2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Abzan Mechanic
    Sidenote: Please don't reply to your own comments, especially on your own thread, when you can just edit you last comment. While not your intention, it is a problem where people will just incessantly post on their own threads to bump them up the forum when people aren't paying attention to them.

    So, to what I was talking about earlier, tying the number of tokens to toughness is almost never different than just assigning a value because toughness doesn't change in the graveyard (with rare exceptions to specific card templates).

    In short, a X/4 with Invoke [COST] tied to its half its toughness rounded down is no different than Invoke 2 [COST] except it has a lot of extra text that doesn't matter.

    Secondly, the cost of your tokens isn't a linear scale, especially if they have flying - Creating 3 1/1 flyers is significantly stronger than making 2, etc. and it isn't costing you card advantage since this is a graveyard activation. You will rarely want a number higher than 2 off one of these activations and often just 1 will be more balanced even if the creature is a 1/4 or something.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Abzan Mechanic
    The power marker on scavenge created a lot of unnecessary complexity for how it was used in RTR block. Being tied to toughness specifically rather than just a set number will only relevant if (a) you have an ability that grants the ability to other cards like Varolz, the Scar-Striped did for scavenge, or (b) you have a card that has its base toughness defined by an ability like Dodgy Jalopy. If you aren't planning to utilize this, you'd have an easier time balancing it as Invoke X COST, where it makes X tokens.

    Any ability that pumps large numbers of token creatures will slow the game. Even if they cannot block, opponents will naturally want to hold back blockers against the wide board attacks. Most cards in Innistrad only made 1-2 decayed zombies, so the board didn't fill as quickly and the build to critical attack mass usually took quite a few turns. Here, fewer large creatures in graveyards could immediately present that large threat.

    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [CLB] The Orbs of Dragonkind — CBR.com previews
    They don't actually fix mana since they only produce the color you already needed to cast them, so these will probably end up in the decks that need them pretty easily. Paying 3 to ramp by 1 isn't that great otherwise.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Familiar Recruits
    I like the design of this card, and the posters before were right that this should cost 1-2 less, but as much as I think this is a neat design I can’t picture this being usable for the simple fact of a deck built around a bunch of W creatures still won’t be able to do much. I couldn’t find more than 1-2 such creatures I’d want in a deck, so I don’t know what you’re trying to copy with this.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [CLB] Far Traveler — Dot Esports preview
    Quote from Flamebuster »
    Ok, so can you run multiple Backgrounds in a deck or in play at once, or are you restricted to having one either in the command zone or on the field.

    Loving the artwork for this set ngl.

    'buster



    Background is an enchantment subtype and so has nothing rules special about it, so there is no restriction on having multiple backgrounds in your deck or In play (other than them being legendary). The ability to be a commander is from the “Choose a background” keyword on legends rather than the subtype.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Psionic Gauntlet
    In fairness, removing a lot of those keywords wouldn't have any effect on a permanent already in play because they only matter in hand (Kicker, Spectacle, Companion), in the graveyard (Encore, Escape), before the permanent becomes a creature (Crew) or when it enters the battlefield and would already be on the stack before the equipment can remove them (Bloodthirst, Riot, Fabricate).

    *Before Reap responds with "Clearly removing Bloodthirst or Fabricate in response to the etb trigger would also remove the ability on the stack. Everyone knows that!"... No, that's not how it works.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Psionic Gauntlet
    Obviously, they have to write the keyword soup when they want to restrict designation of just any keyword.

    Should designs that would interact with one be allowed any? Certainly not. Some are just immensely over-the-top (indestructible/unblockable). Ones with point values would be typically able to assign any number of points unless explained otherwise on the card or in comprehensive rulings. I do think the latter should see that if a points based keyword is designated for assignment, it by default designates a single point, and cannot exceed this unless otherwise specified on the card. Taking such a keyword away obviously should not be limited this way by default.

    This way, it would be much easier to open up interactivity for said keyword soup abilities, by simply using a restriction clause to exempt the over-the-top keywords from designation.


    Part of the reasoning is that people don't always understand what actually is a keyword ability. For instance, "unblockable" is not and never has been an actual keyword, and that confusion is part of the reason the templating was updated to "cannot be blocked". Similarly, indestructible was not a keyword when originally made (cards read "CARDNAME is indestructible.") and the rules were updated later to be a keyword (printings just say "Indestructible")
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Psionic Gauntlet
    No, ability cost has to stay, because removing a keyword ability is essentially removal when you're going to use it most effectively.

    Flying is kind of the equalizer here. A creature with flying that also has deathtouch or first strike becomes problematic, but within reasonable cost still given the domain influence of removal.

    I don't think Empyrial Plate is really a standard of greatness or anything. Certainly, it has utilities, but can be obsoleted easily with little impact on the game abroad. At worst, you can just run them in a split (4-1 or 4-2), if your deck really has the utility for them.



    Empyrial Plate was from the first set to introduce equipment and thus was notorious for the abilities being undercosted.

    As to the activated ability, you made my point for me because you can activate the ability multiple times and remove the flying AND first strike AND deathtouch for the creature you hypothetically described.



    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Psionic Gauntlet
    This card is strictly better than Empyrial Plate, so it should cost more. Plate is cheap because you have to not develop your board to maximize its effect, where this gets an increased bonus off your opponents building their hands. Add that to the extra activated ability tacked on top and this should cost 1-2 mana more. The activated ability is also strong for its cost, and so should either cost more or be limited to once per turn.

    Casting costs aside, this is one of your better designs. The abilities work within the rules, are interesting without being overly convoluted or twisted for corner cases, and move the game forward without leading to stalemated boardstates.

    8/10


    EDIT: Misread that it sets p/t instead of being +x/+x. That makes it slightly weaker than empyrial plate, but still very aggressive in the early game so still probably needs an extra 1 to the cc.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on [40K] [2X2] Warhammer 40k and Double Masters 2022 Prebeat — Weekly MTG previews
    Have Draft Booster packs always said "Contains 16 cards"?

    Is this just a change in wording as there were always 16 with the add card/token or are they actually putting in one extra?


    Set boosters say "Contains 12 cards", but there are 14 if you count the art card and token.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • posted a message on Daisy Lotus
    Quote from Kryptnyt »
    Quote from Pokerkingdave »


    In my opinion, the issue with the card as written is creating lotus petal tokens.


    They are specifically Treasure tokens with the name Lotus Petal. So they might actually have the same mana ability twice, because Treasures have a built in mana ability, but I don't think that's really gonna cause a lot of problems or confusion. The sidegrade of course is that these tokens also have a cardname, for cards that ask you to name one.


    The would not have an extra mana ability, you templated it correctly. Treasure token has an inherent game definition and your ability just adds the name Lotus Petal on top of it. Compare to Llanowar Mentor that has to define its token's mana ability even though it has the same name as Llanowar Elves.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Daisy Lotus
    Quote from Pokerkingdave »

    In my opinion, the issue with the card as written is creating lotus petal tokens. This probably wouldn't be viable in a standard set due to the rules of the copied card. You would need to have an explanation of what the token does. This is more likely to see print in a masters or commander set. They tried to have other tokens with Tezzeret the Schemer creating "Etherium Cell" and never used it again once. Also see King Macar, the Gold-Cursed with "Gold" tokens that were used on 3 cards in standard.


    Tokens names after existing cards are just fine for standard sets, see Llanowar Mentor and its cycle.

    Balance wise, this is stronger than your usual 3 mv mana rock because you can bank the mana for future turns and trigger artifact synergies with the tokens. Its not busted, but not a common either.

    The "plucking daisy" reference took me a sec, but its a fun flavor.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Secret Lair(?: Straw Hat Pirates
    When you want to do something excessive, you end up with this convoluted stack of text.

    And if there’s one thing Reap is an expert in, it is convoluted stacks of text.

    Anyway, I don’t know the source material well enough to comment on the flavor, but aside from some templating issues and me not being sure Jinbe’s crew ability can actually work as written, overall these seem like some fun and creative cards.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Mesmerize
    No, we don't have to fabricate anything to prove you're a bad designer; you do that all by yourself.

    The fact that you don't understand there is never a good reason to choose for your opponent to counter the spell is the reason you are bad at this. You have effectively designed a card that says.

    Mezmerize U
    Instant
    Fateseal 2.

    Until you actually play the game you will continue to design cards with "choices" that don't actually matter.

    Now, how do we make this card actually worth playing. Easy, Fateseal is only relevant when you have enough information to actually decide if the cards are useful or not, so lets give the player that information. As a bonus, I'll even template it for you so the fateseal can happen after their spell resolves.
    Sidenote: Fateseal N actually means "look at the top N cards of AN opponent's library..." meaning in a multi player game, you are not limited to just fatesealing the controller of the spell, so I am writing the ability out to avoid that corner case.

    Mezmerize U
    Instant
    Target spell's controller may choose for you counter it. If they do not, when that spell resolves look at that player's hand and the top two cards of that player's library, then put any number of them on the bottom of that player's library and the rest on top in any order.

    This spell will still never counter a game winning spell, because unlike paying mana or sacing a creature or something, the opponent will never be in a position where they cannot pay the cost.

    Rather, not the spell is significantly stronger in the early game where you can use the fateseal to keep them from drawing what you KNOW they will need, so the counter becomes a meaningful choice for your opponent. Late game it still has less utility, not unlike how Force Spike is much weaker once mana bases are established. Force Spike, though, can still counter their game-winner if they tap out for it.

    Now your card would likely see play and might actually be a little strong for its cost. You're welcome.

    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Mesmerize
    First, a side note: the “If that player does, you may do so before or after that spell resolves.” doesn’t work. Aside of it trying to be needlessly novel for no real gameplay value, there can still be multiple priority passes “before the spell resolves” and the whole rest of the game “after it resolves”. Your intention is understood, but as usual your language isn’t precise enough for game rules to actually do what you want.

    To the main issue.

    As usual, your lack of gameplay experience makes you not realize this card is effectively useless because this will almost never actually counter a spell.

    1) If I’m casting a game winning spell, I don’t care if you fateseal me because I am going to win.

    2) If I have cards in hand, I don’t care if you fateseal because you won’t be able to make a fully informed decision about whether the cards on top of my deck are actually useful to me.

    While slightly better than fateseal 1, most cases this will just say “Counter target spell unless it’s controller mills 2” due to your lack of knowledge about their needs.

    3) Fateseal 2 will be moderately strong if either they have no cards in hand or you know the contents of their hand. Even then, as the caster it’s always the right call to let you fateseal because only you finding 2 lands and leaving them on top slows me down, anything you bottom just puts cards that might help me closer to being drawn.

    Strategically, this card will never return value to the player using it.




    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.