The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314151617
Results 481 to 500 of 500
  1. - Top - End - #481
    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 Morphic tide View Post
    My own suggestion, if I'm reading things right that Corruption is intended primarily as the cost of stuff like demonic contracts, is to focus self-corruption in Black and Blue, with corruption-punishing being primarily in White and Green, the removal of it is primarily in Red and Green, White and Blue sharing infliction of it on others, and the payoff of having it primarily in Red and Black.
    From a flavor perspective that makes a lot of sense!

    However, from the magic pie perspective, only cards that can prevent/remove counters are - White and Black (from permanents and opponents). Green could theoretically do it in a creature dependent way. Hence Wild Cleansing (Remove a counter from yourself for each green creature you control). Black can remove counters from various things, but not itself. Red doesn't care about counters.

    So in essence. While black and blue could be the color of self-inflicted corruption. I don't get too much choice who is the corruption removal color. It's either - White (Solemnity, Suncleanser), Black (Price of Betrayal) or Green (Melira).

    It's a difficult question. Let's break down the corruption effects -there are five possible effects, I mean ideally it would be like this

    1. Self-Corruption - W*UBR*
    2. Corruption-inflict - UBR
    3. Corruption-removal - WRG
    4. Corruption-punish - WUG
    5. Corruption-synergy - BR

    * - means some means available, but generally not really cost-efficient. However, this makes G kinda the outlier it can only remove or punish corruption.


    Quote Originally Posted by Morphic tide View Post
    Rather than every Corruption card trying to be self-contained like Energy, I'd go for having them spread out so they might matter even if they're the only Corruption-mentioning card in either player's 75.
    Self-containing is IMO a better design. I could see a few cards, being slightly overstated and giving you corruption. I'm talking the equivalent of 2CMC 2/3 vanilla minion that gives you corruption.
    ------------
    Here we go again.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Being the tribe with the most members doesn't make it parasitic in any way. Most humans don't care about humans.
    *Cough*Humans*Cough*. It doesn't matter most don't care. The few that care and support cards are fantastic enough. Why do you think they made non-Humans a mechanic in ELD?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    All the standard decks that played Llanowar elves along with Steel Leaf Champion and no tribal synergy would like a word with you. Pioneer decks add Elvish mystic into the mix, still no tribal synergy.
    Now re-read my post. Some elves can. Especially overstated elves with evasion and mana dorks.

    You convinently forgot that in Pioneer Elves deck, don't play just Steelleaf, Llanowar and Elvish mystics. They play Clancaller and Shaman of the pack, two very linear Elf creatures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    My point was that most of the human cards that can benefit from human synergy, don't themselves need human synergy. You can do human synergy with only a few cards that actually care about humans, by having a lot of creatures that are humans but don't themselves care about it.
    Yeah, but the best are linearly scaling off Humans. You can't say humans decks don't care about Humans when Best Human card available - Thalia's Lieutenant is in every remotely Human deck. Along with any remotely good Human in Pioneer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    The same can't be said about corruption. Corruption synergy cards all need to deal with corruption directly. This makes them all highly parasitic.
    Do they? The just need to say counters can't be placed or remove counters from players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I never claimed there aren't frequently pushed mechanics. But most mechanics don't get multiple cards banned in standard.
    Energy was more pushed than most.
    Yes, they messed up valuing some abilities. Same with Oko.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You said that there are cards that care about the corruption counters. Then healing the damage the corruption does won't do anything to interact with the cards that utilize corruption.
    In the long term, you are correct. Luckily you don't have to win the game in the long term.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Time scale doesn't matter. This applies to limited as well. Very few mechanics get anything close to a specific hate card, and the ones that do get very few.
    Ok. If time scale doesn't matter (which it does), it's in due to popular demand. People asked if they can be removed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    The problem lies with how you're trying to implement the mechanic. There are ways you could implement it that would work, but you're looking at your mechanic through rose-tinted glasses.
    Perhaps. But you are merely a data-point, not the final arbiter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You don't need to be a burn deck though. Corruption is terrible in a burn deck. If you try to kill the opponent on turn 4 then the corruption deals very little damage, but if you try to kill the opponent on turn 20 then you can make due with just the corruption.

    Also saying "this synergizes with stuff that cares about dealing damage" doesn't count. Dealing damage is easy, almost every creature in the game does that.
    If you are playing a red black deck, with as many corruption you're going to play towards aggro.

    Corruption means, you'll have steady a source of damage, that means, your red burns will burn for more, because of a spectacle like mechanics. As long as you deal 1 damage, your red cards will be better. If you are playing against a green white deck that for some reason wants to give you corruption, that's fine, you keep your corruption relatively low and kill him with aggro and burn spells.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I'll repeat myself.
    If green and white are the colors that care about how much corruption your opponent has, why aren't they able to give corruption.
    That's like making a set where all your cards that care about how many cards you draw are in white.

    Having GW be caring about the counters on the enemy without a way to put corruption on the enemy is a horrible mechanic because it only functions as hate. It's like in Ice Age when no one played snow lands because there were much stronger snow hosers than snow payoffs.
    Look you do make a good case for moving white into corruption causing, but then white becomes the color that removes/adds and punishes corruption.

    GW, in general, doesn't care. Corruption is a minor set mechanics, you are fixating on for some reason. I told you it was a small part of overall design.

    The main set cares about four warring factions. The corruption is but a side show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No I didn't. I asked you how a BR deck that cared about counters on itself would fare against a GW deck that cared about counters on the enemy.
    That's not what you asked.

    This is what you asked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    So if you're playing red/black and your opponent is playing white/green, what happens? Do you want to have a lot of corruption. Do you want to have low corruption?
    And I answered. Assuming you meant Limited and BR is the corruption deck. Then I answered the other question above.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  2. - Top - End - #482
    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
    *Cough*Humans*Cough*. It doesn't matter most don't care. The few that care and support cards are fantastic enough. Why do you think they made non-Humans a mechanic in ELD?
    That has everything to do with humans being powerful, and nothing to do with the mechanics being parasitic.
    If you draft Shadows Over Innistrad human's aren't parasitic. You can look at the other decks that play humans, they're not

    Now re-read my post. Some elves can.
    No you didn't. Here's your post:
    Well, no. They can't go in any deck. Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.
    The fact that there are non-elf decks that play multiple different elves prove you wrong.

    Especially overstated elves with evasion and mana dorks.
    Hate pieces like Reclamation Sage
    Synergy cards like Rishkar or Carapace Forger.
    Solid Creatures like Thorn Lieutenant and Sylvan Advocate.
    Power house cards like Deathrite Shaman and Bloodbraid Elf.
    Great utility creatures like Elvish Reclaimer.
    Elves that have the right keyword for an archetype, like Gladecover Scout and Glistener Elf.
    Aggressive creatures like Pelt Collector, Narnam Renegade, Sunblade Elf.

    Basically if a creature is a good creature then it will see play in non tribal decks even if it also has a relevant tribe. The fact that this happens makes elves non parasitic.

    You convinently forgot that in Pioneer Elves deck, don't play just Steelleaf, Llanowar and Elvish mystics. They play Clancaller and Shaman of the pack, two very linear Elf creatures.
    I wasn't talking about elves decks. I wasn't talking about every deck that played some elves. I said decks can play some elves. I didn't say dedicated elves deck play only some elves.
    Of course tribal decks want to play only, or mostly only, creatures with their tribe, but that doesn't mean that all the cards in those decks that don't have specific tribal support don't show up in other decks. That's how the mechanic isn't parasitic. A creature being an elf isn't parasitic.
    Infect creatures for instance pretty much only show up in infect decks.

    Yeah, but the best are linearly scaling off Humans. You can't say humans decks don't care about Humans when Best Human card available - Thalia's Lieutenant is in every remotely Human deck. Along with any remotely good Human in Pioneer.
    Where did I ever said human decks don't care about humans? Nowhere.
    Of course a tribal deck cares about its tribe.
    But the decks that don't themselves have tribal synergy show up other places.
    Green white decks in standard played Avacyn's Pilgrim.
    Jeskai aggro decks in standard played Mantis Rider.
    Noble Hierarch has seen play in a ton of decks as it's one of the best manadorks ever printed.
    Reflector Mage saw a ton of play in blue white decks in standard.
    Kitesail Freebooter saw play in blue black midrange decks.
    In standard Thalia saw play mostly in decks that played Champion of the Parish, but she also saw play in decks that didn't. In Legacy and Vintage she sees play in a ton of creature heavy decks, since the spell-heavy nature of the format makes her ability that much more powerful.
    Back with Meddling Mage was printed Human tribal wasn't even a thing, and it saw play back then too.

    These cards are all played in human tribal decks because they are humans, but they were also played in other decks that didn't care about their creature type.

    Do they? The just need to say counters can't be placed or remove counters from players.
    1. Those aren't corruption synergy cards though.
    2. Count the amount of times that effect has showed up, it's not often.
    3. You're not allowed to remove any kind of counters from yourself, because of infect.

    In the long term, you are correct. Luckily you don't have to win the game in the long term.
    Why does this have anything to do with in the long term? How is that haste creature with power equal to your corruption you showed "in the long term"?

    Also you don't play lifegain to counteract the corruption anymore than you play lifegain to counteract phyrexian mana/shock lands/thoughsieze.

    Ok. If time scale doesn't matter (which it does),
    No it doesn't, and it doesn't matter anymore just because you assert it does.
    Design with limited in mind. Limited doesn't care what cards are in the set that comes out in 9 months.

    it's in due to popular demand. People asked if they can be removed.
    And that's fine, either creature one or two higher rarity cards in your set that removes them, or find a way to remove them with more general things more people will have access to.

    Perhaps. But you are merely a data-point, not the final arbiter.
    I have explained why your mechanic doesn't work, other people have joined in as well, and you still seem totally reluctant to kill your darling.
    I have explained to you that there are ways to implement this, but you are too stuck in your own idea about how it has to work.

    If you are playing a red black deck, with as many corruption you're going to play towards aggro.
    If you corrupt yourself, yes, as the mitigates the disadvantage. If you corrupt your opponent, no, as that mitigates the advantage.

    Corruption means, you'll have steady a source of damage, that means, your red burns will burn for more,
    Dealing one more every turn isn't worth the effort of giving corruption if you're trying to kill them on turn 4 or 5.
    Why would I deal them 1 damage every turn for 3 turns if it's more difficult than just dealing 3 at once?

    because of a spectacle like mechanics.
    1. Why does burn spells deal more damage because of spectacle?
    2. Is spectacle in your limited format?

    If you are playing against a green white deck that for some reason wants to give you corruption,
    What do you mean for some reason? Didn't you say green white was the colors that could scale off the opponent's corruption? Shouldn't they then be interested in giving the opponent corruption?

    that's fine, you keep your corruption relatively low and kill him with aggro and burn spells.
    How do you keep your corruption low if all/a lot of your cards give yourself corruption?

    Look you do make a good case for moving white into corruption causing, but then white becomes the color that removes/adds and punishes corruption.
    Removing corruption shouldn't be so common that it's the identity of a color.
    Being the color that both removes and punishes corruption seems counter intuitive, because then it only makes sense for you to remove corruption from yourself, and not from your opponent.

    GW, in general, doesn't care. Corruption is a minor set mechanics, you are fixating on for some reason. I told you it was a small part of overall design.
    If it's supposed to be a small part then don't use a very parasitic and very schizophrenic design.


    That's not what you asked.

    This is what you asked.

    And I answered. Assuming you meant Limited and BR is the corruption deck. Then I answered the other question above.
    Explain the meaningful distinction between the two. There isn't one.
    This is what you claimed:
    You just asked me to test a fringe deck, that runs corruption.
    That was a lie, as shown by the comment you quoted:
    So if you're playing red/black and your opponent is playing white/green, what happens? Do you want to have a lot of corruption. Do you want to have low corruption?
    _________________________________________________

    I was curious if this wording would work. I suspect not.
    Tigerís Warden - 2GG
    Creature - Elf Druid
    When Tigerís Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Cat creature token.
    Tokens created by Tigerís Warden get +1/+1.
    1/1

    Otherwise I guess a set mechanic could be done like:
    Tigerís Warden - 2GG
    Creature - Elf Druid
    When Tigerís Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Cat creature token. That token is Tiger Wardenís familiar.
    Tigerís Wardenís familiar gets +1/+1.
    1/1
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-11 at 04:38 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

  3. - Top - End - #483
    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 Ninjaman View Post
    I was curious if this wording would work. I suspect not.
    Tigerís Warden - 2GG
    Creature - Elf Druid
    When Tigerís Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Cat creature token.
    Tokens created by Tigerís Warden get +1/+1.
    1/1
    I believe this wording would work. 607.2c covers linked abilities where one of the abilities makes tokens. This has only been used to remove tokens in the past. Iíd maybe be a bit worried about some players thinking the buff from multiple copies stacked, or if you flickered the card then all the tokens would get the buff and not just the most recent.

    Might be simpler just to go with something like:
    Familliar - When ~ enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 cat token. That token gets +1/+1 until ~ leaves the battlefield.
    Last edited by Androgeus; 2020-01-11 at 09:36 AM.

  4. - Top - End - #484
    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 Androgeus View Post
    I believe this wording would work. 607.2c covers linked abilities where one of the abilities makes tokens. This has only been used to remove tokens in the past.
    Neat. I'm very happy that can be done, because then I can also have "familiar" cards where the card being a familiar doesn't mean anything, but I don't have to keep the "That token is Cardname's familiar." clause to keep the theme. It also means it has more synergies with cards outside the set.
    Could you then also do something like:
    Sever Bond - 2B
    Instant - C
    Target creature and each token created by it gain -3/-3.

    Familiar's Protection - W
    Instant - C
    Target creature and each token created by it has indestructible until end of turn.

    That may cause memory issues?

    Iíd maybe be a bit worried about some players thinking the buff from multiple copies stacked, or if you flickered the card then all the tokens would get the buff and not just the most recent.
    Possibly, but I feel like people only need to be told that once.

    Might be simpler just to go with something like:
    Familliar - When ~ enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 cat token. That token gets +1/+1 until ~ leaves the battlefield.
    How is that simpler? It's about as long. The until Cardname leaves the battlefield clause is weird. Ability wording only makes sense if you're always going to have the tied ability.
    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

  5. - Top - End - #485
    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
    The fact that there are non-elf decks that play multiple different elves prove you wrong.
    No, it doesn't because I never claimed an elf or a human or token couldn't be good enough on their own.

    My claim was that parasitism isn't a huge deal. Tribes are parasitic, but not problematic. When you do have a parasitic and linear mechanic ala Affinity or another scaling you do get problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Basically if a creature is a good creature then it will see play in non tribal decks even if it also has a relevant tribe. The fact that this happens makes elves non parasitic.
    I never disputed that. Did I say Constructs are problematic because of Balista? No. You're making a strawman here.

    Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.
    AN ELF can see fill any niche in any deck. E.g a 1/1 elf could see play in decks that relies on having 1/1 creatures (e.g. something with Love Struck beast).

    To use Elf Synergies, you need a specific deck.

    Having an 5/5 3CMC elf used outside of Elf deck, doesn't address my claim in any way. In fact, I'd say the Linearity is a bigger problem than parasitism. Want to refute that? Find a card that's not linear, extremely parasitic and considered OP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    These cards are all played in human tribal decks because they are humans, but they were also played in other decks that didn't care about their creature type.
    Yes. Yes, they are. I never said no <<INSERT TRIBE>> would see play on their own.

    However, imagine if all those humans had add +1/+1 on up to two target Humans you control. Because if you have Thalia's Liuetanant and Champion of the Parish on the field, it's the same as having that ability. Even if most Humans don't care, the few that do care a lot.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    1. Those aren't corruption synergy cards though.
    2. Count the amount of times that effect has showed up, it's not often.
    3. You're not allowed to remove any kind of counters from yourself, because of infect.
    1. I never said they are.
    2. Ok, sure.
    3. You could limit it to nonpoison counters because Infect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Also you don't play lifegain to counteract the corruption anymore than you play lifegain to counteract phyrexian mana/shock lands/thoughsieze.
    In limited, you probably would care. Especially, if you go against some deck you know applies corruption.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No it doesn't, and it doesn't matter anymore just because you assert it does.
    Design with limited in mind. Limited doesn't care what cards are in the set that comes out in 9 months.
    I am. Also limited is designed with future cards in mind, because it cares about cards that come out in same block.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I have explained why your mechanic doesn't work, other people have joined in as well, and you still seem totally reluctant to kill your darling.
    I have explained to you that there are ways to implement this, but you are too stuck in your own idea about how it has to work.
    Yeah, and they have been unpersuasive. To be honest, I'm closer to killing it/changing it because it doesn't mesh well enough with the set, rather than anything you said so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    If you corrupt yourself, yes, as the mitigates the disadvantage. If you corrupt your opponent, no, as that mitigates the advantage.
    Not sure what you mean by this.

    I meant, if someone else puts corruption on you, you can negate/heal corruption damage, buying you a few turns.

    If you are self-corrupting, healing helps you not die to corruption, assuming you go overboard.

    Obviously you side it in both cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Why would I deal them 1 damage every turn for 3 turns if it's more difficult than just dealing 3 at once?

    1. Why does burn spells deal more damage because of spectacle?
    2. Is spectacle in your limited format?
    Note I said, Spectacle-like. Not Spectacle.

    Basically, when you deal damage to an opponent, you get some boons. E.g. some red spells are cheaper, some red spells deal more damage if an opponent was damaged this turn. Now, corruption is constant damage tick each turn, enabling these effects at no cost. Similar to how spectacle works.

    So, instead of using 2x3 cards to enable this mechanic you can use 1 (corruption card) + 3 to achieve the same effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    What do you mean for some reason? Didn't you say green white was the colors that could scale off the opponent's corruption? Shouldn't they then be interested in giving the opponent corruption?

    Explain the meaningful distinction between the two. There isn't one.
    Green white is designed to use +1/+1 counter synergy in this set. Remember when I said, there are very few corruption cards in this set? It's because I wanted to test waters with it in a small set, where it isn't as prominent.

    I designed limited, knowing it won't be a large part of the limited. You are asking me, but what if I designed a deck around it. I mean sure. You can design a deck around anything. I've seen a guy pull two Lovestruck Beasts, so he designed his deck around that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    That may cause memory issues?
    I'm pretty sure that's not a may. It's how big of a memory issue will it cause.

    Not to mention what happens when you copy a familiar? Is it its familiar, and how often would new players mistakenly destroy these as well.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  6. - Top - End - #486
    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
    No, it doesn't because I never claimed an elf or a human or token couldn't be good enough on their own.
    Literally what you wrote:
    Well, no. They can't go in any deck. Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.
    If plenty elves see play in non elf decks then the elf creature type can't be parasitic.

    My claim was that parasitism isn't a huge deal. Tribes are parasitic, but not problematic. When you do have a parasitic and linear mechanic ala Affinity or another scaling you do get problems.
    You still don't get it. Creature types aren't parasitic, tribal support is parasitic. But because most creatures with relevant creature types can also be played in non tribal decks you only need a few parasitic cards to allow the tribal archetypes to exist.
    This is in stark contrast with parasitic mechanics like energy, where energy cards are only good in energy decks, and energy decks want to play mostly only energy cards.

    I never disputed that. Did I say Constructs are problematic because of Balista? No. You're making a strawman here.
    I will direct you to your previous comment:
    Well, no. They can't go in any deck. Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.
    And that's a pretty ironic accusation coming from you.

    AN ELF can see fill any niche in any deck. E.g a 1/1 elf could see play in decks that relies on having 1/1 creatures (e.g. something with Love Struck beast).
    Yes, and multiple elves

    To use Elf Synergies, you need a specific deck.
    But my entire point is that you can play multiple elves without playing any elf synergies.
    Two different mana elves and Steel Leaf Champion for instance.

    Having an 5/5 3CMC elf used outside of Elf deck,
    Steel Leaf Champion is a 5/4.

    doesn't address my claim in any way. In fact, I'd say the Linearity is a bigger problem than parasitism. Want to refute that?
    How does the fact that multiple elves are played outside of elf decks not address this claim?
    Well, no. They can't go in any deck. Sure an elf, can fill any niche in any deck. But to put more elves than 1, then it takes a specific deck.
    Find a card that's not linear, extremely parasitic and considered OP.
    Parasitism tends to be linear, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
    Linearity isn't a bad thing as long as there isn't too much of it. All formats need decks that are straight forward.
    Parasitism is bad because it limits the stuff you can do, especially in older formats with larger card pools.

    I would argue that the four color energy decks that dominated standard were heavily parasitic, but not very linear.

    Yes. Yes, they are. I never said no <<INSERT TRIBE>> would see play on their own.
    And therefore they're not parasitic.
    If lots of different decks played one or two energy cards then energy wouldn't be a parasitic mechanic.

    However, imagine if all those humans had add +1/+1 on up to two target Humans you control. Because if you have Thalia's Lieutenant and Champion of the Parish on the field, it's the same as having that ability. Even if most Humans don't care, the few that do care a lot.
    I think the real issue here is that you just don't know what parasitic means.
    Parasitism is requiring a player to play a lot of the same thing to be effective, especially if that thing only exists in a few sets.
    Kamigawa's Spirit and Arcane Synergy was parasitic, but the Spirit and Arcane types themselves weren't.
    Energy is parasitic even if Rosewater claims it isn't, because while you can play an energy card by themselves, they are so much better if you play a lot. The standard environment they were in proved this.
    Infect is extremely parasitic, as it dictates that every creature in your deck intended for dealing damage to the opponent must have infect.
    You can say human synergy cards are parasitic, even though humans are the most common creature type, but humans themselves aren't parasitic.
    You don't see a lot of energy cards outside energy decks, you don't see a lot of infect creatures outside infect decks. You do see a lot of humans outside human decks, that's why humans aren't parisit

    Also for Kamigawa block there are 87 cards refering to arcane, while Innistrad block only has 48 references to humans, and Shadows Over Innistrad only has 24. Arcane also only shows up in Kamigawa.

    The existence of Kwende doesn't make First Strike a parasitic mechanic.

    1. I never said they are.
    Here is the comment chain:
    The same can't be said about corruption. Corruption synergy cards all need to deal with corruption directly. This makes them all highly parasitic.
    Do they? The just need to say counters can't be placed or remove counters from players.
    I was talking about corruption synergy cards. Why would you mention corruption hate in that discussion if you didn't think it was synergy?
    If the word deal caused confusion then let me rephrase:
    The same can't be said about corruption. Corruption synergy cards all need to utilize corruption directly. This makes them all highly parasitic.

    3. You could limit it to nonpoison counters because Infect.
    Not unless poison counters show up in your set, because referring to something that isn't relevant in your standard and limited environment is a bad design.

    In limited, you probably would care. Especially, if you go against some deck you know applies corruption.
    If corruption is powerful enough that lifegain becomes something you consider in limited, then you have screwed up.

    I am. Also limited is designed with future cards in mind, because it cares about cards that come out in same block.
    No it doesn't. Wizards don't do blocks anymore, sets are meant to be drafted only one set.
    Source

    Yeah, and they have been unpersuasive. To be honest, I'm closer to killing it/changing it because it doesn't mesh well enough with the set, rather than anything you said so far.
    Because you just flat out disregard everything I say rather than properly engage with my arguments.
    The fact that you consistently fail to provide counter arguments yet still remain unpersuaded just shows how blind you have gotten to the failings of your own idea.

    Not sure what you mean by this.
    If you corrupt yourself you want to play aggro to not die to your own corruption. If you corrupt the opponent then you want to play is slow so you can deal a lot of damage with the corruption. If you only deal 3 damage with corruption then you could have just thrown a burn spell in their face instead.

    I meant, if someone else puts corruption on you, you can negate/heal corruption damage, buying you a few turns.
    And how good is lifegain in general?

    If you are self-corrupting, healing helps you not die to corruption, assuming you go overboard.
    If you need to heal yourself to not die then you're playing it wrong.
    The advantage of corrupting yourself is that your cards get to be stronger. You lose that advantage if you then play weak life gain cards.
    Decks that pay life don't play lots of lifegain to offset it.

    I don't know why you're talking about lifegain, I didn't bring up lifegain the the section you replied to.


    Note I said, Spectacle-like. Not Spectacle.

    Basically, when you deal damage to an opponent, you get some boons. E.g. some red spells are cheaper, some red spells deal more damage if an opponent was damaged this turn. Now, corruption is constant damage tick each turn, enabling these effects at no cost. Similar to how spectacle works.

    So, instead of using 2x3 cards to enable this mechanic you can use 1 (corruption card) + 3 to achieve the same effect.
    1. It's not at no cost, it requires you to give the opponent corruption, which isn't cheap as it's repeatable damage.
    2. Putting corruption synergy on burn spells is counterproductive, as burn wants to close the game fast, and corruption is slow damage.
    3. You don't want very many face burn spells, as they are bad in limited and only help few decks in constructed.

    Green white is designed to use +1/+1 counter synergy in this set. Remember when I said, there are very few corruption cards in this set? It's because I wanted to test waters with it in a small set, where it isn't as prominent.
    Don't do that. From everything you have told corruption seems to be about synergy. This goes away if you include too few cards.

    I designed limited, knowing it won't be a large part of the limited. You are asking me, but what if I designed a deck around it. I mean sure. You can design a deck around anything. I've seen a guy pull two Lovestruck Beasts, so he designed his deck around that.
    All the designs you've mentioned are heavily synergy based. That means they are either going to be way too weak if you don't get enough, or way too powerful if you get enough.

    I'm pretty sure that's not a may. It's how big of a memory issue will it cause.

    Not to mention what happens when you copy a familiar? Is it its familiar, and how often would new players mistakenly destroy these as well.
    For exactly that reason there wouldn't be any token doubling effects in that set.
    If you have multiple distinct sources that make multiple identical tokens then it could be confusing, but that should then not be printed in that set. As for constructed I think it would mostly be relevant in commander, and even then not that much.
    The rules can be a bit weird, but there are a lot of stuff that can have weird rules, as long as we don't print any weird interactions in the same set I think it's safe.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-14 at 05:30 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

  7. - Top - End - #487
    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
    Literally what you wrote

    If plenty elves see play in non elf decks then the elf creature type can't be parasitic.

    (other but you said)
    First off I explained what this means. Second off, you are nitpicking here.

    Adress my main point - Parasitism is a red flag, not a deal breaker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You still don't get it. Creature types aren't parasitic, tribal support is parasitic.
    Here is a shocker for you. Tribal support is problematic because of linearity, not parasitism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Parasitism tends to be linear, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
    No. Just no.

    MTG gamepedia definition with sources
    Parasitism is how good this card works with cards outside of the set. If it doesn't it's parasitic.
    Linearity, how much does this card enables linear strategies. Linear strategies being, if I use something I need to use more of that something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Linearity isn't a bad thing as long as there isn't too much of it. All formats need decks that are straight forward.
    Parasitism is bad because it limits the stuff you can do, especially in older formats with larger card pools.
    Linearity isn't a bad thing as long as there isn't a powerful effect attached to it.
    The only reason "corruption" would be parasitic, is that Wizards are too afraid to print some player counter interactions. Because - poison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I would argue that the four color energy decks that dominated standard were heavily parasitic, but not very linear.
    Energy is both parasitic and linear. Generally, if you play one energy card, you have to play other energy cards as well. Energy is a linear strategy. As extra cherry energy is/was extremely non-interactive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No it doesn't. Wizards don't do blocks anymore, sets are meant to be drafted only one set.
    Source
    They did it as far as Amonkhet, and this is Wizards, they change their mind often. That said, I'm definitely making it in style of Ixalan, rather than WAR or ELD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Because you just flat out disregard everything I say rather than properly engage with my arguments.
    The fact that you consistently fail to provide counter-arguments yet still remain unpersuaded just shows how blind you have gotten to the failings of your own idea.
    To be honest, you write a lot. And most of that is repetitive, nitpicking, and boring. You provide problems, but rarely solutions.

    Do you know what is constructive? Celestine Cave Witch

    One easy hack to have corruption be a token Aura enchantment with at beginning of upkeep deal 1 damage. It solves all your complaints.
    It's neither parasitic nor do I need special cards dealing with it.

    I can make cards that just scale off number of Auras on your, or your opponent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    For exactly that reason there wouldn't be any token doubling effects in that set.
    Ok, what about bounce? Flicker? Exile until X leaves the battlefield? Each one of those effects will cause memory problems.

    Having blue without bounce would be horrible. Having blue with bounce with a special ruling would probably be even worse.

    To be a nitpick, cards need to use "with" not "by". As in "tokens created with ~".

    But on the more serious side, +1/+1 to tokens is Uncommon card at minimum. That means you can't have familiar at Common. It's not a good set mechanic if you can't see it at Common.

    You can make it not be a set mechanic, but part of a cycle - e.g. Uncommon legendary creatures with familiars.
    Last edited by -D-; 2020-01-15 at 05:02 AM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  8. - Top - End - #488
    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
    First off I explained what this means. Second off, you are nitpicking here.
    You can't say that you explained what you meant and then not repost your explanation.
    You literally claimed it takes a specific deck to play more than one elf.

    Adress my main point - Parasitism is a red flag, not a deal breaker.
    It's a big enough red flag that with all the other problems your mechanic has it shouldn't ever happen.

    Here is a shocker for you. Tribal support is problematic because of linearity, not parasitism.
    Here is a shocker for you. Tribal support isn't problematic.
    Also you can't claim Tribal support is linear when you have decks like Legacy Goblins which is built like a toolbox.
    I also wouldn't call Humans linear as it plays way too much interaction, that's what makes the deck good.

    Wow, I never expected gamepedia or Maro to claim something so overtly wrong.
    Here's some more sources:
    From Wizards
    MTG Salvation
    Reddit
    "To employ a linear strategy means that you're entirely focused on one goal or theme. Every card contributes to that goal, and you have little interest in deviating from that plan. Worrying about what your opponent is doing is largely just a distraction. In short, linear strategies follow a "straight line" from point A to point B."

    "Basically, linnear is a type of deck. Specifically, one that has a single gameplan, and it either executes that gameplan, or it loses. Strong examples of this are combo decks like ad nauseam, aggro decks like burn/zooicide, and ramp decks like tron. "

    "Linear decks aren't literally "play this exact sequence every single game". The term refers to decks that have a clear goal in mind, with most of their cards dedicated to that goal. Modern Burn and infect have room for play skill but are still aptly described as linear decks."

    Linear decks are stuff like burn, dredge, Ad Nauseum, Storm, Infect, Affinity. Decks that are highly focused on a specific goal, unlike interactive decks like Death's Shadow, Jund or humans who change their play style.

    Parasitism is how good this card works with cards outside of the set. If it doesn't it's parasitic.
    And you really don't see how mechanics that only work within the single set put constraints on what cards you can
    use it with?

    Also this doesn't at all mix with how you claimed tribal support was parasitic, since both the support and the creature types show up in multiple formats.

    Linearity, how much does this card enables linear strategies. Linear strategies being, if I use something I need to use more of that something.
    No it's not. This is parasitism.
    Ad Nauseum is a very linear deck, but it doesn't play that much of a specific thing.
    Linear refers to a deck having a linear angle of attack. A non linear deck is capable of changing its game plan.

    Linearity isn't a bad thing as long as there isn't a powerful effect attached to it.
    The only reason "corruption" would be parasitic, is that Wizards are too afraid to print some player counter interactions. Because - poison.
    Poison isn't necessarily linear, but it is parasitic, and that is a problem.

    Energy is both parasitic and linear. Generally, if you play one energy card, you have to play other energy cards as well. Energy is a linear strategy. As extra cherry energy is/was extremely non-interactive.
    Needing to play energy cards with other energy cards makes energy parasitic, which it definitely is.
    Being linear means having a specific angle of attack, but thanks to the flexibility energy provides, it isn't linear. Energy not being linear can actually be a big problem, as it reduces the amount of effective hate.

    They did it as far as Amonkhet, and this is Wizards, they change their mind often. That said, I'm definitely making it in style of Ixalan, rather than WAR or ELD.
    This isn't an argument.
    They have said they are moving away from block structure, and have good reasons for doing so, most importantly all their market research showed that people like tripple set drafting way more.
    You can't just go "They'll change their mind" and disregard their decisions, that's not good design.

    To be honest, you write a lot. And most of that is repetitive, nitpicking, and boring.
    It's repetitive because you don't seem to acknowledge the flaws in your design. You constantly ignore my arguments.
    Massive flaws in your design aren't nitpicking.
    I'm sure it sucks to have someone point out why your great ideas don't work.
    The fact that you have to accuse my arguments of being repetitive, nitpicking and boring instead of properly engaging with them proves my point.

    You provide problems, but rarely solutions.
    1. My job is to point is to give feedback, this means pointing out
    2. I have come up with several solutions, but you have quickly discarded them for not fitting your idea of how the mechanic should be.


    Do you know what is constructive? Celestine Cave Witch

    One easy hack to have corruption be a token Aura enchantment with at beginning of upkeep deal 1 damage. It solves all your complaints.
    It's neither parasitic nor do I need special cards dealing with it.
    One huge problem with that is that the only meaningful interaction becomes mass enchantment destruction. It's a bit better now that black also get enchantment removal.
    There's also the problem of it being a two mana enchantment making it difficult to attach to cards without either making them very expensive, or requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops.
    The more powerful corruption is by itself the more difficult it is to make stuff that interacts with it.
    There's also problems with interactions with stuff like constellation and All that Glitters.
    It also doesn't change my complaints about the schizophrenic design of the set. There shouldn't be both cards that rewarded you for your opponent having high corruption, and cards that rewarded yourself for having high corruption. The set should focus on one of them.
    I had thought about that, but I didn't bring it up because I didn't think it was that good a solution. It is better than what you're currently doing though.

    I think you could do corruption as a black red mechanic in the set, put it on say 10 cards, make most of those not have any corruption synergy themselves, and keeping the synergy for higher rarities. Then you could give green, blue and white some decent answers in common or uncommon like:
    Elvish Purifier - 2G
    Creature - Elf Druid - C
    When Elvish Purifier enters the battlefield, choose one:
    *You gain 2 life
    *Destroy target enchantment with converted mana cost 2 or less.
    2/3

    Ok, what about bounce? Flicker? Exile until X leaves the battlefield? Each one of those effects will cause memory problems.
    Those were all in Avacyn Restored limited which also had soul bound. It's just a question of placing the creature it has created next to it. The way they work a creature isn't going to have more than one familiar in this limited set anyways.

    It's possible that the synergy cards would be too difficult to implement, but I think limited is where it is most important to keep in mind, and I think it's easy enough to do there. You could do Amonkhet style punch out counters if necessary.

    Having blue without bounce would be horrible. Having blue with bounce with a special ruling would probably be even worse.
    You don't need a special ruling. When you bounce the creature then it's a different creature, so when you play the creature again you make a new token and that is your familiar which you put beside it.
    Also Throne of Eldraine had 2 common bounce spells and 1 uncommon, the rest were rare or mythic. Theros Beyond death has one common and one uncommon. It doesn't seem like that big of deal to just not print any and just make an extra tap spell.

    To be a nitpick, cards need to use "with" not "by". As in "tokens created with ~".
    You're right, thank you.

    But on the more serious side +1/+1 to tokens is uncommon card at minimum.
    Why? If it gave to all tokens yes, I originally had it at uncommon and gave all cats +1/+1, but why would it need to be uncommon if it only gave it to its own token?

    That means you can't have familiar at common. It's not a good set mechanic, if you can't see it at common.
    Maul Splicer and Senior Splicer are both common, so you can give keywords to tokens on common, especially since it is only one token.

    Some of the common familiars I have toyed with:

    Attended Guard - 2W
    Creature - Human Soldier - C
    Vigilance
    When Attended Guard enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white cat creature token.
    Creature tokens created by Attended Guard have lifelink.
    2/2

    Scariet Messenger - 3W
    Creature - Human Wizard - C
    When Scariet Messenger enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Bird creature token with flying.
    Whenever a creature token created by Scariet Messenger attacks, tap target creature defending player controls.
    2/1
    (I think this card probably should either be an uncommon or not create a flying token.)

    Scariet Scholar - 2U
    Creature - Human Wizard - C
    When Scariet Scholar enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 blue Bird creature token with flying.
    Whenever a creature token created by Scariet Scholar attacks, scry 1.
    1/1
    (Same with this.)

    Scariet Senior - 3U
    Creature - Human Wizard - C
    When Scariet Senior enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 blue Bird creature token with flying.
    If Scariet Senior or a creature token created by it is untapped, they both have hexproof.
    2/2

    Wizard Urchin - 2B
    Creature - Human Wizard - C
    When Wizard Urchin enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 black Rat creature token.
    Creature tokens created by Wizard Urchin canít be blocked by creatures with power 3 or more.
    1/2

    Flamespeaker Acolyte - 2R
    Creature - Human Warlock - C
    When Flamespeaker Acolyte enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 red Devil creature token. It has ďWhen this creature dies, it deals 1 damage to any target.Ē
    (They don't all have to care about the token if the set has familiar support)

    Benakh Beastsage - 3GG
    Creature - Elf Shaman - C
    When Benakh Beastsage enters the battlefield, create a 3/3 green Beast creature token.
    Creature tokens created by Benakh Beastsage have trample.
    2/2

    Benakh Witch - 3G
    Creature - Human Warlock - C
    Vigilance
    When Tigerís Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Wolf creature token.
    Creature tokens created by Deepwood Witch have vigilance.

    Lifecrafter Acolyte - 1G
    Creature - Elf Druid - C
    When Lifecrafter Acolyte enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 green Saproling creature token.
    When a creature token created with Lifecrafter Acolyte dies, gain 3 life.
    0/1

    Keep in mind that a lot of these were me experimenting with what could be done with the mechanic. There's a lot of design space by simple creating a 1/1, 2/2 or 3/3 token and giving it an evergreen keyword.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-15 at 05:41 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

  9. - Top - End - #489
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    I feel like having only some of your tokens of a [type] get a benefit (that isn't marked on a card like a counter is) would be a very awkward mechanic in practice. A lot of the time people want to stack up all their tokens of a particular type, or use a die to represent how many there are, which this makes difficult. Especially if you have multiple cards which make the same type of token. You'd end up with boardstates and questions being asked like "Okay, so you're attacking with two Rats and two Wizard Urchins, so I'll block the Rat that's linked to the Wizard without a +1/+1 counter on it" and similarly difficult to evaluate boardstates and decisions.

    I think if I wanted to do a mechanic like this, I'd use the Soulbond mechanic from Avacyn Restored. Which had issues - mainly because un-bonding mid-combat hurt a lot, since many of the buffs granted affected combat ability. If it's less swingy, and the creature makes a token itself for you to bond with, I think it could be made to work.

  10. - Top - End - #490
    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 Gauntlet View Post
    I feel like having only some of your tokens of a [type] get a benefit (that isn't marked on a card like a counter is) would be a very awkward mechanic in practice.
    Cards that effect a type would be common or up, if they were there at all.
    This is what the splicers did, I don't think they were confusing.

    A lot of the time people want to stack up all their tokens of a particular type, or use a die to represent how many there are, which this makes difficult. Especially if you have multiple cards which make the same type of token.
    I was considering if it would be worthwhile to make sure every specific token only showed up once, I think there are enough different kind of tokens to do that, even if we want to keep them suitably familiar flavored (so no humans, elves or goblins).

    You'd end up with boardstates and questions being asked like "Okay, so you're attacking with two Rats and two Wizard Urchins, so I'll block the Rat that's linked to the Wizard without a +1/+1 counter on it" and similarly difficult to evaluate boardstates and decisions.
    But if players make it clear which token is which creature's familiar, will that be that confusing.

    I think if I wanted to do a mechanic like this, I'd use the Soulbond mechanic from Avacyn Restored. Which had issues - mainly because un-bonding mid-combat hurt a lot, since many of the buffs granted affected combat ability. If it's less swingy, and the creature makes a token itself for you to bond with, I think it could be made to work.
    But that's effectively kinda what it does. Each creature will only have one familiar, so you just keep it close like you would with soulbond.

    I get that there are some things that may cause a little trouble, but I don't think it's actually that difficult. It shouldn't be more difficult than soulbond, and I don't recall that being particularly complex. The biggest issue with soulbond was responding to bond triggers and such, which won't be a problem here since they're static or triggered abilities, with mostly static on common.
    Last edited by Ninjaman; 2020-01-15 at 07:38 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

  11. - Top - End - #491
    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
    You can't say that you explained what you meant and then not repost your explanation.
    You literally claimed it takes a specific deck to play more than one elf.
    Maybe I worded it wrong, but to play an elf deck, you need linear elfs. That's what I meant in a nutshell.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    It's a big enough red flag that with all the other problems your mechanic has it shouldn't ever happen.
    It's definitely not that big of an issue. Parasitism is to be expected when you develop a new ability or ability keyword.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Also you can't claim Tribal support is linear when you have decks like Legacy Goblins which is built like a toolbox.
    I also wouldn't call Humans linear as it plays way too much interaction, that's what makes the deck good.
    Dude, Humans are linear, you win by playing your linear threats (Champion of Paris and Thalia's Lieutenant) and you stall and disrupt opponent enough for you to win. If you're unlucky you play your Mantis Riders and hope they kill him, before he removes them.

    By Goblins you mean this deck? If so, that's even more linear. Create X Goblins for each Goblin you control? Goblins get +1/+1 x6 ? Goblins you control have haste? Sac goblin for mana?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Wow, I never expected gamepedia or Maro to claim something so overtly wrong.
    What are you referring to anyway? Even by that definition Tribal lords and other cards are linear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    And you really don't see how mechanics that only work within the single set put constraints on what cards you can
    use it with?
    Yeah, but the question is, why should I care? Wizards care, because they want to their cards to mesh well with newer/older cards they print. I'm not WotC. Beyond sets I create, I don't care if it is that parasitic or not.

    Also this doesn't at all mix with how you claimed tribal support was parasitic, since both the support and the creature types show up in multiple formats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No it's not. This is parasitism.
    Ad Nauseum is a very linear deck, but it doesn't play that much of a specific thing.
    Linear refers to a deck having a linear angle of attack. A non linear deck is capable of changing its game plan.
    Almost all definitions look at how well does your card function outside of given set. Also I'm talking about cards that are enable linear strategy.

    Lords are linear. But they don't have to be parasitic. See Benalish Marshall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Poison isn't necessarily linear, but it is parasitic, and that is a problem.
    Missing the point here. If there were stuff like Anti-Proliferate I could use that mechanic to control corruption. I can't because Wizards are too afraid to weaken Poison counters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Needing to play energy cards with other energy cards makes energy parasitic, which it definitely is.
    It also makes it linear - reread the article.

    It becomes the linear deck's goal to expand things out to make sure its cards are at their most powerful. We call this achieving critical mass.
    Do Harness Lightning and other energy sinks like more energy? They do, however, energy has a different problem. It's non-interactive and under costed, so you get effect for cheap and energy for free. E.g. Attune with Ether.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    This isn't an argument.
    They have said they are moving away from block structure, and have good reasons for doing so, most importantly all their market research showed that people like tripple set drafting way more.
    You can't just go "They'll change their mind" and disregard their decisions, that's not good design.
    Yes it is. They have their reasons for caring. I have mine for not caring.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    One huge problem with that is that the only meaningful interaction becomes mass enchantment destruction. It's a bit better now that black also get enchantment removal.
    There's also the problem of it being a two mana enchantment making it difficult to attach to cards without either making them very expensive, or requiring you to jump through a lot of hoops.
    The more powerful corruption is by itself the more difficult it is to make stuff that interacts with it.
    There's also problems with interactions with stuff like constellation and All that Glitters.
    Hm. I do hate it possibly enabling linear strategies, it being like Curse of the Pierced heart is a non-problem. This has CMC 0.

    One way to solve it is to to go for Amass like the wording. Corrupt opponent 2 (Target opponent creates a Corruption if they don't own one. Put two charge counters on Corruption target opponent owns) (Corruption is a colorless Aura Curse enchantment token that at beginning of owner's upkeep deals X damage to that player for each charge counter on it).


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Those were all in Avacyn Restored limited which also had soul bound. It's just a question of placing the creature it has created next to it. The way they work a creature isn't going to have more than one familiar in this limited set anyways.
    If you have bounce or flicker, or Banisher effect, they will. At quite a few prereleases, I had to explain to people you can't negate sacrifice costs with instants.

    Now, imagine the problems this mechanic will cause for people that want to kill all Familiars and not just the latest one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Why? If it gave to all tokens yes, I originally had it at uncommon and gave all cats +1/+1, but why would it need to be uncommon if it only gave it to its own token?

    Maul Splicer and Senior Splicer are both common, so you can give keywords to tokens on common, especially since it is only one token.
    Adding +1/+1 or invulnerable will change board state. See the Master Splicer and Vital Splicer. Memory issues, affecting board state, all those are red flags and push card from common into uncommon territory.

    Giving evergreen is ok, but not all. Flying and first-strike would be too brutal. It still feels weird. I mean, why not just create some creature type and give them a bonus? It would be way more elegant and cause fewer memory issues, even if it is like "Give all Cat Familiars Vigilance". Not to mention, you who went that far to champion against parasitic mechanics would go on and create such a parasitic mechanic.

    As far as I'm concerned, you chose the way lesser evil. I quite liked Battlebond partner mechanic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Attended Guard - 2W
    Creature - Human Soldier - C
    Vigilance
    When Attended Guard enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white cat creature token.
    Creature tokens created by Attended Guard have lifelink.
    2/2
    This probably is too powerful at common. I have found one common lifelink vigilance card at common - Dawnstrike Paladin. With similar stats (2/4) it costs 5CMC.

    I'd make it so if you control both, they have vigilance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Scariet Messenger - 3W
    Creature - Human Wizard - C
    When Scariet Messenger enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Bird creature token with flying.
    Whenever a creature token created by Scariet Messenger attacks, tap target creature defending player controls.
    2/1
    (I think this card probably should either be an uncommon or not create a flying token.)

    Scariet Scholar - 2U
    Creature - Human Wizard - C
    When Scariet Scholar enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 blue Bird creature token with flying.
    Whenever a creature token created by Scariet Scholar attacks, scry 1.
    1/1
    (Same with this.)
    These also look like uncommon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Scariet Senior - 3U
    Creature - Human Wizard - C
    When Scariet Senior enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 blue Bird creature token with flying.
    If Scariet Senior or a creature token created by it is untapped, they both have hexproof.
    2/2
    Seems ok, I'd probably keep it at 2UU.
    [/QUOTE]
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  12. - Top - End - #492
    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
    Maybe I worded it wrong, but to play an elf deck, you need linear elfs. That's what I meant in a nutshell.
    So your point was that elf synergy decks play cards with elf synergy?
    Why even waste time making such a trivial statement.

    It's definitely not that big of an issue. Parasitism is to be expected when you develop a new ability or ability keyword.
    No it's not.
    Mechanics like delve, escape and heroic are downright anti parasitic, they have negative synergy with themselves.
    Even stuff like Battalion you can say yes if your deck can support battalion you might have more battalion cards, but you in no way need to. You would play multiple battallion cards because they fit in the same type of deck, not because they synergize with each other directly.
    Looking at Throne of Eldraine, Food was a parasitic mechanic, or at least the heavy focus on the payoffs was. Most of the food cards only saw play in food decks. Adventures weren't parasitic, there were just a few synergy cards. Several decks play just few Adventure cards because they are powerful cards. Adamant to my knowledge hasn't seen competitive results, mostly due to only appearing on commons and uncommons, but it's in the same place as Battalion where your deck will likely

    Dude, Humans are linear, you win by playing your linear threats (Champion of Paris and Thalia's Lieutenant) and you stall and disrupt opponent enough for you to win. If you're unlucky you play your Mantis Riders and hope they kill him, before he removes them.
    Except you don't hope anything, because you play Meddling Mage, Thalia and Kitesail Freebooter. When you play against Jeskai control yes you're just trying to stick threats, but not when you're playing against burn, or dredge, or storm.
    You're applying the word linear wrong. Linear doesn't mean synergistic, it means focused game plan.

    By Goblins you mean this deck? If so, that's even more linear. Create X Goblins for each Goblin you control? Goblins get +1/+1 x6 ? Goblins you control have haste? Sac goblin for mana?
    Which route you go depends entirely on the game state. You don't follow the same game plan every game.
    The deck is highly synergy based, but it's not linear.

    What are you referring to anyway?
    I literally posted three sources and quoted them in my post right bellow this part.

    Even by that definition Tribal lords and other cards are linear.
    Some tribal decks are linear, some aren't. Tool boxes for instance aren't, like the Goblin deck.

    Yeah, but the question is, why should I care?
    '
    Because you're trying to make a good design, and not caring creates a bad design.

    Wizards care, because they want to their cards to mesh well with newer/older cards they print. I'm not WotC. Beyond sets I create, I don't care if it is that parasitic or not.
    You can make your set be entirely self contained, but then say that from the get go. You can redefine the rules all you want in that set then.
    You can make 4/4s for 2 the baseline for creatures. You can make every spell cantrip. You can print loads of fast mana.
    If your set is only ever meant to be completely self contained then you can do whatever you want, but you need to show us a whole lot more if you want any kind of feedback, because we can only compare your cards to existing cards, we can't compare them to the rest of your set that we don't know about.

    Almost all definitions look at how well does your card function outside of given set. Also I'm talking about cards that are enable linear strategy.
    Parasitism and linearity are two completely different things. Linearity is about how focused a specific deck is. Parasitism is how much a mechanic encourages you to play more cards of that mechanic, or similar mechanics.

    Lords are linear. But they don't have to be parasitic. See Benalish Marshall.
    Benalish Marshall isn't a lord, he's an anthem. Lords have limits to who gets their buff.
    Anthems are generally linear, in that you want a wide board to take effect of them, and they are somewhat parasitic, since they only buff one thing, but the thing they buff usually has uses without them.

    Missing the point here. If there were stuff like Anti-Proliferate I could use that mechanic to control corruption. I can't because Wizards are too afraid to weaken Poison counters.
    You can do whatever you want if you decide you don't want to play by their rulebook, but then I'm not sure why you're even asking us for help.
    How are we supposed to guess which parts you want to discard and which parts you want to keep.

    It also makes it linear - reread the article.

    Do Harness Lightning and other energy sinks like more energy?
    That doesn't make them linear, that makes them parasitic.
    The fact that linear decks want critical mass doesn't mean decks that want critical mass are necessarily critical. Delver of Secrets needs a critical mass of instant and sorceries, but I would never call Delver decks linear.

    They do, however, energy has a different problem. It's non-interactive and under costed, so you get effect for cheap and energy for free. E.g. Attune with Ether.
    Attune with the Ether can't be considered free. The card it is stacked onto, Lay of the Land, is abysmal.
    The fact that energy had a multitude of problems doesn't mean that it being parasitic wasn't a problem.

    Yes it is. They have their reasons for caring. I have mine for not caring.
    If you are simply going to ignore what wizards is doing why even post here? You could print all your cards without a mana cost if you had your reasons for not caring.

    it being like Curse of the Pierced heart is a non-problem. This has CMC 0.
    I don't even know what this means. Its CMC won't matter 99% of the time.
    The fact that your mechanic is a cmc 2 card matters, because if you need to strap it onto a card then you need to factor in the card less you spend, so you're looking at a cost of 3 or 4 added to the card. This makes it very hard to design for.

    One way to solve it is to to go for Amass like the wording. Corrupt opponent 2 (Target opponent creates a Corruption if they don't own one. Put two charge counters on Corruption target opponent owns) (Corruption is a colorless Aura Curse enchantment token that at beginning of owner's upkeep deals X damage to that player for each charge counter on it).
    It might fold too hard to enchantment destruction, but I don't think you're reliably going to have more than 3 anyways, so it could work.

    If you have bounce or flicker, or Banisher effect, they will.
    They don't have multiple familiars though, the old creature isn't their familiar anymore since they left the field.
    When a creature comes into play only the creature it creates right there is its familiar.

    Now, imagine the problems this mechanic will cause for people that want to kill all Familiars and not just the latest one.
    But the rest aren't familiars. All you need to know is that when a creature enters again it is a new creature.
    Again most of these effects can just not be included in the limited format, but I'm not convinced this interaction is too obscure, I mean it's the knowledge required to know that Cloudshift can blank removal spells.

    Adding +1/+1 or invulnerable will change board state. See the Master Splicer and Vital Splicer. Memory issues, affecting board state, all those are red flags and push card from common into uncommon territory.
    There is a big difference between pumping one creature and pumping several. If it's too complex for common it can be changed, but I'm not convinced it is.

    Giving evergreen is ok, but not all. Flying and first-strike would be too brutal.
    No it wouldn't. That depends entirely on the token it creates. A 2/2 with either keyword would be completely fine at common.

    It still feels weird. I mean, why not just create some creature type and give them a bonus? It would be way more elegant and cause fewer memory issues, even if it is like "Give all Cat Familiars Vigilance".
    I'm pretty sure that would be way too complicated to ever print at common.
    It's an interesting idea though. I fear we're just printing tribal cards then though.

    Not to mention, you who went that far to champion against parasitic mechanics would go on and create such a parasitic mechanic.
    How is it in any way parasitic? You still don't seem to understand what parasitic means.
    A familiar creature doesn't have synergy with other familiar creatures. You have no reason to play several unless they're both good cards for your deck in their own right.

    As far as I'm concerned, you chose the way lesser evil. I quite liked Battlebond partner mechanic.
    I'm not sure what the battlebond partner mechanic has to do with this.

    This probably is too powerful at common. I have found one common lifelink vigilance card at common - Dawnstrike Paladin. With similar stats (2/4) it costs 5CMC.
    I think you're misread the card. It does not have lifelink itself.

    These also look like uncommon.
    Which i literally mentioned in the parenthesis.

    Seems ok, I'd probably keep it at 2UU.
    These were all just me brainstorming, I haven't done a lot to balance them. It's mostly a showcase of the design of the mechanic, not of the individual cards.
    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

  13. - Top - End - #493
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2013

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    If Corruption has any effect of its own that interacts outside of itself, then it isn't wholly parasitic. If that effect is increasing the HP threshold for losing, then it's somewhat linear in that you'll be aiming for victory by HP damage, and Corruption is just ticking the clock from the other direction. If it's just losing 1 health per turn if you have some amount, it's not going to do enough to be a serious thing of its own outside specific control decks. If it's 1 health per turn per Corruption, then it's Bad Juju, especially if control effects are compatible with Corruption decks.

    This is why I suggest having Corruption be minimum HP increase and used as underpowered health-based mechanics in abnormal colors while attached to other on-color effects, widening what the colors can do at lower power levels than the normal version of the effect, and being a "bonus" to the value of an in-color effect (for example, having a two-mana Counter that gives a Corruption to the countered spell's controller and the caster). The existent color pie for general counters is for the general case, and Corruption mechanics are a specific case that can be given quite literally any color identity imaginable. Set mechanics can re-define the ordinary nature of the color pie freely, because they're both temporary and are new mechanics, not necessarily beholden to the ordinary design space.

    Hence Green getting mass -1/-1 counter infliction in New Phyrexia, because Infect, as a set-specific mechanic, was defined to be secondary for Green, even though the result of the mechanic is ordinarily wholly outside Green's ballpark. Even though anti--1/-1 is what Green normally does, and outside Infect, Persist and Wither (-1/-1 counter set mechanics), there's a grand total of eight mono-Green cards that inflict -1/-1 counters. And of them, three self-remove the counters, three use it as a cost for higher than usual effect, including a Commulative Upkeep card, one is a Flyer removal spell and the last is Swamp hate from Fallen Empires. As compared to the considerable frequency of +1/+1 counters, which inherently negate -1/-1 counters, in Green, which includes a number of set mechanics, including but not limited to Riot, Undying, Bolster, Outlast, Scavenge and Tribute.

    Red also has a bit of a habit of getting creature recursion via set mechanics, which is otherwise very very nearly universally restricted to Phoenix creatures, and is a mechanic that's supposed to be primary Black and secondary White (even though Green seems to get it more often than White does...).
    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

  14. - Top - End - #494
    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 Morphic tide View Post
    This is why I suggest having Corruption be minimum HP increase
    The flaws of this have been discussed to death.
    Basically it's functionally identical to damage/life loss 99% of the time. There is no reason for it to exist mechanically.

    and used as underpowered health-based mechanics in abnormal colors while attached to other on-color effects, widening what the colors can do at lower power levels than the normal version of the effect, and being a "bonus" to the value of an in-color effect
    This is a bad design. You can't put life loss in colors that don't normally get life loss just because it's different life loss.

    (for example, having a two-mana Counter that gives a Corruption to the countered spell's controller and the caster).
    99% of the time this does the same as just saying those players lose 1 life.

    The existent color pie for general counters is for the general case, and Corruption mechanics are a specific case that can be given quite literally any color identity imaginable.
    As has been mentioned before printing a lot of specific hate to a mechanic is a bad design, and why Wizards don't do that.

    Set mechanics can re-define the ordinary nature of the color pie freely, because they're both temporary and are new mechanics, not necessarily beholden to the ordinary design space.
    It's not entirely new though. It's removing counters, which we know, and essentially healing, which we know. It doesn't make sense for blue or red to do those.

    Hence Green getting mass -1/-1 counter infliction in New Phyrexia, because Infect, as a set-specific mechanic, was defined to be secondary for Green, even though the result of the mechanic is ordinarily wholly outside Green's ballpark.
    Green didn't get mass -1/-1 counter infliction though, it got a lot of infect. It also got wither in Shadowmoor.
    This can be done because it is a set mechanic, just like blue get Unearth.
    This has also been discussed a lot already.

    Most of the points you raise have already been discussed.
    TL;DR no you don't get to just ignore the color pie because you come up with a new mechanic, but a set mechanic does allow a bit of bleed. Be very careful with what you are doing though. Giving green -1/-1 counters on combat damage isn't dangerous, giving it direct damage can very well be.
    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

  15. - Top - End - #495
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Spoiler: Hero Teller
    Show


    Originally this cost 4 and hit all none-land permanents, but fluff wise I think it works better on creatures alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  16. - Top - End - #496
    Titan in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    I just had a idea for two legendary creatures for new type of Commanders.

    The idea is to make partners who doesn't feel equals in a relationship with each other but still work well together.

    For that:

    1) They must be Legendary

    2) They both must have Partner with each others

    3) One of them has to have a lieutenant ability.

    HERE'S the result:

    1) Sadistic Artist // Martyr Muse

    Sadistic Artist - 1BR (or 2B)
    2/3
    Legendary Creature - Vampire
    When Sadistic Artist Enter the battlefield, put one -1/-1 counter on all your creature. For each creature you own who dies this way, your opponents lose that much life. If Artistic Muse is on the battlefield, during your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on Sadistic Artist.

    Martyr Muse - 2W
    1/3
    Legendary Creature - Human
    Lieutenant - As long as you control your commander, prolifiate each time a creature you own goes to the graveyard.
    Last edited by Emmerlaus; Yesterday at 08:32 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #497
    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
    Parasitism and linearity are two completely different things. Linearity is about how focused a specific deck is. Parasitism is how much a mechanic encourages you to play more cards of that mechanic, or similar mechanics.
    I think we're just working with different definitions of parasitism and linearity. You consider parasitism to be how well card to synergise with each other and define linearity as narrow strategy.

    I'm going with what's MaRo's definition of these terms. I.e. Parasitism is how much does current set work with other sets. Linearity is how much a card is synergetic. I.e. Delve is anti-linear and non-parasitic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Benalish Marshall isn't a lord, he's an anthem. Lords have limits to who gets their buff.
    Lord is a creature specific Anthem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You can do whatever you want if you decide you don't want to play by their rulebook, but then I'm not sure why you're even asking us for help.
    How are we supposed to guess which parts you want to discard and which parts you want to keep.
    No. That's a fallacy, there are more positions than - you don't play by the rules, or you are a rules Nazi.

    Namely, my idea was make a 4 faction based set, that's in theory could work with M:tG, and see how people respond.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Attune with the Ether can't be considered free. The card it is stacked onto, Lay of the Land, is abysmal.
    The fact that energy had a multitude of problems doesn't mean that it being parasitic wasn't a problem.
    I said, the problem was that energy is wrongly costed, not that Attune with the Ether (AwtE) was a great card.

    And AwtE without energy synergy is indeed a crap card, but what if it creates a 1/1 servo token? Or, deals 1 damage? Or gives one mana of any color, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    But the rest aren't familiars. They don't have multiple familiars though, the old creature isn't their familiar anymore since they left the field.

    All you need to know is that when a creature enters again it is a new creature.
    Yeah, that's ignoring how people perceive MtG vs how MtG rules. I know that you know that, but know who doesn't know that - new players.

    If I wasn't aware of what magic does and you put your "Familiar summoner", flicker it, and then I cast a spell that "Destroys a creature and all creatures created with target", I'd probably say destroy both of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I mean it's the knowledge required to know that Cloudshift can blank removal spells.
    No, it isn't. It hinges on knowing what "Creatures created with" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    There is a big difference between pumping one creature and pumping several.
    Ok, look at https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/...wo-redflagging

    As far as I see most things that increase board calculations are considered red flags.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    No it wouldn't. That depends entirely on the token it creates. A 2/2 with either keyword would be completely fine at common.
    Giving first strike changes board state and adds complexity. Look at golems and splicers. I think even 2/2 creatures with first strike can trade with 3CMC creatures (most of them seem to be 3/2 these days).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I'm pretty sure that would be way too complicated to ever print at common.
    I think at common there were cards that gave vigilance and reach to other creatures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    How is it in any way parasitic? You still don't seem to understand what parasitic means.
    It's a parasitic card, in that it only cares about another card. It doesn't play well with other sets. Not the way you're defining parasitism though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I think you've misread the card. It does not have lifelink itself.
    Oh, I see. Well, then it doesn't have symmetric bonuses. That gets red-flagged for needing to read twice.

    The beaty of a Trampler giving everyone Trample is that you don't need to read the whole card. Does it give Haste? Or Flying. No it gives, what it has - and it's Trample. Easy to remember, hard to forget.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Which i literally mentioned in the parenthesis.
    Yes, I'm confirming your doubts.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    Spoiler: Hero Teller
    Show


    Originally this cost 4 and hit all none-land permanents, but fluff wise I think it works better on creatures alone.
    I think it needs to say non-land creatures are legendary. It's possible to use this to counter Nissa Who Shakes the World. Then you create a bunch of creatures named Forest and they would need to be sacrificed if all creatures are legendary. Plus someone could turn your lands to creatures, causing mass land destruction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Emmerlaus View Post
    Sadistic Artist - 1BR (or 2B)
    2/3
    Legendary Creature - Vampire
    When Sadistic Artist Enter the battlefield, put one -1/-1 counter on all your creatures. For each creature you own who dies this way, your opponents lose that much life. If Artistic Muse is on the battlefield, during your upkeep, put a +1/+1 counter on Sadistic Artist.

    Martyr Muse - 2W
    1/3
    Legendary Creature - Human
    Lieutenant - As long as you control your commander, prolifiate each time a creature you own goes to the graveyard.
    Interesting idea. I think even logistically wizards can randomize cards, you never get one, without the other.
    Last edited by -D-; Yesterday at 07:39 PM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  18. - Top - End - #498
    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
    I think we're just working with different definitions of parasitism and linearity. You consider parasitism to be how well card to synergise with each other and define linearity as narrow strategy.
    That's the definitions people use online.

    I'm going with what's MaRo's definition of these terms. I.e. Parasitism is how much does current set work with other sets. Linearity is how much a card is synergetic. I.e. Delve is anti-linear and non-parasitic.
    Those are bad definitions, because they're not what people are using, and they're not very usable. If a parasitic mechanic shows up in another set, is it now not parasitic because it works with other sets?
    Even going by those definitions what you've said is still wrong.

    Lord is a creature specific Anthem.
    And there is nothing specific about Benalish Marshal, he pumps all your creatures.

    No. That's a fallacy, there are more positions than - you don't play by the rules, or you are a rules Nazi.
    No it's not.
    If you outright say that you're going to disregard some of WotC's design philosophies, how do we know which ones you're going to disregard?
    If your set isn't meant to work with the rest of magic you can create a white burn spell.

    Namely, my idea was make a 4 faction based set, that's in theory could work with M:tG, and see how people respond.
    There's nothing about that that breaks any design philosophies, Ixilan is a 4 faction set.

    I said, the problem was that energy is wrongly costed, not that Attune with the Ether (AwtE) was a great card.
    You said that you could get energy for free, and used Attune with the Ether as an example. The fact that Lay of the Land sees no play proves that doesn't hold.
    Stop saying you didn't make an argument that you literally made.

    And AwtE without energy synergy is indeed a crap card, but what if it creates a 1/1 servo token? Or, deals 1 damage? Or gives one mana of any color, etc.
    This card is bad but what if it did something else?
    I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

    Yeah, that's ignoring how people perceive MtG vs how MtG rules. I know that you know that, but know who doesn't know that - new players.
    They might not know that blinking blanks removal spells, but Wizards print blink at common all the time.

    If I wasn't aware of what magic does and you put your "Familiar summoner", flicker it, and then I cast a spell that "Destroys a creature and all creatures created with target", I'd probably say destroy both of them.
    If you didn't know the rules then you would probably make a wrong rules call. I'm not sure what this tells us.
    If you didn't know the rules you might also not know that Cloudshift can protect you from removal spells, but that didn't stop them from printing cloudshift at common.

    No, it isn't. It hinges on knowing what "Creatures created with" means.
    Yes it's the same knowledge. They both require you to know that when a creature leaves the battlefield and comes back it is a new creature.

    Also these effects can easily not be put it the same set as the familiar cards.

    Ok, look at https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/...wo-redflagging

    As far as I see most things that increase board calculations are considered red flags.
    How does it increase board calculations? It gives +1/+1 to one creature.

    Giving first strike changes board state and adds complexity.
    Giving first strike at instant speed adds complexity. Giving first strike statically doesn't add more complexity than having first strike.

    Look at golems and splicers. I think even 2/2 creatures with first strike can trade with 3CMC creatures (most of them seem to be 3/2 these days).
    How would a 2/2 first striker trade with a 3/2 without first strike? It would kill it. Trading would require the 2/2 to die.
    Also I did the search. Looking at creatures from 2018 and later, there have been printed slightly more 2/3s than 3/2s at cmc 3.
    I also have no idea why you mentioned 2/2 first strikers since I have previewed none of the sort.

    I think at common there were cards that gave vigilance and reach to other creatures.
    There are cards that give first at common too.
    I wasn't talking about granting vigilance, I was talking about the tribal synergies. It's possible that it's not though. The problem with doing that is that you're making the set more tribal focused, and it limits some of the things you can do in the set. Though if you make familiar a creature type you can keep from making it too tribal focused.
    It's not necessarily a bad design, just a different design than the one I'm looking for.

    It's a parasitic card, in that it only cares about another card. It doesn't play well with other sets. Not the way you're defining parasitism though.
    In order for familiar to be parasitic the mechanic would need to encourage you to play as many creatures with the mechanic as possible. How does it do that?
    Familiar plays well with blink/recursion, it plays well with token strategies, it can synergize with tribal support. Most familiar cards are pretty straight forward, if I made a rare like:

    Benakh Archranger - 2GG
    Creature - Elf Archer - R
    When Benakh Beastsage enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green wolf creature token.
    Whenever a land enters the battlefield under your control, put a +1/+1 counter on Benakh Ranger or target token created by it.
    2/2

    That card would be a fine midrange threat, without incentivizing you to play any more familiar makers.


    Oh, I see. Well, then it doesn't have symmetric bonuses. That gets red-flagged for needing to read twice.
    I'm all for hearing legitimate criticism of my design. You being unable to read isn't one.

    The beaty of a Trampler giving everyone Trample is that you don't need to read the whole card. Does it give Haste? Or Flying. No it gives, what it has - and it's Trample. Easy to remember, hard to forget.
    But not every card needs to be that. There are multiple cards that give a different buff than they themselves have.


    Interesting idea. I think even logistically wizards can randomize cards, you never get one, without the other.
    Yes, I believe they did that with the partners in battlebond.
    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

  19. - Top - End - #499
    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
    That's the definitions people use online.
    Yeah, but most official sources list linearity as "hyper-synergy", and most MaRo's blogs talk about parasitism as in how it works within a set.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    If you outright say that you're going to disregard some of WotC's design philosophies, how do we know which ones you're going to disregard?
    Jeez, if only there was some way for me to say, what I'm going to disregard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    There's nothing about that that breaks any design philosophies
    Yes, I try to bend colors a bit more strongly than most. Sometimes they break. I do try to rein it in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    You said that you could get energy for free
    Ok, where did I say that before?

    I remember I said it was under costed not free (usually there is always opportunity cost).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    This card is bad but what if it did something else?
    I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
    Look at Lay of the Land. Attune with ether is Lay of the Land + energy. That energy acts as charge counters for various other effects. In-game, you're not playing Attune if you don't have an energy sink. So your Attune isn't just a LotL, it's LotL with some other effect. That's what makes Attune better than LotL. That, and there isn't a much better mana-fixer + energy production.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    If you didn't know the rules then you would probably make wrong rules call. I'm not sure what this tells us.
    This tell us it's not really new user-friendly. If your set mechanics results in a huge number of judge calls, it's not a great standard set.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    How does it increase board calculations? It gives +1/+1 to one creature.
    What's easier to calculate - board of two 1/1 Cat familiars, two 2/2 Cat Summoners or a board of four 2/2?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    Giving first-strike at instant speed adds complexity. Giving first-strike statically doesn't add more complexity than having first strike.
    Ok, but why is Blade Splicer rare?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    How would a 2/2 first striker trade with a 3/2 without first-strike? It would kill it
    Yeah, I meant compare favorably. I thought trade meant it can kill, regardless of it dying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaman View Post
    I'm all for hearing legitimate criticism of my design. You being unable to read isn't one.
    If you don't think it's a legitimate criticism, that means you haven't really absorbed the red-flagging primer.

    Even if, it SOMEHOW - doesn't impact board state (I think it does) and doesn't cause memory issue (I believe it will); and that it somehow doesn't have 4 lines of rules text;
    or that it doesn't need to be read twice (some examples). It still uses highly complexy wording that's reserved for cards of rare or higher rarity.

    You seem to be going for standard-like cards since you hold Modern in low regards. So I assume this is meant for Standard, which means it should at least obey the red-flagging guide.

    Last but not least, most of feedback I received for "familiars" boiled basically to its gimmicky mechanics, and not elegant. Everyone on Discord agreed it would better work as a flat effect, giving boon to all familiars. The created with as far as I can tell is only used when a creature creates mass tokens.
    Last edited by -D-; Today at 12:11 PM.
    Ruler of Floating pyramids.

  20. - Top - End - #500
    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 most official sources list linearity as "hyper-synergy", and most MaRo's blogs talk about parasitism as in how it works within a set.
    I don't care what words Maro use, if those aren't the words people use.
    R&D distinguishes blink effects by referring to insta-blink and flicker. But everywhere else the terms are used interchangeably.

    Jeez, if only there was some way for me to say, what I'm going to disregard.
    Don't act like you have. You haven't. It took you this long to say the set was meant to be self contained. If you want any kind of feedback say now exactly what you're going to disregard.

    Ok, where did I say that before?

    I remember I said it was under costed not free (usually there is always opportunity cost).
    Right here:
    It's non-interactive and under costed, so you get effect for cheap and energy for free. E.g. Attune with Ether.
    Look at Lay of the Land. Attune with ether is Lay of the Land + energy. That energy acts as charge counters for various other effects. In-game, you're not playing Attune if you don't have an energy sink. So your Attune isn't just a LotL, it's LotL with some other effect. That's what makes Attune better than LotL. That, and there isn't a much better mana-fixer + energy production.
    It's amazing. After you've explained it I have even less idea about what point you're trying to make.
    At no point did I claim Lay of the Land was just Attune with the Ether, neither did I say you made that claim, so I have no idea why you're even bringing that up.
    Traverse the Ulvenwald is also a strictly better Lay of the Land, what's your point?
    Lay of the Land is a garbage magic card. Being a garbage magic card with an added ability doesn't make the added ability free.

    This tell us it's not really new user-friendly. If your set mechanics results in a huge number of judge calls, it's not a great standard set.
    1. I'm not sure if cloudshift or any of the other similar effects ever resulted in a huge number of judge calls.
    2. I can not include them in the same set.

    What's easier to calculate - board of two 1/1 Cat familiars, two 2/2 Cat Summoners or a board of four 2/2?
    You were talking about Tiger's Warden in this part, so it's a 1/1 druid and a 2/2 cat that becomes a 3/3.
    I don't see how this is in any way an argument for anything. Why was attended knight printed if it would be easier to calculate had it just been a 2/2 with no abilities?

    Ok, but why is Blade Splicer rare?
    Because it's a powerful card.
    Why was the rest of the cycle common and uncommon?
    Also there were literally zero of the previewed cards that had first strike anywhere on them, so I have no idea why you keep referring to it.

    Yeah, I meant compare favorably. I thought trade meant it can kill, regardless of it dying.
    Why would trading, aka you lose something and gain something, ever mean that you kill something for free?

    If you don't think it's a legitimate criticism, that means you haven't really absorbed the red-flagging primer.
    Another brilliant non argument.
    Kithkin Shielddare adds complexity because it can target any creature, vastly increasing the options in a specific combat.
    Tiger's Warden doesn't do this.
    The legitimate criticism against Tiger Warden's design is that if you block with both of them and Tiger's Warden dies, the cat dies to 2 damage, and that might be counter intuitive. I think that's a legitimate reason for not including a pump static on one of the common familiar cards.

    Even if, it SOMEHOW - doesn't impact board state (I think it does)
    Impacting board state isn't a red flag.
    I'm assuming the part you have a problem with is that the creature affects another creature. However it affects it statically, so it doesn't increase options.

    and doesn't cause memory issue (I believe it will);
    No more so than Soulbond. If Wizards issue a statement that soulbond was a mistake for this reason then I'll gladly concede familiar, but until then this isn't a convincing argument.

    and that it somehow doesn't have 4 lines of rules text;
    Read the primer you're linking to yourself:
    Finally it is worth mentioning that sometimes you get "invisible mechanics" which are basically ability words with repeated text that don't have the italicized ability word text for whatever reason. Some examples of these are Eldrazi spawn/scions from ROE or BFZ, the Naya "5 power or greater" mechanic from Shards of Alara or the Processors from BFZ.
    Basically if you asked most players what some of the mechanics of the set where, they will include these despite not having an associated ability word.
    So when it comes to NWO Red Flagging we treat the repeated text of an "invisible mechanic" as exactly like as if it had an ability word, thus ignoring the repeated text.
    "When CARDNAME enters the battlefield create a" and "Creature tokens created by Cardname" would both fall under this category. Looking at the designs with this in mind they're not doing too bad.

    or that it doesn't need to be read twice (some examples).
    This is quite subjective, but if there's just individual cards breaking that then they can be changed, I'm more interested in what can be done with the mechanic as a whole.

    It still uses highly complexy wording that's reserved for cards of rare or higher rarity.
    What is complex?

    You seem to be going for standard-like cards since you hold Modern in low regards.
    When did I ever mention I hold Modern in low regards?

    So I assume this is meant for Standard, which means it should at least obey the red-flagging guide.
    It doesn't break it.
    It's also important to note these are red flags, they're not rules. They're things to keep in mind, they're not things to avoid at all cost.

    Last but not least, most of feedback I received for "familiars" boiled basically to its gimmicky mechanics, and not elegant.
    You can't possibly think "I talked to some people and they all agreed with me" is a convincing argument.

    Everyone on Discord agreed it would better work as a flat effect, giving boon to all familiars.
    Giving the boon to all familiars would be more complex. It would also be more parasitic.

    What did discord say to your corruption mechanic?

    The created with as far as I can tell is only used when a creature creates mass tokens.
    Because nothing before that has ever needed it. The point of familiar was that it could be used. There is rules support for doing this kind of ability. Will I do it. Probably not. But it can be done.


    Did you change your mind on Benalish Marshal being a lord?

    How come you completely abandoned your accusations of my design being parasitic when I pressed you on it?
    Last edited by Ninjaman; Today at 02:06 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

Posting Permissions

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