As a side note, Divert only interacts with a tiny subset of spells that have
So, furthermore, I said this would be useful against aggro. Just for clarity since you seem to have read it backwards.
The fact of Counterspell being played over Disallow is common sense. And it's not relevant to the point I was making (that hard removal is convention over soft-removal). Why? It's mostly as effective, and cheaper—which is one of the primary points of interest that I highlighted over how I theorize that spells like this could defy convention and take place in the right competitive deck over hard removals (by reducing the mana curve average).
Also, you really should stop using my absence from Magic as an excuse like you do. I was a World Class Pokemon TCG through 2017 when I stopped playing. I wrote a blog that highlighted strategy building; such as deck engine structure; providing extensions to key content with alike contents; creating splits and spreads between alike content—and primary card advantage options (straight draw, wheel, and direct retrieval); and using mathematical proportion to secure percentile clench for key content in the opening game, and sustainability into the mid-and-end game.
And guess what else, before this even I was a World Class Pangya player. A fantasy golf MMO, where I studied, and broke down the dynamics of the game engine playing entirely by memory and figuring out the mathematical dynamics of all the game engine's different quirks and modifiers from scratch.
If you think I don't know how to play Magic, or that I couldn't step-in and immediately take an awesome presence, you're wrong.
If you think I don't understand the physics of development for this game and the dynamics of its interactions, you're wrong.
What we have here...is an authoritarian sickness...in its latest stages which causes authoritarian direction against even the most trivial of things.
Let's stop putting a stick in our spokes.
Yeah, thanks for making my point that I never said anything about haste and wasn’t even talking about your Unsummon argument at the time.
And yeah, your lack of experience is your problem - and being special at Pokémon or some golf mmo is a different skill set entirely.
But sure, get on Arena and play me some games. Or MTGO. Or Spelltable. Put your money where your overly active mouth is if you think you’re such a hot stuff Magic player because you were good at computer golf.
You are regurgitating a surplus of what I said (and acknowledged) attempting to change the context in favor of your argument.
The opinion that stopping a creature from attacking for two turns is more powerful than bouncing it lacks game experience, imo.
You haven’t played magic in more than a decade, so your opinion of game experience is as useful as your opinion of how good someone is at flying a spaceship.
This is only relevant to (in your words) "a tiny subset of creatures with haste".
I never said those words, so you’re just making s*** up now. Literally search the whole thread. Nowhere.
And Unsummon is significantly worse against haste creatures than your card.
The fact that this would provide an effective answer against aggro is a godsend—lest you don't realize how over-the-top aggro is.
Actually, this would be great against aggro, which is why I said above that it removes a threat/blocker to give control 2 turns to help stabilize and tempo 2 turns to gain momentum on offense.
Furthermore, the reason Divert is so underplayed coincides with why this would struggle to see competitive play abroad. It's more resolute to have a definitive answer to a spell than a temporary disruption.
People don’t play divert because it’s only legal in Legacy/Vintage (where it’s effect isn’t relevant to most competitive decks) and commander (where most single target spells aren’t worth the card slot to try redirecting)
People will play Disallow over any of the aforementioned all day.
Disallow sees almost no maindeck play any more now that Counterspell is Modern legal.
It gets the threat out of the way without another thought about it. This being said, complaining about a soft-lock being broken is just silly on your part. The only spells that break this threshold are hard-locks.
What are you talking about? This isn’t a “soft-lock”, it’s removal, pure and simple.
Again, your lack of experience actually playing the game is showing. The utility of stopping a creature from attacking or blocking for two turn cycles is far stronger than bouncing a creature against most decks, again because they can usually recast the spell in the second main phase and have it available to block. Keeping a creature out of combat that long gives control decks time to stabilize and/or sweep the board, and tempo decks time to gain offensive advantage so that the tapped player has lost momentum when their creature becomes usable again.
Further, Unsummon does not scry, draw a card, or counter any abilities, so it shows spectacular ignorance to think adding all those things to what you believe is a 1 mana spell would still be a 1 mana spell.
As a side note, Divert only interacts with a tiny subset of spells that have a single target, where counterspell counters any spell and twincast doesn't care if its target has one, none or a lot of targets. You can't Divert a Nexus of Fate, Casualties of War, or Entreat the Angels, but all three can be counterspelled and/or twincasted, so your comparison - as usual - is completely ignorant of the actual comparable gameplay values of the cards you are citing.
That's not how rarity works. Complexity wise, this is a rare, but that doesn't change the cost to balanced the combination of effect and card advantage. This effect might be MORE costed more expensive at common if the particular set's limited needs dictated it, but there is always a cost floor to make a spell balanced in wider formats.
Now, what this has to do with Divert, I don't know, but the fact that effects WERE undercosted in the past doesn't mean that they SHOULD be undercosted now. A broken card is still broken regardless if it was printed 25 years ago or last week.
Crippling Chill + Able to counter a bunch of abilities + Usable after attackers have been declared/combat tricks cast = 3U
All that Stuff + Scry 1 - Fateseal 1 = 2UU
Note: Scry 1 before you draw is significantly more powerful than your opponent fatesealing 1 afterwards, because you got to filter for a better chance at a card you knew you needed and your opponent - who can't see whats already in your hand - has to guess if the card on top is helpful for you or not. Scry 1 is worth about half a card of card advantage, but getting fatesealed is a negligible drawback.
As to the Unsummon question, if you bounce my creature before/during my attack, I can likely replay it in the second main phase and have it to block and then attack the next turn. If you crippling chill my creature before my attack, I miss that attack, then blocking on your turn, then attacking my next turn then blocking on your turn.
But, even if you were right about them being comparable, Bounce-a-creature-and-draw-a-card is still a ~3 mana spell, so your argument fails even if you were right about their power levels being similar.
And you are ignoring that, by tapping and not untapping instead of bouncing you are actually removing their card from multiple combat steps as an attacker and blocker and also preventing them from reusing any desirable enters the battlefield effects, which are very coming on creatures these days.
It’s almost like you’d understand better how to strategically value different effects if you actually played the game instead of just pulling guesses out of your butthole.
Look, Crippling Chill and multiple other cards already do tap/freeze/draw at 3 mana. Your card adds to that effect scry (big bonus), counter (small bonus), use as combat trick (big bonus) and fateseal (small drawback), and anyone with half a brain would understand the reasoning “more effects = more costs”
The fact that you think (a) that a better version of a 1 mana spell should still cost 1 mana and (b) that you are comparing a bounce spell to a tap/freeze/scry/draw/counter demonstrates how disconnected you are from the realities of gameplay and balance.
Even if the fateseal 100% offset the scry (which it doesn’t) you are still drawing a card and freeze tapping which is 3 mana by itself, plus you add the utility of being able to stop an attacker after they attacked and countering some abilities.
Doing more things = costing more mana
This is a 4 mana card, as anyone who actually knows anything about Magic would understand
Even assuming your Omen ability only triggered once as you intend it too, this is severely undercosted.
Scry 1 is effectively worth about half a card, so your card is a net gain of +1.5 cards (again, assuming you worded the ability correctly to only happen once). Fateseal, since you opponent will inherently have less information about what is in your hand and deck, is a lot less impactful because it is harder for them to determine what card you do or don't need at that moment, especailly after you already scry/drew into a card you wanted.
A tap/freeze/draw instant usually costs 2U, so this card would need to cost about 1UU or 3U for it to be balanced.
Again, this assumes you'd templated the omen ability to only happen once... which you didn't... again (see above where Shlameel understood from reading it that it triggers twice to demonstrate that your wording is incorrect)
In most situations, this is just "must be blocked if able", but with the corner cases that if you give the creature with distract a form of evasion they cannot interact with then your whole team is unblockable. It is probably too swingy for a keyword because its either an easy chump block or you're getting through with everything.
I love this concept, though I feel it needs to go further in support of being commander. This should have a partner like ability.
Storied (If ~ is your commander, then before the game starts place a Background from your deck into the command zone. It is also your commander.)
The "Choose a Background" ability and enchantments are off some cards spoiled from Commander Legends Baldur's Gate, so the ability probably has some of that functionality built into it.
Let's consider the game can actually handle trample damage and first strike damage at the same time.
You are confusing slang with game rules text. Players can handle short-handing "Your creature takes 4 first strike damage." while playing, but that doesn't mean the game defines it as such, just like players understand the concept of "summoning sickness" but the game rules do not use the term or recognize it for effects, and it only appears on 3 cards in the whole game in reminder text (which, of course, has no rules power).
Wall of Thorns 1GG
Creature — Elemental Wall
Defender
Pierce (Whenever this creature blocks or becomes blocked by a creature, put a -1/-1 counter on that creature at the end of combat.)
If Wall of Thorns blocks, all trample damage that would be dealt to you this turn is dealt to that source's controller instead.
0/7
If I attack you with an Arrogant Wurm and you don't block it, is that trample damage? The Wurm has trample so isn't all its damage trample damage?
If I use Gravitic Punch to have the Wurm deal you damage to the face, its still a source with trample dealing you damage, is that trample damage?
What about Ram Through? Its a fight card and it sort of lets damage trample over, so is that trample damage?
Because your card is ill defined, it creates confusion. If a player has to look up a ruling because a card or interaction is complex, that's fine and the player will learn to handle those interactions better. If a player has to guess what the card does because you are using imprecise language, that is your fault as a designer for not following the structure of rules to clearly define your card.
The worst part is that people tell you "Your card can work the way you want, you just word it differently for it to do so." and you would rather throw a tantrum like a toddler than learn the right way that the game works.
Flourishing Bog Land — Swamp Wastes 1, : Add GG to your mana pool.
Shallowcreek Valley Land — Forest Wastes 1, : Add BB to your mana pool.
We did understand your intentions, but that doesn’t mean your card actually works the way you want it to. In fact, is understanding your intentions is why we are able to tell you what you need to do to fix them
1) Wastes is not a land type. That is why the card Wastes says “Basic Land” and not “Basic Land - Wastes”
2) Since Wastes is not a Basic Land type it does not inherently add the ability “T: Add C” to the land.
3) Template wise, Mana abilities no longer reference the mana pool, they just add the mana.
Flourishing Bog Land — Swamp : Add C 1, : Add GG.
4) On a similar note, “all trample damage that would be dealt to you this turn is dealt to that source's controller instead.” is understandable but doesn’t actually work either because “trample damage” isn’t a thing the rules recognize.
Corrected template:
If Wall of Thorns blocks, all combat damage that would be dealt to you by blocked creatures with trample this turn is dealt to that source's controller instead.
Flavorwise, wouldn't it have been better to write: "When swooping Protector enters the battlefield, put a shield counter on target creature you control." ??
I think the flavor is he swoops in and chump blocks your face for you, and then lives to tell about it.
Opt sees a huge amount of play and your card does everything it does plus shuts down an attacker for two turns for the same mana cost.
If you can’t grasp something so simple as that that requires a higher manacost you really are hopeless.
Yeah, thanks for making my point that I never said anything about haste and wasn’t even talking about your Unsummon argument at the time.
And yeah, your lack of experience is your problem - and being special at Pokémon or some golf mmo is a different skill set entirely.
But sure, get on Arena and play me some games. Or MTGO. Or Spelltable. Put your money where your overly active mouth is if you think you’re such a hot stuff Magic player because you were good at computer golf.
Lol what? Are you okay? Seriously, that post is so absurdly divorced from logic and reality that I wonder if you are high or something.
You haven’t played magic in more than a decade, so your opinion of game experience is as useful as your opinion of how good someone is at flying a spaceship.
I never said those words, so you’re just making s*** up now. Literally search the whole thread. Nowhere.
And Unsummon is significantly worse against haste creatures than your card.
Actually, this would be great against aggro, which is why I said above that it removes a threat/blocker to give control 2 turns to help stabilize and tempo 2 turns to gain momentum on offense.
People don’t play divert because it’s only legal in Legacy/Vintage (where it’s effect isn’t relevant to most competitive decks) and commander (where most single target spells aren’t worth the card slot to try redirecting)
Disallow sees almost no maindeck play any more now that Counterspell is Modern legal.
What are you talking about? This isn’t a “soft-lock”, it’s removal, pure and simple.
Further, Unsummon does not scry, draw a card, or counter any abilities, so it shows spectacular ignorance to think adding all those things to what you believe is a 1 mana spell would still be a 1 mana spell.
As a side note, Divert only interacts with a tiny subset of spells that have a single target, where counterspell counters any spell and twincast doesn't care if its target has one, none or a lot of targets. You can't Divert a Nexus of Fate, Casualties of War, or Entreat the Angels, but all three can be counterspelled and/or twincasted, so your comparison - as usual - is completely ignorant of the actual comparable gameplay values of the cards you are citing.
That's not how rarity works. Complexity wise, this is a rare, but that doesn't change the cost to balanced the combination of effect and card advantage. This effect might be MORE costed more expensive at common if the particular set's limited needs dictated it, but there is always a cost floor to make a spell balanced in wider formats.
Now, what this has to do with Divert, I don't know, but the fact that effects WERE undercosted in the past doesn't mean that they SHOULD be undercosted now. A broken card is still broken regardless if it was printed 25 years ago or last week.
Base Tapdown Effect: Take Into Custody = U
Take Into Custody + Draw a Card = Crippling Chill = 2U
Crippling Chill + Able to counter a bunch of abilities + Usable after attackers have been declared/combat tricks cast = 3U
All that Stuff + Scry 1 - Fateseal 1 = 2UU
Note: Scry 1 before you draw is significantly more powerful than your opponent fatesealing 1 afterwards, because you got to filter for a better chance at a card you knew you needed and your opponent - who can't see whats already in your hand - has to guess if the card on top is helpful for you or not. Scry 1 is worth about half a card of card advantage, but getting fatesealed is a negligible drawback.
As to the Unsummon question, if you bounce my creature before/during my attack, I can likely replay it in the second main phase and have it to block and then attack the next turn. If you crippling chill my creature before my attack, I miss that attack, then blocking on your turn, then attacking my next turn then blocking on your turn.
But, even if you were right about them being comparable, Bounce-a-creature-and-draw-a-card is still a ~3 mana spell, so your argument fails even if you were right about their power levels being similar.
It’s almost like you’d understand better how to strategically value different effects if you actually played the game instead of just pulling guesses out of your butthole.
Look, Crippling Chill and multiple other cards already do tap/freeze/draw at 3 mana. Your card adds to that effect scry (big bonus), counter (small bonus), use as combat trick (big bonus) and fateseal (small drawback), and anyone with half a brain would understand the reasoning “more effects = more costs”
Doing more things = costing more mana
This is a 4 mana card, as anyone who actually knows anything about Magic would understand
Scry 1 is effectively worth about half a card, so your card is a net gain of +1.5 cards (again, assuming you worded the ability correctly to only happen once). Fateseal, since you opponent will inherently have less information about what is in your hand and deck, is a lot less impactful because it is harder for them to determine what card you do or don't need at that moment, especailly after you already scry/drew into a card you wanted.
A tap/freeze/draw instant usually costs 2U, so this card would need to cost about 1UU or 3U for it to be balanced.
Again, this assumes you'd templated the omen ability to only happen once... which you didn't... again (see above where Shlameel understood from reading it that it triggers twice to demonstrate that your wording is incorrect)
The "Choose a Background" ability and enchantments are off some cards spoiled from Commander Legends Baldur's Gate, so the ability probably has some of that functionality built into it.
You are confusing slang with game rules text. Players can handle short-handing "Your creature takes 4 first strike damage." while playing, but that doesn't mean the game defines it as such, just like players understand the concept of "summoning sickness" but the game rules do not use the term or recognize it for effects, and it only appears on 3 cards in the whole game in reminder text (which, of course, has no rules power).
If I attack you with an Arrogant Wurm and you don't block it, is that trample damage? The Wurm has trample so isn't all its damage trample damage?
If I use Gravitic Punch to have the Wurm deal you damage to the face, its still a source with trample dealing you damage, is that trample damage?
What about Ram Through? Its a fight card and it sort of lets damage trample over, so is that trample damage?
Because your card is ill defined, it creates confusion. If a player has to look up a ruling because a card or interaction is complex, that's fine and the player will learn to handle those interactions better. If a player has to guess what the card does because you are using imprecise language, that is your fault as a designer for not following the structure of rules to clearly define your card.
The worst part is that people tell you "Your card can work the way you want, you just word it differently for it to do so." and you would rather throw a tantrum like a toddler than learn the right way that the game works.
We did understand your intentions, but that doesn’t mean your card actually works the way you want it to. In fact, is understanding your intentions is why we are able to tell you what you need to do to fix them
1) Wastes is not a land type. That is why the card Wastes says “Basic Land” and not “Basic Land - Wastes”
2) Since Wastes is not a Basic Land type it does not inherently add the ability “T: Add C” to the land.
3) Template wise, Mana abilities no longer reference the mana pool, they just add the mana.
Flourishing Bog
Land — Swamp
1,
4) On a similar note, “all trample damage that would be dealt to you this turn is dealt to that source's controller instead.” is understandable but doesn’t actually work either because “trample damage” isn’t a thing the rules recognize.
Corrected template:
If Wall of Thorns blocks, all combat damage that would be dealt to you by blocked creatures with trample this turn is dealt to that source's controller instead.
I think the flavor is he swoops in and chump blocks your face for you, and then lives to tell about it.