2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]

    Your card invites players with access to 4 mana to play this card, and activate the ability with the other 2 mana at the end of your opponent's turn (or in response to a kill spell) to throw Griselbrand, Emrakul, the Aeons Torn or similarly powerful cards out and win on the very same turn (or perhaps next turn).


    It's not just access to 4 mana—it requires four Forests.

    The Basic land type is very significant addition to the cost, even with the presence of Dual Lands, Shocklands, and the increasing number of unthought non-basic lands with basic land types. It's not going to really be as simple as you're trying to make it out.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Quote from user_938036 »
    Without the 'Exile' clause, I think it's over-the-top as a repeatable effect.

    Just play another if you want the effect again.

    This primes the fun of running additional copies, and gives the whole deck engine (involving the aforementioned) some much needed interactivity.
    Ok, either you don't know what interactivity means or you are deliberately using it wrong. Making it self exile adds 0 interactivity and possibly removes a lot. A card sitting on the battlefield is open to interactivity.


    It requires you to use additional copies, which is interactive. You have to source the additional copies as well, which is also interactive.

    If it were just a linear effect, that just sits there and can repeat itself, that is losing interactivity; because you don't have to source and play additional copies to get additional effects.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Without the 'Exile' clause, I think it's over-the-top as a repeatable effect.

    Just play another if you want the effect again.

    This primes the fun of running additional copies, and gives the whole deck engine (involving the aforementioned) some much needed interactivity.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Quote from rowanalpha »

    Aside to Reap: Do you know the background of the Oath of Druids deck and why it got banned? I ask this genuinely, because it does seem like an innocuous card on the surface but I know from experience that it was a broken deck to play against.


    Specifics are hazy, but I do recall a screencap of the era. It was very powerful, the color green made it comfortable and attractive to play. There was lots of unfavorable perspective towards blue and black players; with counterspells and cheap control being seen as unfair and broken. It was to great extents in the fact that development didn't ensure to secure power on each side evenly. This technicality is what veered a multitude towards playing it. However, there were more than a few that could stop it, and beat it. There were unaccredited strategies as well, that no one even saw, but existed (such as mono-white).

    I was considering the entire overworld in this design. I do think it's powerful—but has great grace in comparison to its predecessors.

    I think the best way to solve this, and make the design even more fun and challenging is by adding 'Sacrifice Evolutionary Leap' to the costs.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    They only banned it to prevent everyone from playing it.


    Uh... yeah?

    People naturally gravitate to the strongest cards in most competitive formats. If a card or strategies enables a high win rate, everyone will start playing it and the metagame becomes warped around that card... which is results in the ban.

    This is how bans generally work.


    Generally works isn't the key here.

    Bans work (or should work) by preventing content that creates and unfair advantage which doesn't allow anything else to be played with a fighting chance.

    Oath of Druids doesn't actually do that, and neither does this.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Quote from user_938036 »

    What's it doing that Oath of Druids isn't already capable of?

    I don't think it matters what the options are in legacy.
    Ok, I'm going to go slow because thus is very important. Comparing a custom designed card to cards that are banned is never good regardless of format but especially so when the format they are banned in is relevant.


    It does matter because although this does something similar, it wouldn't need to be banned.

    It's a much fairer exchange, that leaves a player totally vulnerable and resets them back to turn 1.

    Oath of Druids didn't even need to be banned. They only banned it to prevent everyone from playing it.

    No fun for them in everyone running green I suppose?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Quote from user_938036 »
    Quote from user_938036 »
    The "or less" certainly opens up valuable play options but uts best use is still coming out 9 drops on turn 3. To not be so explosive just being 2X rather than XX solves a lot of problems. There are obviously still some dangerous 6 drops but they don't quite shut down the game in the way those 9 drops do. Also it means 1 forest sac'd can find two drops which is way more useful.


    It is a possible 9 drop on turn three, but it also sets you back to the start of the game (zero lands).

    Exploration and Crucible of Worlds become very interesting play options, but now were talking about building a multi-faceted deck strategy.

    I personally questioned limiting this to green creatures, and possibly legendary creatures, but I think it closes too much interactivity and fantasy domain. In the 'nature can do anything bid' this would be one of its primary extensions that show how those roots stretch into and envelop all.
    The problem is at 9CMC you get very dangerous options like Iona, Shield of Emeria, Blazing Archon, Inkwell Leviathan and Void Winnower. These card can easily invalidate entire decks and strategies.


    What's it doing that Oath of Druids isn't already capable of?

    I don't think it matters what the options are in legacy.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Quote from user_938036 »
    The "or less" certainly opens up valuable play options but uts best use is still coming out 9 drops on turn 3. To not be so explosive just being 2X rather than XX solves a lot of problems. There are obviously still some dangerous 6 drops but they don't quite shut down the game in the way those 9 drops do. Also it means 1 forest sac'd can find two drops which is way more useful.


    It is a possible 9 drop on turn three, but it also sets you back to the start of the game (zero lands).

    Exploration and Crucible of Worlds become very interesting play options, but now were talking about building a multi-faceted deck strategy.

    I personally questioned limiting this to green creatures, and possibly legendary creatures, but I think it closes too much interactivity and fantasy domain. In the 'nature can do anything bid' this would be one of its primary extensions that show how those roots stretch into and envelop all.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Quote from rowanalpha »
    First off, kudos for designing a correctly templated, straight-forward and still unique card effect.

    The name does need to change since Evolutionary Leap is already a card. Plus that flavor is kind of wierd: Are the forests evolving into the creature? It's odd.

    Overall, though, I like this is idea.


    I would think of it as like, 'the shifting of the land and time'.

    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Quote from user_938036 »
    So it only fines CMC 1 4 9 and Draco. I honestly like this effect though it has obvious problems. First is that people are bad at math. They won't realize this is restricted to 4 slots. Also its too cheap. There are too many 9CMC creatures that can effectively end the game turn 3. At least with reanimate you have to have more set up in getting the creature into your graveyard.


    It was supposed to work with the same function.

    Sorry I derailed the effect.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Evolutionary Leap [Reprise]
    Evolutionary Leap 1G
    Enchantment
    1G, Sacrifice any number of Forests: Exile Evolutionary Leap. Reveal cards from the top of your library until you reveal a creature card with a converted mana cost X or less and put it into the battlefield, where X is equal to the number of Forests sacrificed this way times itself. Shuffle the remaining cards into your library.
    "I looked to the past and saw horror. I could see the future and it was terrifying. We all know history is doomed to repeat itself."

































    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on "Mill" was such a gross feel-bad game term choice
    The thing about that, though, is that you are wrong and incorrect.

    Mill is a fine name.
    Mill is perfect.

    Short, elegant, ties into a card Millstone. And is the EXACT definition of what it does.

    def: a device or machine for reducing something (as by crushing or grinding) to small pieces or particles

    You are in the minority on this one. Sorry. Frown
    Quote from rowanalpha »
    Its what people were already calling the ability. No reason to try fight what has already established itself. People still call commander "EDH" after many years, and that's a term without actual gameplay impact.
    The most important aspect for "mill" is that people use to call it that anyway, regardless of what the text on the card says.

    People use to say "mill X cards" for all of magics history.

    So calling it anything else is not helping anything.

    And "mill" is short and quite clear, explaining what it means is not completely intuitive as you need to know what "mill" actually means, but then its totally fine.

    I wondered for years why the text wasnt changed to mill , at some point they just caved in.


    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on "Mill" was such a gross feel-bad game term choice
    Quote from Kryptnyt »
    I think it's silly that we call a deck of cards a "library." It should obviously be called "The Random Access Memory Of Your Planeswalker," or "TRAMOYP" for short. It's more flavorful when applied that way. Magic cards aren't books! Also, when you play MTG, it helps you feel like a planeswalker, like that old ad campaign.

    Also, when are Instants going to be renamed Flashsorceries? Obvious move, WOTC.


    This was to say that the pop-culture term wasn't adaptable as a game term. It's too bland and monotone.

    The pop-culture term should have been left in isolation where it was.

    I don't see you added anything intelligible against this argument.

    Quote from Xcric »
    maybe, but at the same time mill is universally recognized within the game already as meaning put the top card into the graveyard and traumatize... well... isn't.

    if anything the word traumatize is more recognized in association with the card and believe it or not there would be a ton of casual players who would think the keyword does what the card does. no i don't have statistics on that, but if you want real proof just hang out on any casual magic facebook group and look at the rules questions that come up daily.


    Here's a constellation from another post, where the subject was keywords that match card names and their effects. Based on this, they don't actually match up often, so there's no grounds that mill should have (or needed to) take on the pop-culture term instead of the adaptation I've suggested.

    Quote from user_938036 »
    I also don't know of any keywords that don't directly mirror their previous card (or its effects). They typically do, and that's why it's really strange to name it that. I am all for grand exceptions, and I would definitely think to make one here for this,
    These are all cards that share a name with a keyword

    Flash This can reasonably be seen as giving your creature flash
    Lifelink Directly grants
    Vigilance Directly grants
    Absorb No connection
    Fabricate No connection
    Fortify No connection
    Gravestorm No connection
    Overload No connection
    Provoke Close enough
    Rebound No connection
    Recover Close enough
    Unearth Close enough
    Vanishing No connection
    Channel No connection
    Enrage No connection
    Rally No connection
    Undergrowth No connection
    Fear Directly grants
    Regenerate Directly grants

    Out of the 19 pairs only 8 have a connection between their effects. This sends a clear message that when naming new abilities cards with the name can be ignored but it's nice if they overlap. So call your ability Intuition or anything that is easier to say and understand than Intravoyance
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on "Mill" was such a gross feel-bad game term choice
    I totally understand the legacy, and it might not seem out of place for many, since people refer to this style decks rightfully so;

    but I honestly can't help but feel like it should stayed in that isolation and not been keyworded like this.

    It looks so tacky, and doesn't read well at all. There's no feel for fantasy, or correlation to the fantasy embodiment of the game.

    It's so bland and monotone. If I were in development, I would have seriously pushed for something like Traumatized instead.

    Example,

    Target player gets traumatized 2.

    and that player gets traumatized 10.

    It reads so much better, and has such better synergy with the embodiment of the fantasy game. It reflects a third dimension, of damage, and your conscious existence (psychological capacity) within the fantasy world. Anyone else agree?

    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Sliver Cult King [The New Legendary — At The World's End]
    Considering that 'CARDNAME' text becomes 'this creature' when abilities are adapted in an archaic fashion like this, you could probably fix your concern by simply adding:

    "Other Slivers can only become a copy of Sliver Cult King this way."

    You can also do something like,

    "Other Slivers have all copied abilities of Sliver Cult King."

    But then you can't have it transfer the host, which I think is an awesome staple to the design.

    I could cut it from the design no problem, but just saying; sentimentality.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.