It's gotta be more than 5. No way they picked only 5 planes and they were Lorwyn, Tarkir, Alara, Shandalar and Mercadia.
I actually think it’s likely they just did a cycle for the first set like planeswalkers were when they first appeared in Lorwyn. Especially if it’s a high complexity mechanic, introducing them with a small number of cards will ease the player base into them while also letting them be meaningful glimpses of planes that otherwise won’t be touched by cards in the set.
While a small number for something so new is likely spot on if they come one to every booster a lot of folks are going to have 20+ of each if there's under 15.
Yeah, my prediction was before i saw the 1-per-pack announcement
The insect's can't be countered text will rarely matter, as opponents will either not be playing counterspells or just use a different form of removal on it if they think the poison will be a threat.
Also, repeatable damage effects are not a green ability, so this needs either some red or black in its manacost.
The enchantment seems fine, basically a Venerated Rotpriest that doesn't trigger off your own spells.
To actually function, these can be better written using the Rotpriest wording. The other option that would work which would make gaining the counter an additional cost, but that's more confusing.
Fight for Survival2G Sorcery
Target opponent flips 5 coins, then puts a +1/+1 counter on a creature you control for each flip he or she lost. Put your choice of a trample, reach, or shield counter on a creature you control for each flip that player lost. You can only choose one counter of each this way for each creature you control. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but also the bite and the fangs.
Happy St. Patrick's Day! Just wanted to drop something fun and luck based for the occasion. Originally had considered 1G for this, trying to weigh it with Increasing Savagery, because that cost against the aspect of luck screams so much excitement. The fact you get a shield counter though should warrant a little elevation.
You card is significantly undercosted. For 4 mana Increasing Savagery buffs one creature, which means your opponent can can destroy that creature to effectively counter the effect.
Your card buffs up to 5 of your creatures, including with a shield counter after you have seen where your opponent has placed the counters they have to place. Your bonuses will be more spread and harder for your opponent to interact with with a single removal spell.
Also, having you opponent the flip the coins is bad design for no good reason. It negates the one interesting use of this effect by building around cards like Krark's Thumb to manipulate the coin flips in your favor.
The central idea of the card is interesting, but the execution turned out sloppy and undercosted because you were trying to be cute.
The color split on these is weird, kinda arbitrary if you’re going to do a cycle of these. Like why BW -> R instead of into blue? Blue at least is their shared ally while red is ally to one and enemy to the other.
I believe he explained that it was a Radkos Working with a Boros, becuase reasons, and they share the color red, and something like that
But it could just as easily be any combination of three colors, so I was more questioning how this would be structured as a cycle, since the there are 30 different possible manacost combinations of A/C A/C B/C B/C
Regarding the third ability, you could just say “It becomes day.” It will have basically no effect if it’s already day, but it will transform all nightbound werewolves if it’s night.
The color split on these is weird, kinda arbitrary if you’re going to do a cycle of these. Like why BW -> R instead of into blue? Blue at least is their shared ally while red is ally to one and enemy to the other.
First off, "a part" - as in "the hood is a part of the car" - is two words. "Apart" is a completely different word that doesn't mean anything in the context above.
And, yes, the inability to poison counters is an intentional part of design to differentiate poison from life gain/loss, so creating a card that can theoretically allow a player to remove their own poison counters is messing with a fundamental function of that mechanic.
You didn't answer the question though, why Aethertide has that ability in the first place since it doesn't have counters to remove in the first place. It reads like you copied an ability from a somewhere else and didn't reword it to function with the rest of the card.
Phantom Ancient is an interesting idea, but the text reads like a word problem in an algebra class. Also, the fact that it doesn’t require you to be the one having more lands is odd.
Aethertides idea is also interesting, but it would likely be easy to abuse with cards that have the Spiteful Squad text. Also, why does it have the second ability? The card itself doesn’t get any counters so … why? Also, being able to remove poison is not good.
Traumatize can be a benefit, and as described was intended to have synergy with black. It's not entirely a benefit though as it can cost you precious removals and land drops.
What traumatize range would you all consider to make this a 3/2?
You don’t seem to get that saying “I might kill removal/land” is a non argument - or more accurately it’s the concern I usually hear from brand new players asking why they’d ever want to mill themselves.
First, the card you milled off the top has equal chance of being the card you need as the card left on top after milling. Unless you manipulate the top of your deck in some way, it’s schrodinger’s card, and so being concerned about might mill the card you want to draw it probabilisticly neutral.
Second, a deck that plays this card is predisposed to want to play other cards that benefit from being put in the graveyard, so it will never be more of a drawback than a benefit.
Yes Reap, the Crescendo discussion was over before; it was explained to you that an ability that causes an action to happen at a discrete point in the game must either have a trigger (i.e. At the beginning of your upkeep) or an activation (written as "Cost:Effect"). If something says "During your turn,..." that is a static ability that is always active, which is not what your card is doing here.
I think caulk meant fixing the "sac in response to the trigger problem" where you pay WUR to copy a Mishra's Bauble, for example, and then sac the Bauble once the give-it-away trigger is on the stack, so you get the treasure/card/life and you opponent gets nothing.
Its easy to word this differently to close that loophole
Wolfgang Jack R
Legendary Creature - Human Bard
Haste
xURW, t: Create a token that's a copy of another target permanent with mana value X, except it's a legendary Song artifact.
Whenever a Song would enter the battlefield under your control, you may have it enter the battlefield under another player's control instead. When you do, create a treasure token, draw a card, and gain 1 life.
1/1
Now the replacement effect doesn't give you a window to sac the artifact while giving it away, but you also have a choice to keep it if you want to.
Vampiric MistressB Creature — Human Vampire
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this permanent's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you get traumatized one. She leads you to eternal sanctuary in the hands that bleed you dry.
3/1
Vampiric MistressB Creature — Human Vampire
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a crescendo counter on card name, then mill X cards where X is the number of crescendo counters on CARDNAME.
3/1
Also, repeatable damage effects are not a green ability, so this needs either some red or black in its manacost.
The enchantment seems fine, basically a Venerated Rotpriest that doesn't trigger off your own spells.
To actually function, these can be better written using the Rotpriest wording. The other option that would work which would make gaining the counter an additional cost, but that's more confusing.
You card is significantly undercosted. For 4 mana Increasing Savagery buffs one creature, which means your opponent can can destroy that creature to effectively counter the effect.
Your card buffs up to 5 of your creatures, including with a shield counter after you have seen where your opponent has placed the counters they have to place. Your bonuses will be more spread and harder for your opponent to interact with with a single removal spell.
Also, having you opponent the flip the coins is bad design for no good reason. It negates the one interesting use of this effect by building around cards like Krark's Thumb to manipulate the coin flips in your favor.
The central idea of the card is interesting, but the execution turned out sloppy and undercosted because you were trying to be cute.
See above. There are 10 shard/wedges but, with the manacost configuration in the op, those three colors can each be arranged 3 different ways.
For example:
URG can be arranged
1)
2)
3)
There are 10 3-color combos, but the manacost combo of each combo can be arranged in three different ways.
U/G U/G G/R G/R
U/R U/R G/R G/R
U/R U/R U/G U/G
One 3-color combo, 3 manacosts, 30 possible combinations
But it could just as easily be any combination of three colors, so I was more questioning how this would be structured as a cycle, since the there are 30 different possible manacost combinations of A/C A/C B/C B/C
And, yes, the inability to poison counters is an intentional part of design to differentiate poison from life gain/loss, so creating a card that can theoretically allow a player to remove their own poison counters is messing with a fundamental function of that mechanic.
You didn't answer the question though, why Aethertide has that ability in the first place since it doesn't have counters to remove in the first place. It reads like you copied an ability from a somewhere else and didn't reword it to function with the rest of the card.
Aethertides idea is also interesting, but it would likely be easy to abuse with cards that have the Spiteful Squad text. Also, why does it have the second ability? The card itself doesn’t get any counters so … why? Also, being able to remove poison is not good.
First, the card you milled off the top has equal chance of being the card you need as the card left on top after milling. Unless you manipulate the top of your deck in some way, it’s schrodinger’s card, and so being concerned about might mill the card you want to draw it probabilisticly neutral.
Second, a deck that plays this card is predisposed to want to play other cards that benefit from being put in the graveyard, so it will never be more of a drawback than a benefit.
Its easy to word this differently to close that loophole
Wolfgang Jack R
Legendary Creature - Human Bard
Haste
xURW, t: Create a token that's a copy of another target permanent with mana value X, except it's a legendary Song artifact.
Whenever a Song would enter the battlefield under your control, you may have it enter the battlefield under another player's control instead. When you do, create a treasure token, draw a card, and gain 1 life.
1/1
Now the replacement effect doesn't give you a window to sac the artifact while giving it away, but you also have a choice to keep it if you want to.
Vampiric Mistress B
Creature — Human Vampire
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a crescendo counter on card name, then mill X cards where X is the number of crescendo counters on CARDNAME.
3/1
There, now the ability actually works correctly.