The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 12 of 14 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 401
  1. - Top - End - #331
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Ok, fine, but RPS mechanics are in general useful fol balancing. In fighting games, you have them as attack/block/throw. I just went for a more MTG flavored one.


    Here I think I disagree. I don't see a problem with playing hate cards. If someone plays affinity, I don't see a problem with another playing Stony Silence. Or any number of mass artifact removal.
    Sideboards only have 15 slots. As is the hate cards literally hose one strategy entirely, balancing only having room for a few of them. There are several "Wipe all artifacts" "Wipe all graveyards" "Ruin all none-basic lands" and "prevent all counterspells/storm count" cards. Hate is a pressure release valve for bad game design, you can't rely on it because there is no guarantee you won't end up with more proactive broken decks then slots to stop them in the side.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  2. - Top - End - #332
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Not like this. Tell me which magic set has an RPS mechanic like this?
    All of them? (or at least those from 2012) They use a differently skewed, but it's still an RPS-like system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    The point is you don't need Stony Silence against Affinity, removal spells work against them. They might not work as well, they might even not work well enough, but they do work. Against infect burn spells however your only choice is to prevent them from being cast or give yourself hexproof, which is much more narrow. That is a bad design.
    Yes, multiple things work against affinity. Multiple things work against infect.

    An infect burn that's slower than burn, is not a problem IMO. Burn has the advantage of being healable.

    Isn't hexproof just a fancy way of "Prevent them from being cast"? Yes, you cancel spell by hexproof. Or counters. Or permanents that prevent spells from being cast, or spells that prevent poison, or permanents that prevent poison, or spells that increase casting cost of spells targeting you, or spells that increase casting cost of spells, or permanents that increase casting cost of spell...

    You're making it like there are only counter-spells and no other way when that's not true.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  3. - Top - End - #333
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    All of them? (or at least those from 2012) They use a differently skewed, but it's still an RPS-like system.
    When I asked for RPS mechanics I meant sets that included mechanics that were deliberately RPS like your mechanic is.
    You're just reiterating the same old Aggro->Control->Combo triangle that is still wrong.

    Yes, multiple things work against affinity. Multiple things work against infect.
    But not against infect burn which is what I was arguing against.

    An infect burn that's slower than burn, is not a problem IMO.
    I don't care about your opinion. It is a problem.

    Burn has the advantage of being healable.
    Did you mean disadvantage?

    Isn't hexproof just a fancy way of "Prevent them from being cast"?
    Yes, which shows how little hate there is against it.

    Yes, you cancel spell by hexproof.
    By giving yourself hexproof which is only available in white on like 4 cards.

    Or counters.
    Only available in one color.

    Or permanents that prevent spells from being cast,
    Those are all very expensive.

    or spells that prevent poison,
    Those are awful though. They're just very specific counterspells.

    or permanents that prevent poison,
    Those are very few and way too laser targeted at too few strategies to be efficient sideboard tech. No one uses Melira against infect.

    or spells that increase casting cost of spells targeting you,
    That's just giving you a bit of tempo, it's not actually stopping it.

    or spells that increase casting cost of spells,
    What? You mean like Mana Leak? Because that's a counterspell.

    or permanents that increase casting cost of spell...
    Still just tempo. Thalia is good against burn if you have a clock, but if you don't they'll just burn you out regardless.

    All the good ones of these also apply for actual burn.

    You're making it like there are only counter-spells and no other way when that's not true.
    No I didn't. Hand disruption is also a way of preventing them from being cast.

    The fact that you need to include that much specific hate against your mechanics should be enough to convince you that they are bad mechanics.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  4. - Top - End - #334
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    When I asked for RPS mechanics I meant sets that included mechanics that were deliberately RPS like your mechanic is.
    You're just reiterating the same old Aggro->Control->Combo triangle that is still wrong.
    And I gave you. They are designing all their sets to fit this square (and/or hexagram) RPS.

    Whenever you design a mana dork card, you're making a card for Ramp card pool.
    Whenever you design an flying haste for 2CMC you add to the Aggro card pool.

    And I'm not reiterating the same old shtick. It's not Aggro → Control → Combo.
    It's Aggro → Midrange → Ramp/Combo → Control/Disruptive Aggro.

    Also, how is the article I linked wrong? Do they not follow this?

    The closest I can think to an RPS like mechanic is an Ascend. You have few choices when playing against Ascend:
    A) You go aggressive knowing your opponent won't block because Ascend
    B) You go control, destroying your opponents permanents, or countering his Ascend cards
    C) You go Ascend and race him, if you think you'll get more value out of it and/or do it faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I don't care about your opinion. It is a problem.
    You haven't convinced me either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Did you mean disadvantage?
    Since damage can be healed, it's easier to design around burn. Burn can be cheaper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Yes, which shows how little hate there is against it.
    No. What you proved is that there are less answers to spells than permanents. MTG shot itself into the foot, when they decided only blue will ever interact with the stack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    By giving yourself hexproof which is only available in white on like 4 cards.
    And green cards - Veil of Summer, Autumn's veil, Gruul Spellbreaker etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Only available in one color.
    Sadly yes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Those are all very expensive.
    Gaddock Teeg is expensive


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Those are awful though. They're just very specific counterspells.
    Those are awful in Magic, yes. They don't have to be in the set I'm designing. They have multiple uses. And a specific counterspell isn't necessarily that bad. If I play Dissipating cloud against Infect. It's a better Fog. If I play it against poison burn, it's a counter. Or maybe just a way to heal some life. Against others, it's a cantrip.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Those are very few and way too laser-targeted at too few strategies to be efficient sideboard tech. No one uses Melira against infect.
    Mostly because, if you have creatures hitting you for 10 or more, you're still going to lose. Infect or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    That's just giving you a bit of tempo, it's not actually stopping it.

    Still just tempo. Thalia is good against burn if you have a clock, but if you don't they'll just burn you out regardless.
    So? Infect burn spells, are already slower than burn spells, and adding a turn of tempo will give you more time to execute your own strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    What? You mean like Mana Leak? Because that's a counterspell.
    Ok, I thought there was a spell that increases casting cost of other spells, like Thalia or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    The fact that you need to include that much specific hate against your mechanics should be enough to convince you that they are bad mechanics.
    What hate? I have like three poison hate cards ATM.

    Dissipating Cloud - 1U
    Instant
    Target player can't get poison counters this turn.
    Draw a card

    Protective Fog - 1G
    Instant
    Prevent all combat damage this turn. You can't get poison counters this turn.

    Bloodletting - B
    Instant
    If taget player would get one or more poison counters this turn, they lose that much life instead. If this targets an opponent, they lose life for each poison counter they have.
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-14 at 03:55 AM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  5. - Top - End - #335
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalfOrcPirate

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Carlisle, Englund
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    What hate? I have like three poison hate cards ATM.

    Dissipating Cloud - 1U
    Instant
    Target player can't get poison counters this turn.
    Draw a card
    Well youíve at least made a last pick draft card.
    Last edited by Androgeus; 2019-11-14 at 06:03 AM.
    "Three blokes walk into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid, and the whole scene unfolds with a tedious inevitability." - Bill Bailey
    Androgeus' 3 step guide to Doctor Who speculation:
    Spoiler
    Show
    1. Pick a random character
    2. State that person is The Rani
    3. goto 1

  6. - Top - End - #336
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Androgeus View Post
    Well youíve at least made a last pick draft card.
    It's a common card. What do you expect ? Hasbro NWO prohibits powerful cards at common. It's just bad for business draft.

    Personally, I'd last pick the Fog.
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-14 at 06:17 AM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  7. - Top - End - #337
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    And I gave you. They are designing all their sets to fit this square (and/or hexagram) RPS.

    Whenever you design a mana dork card, you're making a card for Ramp card pool.
    Several aggro decks have played mana dorks.

    And designing cards for ramp decks don't mean designing ramp decks to beat control decks.

    And I'm not reiterating the same old shtick. It's not Aggro → Control → Combo.
    It's Aggro → Midrange → Ramp/Combo → Control/Disruptive Aggro.
    The fact that they are lumping disruptive aggro in with control proves how limited that model is.

    Also, how is the article I linked wrong? Do they not follow this?
    It's over simplified, there's way more going on, unlike your design which is very straight RPS.

    The closest I can think to an RPS like mechanic is an Ascend. You have few choices when playing against Ascend:
    A) You go aggressive knowing your opponent won't block because Ascend
    B) You go control, destroying your opponents permanents, or countering his Ascend cards
    C) You go Ascend and race him, if you think you'll get more value out of it and/or do it faster.
    The fact that is your best example shows that they don't use RPS mechanics, as that is way less RPS that your mechanics.
    You also ignored one option: let them Ascend and beat them anyways.

    Since damage can be healed, it's easier to design around burn. Burn can be cheaper.
    But that's not an advantage of burn cards, that is a disadvantage of burn cards that allow them to have an advantage to balance it.

    No. What you proved is that there are less answers to spells than permanents. MTG shot itself into the foot, when they decided only blue will ever interact with the stack.
    I don't disagree that more colors should have more stack interaction, but this is the way magic is and that is how you should

    It's also false, as red have both copy and redirection.

    And green cards - Veil of Summer, Autumn's veil, Gruul Spellbreaker etc.
    Autumn's Veil doesn't protect you in any way.
    Veil of Summer only protects you from blue and black, so it doesn't help against infect burn.
    Gruul Spellbreaker only protects you during your turn, so it doesn't really help against infect burn.


    Gaddock Teeg is expensive
    Gaddock Teeg only hinders X cards and cmc 4 or more, which isn't going to be most burn spells.
    I was talking about cards that hinders all of them.

    Those are awful in Magic, yes. They don't have to be in the set I'm designing. They have multiple uses. And a specific counterspell isn't necessarily that bad. If I play Dissipating cloud against Infect. It's a better Fog. If I play it against poison burn, it's a counter. Or maybe just a way to heal some life.
    They have very specific uses. Besides those two it could only really be a possible combo piece with stuff that gives yourself poison.

    Against others, it's a cantrip.
    A two mana cantrip that does nothing, this is awful.

    Mostly because, if you have creatures hitting you for 10 or more, you're still going to lose. Infect or not.
    No you're not. Infect plays pump spells. The deck is made to deal 10 damage fast, it is going to struggle very much to deal 20.
    You might as well say gaining 10 life doesn't do much against burn.

    So? Infect burn spells, are already slower than burn spells, and adding a turn of tempo will give you more time to execute your own strategy.
    That really quickly ends in a place where the infect burn is either fast enough that against some decks it's gonna be a burn deck you can't deal with, or too slow so it's just unplayable. Either of those is bad design.

    Ok, I thought there was a spell that increases casting cost of other spells, like Thalia or something.
    Why would that be a thing when Silence costs W?

    What hate? I have like three poison hate cards ATM.
    How much as specific hate have similar mechanics had? Three is already a lot.

    Dissipating Cloud - 1U
    Instant
    Target player can't get poison counters this turn.
    Draw a card
    This is a fine sideboard card against infect, but too narrow to warrant an inclusion.

    Protective Fog - 1G
    Instant
    Prevent all combat damage this turn. You can't get poison counters this turn.
    This is very fair, but only because fog is fair and poison burn shouldn't exist.

    Bloodletting - B
    Instant
    If taget player would get one or more poison counters this turn, they lose that much life instead. If this targets an opponent, they lose life for each poison counter they have.
    For protecting yourself this is abnormally worse than Dissipating Cloud, leaving it as an offensive card, and probably a very bad on at that.

    All your hate cards being reactive is a big problem. They also each only work one turn.
    I think there's also the problem of color wheel. Preventing poison is green and white, so it's color bleed in blue and black.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2019-11-14 at 07:39 AM.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  8. - Top - End - #338
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Several aggro decks have played mana dorks.
    So? A card can fit multiple strategies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    unlike your design which is very straight RPS.
    What are you basing this on ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You also ignored one option: let them Ascend and beat them anyways.
    I did cover it, under Aggro. I'm assuming you're going against someone that made an Ascend deck, packed with enough value to not be a joke. Also same applies to poison. You can ignore poison and just beat them the old fashioned way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    But that's not an advantage of burn cards, that is a disadvantage of burn cards that allow them to have an advantage to balance it.
    I thought it was obvious, but "advantage of burn is damage can be healed" is considered from the context of me designing cards, not cards themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    It's also false, as red have both copy and redirection.
    I meant disruptive interaction. Red can't counter, return to hand, exile or redirect a spell on the stack. It can copy an effect and choose a new target(s). If we are going with definition Blue can interact with all permanents, and white can interact with stack (Silence).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Gruul Spellbreaker only protects you during your turn, so it doesn't really help against infect burn.
    Eh, it protects you from any instant that poison. So, it would still count.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Gaddock Teeg only hinders X cards and cmc 4 or more, which isn't going to be most burn spells.
    I was talking about cards that hinders all of them.
    True, but one of rare burn poison burn spells cost exactly 4 mana. And even that card works, by primarily burning you, not poisoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No you're not. Infect plays pump spells. The deck is made to deal 10 damage fast, it is going to struggle very much to deal 20.
    You might as well say gaining 10 life doesn't do much against burn.
    I got to play Meilira in Humans and got beat by Infect this way. Think it was Seasons of Growth, Blighted Agent and just 20 damage in face turn four or five. The draws were nuts but Infect is stupid fast. I didn't get Thalia but I kept the hand, thinking Melira is good against Infect. Turns out, she's meh. I think I cut her out of side after that debacle.

    Funny that you said that, I did see a match where +16 life mattered diddly squat against a burn deck.

    I do see your point, but my point is, Infect can out aggro Melira using deck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    this is awful.
    Perfect for common

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    For protecting yourself this is abnormally worse than Dissipating Cloud, leaving it as an offensive card, and probably a very bad on at that.
    It's a work in progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I think there's also the problem of color wheel. Preventing poison is green and white, so it's color bleed in blue and black.
    AFAIK there are no cards that prevent poison, there are cards that increase counters or prevent counters, or just remove all counters on opponent ala Suncleanser. I know Green can increase counters and White can prevent/remove counters from players.
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-14 at 12:23 PM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  9. - Top - End - #339
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    So? A card can fit multiple strategies.
    It was just very weird example considering you could have said ramp spell.


    What are you basing this on ?
    Around everything you've said about your design. For any other design you would not spend this much time talking about hate cards.

    I did cover it, under Aggro. I'm assuming you're going against someone that made an Ascend deck, packed with enough value to not be a joke.
    No aggro doesn't cover it. Aggro is trying to kill them before they Ascend, but you can also build a deck that can go toe to toe after they have ascended. Ascending doesn't just win you the game on the spot.

    Also ascend is waaaaay less parasitic than poison.

    Also same applies to poison. You can ignore poison and just beat them the old fashioned way.
    No, poison is completely different. When your opponent ascends you get a disadvantage, when you get 10 poison counter you lose the game. This severely limits how you can use the mechanic.

    I thought it was obvious, but "advantage of burn is damage can be healed" is considered from the context of me designing cards, not cards themselves.
    It wasn't clear, but it is an argument for why poison burn is a bad design.

    I meant disruptive interaction. Red can't counter, return to hand, exile or redirect a spell on the stack.
    Excuse me what did you say?

    white can interact with stack (Silence).
    Silence doesn't interact with the stack. It keeps cards from being played, that is practically the opposite of interacting with the stack.

    Eh, it protects you from any instant that poison. So, it would still count.
    No it wouldn't, just like Teferi, Time Raveler doesn't stop a burn deck from killing you. Timing restrictions matter against control, a burn deck can kill you on their own turn no problem.

    True, but one of rare burn poison burn spells cost exactly 4 mana. And even that card works, by primarily burning you, not poisoning.
    So that is one specific card that hates on one specific card, and that is ignoring that Gaddock Teeg probably isn't going to be in any standard/pioneer format with poison burn.
    The fact that you need to make the poison burn cards also burn again just show how bad the mechanic is.


    I'm gonna start this next section off by saying that anecdotal evidence is very poor evidence for a general case.

    I got to play Meilira in Humans
    Why would you ever do that?

    and got beat by Infect this way. Think it was Seasons of Growth, Blighted Agent and just 20 damage in face turn four or five.
    Seasons of Growth isn't a card you want to be playing in the first case. Yes it is absolutely a card that makes it easier to deal 20 damage through a Melira, but that isn't something you need to do very often, and it just slows down the entire deck.
    At first I thought you were talking about Wild Defiance, a card that actually did see some play, which is how a dealt lethal 14 through a Melira once, but that still isn't even a card you want to keep in post board.
    The mere fact that you need a specific card that generally isn't even that good in order to do it proves that it's not something that is easy to do.

    The draws were nuts but Infect is stupid fast.
    So how does the fact that they can deal 20 damage through Melira with a nut draw mean it's easy for them to deal 20 damage?

    I didn't get Thalia but I kept the hand, thinking Melira is good against Infect. Turns out, she's meh. I think I cut her out of side after that debacle.
    She's not very impressive, but not because it's easy for them to deal 20 through her, but because it's not that difficult for them to remover her. Thalia taxes their removal for her, makes it very difficult for them to race, and is good in loads of other matchups.

    Funny that you said that, I did see a match where +16 life mattered diddly squat against a burn deck.
    Anecdotal evidence. The fact that it can happen doesn't mean it will happen often.
    I had a game with one drop zoo where I won without ever attacking, but that doesn't mean keeping me from attacking isn't usually going to be a good strategy.

    I do see your point, but my point is, Infect can out aggro Melira using deck.
    The fact that they can do it doesn't mean it will happen often, especially not if the Melira deck is doing anything else.
    Melira is not good to have in your sideboard card against infect, but not because it is easy for infect to deal lethal through her.

    Perfect for common
    No. Your commons should not be filled with narrow hate cards, especially not ones too weak to see constructed play.


    AFAIK there are no cards that prevent poison, there are cards that increase counters or prevent counters,
    Preventing counters is preventing poison.

    or just remove all counters on opponent ala Suncleanser.
    Suncleanser only works on opponents, they won't print an effect that does it for you because they don't want you to be able to reset infect. Maro has said this.

    I know Green can increase counters and White can prevent/remove counters from players.
    Preventing counters is green/white.
    Preventing damage is green/white

    Oh i sure wonder what colors preventing specifically poison would be /s.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2019-11-14 at 01:58 PM.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  10. - Top - End - #340
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Around everything you've said about your design. For any other design you would not spend this much time talking about hate cards.
    Yeah, but A) set isn't fully designed, B) you haven't seen other cards C) I have yet to play test it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No aggro doesn't cover it. Aggro is trying to kill them before they Ascend, but you can also build a deck that can go toe to toe after they have ascended. Ascending doesn't just win you the game on the spot.
    Again. You're still the beatdown or the value deck. You're going to win using Aggro or Control strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    when you get 10 poison counter you lose the game.

    The fact that you need to make the poison burn cards also burn again just show how bad the mechanic is.
    As stated in rules yes. There are cards, in the other 260+ cards, that make you immune to poison, either by outright stopping it or by making you not lose when you hit 10+ counters.

    That's not the reason why that spell deals damage. Reason number one, to punish decks that go too much into inflicting self poison. Reason number two, cards that make you immune to poison, don't make you immune to damage. Reason number three, there are damage synergistic cards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I stand corrected. I did search the scryfall for spells that use Redirect wording. Also that effect, outside of WAR was last seen in World Wake. It's not a common mechanic for red. At best it's tertiary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Silence doesn't interact with the stack. It keeps cards from being played, that is practically the opposite of interacting with the stack.
    Wait, so by preventing something, you're not interacting with it. Phew! For a minute I thought blue can interact with spells on stack

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Why would you ever do that?
    A) She's a creature
    B) She's a Human
    C) She's 2CMC
    D) There was a lot of Infect in meta
    E) Friend suggested it

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Seasons of Growth isn't a card you want to be playing in the first case.
    It's played in main deck of Infect decks, that managed to win a tournament.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    So how does the fact that they can deal 20 damage through Melira with a nut draw mean it's easy for them to deal 20 damage?
    It goes to show, even a Melira that isn't removed can be safely ignored. The nut draw was the SoG and two lands, everything else was pretty standard. He scried and drew the scried cards, so those aren't that crazy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No. Your commons should not be filled with narrow hate cards, especially not ones too weak to see constructed play.
    What do you mean "filled with narrow hate cards"? There are three hate cards in card pool of 110 commons and 280 other cards. Granted they are commons, but not that common.

    The blue one is a mirror pair to a red card that inflicts poison. The green one is a fancier fog, and I'm considering removing the black one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Preventing counters is preventing poison.
    Eh. Not really. Preventing +1/+1 counters isn't really preventing poison is it. Preventing counters on players is anti-poison/anti-energy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Preventing counters is green/white.
    Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Preventing damage is green/white
    Dovin Baan disagrees.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  11. - Top - End - #341
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Yeah, but A) set isn't fully designed, B) you haven't seen other cards C) I have yet to play test it.
    And i fear that when you playtest it you're gonna discover that it's not your implementation that is lacking, it is the idea itself.

    Again. You're still the beatdown or the value deck. You're going to win using Aggro or Control strategy.
    Your version of control was keeping them from ascending, I'm saying you can let them ascend and still beat them. This possibility allows for a lot more way to interact with an ascend deck, but poison does not have that luxury.

    As stated in rules yes. There are cards, in the other 260+ cards, that make you immune to poison, either by outright stopping it or by making you not lose when you hit 10+ counters.
    Whenever I mentioned all your hate cards you said you didn't have very many, bow you're talking about other hate cards. Which one is it?
    For comparison the entire Mirrodin block had only 2 infect hate cards, one of them only prevented the wither on itself, and they even had broader applications than yours.

    That's not the reason why that spell deals damage. Reason number one, to punish decks that go too much into inflicting self poison.
    How does a card that deals damage poison decks that self poison?

    Reason number two, cards that make you immune to poison, don't make you immune to damage.
    Melira says counters can't be put on you, but she also makes creatures lose infect so they can damage you normally

    Reason number three, there are damage synergistic cards.
    Which you shouldn't be playing in a deck that tries to kill with poison.

    These designs are way too schizophrenic.


    I stand corrected. I did search the scryfall for spells that use Redirect wording. Also that effect, outside of WAR was last seen in World Wake. It's not a common mechanic for red.
    Look at what blue cards have the ability. It is not that many, certainly not since World Wake. It's not a very common mechanic.

    At best it's tertiary.
    Who do you think has it in secondary then?

    Wait, so by preventing something, you're not interacting with it. Phew! For a minute I thought blue can interact with spells on stack
    Silence is not a defensive card, it is horrible on defense as it's card disadvantage and the opponent can just play on his next turn, or on your turn in the case of instants, which many burn spells are.
    Silence is used in combo decks to prevent the opponent from interacting with your combo, so yes it is the opposite of stack interaction.
    Blue isn't preventing spells from being cast, it is countering them as they are being cast.

    Thoughtseizing the spell out of their hand is more stack interaction than Silence is.


    It's played in main deck of Infect decks, that managed to win a tournament.
    Okay that one played 1 in main, but I looked at the first 10 infect decks on magictop8, and none of them played it, so clearly it's the exception to the rule, most infect players agree it's not worth playing.

    It goes to show, even a Melira that isn't removed can be safely ignored. The nut draw was the SoG and two lands, everything else was pretty standard. He scried and drew the scried cards, so those aren't that crazy.
    He drew his one of card that allowed him to win through Melira, how does that mean she can be "safely ignored"?

    What do you mean "filled with narrow hate cards"? There are three hate cards in card pool of 110 commons and 280 other cards. Granted they are commons, but not that common.
    Find me another set that has this much hate this narrow and specific.

    The blue one is a mirror pair to a red card that inflicts poison.
    That's not what a mirror pair is. A mirror pair isn't a card that does something and a hate card against it.

    The green one is a fancier fog,
    I wouldn't play a regular fog in limited, I don't see why I should play a more expensive one.

    and I'm considering removing the black one.
    You should.

    Eh. Not really. Preventing +1/+1 counters isn't really preventing poison is it. Preventing counters on players is anti-poison/anti-energy.
    Stuff that prevents all types of counters also prevent poison, so preventing poison is clearly within the color pie of those colors.

    That's +1/+1 counters, which are positive. +1/+1 counters can be negated with -1/-1 counters. The card could have said "whenever a +1/+1 counter is put on a creature an opponent controls, put -1/-1 counter on that creature." and it would undoubtedly be black. Preventing counters isn't black, but preventing +1/+1 counters is.

    "Bubbling", which is prevent damage to and from this creature, is blue/white, blue also get some creatures where damage dealt to them is prevented. They do not get to prevent damage dealt to players.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2019-11-16 at 04:39 AM.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  12. - Top - End - #342
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalfOrcPirate

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Carlisle, Englund
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    One of the largest bends in War of the Spark probably isnít a good defence.

    Oh also if you are ever curious on where a often unseen ability lies in the colour pie, check this article by Maro. Obviously some small things have changed in the past 3 years (biggest I can think of is that banisher priest effects being secondary in green never happened), but itís still a good starting point.
    Last edited by Androgeus; 2019-11-16 at 05:08 AM.
    "Three blokes walk into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid, and the whole scene unfolds with a tedious inevitability." - Bill Bailey
    Androgeus' 3 step guide to Doctor Who speculation:
    Spoiler
    Show
    1. Pick a random character
    2. State that person is The Rani
    3. goto 1

  13. - Top - End - #343
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    And i fear that when you playtest it you're gonna discover that it's not your implementation that is lacking, it is the idea itself
    Then I'll rework it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Your version of control was keeping them from ascending, I'm saying you can let them ascend and still beat them. This possibility allows for a lot more way to interact with an ascend deck, but poison does not have that luxury.
    Yeah, and you can beat someone with Infect dealing damage, instead of poison to them.
    The premise of that theoretical setup is that Ascending is a win-condition, i.e. you can generate enough value, which is true in Limited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Whenever I mentioned all your hate cards you said you didn't have very many, bow you're talking about other hate cards. Which one is it?
    It's almost as if though a card can fit two roles at once, huh The card gives you poison, makes it so you don't die when you have 10+ counters, and then steals life equal to poison counters on you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    How does a card that deals damage poison decks that self poison?
    How does a card that gives poison and damage stops decks that add poison to themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Melira says counters can't be put on you, but she also makes creatures lose infect so they can damage you normally
    Non sequitur. I'm talking about the cards in my set, but sure it applies to other cards, I guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Which you shouldn't be playing in a deck that tries to kill with poison.
    Sure, yes. But I'm taking Limited into considerations. Poison burn in limited is a non-starter. Like control. Sure, it might happen if stars align, but 99.99% they don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Who do you think has it in secondary then?
    For the same reason, they have Dovin Baan. The Color Pie is a guideline, not a law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    so yes it is the opposite of stack interaction.
    Blue isn't preventing spells from being cast, it is countering them as they are being cast.
    That's some word wizardry right there. Yeah, no. They interact with stack. By prohibiting interaction. Counters prevent the spell effect, but allow the cost.
    The difference is, one is more proactive (Silence) and the other is reactive (Counterspell).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    He drew his one of card that allowed him to win through Melira, how does that mean she can be "safely ignored"?
    It wasn't a one-off card, he told me added two to his deck, though I haven't rifled through his deck to verify. And according to him it was in his starting hand. It's FNM though, you can run weird **** at FNM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    That's not what a mirror pair is. A mirror pair isn't a card that does something and a hate card against it.
    Color pair, or whatever it is called. When you have a Red spell that destroys an artifact and a white that destroys an enchantment and a green that destroys a flier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    That's +1/+1 counters, which are positive. +1/+1 counters can be negated with -1/-1 counters. The card could have said "whenever a +1/+1 counter is put on a creature an opponent controls, put -1/-1 counter on that creature." and it would undoubtedly be black. Preventing counters isn't black, but preventing +1/+1 counters is.
    For what it's worth. Removing counters is a strictly black thing. Which is why Suncleanser exists. It's almost as the color wheel is a joke

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    "Bubbling", which is prevent damage to and from this creature, is blue/white, blue also get some creatures where damage dealt to them is prevented. They do not get to prevent damage dealt to players.
    While true, it doesn't cover things like Guard Gomazoa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Androgeus View Post
    One of the largest bends in War of the Spark probably isnít a good defence.

    Oh also if you are ever curious on where a often unseen ability lies in the color pie, check this article by Maro. Obviously some small things have changed in the past 3 years (biggest I can think of is that banisher priest effects being secondary in green never happened), but itís still a good starting point.
    I'm aware of the color pie article. I consulted it for looking up preventing poison, or preventing counters isn't mentioned anywhere.

    However, you should also know that MaRo himself also made an article about blindly sticking to the rules. And Lo and Behold, they don't even stick to their own rules.

    -----------------------

    That said, talking about this, makes me wonder, if another form of counters would be better. Let's call them "corruption counters".
    Corruption works like this
    • You can't remove it (like poison).
    • You may prevent it or reduce it (like poison). Reduce like "you can only gain one corruption"
    • If your corruption (number of corruption tokens on you) reaches your starting life, you lose the game.
    • If your corruption (number of corruption tokens on you) is lesser than or equal to your current health, you lose the game.
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-16 at 07:38 AM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  14. - Top - End - #344
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    HalfOrcPirate

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Carlisle, Englund
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Color pair, or whatever it is called. When you have a Red spell that destroys an artifact and a white that destroys an enchantment and a green that destroys a flier.
    A bunch of cards? I guess you can have a cycle that destroys specific things, but it would be the loosest of cycles. Mirrored pairs was correct, if you talking like white knight/black knight. I donít think Ďdeal some damageí and Ďprevent all damageí are mirrored effects. To be mirrored effects, the prevent one would have to prevent exactly the amount the red card does.

    That said, talking about this, makes me wonder, if another form of counters would be better. Let's call them "corruption counters".
    Corruption works like this
    • You can't remove it (like poison).
    • You may prevent it or reduce it (like poison). Reduce like "you can only gain one corruption"
    • If your corruption (number of corruption tokens on you) reaches your starting life, you lose the game.
    • If your corruption (number of corruption tokens on you) is lesser than or equal to your current health, you lose the game.
    Ah yes this is exactly what your poison hate cards was missing, even more parasitism.
    Last edited by Androgeus; 2019-11-16 at 08:00 AM.
    "Three blokes walk into a pub. One of them is a little bit stupid, and the whole scene unfolds with a tedious inevitability." - Bill Bailey
    Androgeus' 3 step guide to Doctor Who speculation:
    Spoiler
    Show
    1. Pick a random character
    2. State that person is The Rani
    3. goto 1

  15. - Top - End - #345
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Androgeus View Post
    Ah yes this is exactly what your poison hate cards was missing, even more parasitism.
    Not completely sure what you mean by that.

    In what way would corruption be more parasitic than poison? Or energy?

    Ideally, I would probably change the way poison works. Namely make it less debilitating. Second, making it interact with life. Third, consistency across different game modes. Sadly, this change would kill Infect and ruin cards e.g. Phyrexian Unlife.
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-16 at 11:07 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #346
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Unrelated mostly.

    Toxic supertype.

    Dripping Rune - G
    Toxic Enchantment
    "Sac 10 toxic permanents you control: target player loses the game."

    Putrid Elf- G
    Toxic Creature- Elf
    1/2

    Vial Goblin- BG
    Toxic Creature- Goblin
    1, Sacrifice Vial Goblin: Two permanents you control become Toxic.
    2/1
    "Tasked with handling dangerous toxins, Goblins proved ideal for their lack of fear. They proved less then ideal in their physical grace."
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  17. - Top - End - #347
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Then I'll rework it.
    If the very idea of what you're trying to do doesn't work then you can't just rework it.

    Yeah, and you can beat someone with Infect dealing damage, instead of poison to them.
    I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'm 99% certain you didn't get my point.

    The premise of that theoretical setup is that Ascending is a win-condition, i.e. you can generate enough value, which is true in Limited.
    Which is completely wrong. Ascending provides you with a large advantage, but it doesn't win the game on the spot. You don't need to prevent Ascend by any cost, you do need to prevent lethal poison by any cost.

    Do you know how much specific ascend hate that exists? 0!

    It's almost as if though a card can fit two roles at once, huh The card gives you poison, makes it so you don't die when you have 10+ counters, and then steals life equal to poison counters on you.
    I don't see how this at all relates to what I was saying. If it says you don't die to lethal poison then it is a poison hate card.

    How does a card that gives poison and damage stops decks that add poison to themselves?
    I realize my comment was worded badly.
    How does the fact that a poison infect spell also deal damage help punish decks that poison themselves?

    Non sequitur. I'm talking about the cards in my set, but sure it applies to other cards, I guess.
    It's not a non sequitur, you simply misunderstood my argument.
    Infect creatures don't need to also deal normal damage, as the one card that prevents poison counters also makes them lose infect, so the hate card makes them deal normal damage instead of doing nothing.
    Granted Solemnity does just shut down infect hard, but that card also wasn't printed in a set with infect.

    My point is that you are printing cards A that do something, then you are printing cards B that hinder cards A, and then you are adding something more to cards A so they do more against cards B. That is just way too much back and fourth meta design.

    Sure, yes. But I'm taking Limited into considerations. Poison burn in limited is a non-starter. Like control. Sure, it might happen if stars align, but 99.99% they don't.
    If it doesn't work in limited why is it wasting space in the set?

    Also control only happen one in 10000? Really?

    For the same reason, they have Dovin Baan. The Color Pie is a guideline, not a law.
    This response makes absolutely 0% sense to the question I asked.
    Redirecting spells is red, but you claim it is tertiary. That must then mean there is another color that has it secondary, more than red and less than blue, otherwise it would be secondary in red.

    You also completely ignored my point about it not showing up often in blue either.

    That's some word wizardry right there. Yeah, no. They interact with stack. By prohibiting interaction. Counters prevent the spell effect, but allow the cost.
    The difference is, one is more proactive (Silence) and the other is reactive (Counterspell).
    Did you actually bother to read what I wrote?
    Did my point just fly completely over your head?

    Silence is not a proactive hate card, it is an anti-hate card, it works by preventing the opponent from using interaction when you combo off.

    Read what I wrote again and reply to the individual points I am making.

    It wasn't a one-off card, he told me added two to his deck, though I haven't rifled through his deck to verify. And according to him it was in his starting hand. It's FNM though, you can run weird **** at FNM.
    The deck you linked had only one, and that is more than most competitive run.
    Your friend could run a full playset, I don't care, the point was that most infect decks won't be able to do that.

    Color pair, or whatever it is called. When you have a Red spell that destroys an artifact and a white that destroys an enchantment and a green that destroys a flier.
    A red card that destroys an artifact and a white that destroys an enchantment is a mirrored cycle, but a green card that destroys a flyer has nothing to do with that.
    An infect burn spell and a prevent poison spell aren't a mirrored cycle, that's just a card and a hate card.

    For what it's worth. Removing counters is a strictly black thing. Which is why Suncleanser exists. It's almost as the color wheel is a joke
    I can't tell if you are deliberately trolling me. Did you actually read what I wrote? Where did I say removing counters was only a black thing?

    [QUOTE]While true, it doesn't cover things like Guard Gomazoa.
    Literally the paragraph you replied to:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    "Bubbling", which is prevent damage to and from this creature, is blue/white, blue also get some creatures where damage dealt to them is prevented. They do not get to prevent damage dealt to players.

    That said, talking about this, makes me wonder, if another form of counters would be better. Let's call them "corruption counters".
    Corruption works like this
    • You can't remove it (like poison).
    • You may prevent it or reduce it (like poison). Reduce like "you can only gain one corruption"
    • If your corruption (number of corruption tokens on you) reaches your starting life, you lose the game.
    • If your corruption (number of corruption tokens on you) is lesser than or equal to your current health, you lose the game.
    That would solve some of the inherent issues with infect, but it's still unhealable damage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Androgeus View Post
    One of the largest bends in War of the Spark probably isnít a good defence.
    Wow, that paragraph on dovin was a dumpster fire.
    Kiora, the Crashing Wave has the exact same ability, which isn't on any other green card.
    It also says:
    "Likewise, reducing mana costs is traditionally more of a blue thing than a white thing."
    While the card increases mana cost.

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Ideally, I would probably change the way poison works. Namely make it less debilitating. Second, making it interact with life. Third, consistency across different game modes. Sadly, this change would kill Infect and ruin cards e.g. Phyrexian Unlife.
    You can't change the way poison works, but you can make a similar mechanic that works how you think it should work.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  18. - Top - End - #348
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'm 99% certain you didn't get my point.
    There are non standard ways to win. You can win with Infect, without causing 1 point of infect damage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Which is completely wrong. Ascending provides you with a large advantage
    In limited, it's a game winning advantage. Sure, you could just luck out and kill him post ascend, but even drawing one more card than opponent can be crucial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Do you know how much specific ascend hate that exists? 0
    That's because it's not a parasitic mechanic as poison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    If it says you don't die to lethal poison then it is a poison hate card.
    I said it's not just a narrow hate card. It's poison hate card, that synergizes with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    How does the fact that a poison infect spell also deal damage help punish decks that poison themselves?
    It deals damage proportional to poison. On it's own, it can deal 2*{target player poison}

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    My point is that you are printing cards A that do something, then you are printing cards B that hinder cards A, and then you are adding something more to cards A so they do more against cards B. That is just way too much back and fourth meta design.
    No. I have three mechanics:
    A) Poison synergy - either get poison for effect or positive effect that scales of poison
    B) Poison punish - add poison and/or some negative effect
    C) Negate poison - prevent poison in a limited fashion

    A card can be just A, or B, or C, or AB, BC, AC. Usually they are combination.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    If it doesn't work in limited why is it wasting space in the set?

    Also control only happen one in 10000? Really?
    You can say the same thing about counterspell. It's underwhelming in Limited, and generally doesn't work. ELD made it work by having a mill effect attached. Or a body.

    White and blue enchantment based control can work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Redirecting spells is red, but you claim it is tertiary. That must then mean there is another color that has it secondary
    Tertiary as in Color pie effect.
    https://magic.wizards.com/en/article...017-2017-06-05

    Look up Counterspell. Primary Blue, and tertiary White.
    Effect can have primary and tertiary without secondary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You also completely ignored my point about it not showing up often in blue either.

    Did you actually bother to read what I wrote?
    Did my point just fly completely over your head?
    I hate quote wars, so I probably skipped through some of the things you wrote. Mea culpa.

    Redirect is in fact primary in red and blue, but it's such a rare mechanic I assumed it was tertiary.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Silence is not a proactive hate card, it is an anti-hate card, it works by preventing the opponent from using interaction when you combo off.
    It's a proactive spell restriction. Counterspell is a reactive spell restriction.
    According to MaRo, white is a proactive color "better prevent than treat", while blue is reactive.

    I don't believe that it's anti stack card. It still allows abilities and such to resolve.

    I don't understand what you mean by anti hate cards. If I play it against deck that wants to cast Approach of the second Sun, is it not preventing me from casting it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I can't tell if you are deliberately trolling me. Did you actually read what I wrote? Where did I say removing counters was only a black thing?
    I assumed you read and referenced the Magic Color Pie 2017.

    It has no rubric for preventing counters. And the color that removes non-player counters is Black. No other color is listed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    That would solve some of the inherent issues with infect, but it's still unhealable damage.
    I thought that was exactly the power of infect. That it can't be healed. Although white could still, prevent it. Or heal opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post

    Toxic supertype.

    Dripping Rune - G
    Toxic Enchantment
    "Sac 10 toxic permanents you control: target player loses the game."

    Putrid Elf- G
    Toxic Creature- Elf
    1/2

    Vial Goblin- BG
    Toxic Creature- Goblin
    1, Sacrifice Vial Goblin: Two permanents you control become Toxic.
    2/1
    Is there specific meaning to Toxic supertype?

    Problem with this is that the mechanic is highly parasitic. It's like affinity. In order to play it, you need more artifacts in deck. The more artifacts there are, the better affinity decks are.

    Why not just turn dripping rune into sacrifice 10 black or green nontoken permanents.
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-16 at 06:07 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #349
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    Unrelated mostly.

    Toxic supertype.

    Dripping Rune - G
    Toxic Enchantment
    "Sac 10 toxic permanents you control: target player loses the game."

    Putrid Elf- G
    Toxic Creature- Elf
    1/2

    Vial Goblin- BG
    Toxic Creature- Goblin
    1, Sacrifice Vial Goblin: Two permanents you control become Toxic.
    2/1
    "Tasked with handling dangerous toxins, Goblins proved ideal for their lack of fear. They proved less then ideal in their physical grace."
    Is Toxic to be like Snow, or is it supposed to do something on its own like Legendary? Would there be a mechanic like Snow Mana where some property is automatically altered?
    My most liked class, thematically, is the Artificer. Make free items! (fail by RAW to)Hold up the setting! Have access to every magic item...
    My most liked class, mechanically, is the Bard. I sing the enemy to death! (at level 21)I talk you into a suicidal fanatic! I need to cheese rules that make me sing as I fight or talk to get things done...

    I prefer t2 over anything else, because t2 lets you become anything. I think Psionics is more versatile than magic.

    Homebrewer's sig

  20. - Top - End - #350
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    There are non standard ways to win. You can win with Infect, without causing 1 point of infect damage.
    I'm sorry what?

    In limited, it's a game winning advantage. Sure, you could just luck out and kill him post ascend, but even drawing one more card than opponent can be crucial.
    No it's not! Will you stop saying that?
    Yes it's really good, yes it puts you in a nice spot, but not if you have to put yourself in a too disadvantaged spot to get there, or the opponent has bombs of his own.

    That's because it's not a parasitic mechanic as poison.
    No, being parasitic doesn't actually have much to do with it. A mechanic being parasitic means it wants to be played together with other cards with more cards like it. Infect was highly parasitic, but they still only printed one specific hate card against it. Affinity is also parasitic, but no specific answers to affinity exist, because there are more general answers that also work on affinity.

    It's because your mechanic is game winning and highly non-interactive.

    I said it's not just a narrow hate card. It's poison hate card, that synergizes with it.
    That's even worse design, now you're making the deck want to play cards that are good against itself. In order for a healthy meta game to exist the best answers to a certain deck need to not be available to that deck.

    It deals damage proportional to poison. On it's own, it can deal 2*{target player poison}
    But if an opponent has much poison on them already then they are easier to kill with poison, so why do you also need to deal damage?

    No. I have three mechanics:
    A) Poison synergy - either get poison for effect or positive effect that scales of poison
    B) Poison punish - add poison and/or some negative effect
    C) Negate poison - prevent poison in a limited fashion

    A card can be just A, or B, or C, or AB, BC, AC. Usually they are combination.
    One of the mechanics of your set should not be to prevent the other mechanics of your set from working, that is just bad design.

    You can say the same thing about counterspell. It's underwhelming in Limited, and generally doesn't work. ELD made it work by having a mill effect attached. Or a body.
    Didn't say please isn't good because it mills for 3.
    Cancel has always been a bad card.
    Yes counterspells generally aren't that strong in limited, due to how it is difficult to spend your mana on something else should your opponent not cast anything you want to counter, but they can still be playable, they're not unusable like a mill card without any support would be, or a five color card in a set with horrible mana fixing.

    White and blue enchantment based control can work.
    There are many ways to play control in limited, it's just more midrangy than in constructed, due to card limitations. You also can't play burn in limited, but that doesn't mean the burn cards don't slot into other decks.

    Redirect is in fact primary in red and blue, but it's such a rare mechanic I assumed it was tertiary.
    And you were wrong in that.


    It's a proactive spell restriction. Counterspell is a reactive spell restriction.
    According to MaRo, white is a proactive color "better prevent than treat", while blue is reactive.
    Proactive spell restriction is tax effects and stuff like that, Silence is for forcing through your own stuff.

    I don't believe that it's anti stack card. It still allows abilities and such to resolve.
    How does this make any sense? Do you also think Doom Blade isn't an anti creature card because it doesn't kill black creatures?

    I don't understand what you mean by anti hate cards. If I play it against deck that wants to cast Approach of the second Sun, is it not preventing me from casting it?
    I'm gonna assume that last part was meant to say "is it not preventing them from casting it."

    That turn yes, but they'll then use all the mana they now haven't spent on Approach to keep you from winning this turn, and then they'll win the next turn.
    Also if you want to play Silence all the time to prevent the opponent from casting spells it isn't a hate card, it is a lock card.

    Look here and type Silence into the search field, and tick both mainboard and sideboard boxes.
    Here you can see decks that have placed well and play Silence. You should be able to recognize that they are combo decks, because that is when Silence is good. Silence works by keeping your opponent from interacting with your combo on the turn you are trying to win.

    I assumed you read and referenced the Magic Color Pie 2017.
    I wasn't.

    It has no rubric for preventing counters. And the color that removes non-player counters is Black. No other color is listed.
    Solemnity and Suncleanser are both younger than tha article though.

    I thought that was exactly the power of infect. That it can't be healed. Although white could still, prevent it. Or heal opponent.
    I specifically said issues and not disadvantages. Infect being unhealable is an advantage of infect, and that is an issue.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2019-11-17 at 03:44 AM.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  21. - Top - End - #351
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Morphic tide View Post
    Is Toxic to be like Snow, or is it supposed to do something on its own like Legendary? Would there be a mechanic like Snow Mana where some property is automatically altered?
    Good question. The envisioned setting is one where they have discovered how to make artificial mana, but the chemicals involved are awful carcinogens.

    Countererspell- UB
    Instant-U
    Counter target spell with CMC less then the number of toxic permanents you control. Sacrifice a toxic permanent you control.

    I'm actually blanking on what I intended right now, be back later.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  22. - Top - End - #352
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I'm sorry what?
    Just because you enter the game with plan A to win, doesn't mean it's going to work, or work as effectively as plan B.

    If cards fall the right way, you can out aggro an aggro deck, or out control a control deck. Or deploy an unorthodox strategy to win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No it's not! Will you stop saying that?
    Yes it's really good, yes it puts you in a nice spot, but not if you have to put yourself in a too disadvantaged spot to get there, or the opponent has bombs of his own.
    Yes. It is. A large advantage is a game winning advantage. If you put yourself in a disadvantaged position, you don't have an advantage do you?

    Of course, you could let disadvantage go to waste or misplay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No, being parasitic...

    It's because your mechanic is game winning and highly non-interactive.
    Ok. Sure. I thought parasitic implied some degree of non-interactivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    That's even worse design, now you're making the deck want to play cards that are good against itself. In order for a healthy meta game to exist the best answers to a certain deck need to not be available to that deck.
    What? Why would you run spell that deals damage to you, when you can run spells that heal you, give you cards or make your creature tougher, while also giving you poison.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    But if an opponent has much poison on them already then they are easier to kill with poison, so why do you also need to deal damage?
    In Limited, because other cards check for damage.
    In Standard, because 4 of those are enough to kill someone at 20 life. If an opponent has much poison on them, they just kill sooner.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Yes counterspells generally aren't that strong in limited, due to how it is difficult to spend your mana on something else should your opponent not cast anything you want to counter,

    There are many ways to play control in limited, it's just more midrangy than in constructed, due to card limitations. You also can't play burn in limited, but that doesn't mean the burn cards don't slot into other decks.
    Counterspell in Limited, and especially Draft is usually a no go, because you can't find enough good counters, because the card quality is much, much lower.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Proactive spell restriction is tax effects and stuff like that, Silence is for forcing through your own stuff.
    No. Proactive is anything that acts in advance of future event happening. You can't play Silence as a reaction to someone playing something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    How does this make any sense? Do you also think Doom Blade isn't an anti creature card because it doesn't kill black creatures?
    Because it doesn't deal with things on stack casted before or after it, nor does it deal with triggered or activated abilities.

    No Doom blade is anti creature card because it deals with 5/6 of possible colors.

    But will you say Doom is an anti permanent card?

    The biggest problem to me, is that I never, ever, even once heard of someone calling Silence, stack hate card. Or anti hate card.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Solemnity and Suncleanser are both younger than tha article though.
    Sure, but it implies color roles change.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  23. - Top - End - #353
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Just because you enter the game with plan A to win, doesn't mean it's going to work, or work as effectively as plan B.
    I was correct in my assumption that you did not get my point. You still act as if winning against someone who has ascended is some completely unlikely thing.

    If cards fall the right way, you can out aggro an aggro deck, or out control a control deck. Or deploy an unorthodox strategy to win.
    It's not that unlikely to beat a deck with City's Blessing, you probably won't most of the time, but you still will a lot of the time.

    Yes. It is. A large advantage is a game winning advantage. If you put yourself in a disadvantaged position, you don't have an advantage do you?
    You don't lose because your opponent's Dusk Charger is a 5/5, or because his Expel from Orazca puts your threat on top of your library instead of to your hand, or because the opponent can cantrip his Orazca Relic, or because Resplendent Griffin gets a +1/+1 counter whenever it attacks, or because he draws three cards with Secrets of the Golden City, or Skymarcher Aspirant has flying, or Snubhorn Sentry is a 3/3, or because Spire Winder is a 3/4, or because Storm Fleet Swashbuckler has double strike, or because Wayward Swordtooth is now a functional 5/5.
    Even if he has multiple of those you still have a decent chance of winning by playing big creatures/removal/card advantage of yours own.
    When you have 10 poison counters you die on the spot outside of very specific circumstances.

    You somehow constantly underplay that fact.


    Ok. Sure. I thought parasitic implied some degree of non-interactivity.
    That's just called non-interactive.

    What? Why would you run spell that deals damage to you, when you can run spells that heal you, give you cards or make your creature tougher, while also giving you poison.
    If you're not going to run it in the poison decks, and it hates on poison, then how is it not just a poison card?

    In Limited, because other cards check for damage.
    It's a noble attempt at making a parasitic mechanic less parasitic in limited, but it doesn't get around the fact that you should have done something else to start with.

    In Standard, because 4 of those are enough to kill someone at 20 life. If an opponent has much poison on them, they just kill sooner.
    You're never going to play 4 of them in the same game, designing for that is worthless. 4 of them are still almost killing them without the damage. The poison also kills them faster if they already have poison.

    The key to a good design is to do as little as possible, but your designs seem to very often want to do multiple things.

    Counterspell in Limited, and especially Draft is usually a no go, because you can't find enough good counters, because the card quality is much, much lower.
    Any counterspell that is standard playable is typically fine as a 1 or possibly 2 off in your limited deck.

    No. Proactive is anything that acts in advance of future event happening. You can't play Silence as a reaction to someone playing something.
    You're still not getting what the point of Silence is. You play it to keep the opponent from interacting with your stuff.

    No Doom blade is anti creature card because it deals with 5/6 of possible colors.
    There are five colors, colorless is not a color. If you want to count it then you might as well count multi color as well, at that point it kills 11/16.

    The biggest problem to me, is that I never, ever, even once heard of someone calling Silence, stack hate card. Or anti hate card.
    I've never heard anyone call Silence anything other than Silence, because it does a very specific thing, it's not a large group of cards.

    You completely ignored my points about how Silence is actually played in the decks that play it.


    Sure, but it implies color roles change.
    The fact that Wizards themselves toy with the colors and expend upon the color pie doesn't mean that you get to just ignore the color pie whenever you see fit.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  24. - Top - End - #354
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    or because he draws three cards with Secrets of the Golden City, or Skymarcher Aspirant has flying, or Snubhorn Sentry is a 3/3, or because Spire Winder is a 3/4, or because Storm Fleet Swashbuckler has double strike, or because Wayward Swordtooth is now a functional 5/5.
    Almost all of those are enough of a win condition in Limited, especially draft. You don't need a huge advantage to win.

    Assuming all things are near equivalent:
    - You have evasion, and I don't. Most of the times I die.
    - You draw more and I don't, I die. Even if I can remove your big threats, I won't be able to deal with each and every one of them on a continued basis.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You somehow constantly underplay that fact.
    Yes, I get it. 10 is death (unless cards say otherwise). But you're comparing two different environments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    If you're not going to run it in the poison decks, and it hates on poison, then how is it not just a poison card?
    You seem to conflate self-poison deck, with a poison burn deck. If you run a Anti-Poison Bear that prevents you from dying at 10 poison, you're going to run cards that give you poison and advantage, because the poison is irrelevant. Why would you run 2*{Poison counter} damage to the target player is beyond me?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You're never going to play 4 of them in the same game, designing for that is worthless. 4 of them are still almost killing them without the damage.
    Well of course you won't play just those, you can have other colors that add poison. In that case, two would probably be enough. Get opponent on 5 counters cast two of those. Each deals 10 damage.

    Also 4 of them add 4 poison => Almost dead

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Any counterspell that is standard playable is typically fine as a 1 or possibly 2 off in your limited deck.
    That's not how a counterspell based control deck is made, which was my original claim. You can't make a counterspell based control deck in limited (barring some super kind of super luck).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You're still not getting what the point of Silence is. You play it to keep the opponent from interacting with your stuff.
    Yeah, I get it. And you don't get the point what PROACTIVE means. PROACTIVE means I prohibit your options before you play them. Not after or when you play them.

    Whether it is by preventing all spells for a turn, or Gaddock Teeg, or Thalia, is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    There are five colors
    Yeah, you're right. No one plays white anymore

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    colorless is not a color.
    Guess what, neither are black or white. It's a way to filter the "color-ness" of permanents. It's anti-color or negative-color, but it's still something you can select by.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You completely ignored my points about how Silence is actually played in the decks that play it.
    Sure, and you ignored my question on whether Doom Blade is anti permanent. Tbh Silence I only ever saw played in prison decks, never as a control hate card.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    The fact that Wizards themselves toy with the colors and expend upon the color pie doesn't mean that you get to just ignore the color pie whenever you see fit.
    If they can bend the rules, so can I. Also, you're still wrong on your account.
    Colors that "prevent counters" are black and white (maybe green), not green and white. Green didn't get to prevent counter in a long while.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  25. - Top - End - #355
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Tbh Silence I only ever saw played in prison decks, never as a control hate card.
    Pretty sure there are exactly two ways that Silence ever really saw competitive play:

    1. Alongside some method of recurring it, as a soft-lock. Isochron Scepter + Orim's Chant being the most common one.

    2. As protection or counter-bait for a high impact or game ending play, like in Storm or when landing a game ending haymaker vs control.

  26. - Top - End - #356
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Almost all of those are enough of a win condition in Limited, especially draft. You don't need a huge advantage to win.
    No they're not. How does a 2/2 double striker just win you the game on a stalled board?

    Late game you don't care that your 2/2 double striker cost only 2 mana, as you have plenty mana. A 2/2 double striker is about a 4 drop, so if your opponent played a 4 drop while you played your 2 drop you're still even. If he played a spell more than you while you drew a land, he might very well still be ahead. If he drew a card more than you at any point in the game, that single card might very well be better than the 2/2 double striker.

    Assuming all things are near equivalent:
    - You have evasion, and I don't. Most of the times I die.
    - You draw more and I don't, I die. Even if I can remove your big threats, I won't be able to deal with each and every one of them on a continued basis.
    Why would you assume all things are near equivalent? That is such a massive assumption to make.
    Most of the cards that are better than average with city's blessing are worse than average without it, so until your get city's blessing your opponent has been playing better cards, so on average he should be ahead and you should only be starting to catch up.

    The fact that they require you from already having about the same level of board presence as your opponent mean they are extremely far away from winning you the game on their own.

    Compare this with poison where it doesn't matter if you control no creatures and your opponent has a massive board, five cards in hand, and lethal in the air next turn, you still win on the spot.

    Yes, I get it. 10 is death (unless cards say otherwise). But you're comparing two different environments.
    I've constantly said poison and city's blessing are completely different, you're the one who is comparing them.

    You seem to conflate self-poison deck, with a poison burn deck. If you run a Anti-Poison Bear that prevents you from dying at 10 poison, you're going to run cards that give you poison and advantage, because the poison is irrelevant. Why would you run 2*{Poison counter} damage to the target player is beyond me?
    This is even more horrendously rock-paper-scissors, because when you're up against most decks without any poison you're just playing better cards than them, but when you're up against the poison deck they just need enough answers to the guy preventing you from dying.

    Well of course you won't play just those, you can have other colors that add poison. In that case, two would probably be enough. Get opponent on 5 counters cast two of those. Each deals 10 damage.
    This is way too schizophrenic of a design. Way too often you can give the opponent 8 poison but only draw one of them, or draw three of them but can only give them 3 poison. This is just a deck that a lot of the time loses to itself, which is never a fun design.

    Also 4 of them add 4 poison => Almost dead
    Sorry, I thought they added 2 poison each and then dealt damage equal to the poison counters.
    At this point it should just be some unique counter type that didn't do anything except interact with stuff that cared about it.
    This is poison in name only, except for horribly punishing the self poison deck, once again proving how horribly rock-paper-scissors your entire design is.

    That's not how a counterspell based control deck is made, which was my original claim. You can't make a counterspell based control deck in limited (barring some super kind of super luck).
    But just because you can't play counterspell based control deck doesn't mean you can't play counterspells. The cards still have uses in limited, unlike insufficiently supported infect.

    Yeah, I get it. And you don't get the point what PROACTIVE means. PROACTIVE means I prohibit your options before you play them. Not after or when you play them.
    I keep explaining what Silence actually does, but for some reason you keep ignoring it. Yes Silence proactively keep the opponent from interacting with what you're doing when you're comboing off, it's not proactively trying to stop what the opponent is doing. Silence is not a hate card, it is an anti-hate card, like artifact/enchantment removal in dredge.

    Whether it is by preventing all spells for a turn, or Gaddock Teeg, or Thalia, is irrelevant.
    No it's not, as those two have completely different uses. Silence is really good if you win that turn, because it stops your opponent from interacting at all, but it's really bad if the game goes on for five more turns, as the effect you got out of it starts vanishing. Gaddock Teeg and Thalia slow down the opponent every turn, so they allow you to get more out of your cards than them in the long run. That's why you see them played in hate bear decks while you don't see silence.

    Yeah, you're right. No one plays white anymore
    Yes they do, your meme isn't funny.

    Guess what, neither are black or white. It's a way to filter the "color-ness" of permanents. It's anti-color or negative-color, but it's still something you can select by.
    White and black are colors in magic, colorless isn't.
    White, Blue, Black, Red and Green are all colors as defined by the rules of the game, while colorless isn't. You know this, I have no idea why you're being purposefully obnoxious.

    Sure, and you ignored my question on whether Doom Blade is anti permanent.
    Anti permanent is not a thing. You're never describing anything as anti permanent, you'll maybe say it's general removal or something like that.
    This point is completely irrelevant to everything. The point is you continue to ignore how Silence is actually played.

    Tbh Silence I only ever saw played in prison decks, never as a control hate card.
    The only prison decks that ever played it played Isochron Scepter. That made it a combo piece. A combo that prevents your opponent from playing magic isn't much different from a combo that wins on the spot, in both cases they are combos, not hate cards.

    And you have no excuse for not seeing other decks running Silence, because I already told you where to find them:
    Look here and type Silence into the search field, and tick both mainboard and sideboard boxes.
    Here you can see decks that have placed well and play Silence. You should be able to recognize that they are combo decks, because that is when Silence is good. Silence works by keeping your opponent from interacting with your combo on the turn you are trying to win.


    If they can bend the rules, so can I.
    Not without a good reason, at least not if you want good design.
    This is a thread for getting feedback on your designs. I am telling you why your design isn't good.

    Also, you're still wrong on your account. Colors that "prevent counters" are black and white (maybe green), not green and white. Green didn't get to prevent counter in a long while.
    What black card prevented counters in general?
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  27. - Top - End - #357
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Why would you assume all things are near equivalent? That is such a massive assumption to make.
    Because it's a model, a simplified view on things. Sure you can look at a scenario that's strictly outside of model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Compare this with poison where it doesn't matter if you control no creatures and your opponent has a massive board, five cards in hand, and lethal in the air next turn, you still win on the spot.
    Ok, sure, but now you're massively oversimplying things. What if opponent plays Solemnity or Melira (if this is infect deck we're talking about)? See, I can make complicating assumptions, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I've constantly said poison and city's blessing are completely different, you're the one who is comparing them.
    Nowhere did I say it is... I just said both are an example of RPS like mechanics. One is more insular, and the other is generally weak because they didn't add any really powerful Ascend cards. They could have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    But just because you can't play counterspell based control deck doesn't mean you can't play counterspells. The cards still have uses in limited, unlike insufficiently supported infect.
    So does the card I gave example. You can pair it, with a creature that poisons on ETB or attack, few more direct damage/poison spells and it could still work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I keep explaining what Silence actually does, but for some reason you keep ignoring it. Yes Silence proactively keep the opponent from interacting with what you're doing when you're comboing off, it's not proactively trying to stop what the opponent is doing. Silence is not a hate card, it is an anti-hate card, like artifact/enchantment removal in dredge.
    Yes. And you refuse to see it can be used like a ****tier Gadock Teeg. Humans used to run a similar card - Ranger Captain of Eos. This is a similar effect to silence. In non-creature decks, it's effectively a Silence. Point is, you play it on opponent's turn 4 to ensure he can't use sorcery speed sweepers or ensure your opponent doesn't do something important that will prevent you from winning next turn.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Yes they do, your meme isn't funny.
    Looks at pre-ban Standard tournaments that saw more Breeding Pools than Plains (in aggregate). Sure feels funny to me

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    White and black are colors in magic, colorless isn't.
    White, Blue, Black, Red and Green are all colors as defined by the rules of the game, while colorless isn't. You know this, I have no idea why you're being purposefully obnoxious.
    Because while it isn't exactly a color, it is a filter for color like filtering. Things can search for colorless cards, destroy colorless/non-colorless, etc. I mean, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Anti permanent is not a thing.
    I agree, but neither is anti-stack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    What black card prevented counters in general?
    Blightbeetle although not on players. And it's part of the Color Pie. Also green didn't prevent counters in general Melira prevented Infect and Melira's cards prevented counters on creatures. White is the only color that had two cards that prevented counters in general AFAICT.

    Also this is my last reply to you regarding this. It's going nowhere, and your arguments aren't persuasive enough, and to make matters worse, the cards probably changed massively from when we started talking.

    -------------------------------------------------
    Changing the subject

    Did you guys see Mystery playset boosters? They look like new Un-Set. Since Unsets are basically R&D proving ground, I'm wondering which of the cards there could you see become part of the standard. For me I could see them doing something like - Frontier Explorer or Sarah's Wings.

    In fact, before this made a card similar to Sarah's Wings.

    University of Akham - 2U
    Legendary Enchantment
    Tap two untapped Cities and/or Wizards: Creatures without flying can't attack you.

    Although this was inspired by Form of the Dragon, not Sarah's Wings.
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-28 at 05:58 PM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  28. - Top - End - #358
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    Because it's a model, a simplified view on things. Sure you can look at a scenario that's strictly outside of model.
    That's just a completely meaningless way to put it up. A 1/1 flyer is going to win you the game when all other things are equal, but that doesn't mean that a 1/1 flyer wins you most of the time.

    Ok, sure, but now you're massively oversimplying things. What if opponent plays Solemnity or Melira (if this is infect deck we're talking about)?
    There is a colossal difference between winning the game when all things are equal and winning the game on the spot outside of extremely specific cases. Surely you can understand this.



    See, I can make complicating assumptions, too.
    No, you can constistently misdirect the discussion because you don't have a proper counter argument.


    Nowhere did I say it is... I just said both are an example of RPS like mechanics.
    And you just did it again, congratulations.

    It's also completely wrong. Ascend isn't very RPS, and the fact that was your best example just goes to show how wizards don't design how you claim they do.

    One is more insular, and the other is generally weak because they didn't add any really powerful Ascend cards. They could have.
    One wins the game on the spot with only very specific ways to avoid it, the other provides you with relevant advantages, that will aid you in winning, but very far from winning on the spot.

    The power level isn't really relevant to the discussion unless they made an ascend card that straight up said "you win the game".

    So does the card I gave example. You can pair it, with a creature that poisons on ETB or attack, few more direct damage/poison spells and it could still work.
    That's horribly parasitic and makes for a very unsatisfying limited environment.

    Yes. And you refuse to see it can be used like a ****tier Gadock Teeg.
    Again, look at the decks that actually played the card. It wasn't played like a bad Gaddock Teeg, because it's awful at that job.
    Yes beast within can also be played as a token generation spell, but that's obviously not the point of the card.

    Humans used to run a similar card - Ranger Captain of Eos.
    Which unlike Silence doesn't provide card disadvantage making it much easier for those decks to play it.

    This is a similar effect to silence. In non-creature decks, it's effectively a Silence. Point is, you play it on opponent's turn 4 to ensure he can't use sorcery speed sweepers or ensure your opponent doesn't do something important that will prevent you from winning next turn.
    Which is exactly what you keep ignoring is also what Silence does. It allows you too keep the enemy from stopping you from winning, it doesn't stop the opponent from winning for more than one turn.
    It can also stop storm, Living End, Ad Nauseum and Snapcaster Mage.
    But it's not a card that's good against burn, which is exactly where you claimed it could be used to start with.

    Looks at pre-ban Standard tournaments that saw more Breeding Pools than Plains (in aggregate). Sure feels funny to me
    More breeding pools than plains, mountains and swamps combined. That's not white being bad, that's Oko being broken.

    Because while it isn't exactly a color, it is a filter for color like filtering. Things can search for colorless cards, destroy colorless/non-colorless, etc. I mean, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
    No it's not. Colors are restrictive, but the vast vast vast majority of colorless cards don't require specific colorless mana, meaning any deck can play them. That's a massive difference.
    What you said wasn't kind of correct, it was flat out wrong.

    I agree, but neither is anti-stack.
    I already said what you call it doesn't matter, it's Silence, it does what Silence does, and that's not disrupting burn decks.

    I've shown you the link again, I've explained it, Gauntlet explained it, you still don't seem to want to recognize it.

    Blightbeetle although not on players.
    I said in general, this prevents only +1/+1 counters, and I have already discussed in a previous post. Don't bring up a previously refuted point unless you can bring new arguments.

    And it's part of the Color Pie.
    What is this referring to?

    Also green didn't prevent counters in general Melira prevented Infect and Melira's cards prevented counters on creatures.
    Melira prevents poison counters so I'm not sure what your point is. There is a basis for green cards that prevent poison, but not for black cards.

    White is the only color that had two cards that prevented counters in general AFAICT.
    Yes the two card that do are white and the card that prevents poison is green, so that is where you should look when designing this kind of effect. If your mechanic needs this specific answers in more than two colors then that mechanic definitely has no business existing.

    Also this is my last reply to you regarding this. It's going nowhere, and your arguments aren't persuasive enough, and to make matters worse, the cards probably changed massively from when we started talking.
    My arguments aren't persuasive to you because you are too in love with your pet project to listen to valid criticism.
    I think there could be ways of doing some of the stuff you want to do, but you are too focused on exactly how you want to do it to ever consider that.

    The individual cards aren't of much importance when the entire concept is deeply flawed.

    You're also somehow ignoring that you also put a counter preventing effect on a blue card. Where is your basis for that?


    I think you can get something that works, possibly something that works well, but not if you insist on using poison.


    University of Akham - 2U
    Legendary Enchantment
    Tap two untapped Cities and/or Wizards: Creatures without flying can't attack you.

    Although this was inspired by Form of the Dragon, not Sarah's Wings.
    Cards that straight up prevent creatures from attacking generally aren't a good idea, and the fact that you can still attack makes it more terrifying.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

  29. - Top - End - #359
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    -D-'s Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Tron Spacetime

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    What is this referring to?
    You mean the thing that was linked multiple times in this page?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Melira prevents poison counters so I'm not sure what your point is
    My point is/was, they probably moved that ability from green to white. Kinda like they removed blue's ability to negate damage. Or red counterspells. And yes, black gets to remove counters from permanents, and I assume by extension, to prevent counters.

    As for the rest, I'm not dancing this dance again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Cards that straight up prevent creatures from attacking generally aren't a good idea and the fact that you can still attack makes it more terrifying.
    Hm, I could add a drawback that you can't attack either, without fliers.

    Or would it be better if it was like or Sarah's Wings, where it prevents combat damage from non-fliers?

    But this still doesn't answer my question - which of the Mystery Booster playtest cards could you see as real cards?
    Last edited by -D-; 2019-11-29 at 09:13 AM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  30. - Top - End - #360
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ninjaman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by -D- View Post
    You mean the thing that was linked multiple times in this page?
    That says removing counters, not preventing counters. Those are two different things. Just because black can remove counters doesn't mean it can prevent it.
    It's also worth noting as I think it has been before that white is not noted as removing or preventing counters, yet Suncleanser and Solemnity exist, so they might have moved the counter removal completely to white. They might not, we don't know for sure, but what we do know is that preventing counters was never black.
    Make black cards that remove counters all you want, just don't claim preventing counters was ever black.

    My point is/was, they probably moved that ability from green to white.
    They could have removed it, but I'm not sure how that helps your case, that just means only white us allowed to prevent counters


    and I assume by extension, to prevent counters.
    That's not an assumption you can make. Preventing and removing counters are two different things.



    Hm, I could add a drawback that you can't attack either, without fliers.

    Or would it be better if it was like or Sarah's Wings, where it prevents combat damage from non-fliers?
    I don't think that solves the problem of being a lockdown card which Wizards don't really want to do. Taxing is fine, but preventing outright is something they are very careful with.

    But this still doesn't answer my question - which of the Mystery Booster playtest cards could you see as real cards?
    None of them.


    For your set I would do something like:

    Corrupting flame - 2R
    Instant - U
    Put a corruption counter on target opponent.
    Corrupting flame deals damage to target opponent equal to the number of corruption counters on that player.

    Everlasting Corrupter - 2BB
    Creature - Spirit - R
    Menace
    Whenever Everlasting Corrupter deals combat damage to an opponent, put a corruption counter on that player.
    1B, Remove 2 corruption counters from target opponent: Return Everlasting Corrupter to the battlefield tapped.
    4/3

    Pox Ghoul - 3B
    Creature - Zombie - C
    When Pox Ghoul dies, put a corruption counter on target opponent.
    4/2

    Disciple of the Foul - 2B
    Creature - Elf Cleric - C
    Lifelink
    Disciple of the Foul gets +1/+0 as long as an opponent has one or more corruption counters.
    2/2

    Foul Strike - 2B
    Instant - C
    Target creature gets -3/-3 until end of turn. If that creature dies this turn, put a corruption counter on that creature's controller.

    Frothing Leafkin - 1R
    Creature - Elf Berserker - C
    Frothing leafkin has menace as long defending player has 3 or more corruption counters.
    2/2

    Corruption counters don't do anything.

    I'm still not a huge fan, since it's still quite parasitic, but it gets rid of some of the problems inherent with infect.
    Avatar by me
    Quotes
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Cizak View Post
    I'm gonna be against the flow here and say outlined.

    What? Everyone else are against the flow too, okay?
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    In the grim statistics of the far future, there is only math.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kneenibble View Post
    Most Hilarious Murderer in the Playground. Both his episodes of hysterically ending my life left me chuckling even hours later when I thought about them.
    And more in the extended signature!

    Extended signature

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •