the wording on these is probably a hot mess, and for that I apologize (and ask for suggestions if you have them).
EDIT: already made one wording change, from "becomes enchanted" to "an Aura becomes attached to it" - thanks gtmwarrior!
EDIT2: changed "when" to "whenever" - thanks Illuminations!
Hellbrand Agitator :3mana::symr::symr: (U)
Creature - Human Rogue
2/1
Haste
Whenever Hellbrand Agitator enters the battlefield or an Aura becomes attached to it, gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap that creature. It gains haste until end of turn.
Deranged Necromancer :1mana::symb::symb: (U)
Creature - Human Wizard
2/1
Whenever Deranged Necromancer enters the battlefield or an Aura becomes attached to it, return a random creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield. That creature gains haste until end of turn. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step.
Cacodemon :1mana::symb::symb::symb: (R)
Creature - Demon
4/4
Flying
Whenever Cacodemon enters the battlefield or an Aura becomes attached to it, each player sacrifices a creature.
and if anyone is wondering, I costed these as if they had only the ETB ability and then threw the "becomes enchanted" ability in for free, because I want to push auras (and because it is not likely to trigger unless you build around it).
In Cacodemon's case, I'm assuming black could get a 4/4 flyer for 1BBB with no problem, given things like Sengir Vampire and Malakir Bloodwitch. The edict-everyone ability was more or less thrown in for free also, seeing as how it can actually be used against you too. It may be pushing him but at 3BB he becomes kind of lame.
Comments and constructive criticism are always loved.
OK - a few more questions: will your opinion change if wotc eventually reprints Counterspell? Are you taking wotc's current design choices as not just a given, but as an absolute requirement?
Did you always think 2-mana hard counters were fundamentally wrong, or did you start to think that after wotc stopped reprinting counterspell?
I worry that we too often take the precedents wotc sets as unchangeable, when the history of the game teaches us that they aren't.
That said, I'm not going to be putting "Vacate" (the unconditional hard counter) in any of my sets. I will probably be using "Nullify," though.
The removal of counterspell from the core set has allowed (or would allow, if they actually wanted to print good counterspells) wotc's designers to play around with a wider variety of counterspell variants because they aren't constrained by having the standard unconditional hard-counter at the 2-drop slot. I do think that's a good thing.
Alveaenerle - that's an interesting idea, too. While planeswalkers are highly relevant and most decks probably play them, they are also usually just a small % of a deck and so the card can often counter everything. Similar to my non-enchantment version, Nullify.
It is kind of the point to be able to lock an opponent out of the game. For that reason I think it's too much... ryorz had the right idea I think... somehow being able to stop it.
Oh, then "target player can't cast spells" would be a simpler way to do it.
Anyway, definitely blue/black for something like what you want, and an escape valve for your opponent would be good. That goes back to what I said about the card seeming mean/unfair as is. It wouldn't be unfair if they could get out of being stuck in epic mode.
I also like the idea of a WWW 3/3 with your ability combo. Although that's really pushing it for a white three-drop, you could easily get away with it these days.
Of Three Minds feels a little too much like Yawgmoth's Will, but colorless. Not sure if the "but not from anywhere else" clause prevents it from just being Will 2.0.
I don't think I've ever said this about a card, but Consecrate actually feels like it should be 5-color. Cool, mega-splashy effect.
Also, I'm all for cards with more than one use, but the idea of using this on an opponent to more or less lock him out of the game seems a little mean/unfair/inappropriate to me.
Howsabout...
First strike, vigilance, reach, protection from sorceries.
Is that interesting enough to hit the rare slot?
I guess, but we're still just making the card unnecessarily strong in order to justify it being a rare, aren't we? We can throw protection from green on him too, if we want. Both the protections are more interesting (from a white weenie standpoint) than the original abilities, but they don't necessarily fit the card either. I like R_E's original card I just don't think it's a rare.
Please accept what I'm saying here from a design standpoint and not a pouty "I wanna play counterspell!" viewpoint.
Please don't think that I set out to create this card as part of a "they never should have got rid of counterspell" argument. While that argument may be quite valid, and certainly not "pouty" in and of itself, this thread wasn't about arguing for the return of UU counterspell. (Although I did want to discuss design aspects of counterspells, so I'm glad we're covering this.) Rather, I'm taking the removal of UU counterspell as a given and moving on from that.
Also, give me a little more credit here; do you seriously believe that I started this thread because "I wanna play counterspell" or something? I don't suggest card designs here simply because I want to play them or because I want to hose a deck that I just lost to. Designing cards is an outlet for creativity, not a chance to make a wish-list of uber cards I get to proxy and beat my friends with.
Anyway, on design:
It comes down to one of two realities: Wizards is right about where the power level of counter magic should be and therefore they've only shorted us a decent 3-4 mana counterspell, or they're wrong and mana leak/rune snag/cryptic are fine. If case 2 is correct, you have no need to be designing cards like Vacate. Just print the mana leak and dismiss variants.
I don't quite follow this. Because mana leak is fine, should I stop designing other 2 mana counters and just "reprint" mana leak in my homemade sets? And mana leak and vacate are both just counterspell variants, anyway.
I know you're not arguing that no one should design cards if an existing card already fulfills a similar role, but that's what it sounds like here.
If case 1 is correct, than Vacate is fundamentally wrong.
Assuming that its WU cost is functionally identical to UU? Or regardless of that fact?
Back in my original post I was picturing an environment where CD =/= CC when it came to mana costs.
I find it hard to swallow that Counterspell itself is "fundamentally wrong" when it has existed for a majority of magic's history and the game has survived (and aggro has occasionally flourished, even with counterspell around). Vacate is about finding a reasonable alternative to counterspell that might require some different (and perhaps more creative) deckbuilding, by either limiting the card to blue/white decks or requiring a blue splash, a white splash, or both. However, it is also premised on the idea that blue/white control wouldn't become instantly uber-dominant if it got counterspell back. Because I do realize that I've given that color combination a counterspell. (And right now that deck would have Path and pseudo-Wrath too. But I don't think lack of a 2-mana unconditional hard counter is why that deck gets beat up by Bloodbraid Elf.)
So I guess this brings up another question: what's the worst (and by "worst" I mean worst for the game, from a design/play standpoint) part about Counterspell - that it is a 2-mana hard counter; or that it is a blue 2-mana hard counter? Vacate only "fixes" one of these problems, by making it not-just-blue. Maybe that just isn't enough.
It could be a rare, but it could just as easily be an uncommon.
Agreed.
On the one hand, I feel about about obsoleting Longbow Archer at the same rarity level. On the other hand, I generally don't like making french vanilla creatures rare, even when they are really efficient. Along those same lines, I don't like making something rare just because it's good, and that is kind of what this seems like to me.
Certainly wouldn't mind opening it as a rare, I just don't think it should be one.
The Filter and Dynamo Maguses are cool, but I wouldn't put both in the cycle as they are both mana "producers" of some sort. Instead of Dynamo, we could go with the Dragon Blood idea that you suggested, Kenaron.
Magus of the Blood :1mana::symr::symg:
Creature - Human Wizard
:3mana:, :symtap:: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.
3/3
another idea would be to keep the Dynamo magus in red/green, and then instead of magus of the filter, make Magus of the Crucible (from speaker's original post) white/green because it really fits those colors too.
I really like the Magus of the Clock idea, but the Mindslaver fits blue/black too.
That leaves blue/white and black/red, if we want an allied colors cycle.
reprimand seems really strong, but might be too weak at 3UB. Not sure.
mating bear - great idea. Doesn't feel like a common though, considering how much cooler it is than Relentless Rats.
regeneris hydra - fine for an uncommon.
cyra the blessed - sounds good to me! It does seem rather confusing though, not sure if there is an easy way to fix it. Maybe if she let you fetch a copy of an aura from your deck when the same one is attached to her the first time? Or not.
warhammer - exciting, and worthy of being a rare. Maybe could be +4/-3 like Shadow suggested.
legacy pulse - I love it! The "copying 4 times" approach feels a little flashier and more "mythic" I guess.
I'm not objecting to deathtouch being in red in theory, but if red is tertiary for deathtouch then it should not get it across huge cycles of cards. Tertiary means that it would get one or maybe two cards with that mechanic per block, and it definitely shouldn't be given out by a lord of that color.
Agreed. (side comment: a red/black lord that gave deathtouch to all creatures with haste, and/or vice versa, would be really cool.)
Of the cards Warden posted, I love Bloodseeker (although the name feels vampiric) and I think it is a good, "red" example of deathtouch. It could be a 3/1 though. And maybe cost RR, to show that red isn't the kind of color you can just splash in order to get deathtouch (in your otherwise blue or white deck, for example).
I agree that if any color is to get tertiary status in deathtouch, it should be red. But I don't think that every mechanic needs to be given tertiary status somewhere. Not sure personally how I feel about deathtouch on this subject, but I do think that Crusader_8's card is a really neat idea. (Maybe it doesn't need the "power 5 or greater" part though, as that doesn't feel red and doesn't seem necessary on the card.)
WotC has made a concerted effort to move towards "bigger" plays. There is less of a feel of small incremental advantage that ends after someone has gained the upper hand through multiple plays, and more of trading haymaker Cruels and daring the opponent with Baneslayers.
Interesting analysis. However, if it is true, that seems (to me at least) pretty bad for the game. Gaining small incremental advantages through multiple plays sounds a lot more skill-testing than "Ultimatum Fight."
Cheap counterspells don't support the kind of gameplay that WotC currently wants.
Well, if the kind of wotc wants is a race to cast a big monster first, you're right, but then cards like Doom Blade don't really support that either do they? Maybe I'm missing what you're saying here, but if we assume that wotc wants everyone to be able to play their big fun fatties and spells, then counterspells are "bad" but cheap removal also seems pretty "bad." I personally don't mind a world where players can have their big fun spells, but also have to build and play in such a way where they don't put all their eggs in one basket.
What I'm saying is that I don't think anything reactive really supports the type of gameplay you're describing.
Additionally, UW has no legitimate reason for counterspell. It is just an artificial hurdle to make counterspell worse.
Several people on this thread may disagree with you there.
I'm not generally in favor of making something gold just for the sake of it being gold (or as an artificial way of costing a card at a different CMC than it would have been at monocolor), but if it gives us a way to make an unplayable mechanic or card playable again, and still fits the colors, I think it is worth exploring.
Furthermore, if we're playing the game of "do what wotc does because it is the approved thing at the moment" (which seems to be what you and a few others are getting at), then we can have multicolor cards simply for the sake of casting cost experimentation. Think of the (dozens (hundreds?) of) gold cards in Alara block that are gold but don't have to be. Wotc is clearly on board with making gold cards just to get away with having something at a different CMC price point.
Anyway, I'm a doofus and didn't post my new card in my last post because I forgot to copy/paste it from my file. Here it is:
I like this because in some environments (and probably in mainstream standard right now) this is basically a counterspell. And it is simple and elegant enough that it still has the impact that I was going for with my original card. But it also isn't a counterspell, because it can't counter everything, and in an environment with lots of enchantments (or just some important enchantments that may play key roles in certain decks) is has noticeable shortcomings. It also justifies the inclusion of white as the main enchantment-loving color and the secondary countering color.
tethered sentinel - great idea!
sniper - seems fine. I don't know why magic can't start caring about heads/tails but whatever.
clank - great name. seems underpowered but fine. To make it a one drop, maybe it could cost XX1 and be a 1/1?
hivewarden - woah. great mechanic, I'd sort of like to see it on an undercosted fatty actually. I don't think it fits the name.
mimic - another great design!
The one issue remaining is that bramble's wording uses "whenever" and ETB abilities are always worded with "when" - can I go with "when" for both?
EDIT: already made one wording change, from "becomes enchanted" to "an Aura becomes attached to it" - thanks gtmwarrior!
EDIT2: changed "when" to "whenever" - thanks Illuminations!
Hellbrand Agitator :3mana::symr::symr: (U)
Creature - Human Rogue
2/1
Haste
Whenever Hellbrand Agitator enters the battlefield or an Aura becomes attached to it, gain control of target creature until end of turn. Untap that creature. It gains haste until end of turn.
Deranged Necromancer :1mana::symb::symb: (U)
Creature - Human Wizard
2/1
Whenever Deranged Necromancer enters the battlefield or an Aura becomes attached to it, return a random creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield. That creature gains haste until end of turn. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step.
Cacodemon :1mana::symb::symb::symb: (R)
Creature - Demon
4/4
Flying
Whenever Cacodemon enters the battlefield or an Aura becomes attached to it, each player sacrifices a creature.
and if anyone is wondering, I costed these as if they had only the ETB ability and then threw the "becomes enchanted" ability in for free, because I want to push auras (and because it is not likely to trigger unless you build around it).
In Cacodemon's case, I'm assuming black could get a 4/4 flyer for 1BBB with no problem, given things like Sengir Vampire and Malakir Bloodwitch. The edict-everyone ability was more or less thrown in for free also, seeing as how it can actually be used against you too. It may be pushing him but at 3BB he becomes kind of lame.
Comments and constructive criticism are always loved.
OK - a few more questions: will your opinion change if wotc eventually reprints Counterspell? Are you taking wotc's current design choices as not just a given, but as an absolute requirement?
Did you always think 2-mana hard counters were fundamentally wrong, or did you start to think that after wotc stopped reprinting counterspell?
I worry that we too often take the precedents wotc sets as unchangeable, when the history of the game teaches us that they aren't.
That said, I'm not going to be putting "Vacate" (the unconditional hard counter) in any of my sets. I will probably be using "Nullify," though.
The removal of counterspell from the core set has allowed (or would allow, if they actually wanted to print good counterspells) wotc's designers to play around with a wider variety of counterspell variants because they aren't constrained by having the standard unconditional hard-counter at the 2-drop slot. I do think that's a good thing.
Alveaenerle - that's an interesting idea, too. While planeswalkers are highly relevant and most decks probably play them, they are also usually just a small % of a deck and so the card can often counter everything. Similar to my non-enchantment version, Nullify.
Oh, then "target player can't cast spells" would be a simpler way to do it.
Anyway, definitely blue/black for something like what you want, and an escape valve for your opponent would be good. That goes back to what I said about the card seeming mean/unfair as is. It wouldn't be unfair if they could get out of being stuck in epic mode.
I also like the idea of a WWW 3/3 with your ability combo. Although that's really pushing it for a white three-drop, you could easily get away with it these days.
I don't think I've ever said this about a card, but Consecrate actually feels like it should be 5-color. Cool, mega-splashy effect.
Also, I'm all for cards with more than one use, but the idea of using this on an opponent to more or less lock him out of the game seems a little mean/unfair/inappropriate to me.
2/2, like Kenaron suggested, seems reasonable though.
I guess, but we're still just making the card unnecessarily strong in order to justify it being a rare, aren't we? We can throw protection from green on him too, if we want. Both the protections are more interesting (from a white weenie standpoint) than the original abilities, but they don't necessarily fit the card either. I like R_E's original card I just don't think it's a rare.
Please don't think that I set out to create this card as part of a "they never should have got rid of counterspell" argument. While that argument may be quite valid, and certainly not "pouty" in and of itself, this thread wasn't about arguing for the return of UU counterspell. (Although I did want to discuss design aspects of counterspells, so I'm glad we're covering this.) Rather, I'm taking the removal of UU counterspell as a given and moving on from that.
Also, give me a little more credit here; do you seriously believe that I started this thread because "I wanna play counterspell" or something? I don't suggest card designs here simply because I want to play them or because I want to hose a deck that I just lost to. Designing cards is an outlet for creativity, not a chance to make a wish-list of uber cards I get to proxy and beat my friends with.
Anyway, on design:
I don't quite follow this. Because mana leak is fine, should I stop designing other 2 mana counters and just "reprint" mana leak in my homemade sets? And mana leak and vacate are both just counterspell variants, anyway.
I know you're not arguing that no one should design cards if an existing card already fulfills a similar role, but that's what it sounds like here.
Assuming that its WU cost is functionally identical to UU? Or regardless of that fact?
Back in my original post I was picturing an environment where CD =/= CC when it came to mana costs.
I find it hard to swallow that Counterspell itself is "fundamentally wrong" when it has existed for a majority of magic's history and the game has survived (and aggro has occasionally flourished, even with counterspell around). Vacate is about finding a reasonable alternative to counterspell that might require some different (and perhaps more creative) deckbuilding, by either limiting the card to blue/white decks or requiring a blue splash, a white splash, or both. However, it is also premised on the idea that blue/white control wouldn't become instantly uber-dominant if it got counterspell back. Because I do realize that I've given that color combination a counterspell. (And right now that deck would have Path and pseudo-Wrath too. But I don't think lack of a 2-mana unconditional hard counter is why that deck gets beat up by Bloodbraid Elf.)
So I guess this brings up another question: what's the worst (and by "worst" I mean worst for the game, from a design/play standpoint) part about Counterspell - that it is a 2-mana hard counter; or that it is a blue 2-mana hard counter? Vacate only "fixes" one of these problems, by making it not-just-blue. Maybe that just isn't enough.
And what do you think of Nullify?
Agreed.
On the one hand, I feel about about obsoleting Longbow Archer at the same rarity level. On the other hand, I generally don't like making french vanilla creatures rare, even when they are really efficient. Along those same lines, I don't like making something rare just because it's good, and that is kind of what this seems like to me.
Certainly wouldn't mind opening it as a rare, I just don't think it should be one.
Magus of the Blood :1mana::symr::symg:
Creature - Human Wizard
:3mana:, :symtap:: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature.
3/3
another idea would be to keep the Dynamo magus in red/green, and then instead of magus of the filter, make Magus of the Crucible (from speaker's original post) white/green because it really fits those colors too.
I really like the Magus of the Clock idea, but the Mindslaver fits blue/black too.
That leaves blue/white and black/red, if we want an allied colors cycle.
reprimand seems really strong, but might be too weak at 3UB. Not sure.
mating bear - great idea. Doesn't feel like a common though, considering how much cooler it is than Relentless Rats.
regeneris hydra - fine for an uncommon.
cyra the blessed - sounds good to me! It does seem rather confusing though, not sure if there is an easy way to fix it. Maybe if she let you fetch a copy of an aura from your deck when the same one is attached to her the first time? Or not.
warhammer - exciting, and worthy of being a rare. Maybe could be +4/-3 like Shadow suggested.
legacy pulse - I love it! The "copying 4 times" approach feels a little flashier and more "mythic" I guess.
Agreed. (side comment: a red/black lord that gave deathtouch to all creatures with haste, and/or vice versa, would be really cool.)
Of the cards Warden posted, I love Bloodseeker (although the name feels vampiric) and I think it is a good, "red" example of deathtouch. It could be a 3/1 though. And maybe cost RR, to show that red isn't the kind of color you can just splash in order to get deathtouch (in your otherwise blue or white deck, for example).
I agree that if any color is to get tertiary status in deathtouch, it should be red. But I don't think that every mechanic needs to be given tertiary status somewhere. Not sure personally how I feel about deathtouch on this subject, but I do think that Crusader_8's card is a really neat idea. (Maybe it doesn't need the "power 5 or greater" part though, as that doesn't feel red and doesn't seem necessary on the card.)
Interesting analysis. However, if it is true, that seems (to me at least) pretty bad for the game. Gaining small incremental advantages through multiple plays sounds a lot more skill-testing than "Ultimatum Fight."
Well, if the kind of wotc wants is a race to cast a big monster first, you're right, but then cards like Doom Blade don't really support that either do they? Maybe I'm missing what you're saying here, but if we assume that wotc wants everyone to be able to play their big fun fatties and spells, then counterspells are "bad" but cheap removal also seems pretty "bad." I personally don't mind a world where players can have their big fun spells, but also have to build and play in such a way where they don't put all their eggs in one basket.
What I'm saying is that I don't think anything reactive really supports the type of gameplay you're describing.
Several people on this thread may disagree with you there.
I'm not generally in favor of making something gold just for the sake of it being gold (or as an artificial way of costing a card at a different CMC than it would have been at monocolor), but if it gives us a way to make an unplayable mechanic or card playable again, and still fits the colors, I think it is worth exploring.
Furthermore, if we're playing the game of "do what wotc does because it is the approved thing at the moment" (which seems to be what you and a few others are getting at), then we can have multicolor cards simply for the sake of casting cost experimentation. Think of the (dozens (hundreds?) of) gold cards in Alara block that are gold but don't have to be. Wotc is clearly on board with making gold cards just to get away with having something at a different CMC price point.
Anyway, I'm a doofus and didn't post my new card in my last post because I forgot to copy/paste it from my file. Here it is:
Nullify :symw::symu:
Instant
Counter target non-enchantment spell.
I like this because in some environments (and probably in mainstream standard right now) this is basically a counterspell. And it is simple and elegant enough that it still has the impact that I was going for with my original card. But it also isn't a counterspell, because it can't counter everything, and in an environment with lots of enchantments (or just some important enchantments that may play key roles in certain decks) is has noticeable shortcomings. It also justifies the inclusion of white as the main enchantment-loving color and the secondary countering color.