I had a mechanic idea good for a single card, most likely blue/black. Come up with a name, flavor text and most importantly casting cost. Better templating would also be useful - the effect is, odd.
Sorcery
Target player discards a card, then puts X cards from their library into the graveyard. X is 7 minus the converted mana cost of the discarded card.
Well. Bestow certainly does leave a bad taste in the mouth doesn't it?
I wonder if there wasn't something more they could have done to spice these up a bit, cause paying 5 or 6 mana for a mediocre Aura feels pretty crappy right now.
Except its not an aura. You can't kill these by killing the creature - if you do the opponent gets a French bear. Wrath also leaves these behind if they were auras when the wrath hits. Bestow is a pricey option, but just that - an option. A 2/2 flyer is limited playable without bestow.
It is but if you cast an Aura and it your target gets taken down before your Aura resolves your Aura spell got nothing to attach to and goes straight to graveyard. Bestow Aura must land to be able to become a creature.
"If the target creature leaves the battlefield after you cast a card with bestow as an Aura but before the spell resolves, the Aura spell will resolve as an enchantment creature rather than being countered like a normal Aura spell. If the target creature is still on the battlefield when the Aura spell resolves, it resolves as an Aura enchanting that creature."
Emphasis mine. You can't 2 for 1 a bestow card by shooting the creature out from underneath it.
Hopefully a retraction will be issued. I was surprised to see bad information coming out of an official WotC article.
Cause, T, metric ton of mana is bad enough. Now it's T, metric ton of mana, play a new one send the old one to the yard, T, metric ton of mana, hey look Exploration, New one, old to yard, T, metric ton of mana...
Ok, there might be enough other broken things in the format to keep it in check. Still...
Assuming a turn 1 mana dork this guy is out on turn 2. Turn 3 pump him up to 4/4 and slap a rancor on him - 6/4 doublestrike trample. Turn 4 he'll be 10/4 doublestrike trample. There is no turn 5.
To all the "it dies to instant removal" sheep - At the worst this card forces them to use that removal. This is a card that requires an immediate answer.
So you don't draw him until Turn 5, or they kill the one you played out turn 2. It still hits as a 3/3 or 4/4 depending on the quality of your ramp, and the first time it swings - if it isn't blocked it's going to lop off better than 10 life.
Just because this card can be answered with putrefy, murder or what have you doesn't mean it's a dead draw. Worst case - 1 for 1. There are no wrong threats in Magic - there are only wrong answers.
I think people are really underestimating exactly how powerful repeatable two damage is. We have it on a land that costs 6? And he has flying so he can chump spirits all day.
My complaint isn't about power. My complaint is about comprehensibility.
This problem has existed from the playtest of alpha when one of the playtesters opened up what would become "Time Walk" and read "Target opponent loses next turn."
And they went to Richard saying it was a real broken card, what for 1U you can win the game pretty much on the spot.
The game has a very specific, well nigh programmatic language template setup to avoid misunderstandings about what cards do. This card is unclear in what it does because by changing the reading emphasis you can end up with several different readings. The correct one, per tumblr, is the "all targets random" one, which is closer to the natural language reading.
The last card to be this bad that I can recall is Recurring Nightmare. Played correctly, you cannot destroy it because the card returns to the owner's hand on the announcement of the effect. The reason for that has to do with the positioning of the : in the effect sentence. While this is clear as day to tournament players who know rules nuance, it is not clear to casual players and I've seen them play the card wrong on many an occassion and argue vehemently that they can indeed disenchant it.
I mean, if you can't disenchant it, why is it an enchantment? Why not a buyback sorcery (which, functionally, it is. [cue someone arguing that it isn't functionally a sorcery, which will prove my point about pedantry being part of the game])
Back to the goblin. He's hard to understand. That alone is reason enough he shouldn't have been printed - they have space for much better and clearer templates here. The real sad part is the clearer wording is the same length - compare:
ACTUAL
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to target creature or player chosen at random.
CLEARER
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to a randomly chosen target creature or player.
They have no excuse here. Templating fail. I'm done for the night.
This card is hilarious. If only it was mono-red, I would play it in Norin. Shame its blue though. The randomness doesn't sound like blue at all. Really it should be just red.
Blue was the original home of "Tim" effects (T: Deal X damage, usually 1 damage) before the card effects realignment was done starting with Odyssey? The critter also flies, which is a blue trait, and most subtle it has a higher toughness than power (red creatures trend towards a higher power than toughness)
so the perpetuator is the izzet guy, instead of the guy who needlessly created 100s of tokens?
The main reason its awful isn't the random targeting of 100's of tokens, its the fact that effect isn't clear from a reading of the card. I'm reading the card as only being random when it's pointed at players - against creatures the effect is targeted and non-random. In recent templates the word 'or' has been a hard separator of effects (look at the charms). You don't mix or match phrases from one side of the word "or" to the other. The problem is that strict template reading is grinding very hard with the natural language reading of the card.
That is what makes the card bad more than anything else - it's hard to understand and parse.
target creature or player sounds very clear to me. maybe you're being pedantic or stubborn for argument's sake?
Open your eyes - The whole game is based around such pedantry and exact legal meaning. Legal and logical phrases do not always match their expected natural language readings.
Imagine how much less disappointing this would be if it was "T: Deal 2 damage to target random opponent or creature you don't control." It would be cool without needing to be absurdly unplayable. It's a shame, because I was really hoping to see a cool Izzet card to go along with the art when it was first shown in Uncharted Realms.
I read it as "T: Deal 2 damage to target creature OR player chosen at random." Emphasis mine. It's template fail and there are people that are going to play the card the way I'm emphasizing it. After all, if all the targets were random, why not say 'target player' as well?
A much clearer template would have been "T: Choose one - Deal 2 damage to target creature; or deal 2 damage to a player chosen at random."
If my hunch is correct that's what the Oracle reading will become.
Wizards: We are going to make regeneration be worth something again.... /trollface
There is a world of difference between having 1 or 2 "can't regenerate" cards running around, and having every single creature kill card featuring no regenerate. There was a time when regenerate was only good against damage because all the destroy cards had "can't regenerate" as a rider (and one of the burn spells, incinerate, did as well).
I think I've parsed it out after thinking on it for a few hours.
(Which is sad, no card should take that much thought time to parse out).
I believe the way they want the reading to break up is...
target creature
or
player chosen at random
If the intent of the card was for players to be randomly targeted it would have read
"target creature or target player chosen at random"
Or more likely, there would be a comma in there
"target creature or target player, chosen at random"
Choosing a random player is easy enough - flip a coin in a duel, and polyhedral dice or drawing lots works in multiplayer.
Also, that reading makes the costing make sense. It's a 3 CMC critter that has a 2 reliable point plink on critters, and a less reliable plink on players.
2 damage against creatures only for 3 CMC is enough to make it constructed playable - that it flies and can plink players randomly is gravy.
Which is, to be fair, housebanned in quite some places.
And also, to be fair, was long before WotC paid much attention to multiplayer. Grip of Chaos will never see a reprint nor will a similar card ever be printed.
This is definitely the worst wording of a card I've seen since The Dark. Is it
Target is completely random among all creatures and players? I sorta doubt it as this is an absolute PITA to resolve in any game that isn't a duel, and WotC has been paying too much attention to multiplayer to let something like that slip I would hope.
You choose a target creature and player and it has a 50% chance of hitting one or the other which lines up much better with how its costed. WotC still prints the occasional jank but they've made it a point since the last Ravnica block to make every card count in some major format between constructed, limited and commander.
Target creature and all players at random?
The wording is just flat out awful and ambiguous as Hell. This thing is worse for the kitchen table than Recurring Nightmare when it comes to rules arguments and finding itself misplayed. And trust me, no matter the final ruling on this card, a lot of casual players will misplay this - the wording is just too bad to avoid that.
As to the quality of the card itself, it depends on what WotC intended. I expect an errata on this card once it becomes clear how confusing this critter is.
I know bad cards have to exist from a power standpoint - but bad cards from an ease to play standpoint do not have to exist. Plop this down late game in a 5 player multiplayer game and it will slow the game down fairly resolving it far more than Sensei's Divining Top or Sharazad. Indeed, if it works according to the first interpretation it will eventually be banned - not because it is powerful but because it can be used to stalemate games trying to resolve it.
This is definitely the worst wording of a card I've seen since The Dark. Is it
Target is completely random among all creatures and players? I sorta doubt it as this is an absolute PITA to resolve in any game that isn't a duel, and WotC has been paying too much attention to multiplayer to let something like that slip I would hope.
You choose a target creature and player and it has a 50% chance of hitting one or the other which lines up much better with how its costed. WotC still prints the occasional jank but they've made it a point since the last Ravnica block to make every card count in some major format between constructed, limited and commander.
Target creature and all players at random?
The wording is just flat out awful and ambiguous as Hell. This thing is worse for the kitchen table than Recurring Nightmare when it comes to rules arguments and finding itself misplayed. And trust me, no matter the final ruling on this card, a lot of casual players will misplay this - the wording is just too bad to avoid that.
As to the quality of the card itself, it depends on what WotC intended. I expect an errata on this card once it becomes clear how confusing this critter is.
Sorcery
Target player discards a card, then puts X cards from their library into the graveyard. X is 7 minus the converted mana cost of the discarded card.
Except its not an aura. You can't kill these by killing the creature - if you do the opponent gets a French bear. Wrath also leaves these behind if they were auras when the wrath hits. Bestow is a pricey option, but just that - an option. A 2/2 flyer is limited playable without bestow.
No!
From the The Official Mechanics Article
Emphasis mine. You can't 2 for 1 a bestow card by shooting the creature out from underneath it.
Hopefully a retraction will be issued. I was surprised to see bad information coming out of an official WotC article.
Cause, T, metric ton of mana is bad enough. Now it's T, metric ton of mana, play a new one send the old one to the yard, T, metric ton of mana, hey look Exploration, New one, old to yard, T, metric ton of mana...
Ok, there might be enough other broken things in the format to keep it in check. Still...
To all the "it dies to instant removal" sheep - At the worst this card forces them to use that removal. This is a card that requires an immediate answer.
So you don't draw him until Turn 5, or they kill the one you played out turn 2. It still hits as a 3/3 or 4/4 depending on the quality of your ramp, and the first time it swings - if it isn't blocked it's going to lop off better than 10 life.
Just because this card can be answered with putrefy, murder or what have you doesn't mean it's a dead draw. Worst case - 1 for 1. There are no wrong threats in Magic - there are only wrong answers.
Do you honestly think a queen of the Golgari would have the courtesy to stay dead?
My complaint isn't about power. My complaint is about comprehensibility.
Am I?
This problem has existed from the playtest of alpha when one of the playtesters opened up what would become "Time Walk" and read "Target opponent loses next turn."
And they went to Richard saying it was a real broken card, what for 1U you can win the game pretty much on the spot.
The game has a very specific, well nigh programmatic language template setup to avoid misunderstandings about what cards do. This card is unclear in what it does because by changing the reading emphasis you can end up with several different readings. The correct one, per tumblr, is the "all targets random" one, which is closer to the natural language reading.
The last card to be this bad that I can recall is Recurring Nightmare. Played correctly, you cannot destroy it because the card returns to the owner's hand on the announcement of the effect. The reason for that has to do with the positioning of the : in the effect sentence. While this is clear as day to tournament players who know rules nuance, it is not clear to casual players and I've seen them play the card wrong on many an occassion and argue vehemently that they can indeed disenchant it.
I mean, if you can't disenchant it, why is it an enchantment? Why not a buyback sorcery (which, functionally, it is. [cue someone arguing that it isn't functionally a sorcery, which will prove my point about pedantry being part of the game])
Back to the goblin. He's hard to understand. That alone is reason enough he shouldn't have been printed - they have space for much better and clearer templates here. The real sad part is the clearer wording is the same length - compare:
ACTUAL
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to target creature or player chosen at random.
CLEARER
T: Goblin Test Pilot deals 2 damage to a randomly chosen target creature or player.
They have no excuse here. Templating fail. I'm done for the night.
Blue was the original home of "Tim" effects (T: Deal X damage, usually 1 damage) before the card effects realignment was done starting with Odyssey? The critter also flies, which is a blue trait, and most subtle it has a higher toughness than power (red creatures trend towards a higher power than toughness)
The main reason its awful isn't the random targeting of 100's of tokens, its the fact that effect isn't clear from a reading of the card. I'm reading the card as only being random when it's pointed at players - against creatures the effect is targeted and non-random. In recent templates the word 'or' has been a hard separator of effects (look at the charms). You don't mix or match phrases from one side of the word "or" to the other. The problem is that strict template reading is grinding very hard with the natural language reading of the card.
That is what makes the card bad more than anything else - it's hard to understand and parse.
Open your eyes - The whole game is based around such pedantry and exact legal meaning. Legal and logical phrases do not always match their expected natural language readings.
I read it as "T: Deal 2 damage to target creature OR player chosen at random." Emphasis mine. It's template fail and there are people that are going to play the card the way I'm emphasizing it. After all, if all the targets were random, why not say 'target player' as well?
A much clearer template would have been "T: Choose one - Deal 2 damage to target creature; or deal 2 damage to a player chosen at random."
If my hunch is correct that's what the Oracle reading will become.
There is a world of difference between having 1 or 2 "can't regenerate" cards running around, and having every single creature kill card featuring no regenerate. There was a time when regenerate was only good against damage because all the destroy cards had "can't regenerate" as a rider (and one of the burn spells, incinerate, did as well).
(Which is sad, no card should take that much thought time to parse out).
I believe the way they want the reading to break up is...
If the intent of the card was for players to be randomly targeted it would have read
"target creature or target player chosen at random"
Or more likely, there would be a comma in there
"target creature or target player, chosen at random"
Choosing a random player is easy enough - flip a coin in a duel, and polyhedral dice or drawing lots works in multiplayer.
Also, that reading makes the costing make sense. It's a 3 CMC critter that has a 2 reliable point plink on critters, and a less reliable plink on players.
2 damage against creatures only for 3 CMC is enough to make it constructed playable - that it flies and can plink players randomly is gravy.
And also, to be fair, was long before WotC paid much attention to multiplayer. Grip of Chaos will never see a reprint nor will a similar card ever be printed.
This is definitely the worst wording of a card I've seen since The Dark. Is it
The wording is just flat out awful and ambiguous as Hell. This thing is worse for the kitchen table than Recurring Nightmare when it comes to rules arguments and finding itself misplayed. And trust me, no matter the final ruling on this card, a lot of casual players will misplay this - the wording is just too bad to avoid that.
As to the quality of the card itself, it depends on what WotC intended. I expect an errata on this card once it becomes clear how confusing this critter is.
I know bad cards have to exist from a power standpoint - but bad cards from an ease to play standpoint do not have to exist. Plop this down late game in a 5 player multiplayer game and it will slow the game down fairly resolving it far more than Sensei's Divining Top or Sharazad. Indeed, if it works according to the first interpretation it will eventually be banned - not because it is powerful but because it can be used to stalemate games trying to resolve it.
The wording is just flat out awful and ambiguous as Hell. This thing is worse for the kitchen table than Recurring Nightmare when it comes to rules arguments and finding itself misplayed. And trust me, no matter the final ruling on this card, a lot of casual players will misplay this - the wording is just too bad to avoid that.
As to the quality of the card itself, it depends on what WotC intended. I expect an errata on this card once it becomes clear how confusing this critter is.