Ajani's Bounty should probably cost more. Seems like it would draw out games so much that you'd want to make sure it isn't competative.
Oh here we go, this discussion again. If the card takes the form of "X - Sorcery - Gain Y life", it's pretty damn hard to undercost it or overpower it. Can you think of a card in existence that follows that form and is even remotely playable?
If exiled means its gone, it simply sucks to be a combo deck
The appropriate response to this is for designers to make it harder to exile combo pieces in the first place, not to make it easier to bring them back once exiled.
Exile as it stands has so much interaction its fine, many mechanics use the exile allready, suspend for example is a good example, cards really come from another "existence" back in our world.
An exile mechanic could easily use "spirits" and other worldy beings like Elements that pop out of the Aether, why not ?
you should at least have a way to get it back, at least a little bit of "hope".
From a design point that could easily make sence if a set has "delve" and other mechanics that give an easy way to exile cards.
do you really need the exile for that mechanics ? Can you do it with graveyard ?
No you don't and yes you can. Disentomb covers the "way to get it back", and Dredge covers the "Easy way to fill up the pile".
I knew as soon as they announced labeling 'removed from the game' as 'exile' that we'd be having this discussion at some point. It's just too tempting to make the card the OP posted, because people see exile as just another zone of the game instead of a pile of cards that have been removed from the game.
Mark Rosewater has said on multiple occasions that the exile zone is *not* to be used as a second graveyard. I'm uncomfortable enough with cards like Karn and Runic Repetition, I'd much rather they didn't add any more.
That said, if Wizards ever wanted to break the "exiled means removed forever" rule, the Helvault storyline would probably the time to do it.
Can you give examples of WotC breaking those rules? Or, more importantly, can you give examples of WotC repeatedly breaking those rules? The only one I can think of is the Shock one, and I don't even remember WotC saying that. Even if they did (the probably did, I just don't remember), what's so bad about changing the rules? As the game evolves, WotC may discover that their old rules need to be revised, so they break them.
There's a very big difference between the game evolving to match player attitudes and changing the rules just for the heck of it. Blue Aggro has no rationale behind it as to why it should exist. That's less evolution and more printing whatever Wizards feels like. I'll work on putting together a list of all the statements Wizards has put out regarding game design and how long it took them to go back on those statements, because I'm currently loving Innistrad so it's hard for me to think back to other formats.
I'm totally with you on the 'inconsistent rules' complaint. Wizards makes a lot of absolute statements about the design of Magic: "Blue doesn't get good creatures", "Shock is the standard red damage spell", "Cards shouldn't mention the stack", "Shroud is obsolete and won't be seen again", "Mythics shouldn't be 'utility' cards", etc. The way those statements are presented seems like Wizards has a clear vision of how the game should look. It's comforting to know that Wizards has a plan for the game, even if it's a plan that we don't agree with 100%, so it's disheartening every time they break one of those rules that were stated so matter-of-factly in the past.
There are some really cool designs here. You really aren't getting the respect you deserve for some of these bits of cleverness. I like it when people create new mechanics simply by twisting existing ones in new and interesting ways, and that's exactly what you're doing. Skrnn't-kha is definitely my favorite. I don't think anything like that exists in magic yet, but it totally should.
My biggest complaints are about some of the keywords that you're inventing without enough followup. Carryover is sort of hard for me to grok, but if I understand it correctly it's like a reverse-imprint. Evolve is probably complicated enough (especially since we haven't seen it printed on real cards), so I'd recommend showing Carryover used on a couple simpler cards to see where you're going with it. City, Theory, and Familiar are all basically just labels, and aren't that interesting to me. You could just as easily leave off the new keywords on those cards and explain the flavor in the flavor text. Familiar in particular you could probably do away with, as the Splicers in Scars of Mirrodin showed.
Speaking of flavor, the storm guy doesn't work within the rules. I made a similar card and my rules gurus shot it down. Tranquilo already showed the ways it could be implemented within the existing rules, but the fact that those cards have already been printed sort of sucks the fun out of it to me.
Soul Tether is a neat take on protection spells. Maybe I'm underestimating the usefulness of the card in relation to creatures like Flametongue Kavu, but I feel like this card wants a cantrip on it or something.
Autosquire 3000 is a neat idea, and actually solves a problem I've always had with equipment where players move a piece of equipment around multiple times in a turn. That bit of gameplay always seemed like it wasn't how weapons were intended to be used in the game, and this is a cool way around that.
It might interest you guys to know that this was actually exactly what the planeswalker mechanic was originally intended for. It wasn't until later that they decided to make the cards into Planeswalkers instead of Structures.
I do drafts using Netdraft, explaining how I decide on picks. I think it helps my game, and it's fun to debate card evaluations with people. Let me know if there's something you'd like to see more of, less of, or something completely different, whatever. Ultimately I want to help out the community however I can, so I want to know what y'all like so I can improve the channel.
Razing Judgment should probably read "Target creature's controller sacrifices it unless he or she sacrifices all other creatures he or she controls", unless you were just trying to get it to work around hexproof.
Turbo, those are all good examples, but I think the blue ones are exceptions, not rules. Lord of Atlantis and Lord of the Unreal are both rares, and rares are a bit looser in how they fit into the color pie. The Ravnica guildmages were a cycle, so they stretched the pie there as well. For the most part, I think that Maritime Guard is a much better fit for the vanilla 2-drop slot in blue.
Red is an aggressive color, so I think the bear in that color is much more reasonable, but still a bit too solid for my tastes. The appeal of a bear is that it's a reliable land troop that can survive combat and swing in for good chunks of damage. Blue doesn't like the "chunks of damage" part, and red (and I'd argue black too) doesn't like the "survive combat" part. Goblin Piker fits that role a lot better, or cards like the Dragonlord or Ember Hauler where the abilities are the more relevant part in the format than the power/toughness combination.
Dammit Napoleon, you just had to bring up the 2-mana bear debate, didn't you?
I have hoping for a straight green Triangle of War sorcery for a long time. I had mine for 2G and sliding back and forth between uncommon and rare. Even a interesting green creature that could do it freely without red mana or without a restriction like Durkwood Tracker would be cool. Living Inferno, Stalking Yeti, Magus of the Arena, Hateflayer, and Cyclops Gladiator are all in different ways a little disappointing as red cards because red can do better than Tracker damage, but they would have been pretty amazing as green cards. Master of the Wild Hunt and Predatory Urge were hopeful steps into this mechanic in modern design, but were a little slow/costly and didn't lead to any further cards. The spoiled Werewolf Daybreak Ranger//Nightfall Predator was incredibly disappointing that it needed red mana. Then...
OMG ... MONOGREEN Fight ... One mana! ... Common!
Obviously it can't be on too many green cards in any given environment, but hopefully this will end the arguments against monogreen custom cards with Tracker damage.
I had mine costed at 2G too. I guess I'm okay with giving green a bit of a buff, but I'm going to have to see how a one-mana version plays before I give it my support.
Oh here we go, this discussion again. If the card takes the form of "X - Sorcery - Gain Y life", it's pretty damn hard to undercost it or overpower it. Can you think of a card in existence that follows that form and is even remotely playable?
"JIM'S GOT 'SCREW YOU'! EVERYBODY DUCK!"
The appropriate response to this is for designers to make it harder to exile combo pieces in the first place, not to make it easier to bring them back once exiled.
Exile as it stands has so much interaction its fine, many mechanics use the exile allready, suspend for example is a good example, cards really come from another "existence" back in our world.
An exile mechanic could easily use "spirits" and other worldy beings like Elements that pop out of the Aether, why not ?
No you don't and yes you can. Disentomb covers the "way to get it back", and Dredge covers the "Easy way to fill up the pile".
I knew as soon as they announced labeling 'removed from the game' as 'exile' that we'd be having this discussion at some point. It's just too tempting to make the card the OP posted, because people see exile as just another zone of the game instead of a pile of cards that have been removed from the game.
That said, if Wizards ever wanted to break the "exiled means removed forever" rule, the Helvault storyline would probably the time to do it.
There's a very big difference between the game evolving to match player attitudes and changing the rules just for the heck of it. Blue Aggro has no rationale behind it as to why it should exist. That's less evolution and more printing whatever Wizards feels like. I'll work on putting together a list of all the statements Wizards has put out regarding game design and how long it took them to go back on those statements, because I'm currently loving Innistrad so it's hard for me to think back to other formats.
My biggest complaints are about some of the keywords that you're inventing without enough followup. Carryover is sort of hard for me to grok, but if I understand it correctly it's like a reverse-imprint. Evolve is probably complicated enough (especially since we haven't seen it printed on real cards), so I'd recommend showing Carryover used on a couple simpler cards to see where you're going with it. City, Theory, and Familiar are all basically just labels, and aren't that interesting to me. You could just as easily leave off the new keywords on those cards and explain the flavor in the flavor text. Familiar in particular you could probably do away with, as the Splicers in Scars of Mirrodin showed.
Speaking of flavor, the storm guy doesn't work within the rules. I made a similar card and my rules gurus shot it down. Tranquilo already showed the ways it could be implemented within the existing rules, but the fact that those cards have already been printed sort of sucks the fun out of it to me.
Soul Tether is a neat take on protection spells. Maybe I'm underestimating the usefulness of the card in relation to creatures like Flametongue Kavu, but I feel like this card wants a cantrip on it or something.
Autosquire 3000 is a neat idea, and actually solves a problem I've always had with equipment where players move a piece of equipment around multiple times in a turn. That bit of gameplay always seemed like it wasn't how weapons were intended to be used in the game, and this is a cool way around that.
I do drafts using Netdraft, explaining how I decide on picks. I think it helps my game, and it's fun to debate card evaluations with people. Let me know if there's something you'd like to see more of, less of, or something completely different, whatever. Ultimately I want to help out the community however I can, so I want to know what y'all like so I can improve the channel.
Ember-Eye Guardian is pretty solidly in R/G.
Red is an aggressive color, so I think the bear in that color is much more reasonable, but still a bit too solid for my tastes. The appeal of a bear is that it's a reliable land troop that can survive combat and swing in for good chunks of damage. Blue doesn't like the "chunks of damage" part, and red (and I'd argue black too) doesn't like the "survive combat" part. Goblin Piker fits that role a lot better, or cards like the Dragonlord or Ember Hauler where the abilities are the more relevant part in the format than the power/toughness combination.
Dammit Napoleon, you just had to bring up the 2-mana bear debate, didn't you?
I think I like that name a lot more. Good one!
I had mine costed at 2G too. I guess I'm okay with giving green a bit of a buff, but I'm going to have to see how a one-mana version plays before I give it my support.
Creature - Sprite
Shroud
~ is unblockable.
1/1
People kept telling me that it was too good at 1U.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=352142