasoning, and like my own submission I want to involve life as a cost too because it feels smart and pretty. However my "esthetical" self finds the combination of phyrexian mana and normal mana ugly.
4
Each opponent sacrifices a permanent with converted mana cost equal to or greater than X, where X is the sacrificied permanent's converted mana cost.