2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Dousing Balance
    I think it would have to say,

    Crusade for Balance XXW
    Sorcery
    Each opponent sacrifices a permanent of each type among artifact, creature, land, enchantment, and planeswalker if that player controls more permanents of that type than you. Each opponent discards cards and exiles cards from their graveyard the same way. Repeat this process up to X times.
    "Fight with all your might my son! Our effort must be almost overwhelming. Our vigilance must be enduring. Never cease your advance! A man's power is his output. When you cease to fight, you will soon after cease to exist."


    This is the best I can do. It's basically the same as what you had, just an extra step for coherence. It would probably be way more functional as a single instance effect though.

    Solemn Judgement 1W
    Sorcery
    Each opponent sacrifices a permanent of each type among artifact, creature, land, enchantment, and planeswalker if that player controls more permanents of that type than you.
    "A man's power lies in his output. Yet beware of that output. The moment you fight for what's wrong, you mine as well cease to exist."
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Dousing Balance
    It costs too much (for what it aspires to do). It actually doesn't do that either.

    You're instructing players to sacrifice a number of permanents down to an equal portion as you, which can bypass and exceed the value of X.

    You should try maybe an inverse balance, that enables you to search your deck (or grab cards you own from outside the game) and put them onto the battlefield till you have the same number of those permanents as each player who controls the highest number of those permanent types.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Seven White Cards
    Norn's Confessor shuts down the game with Leyline of the Void. That's not very interactive—and thus not very fun.

    You know, if that simply exiled the top card of the library, it would be just as good (and nowhere near as polarizing).
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Ultimus of the End
    I was slightly under the impression that the kicker was expected to be paid three times for the full effect, and it was just a lapse of reason on the part of OP (mistaking the first as a casting cost). All-in-all, I think it's pretty blanch and unimaginative. There was plenty of ways to end of the game with an incredibly strong creature (Sengir Vampire used to do this back in the day). It doesn't have to be totally invulnerable.

    For creative juice, try pooling a large sum of power into one single thing (such as power when attacking). That's going to make it fun to build around. Anything that adds to the center-piece is going to instantly make the magnetism of the design feel immensely greater. Anything that's contrast to it—is going to essentially give it the same invulnerability—in a more fun and interactive way.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Rapier: Divine Soul


    Quite a few updates and lots of design notes if you got any new feedback.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on 4 Rares: Ghostimage, Fertile Canopy, Politeness, and Brutal Passages
    A canopy can be virile, but I don't think it can be fertile.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Ancestral Legacy: The Next Generation
    Just remembered last night that Stasis was actually the first card I thought to do this function with.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    Okay, well now you're not using a medium with 'equal sides' to the result. This now involves 'rules bending'.

    Just like I said. This method is not securable and is going to come to a dead-end.

    // Additionally, there are numbers that don't divide evenly at all.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    You missed an important point I made which expresses the fact that even probability isn't securable for every number.

    You are going to come to a dead end somewhere. Where by your logic, there won't even be a method to use to make the random selection.

    Therefore, equal probability should not be enforced. So long as probability is playing a major factor, it should count as fair.

    // Additionally

    There's likely only one number that you really want/need in the game scenario. So this method doesn't give you 75% success—it's the other way around. There are two unfavorable outcomes and one favorable outcome. The best backup, is still the backup for a reason. It has little to no utility in comparison. It's vulnerable in comparison.

    I'm not trying to cheat anybody.

    I'm just trying to prevent players from under-thinking, and locking themselves out of the functionality somewhere down the road.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    It's not to say that. It's to say that you shouldn't be able to prohibit a person from using an ulterior method so long as probability is playing a major role.

    You can't honestly say it's not random. They can try to put the odds in their favor—but still fail.

    That's not random? Sure will feel random to fail.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    Sensible...but that's still not an official ruling.

    Just lol if they try to say that a method using probability isn't random.

    There's no way to secure such proportions with certain odd numbers. You'd always come to a dead end somewhere.

    So long as a method uses probability—it should count as random.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    Quote from WizardMN »

    I don't appreciate being attacked because my answer differs from yours.

    There is no judge that would see this and not recognize it as cheating. You can argue all you want here about it, but in a tournament, you will have a bad time. And your argument of "random isn't defined in the CR" won't fly.


    No one is attacking you. Nothing I said was spoken in the spirit of Ad Hominem (simply intended to insult or offend). It was spoken reason, which explains the concept at hand, and then logically refutes why it is not right (or in this case–unjust or unlawful).

    You are trying to rightfully play the victim, and I don't appreciate being made out to be a victimizer. This is a false light that is extremely defamatory.

    A Judge has to be unbiased. You don't have the right to circumvent the CR based on your personal feelings. Doing so is a self-righteous act. It means you're turning your back on the law for your convenience, your leisure, or your personal benefit. An honorable Judge can never do something like that. You're putting yourself over another. You're putting yourself over what is written law. Destroying the equality that is the rule of law and the order that comes from it.

    Furthermore, it's not cheating. Specially because there is still a large range of uncontrollable probability between the majority of the selection. The two heads and two tails results have equal odds. You have one favorable value, but you can't control its outcome. It's still (by even the vaguest definition) a random result.

    Just the factor of probability playing the deciding role, makes a method (or its result) random. The result cannot be controlled. The result is subjective. The result is erratic. That is random. That is how random should be defined in the CR. That is how Judges should deem randomized selections.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    Quote from WizardMN »
    So, if I am understanding you correctly, you are using the age-old argument of "the rules don't say I *can't* do this, so it must be legal". Is that the gist of your last post?

    And you haven't addressed this bit:

    701.1. Most actions described in a card's rules text use the standard English definitions of the verbs within, but some specialized verbs are used whose meanings may not be clear. These "keywords" are game terms; sometimes reminder text summarizes their meanings.

    Or, this:

    608.2c. The controller of the spell or ability follows its instructions in the order written. However, replacement effects may modify these actions. In some cases, later text on the card may modify the meaning of earlier text (for example, "Destroy target creature. It can't be regenerated" or "Counter target spell. If that spell is countered this way, put it on top of its owner's library instead of into its owner's graveyard.") Don't just apply effects step by step without thinking in these cases--read the whole text and apply the rules of English to the text.

    These two rules cover the idea of "if the word is not defined in the CR, use the English definition". Since "Random" is not defined, we use the definition. Which I quoted above. How does your proposed method *not* run afoul of that definition?


    It is to say, that is exactly how the law works. It's called a loophole.

    If the law doesn't define something, then the definition of boundaries can be too ambiguous to rule against it. That is certainly the case here.

    20 doesn't even divide by three evenly. So you couldn't even use a 20 sided dice without doing the same thing. It would have to a six-sided dice.

    // Additionally

    Flip a coin effects are specific. Choosing at random effects are entirely different—even if the method used involves flipping a coin. It's a loophole.

    You're telling me as a Rules Guru, even though this isn't explicitly defined, you would apply your own homebrew rules interpretation to hotfix the game. That's unlawful. You would be oppressing the player from their fair right to decide or proceed by means that aren't explicitly prohibited.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    The technical bit is...this ruling is particularly siting "flipping a coin" for an effect that says "flip a coin".

    Bottle of Suleiman // Mana Clash // Desperate Gambit

    And substitutions for these effects particularly.

    This ruling doesn't have any domain over other randomized selections.

    Control of the Court // Scrambleverse // Wild Swing

    Or methods used for choosing them.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How to Factor Haktos' Random Protection Values in Your Favor
    705.3. A coin used in a flip must be a two-sided object with easily distinguished sides and equal likelihood that either side lands face up. If the coin that’s being flipped doesn’t have an obvious “heads”or “tails,”designate one side to be “heads,”and the other side to be “tails.”Other methods of randomization may be substituted for flipping a coin as long as there are two possible outcomes of equal likelihood and all players agree to the substitution. For example, the player may roll an even-sided die and call “odds”or “evens,”or roll an even-sided die and designate that “odds”means “heads”and “evens”means “tails.”


    The entire point of something "random" is to make it not favored.

    If you could just willy-nilly make something random heavy in favor of one or the other would make it not random at all (as you can simply choose make it astronomically unlikely, which is basically 0).



    Nope, that wouldn't suffice. It's simply saying that a coin has to be two-sided. So long as coin is two-sided, using it in this manner would still be acceptable.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.