MTG Share your Card Designs II

[-D-]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ninjaman]

*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.
Tiger’s Warden - 2GG
Creature - Elf Druid
When Tiger’s Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Cat creature token.
Tokens created by Tiger’s Warden get +1/+1.
1/1

Otherwise I guess a set mechanic could be done like:
Tiger’s Warden - 2GG
Creature - Elf Druid
When Tiger’s Warden enters the battlefield, create a 2/2 green Cat creature token. That token is Tiger Warden’s familiar.
Tiger’s Warden’s familiar gets +1/+1.
1/1

[Androgeus]

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

[Ninjaman]

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?

I’d 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.

[-D-]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ninjaman]

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.

[-D-]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ninjaman]

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.

MTG gamepedia definition with sources

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 can’t 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 “When this creature dies, it deals 1 damage to any target.”
(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 Tiger’s 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.

[Gauntlet]

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.

[Ninjaman]

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.

[-D-]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

[Ninjaman]

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.

[Morphic tide]

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...).

[Ninjaman]

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.

[Tvtyrant]

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.

[Emmerlaus]

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.

[-D-]

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.

Benalish Marshall isn't a lord, he's an anthem. Lords have limits to who gets their buff.

Lord is a creature specific Anthem.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Which i literally mentioned in the parenthesis.

Yes, I'm confirming your doubts.

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

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.

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.

[Ninjaman]

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.

[-D-]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[Ninjaman]

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?

[-D-]

I don't care what words Maro use, if those aren't the words people use.

Sure, I guess. I was under impression most of community uses those terms.

Right here

You do realize that's a joke, right? It's a play on "Money for nothing and chicks for free".

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.

You claimed that Lay of the Land is abysmal. I'm telling you Attune isn't as abysmal because it's power creep on Lay of the Land.

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.

A. This isn't cloudshift.
B. Even if you don't include the terms "created with"/"created by" appears only on cards of RARE or MYTHIC rarity. It absolutely is an obscure rule. And it's going to trip players. Especially new players.

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?

I think there is a difference between printing a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1 creature that has <<EVERGREEN>> as long as 2/2 is on the field, and a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1. For one when the latter is simpler and easier to track.

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.

Yeah I don't remember your examples very well. Let's use lords instead.

What's easier to calculate a board with four 2/2 or a board with three 1/1 Zombies and a Zombie lord?

In essence what's easier to calculate nothing or several things? Keep in mind we're talking about common. Commons are usually very simple.

Because it's a powerful card.

Ok, but why is it a powerful card?

Why was the rest of the cycle common and uncommon?

Rest had less impactful keywords. The least impactful being at common.

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.

I mentioned some evergreen keywords were not ok e.g. first strike or flying.

Why would trading, aka you lose something and gain something, ever mean that you kill something for free?

No idea, I think I might have picked it up from watching HS stream, where they use the term trade to mean attack.

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.

I have a problem with it affecting another creature because then you have to take those effects into consideration when defending/attacking with/into it. I.e. board compexity.

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.

Soulbound probably isn't a good mechanic to look up to - it's about 6 on Storm scale. It's been noted as affecting playability, albeit it works a bit differently. What your "familiar" mechanics gains in simplicity with it not being affected by entering creatures it loses in versatility. Not much affects it.

What is complex?

Read the primer you're linking to yourself:

"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.

I never said anything about ETB being a problem, ever.

Reread the primer better. Also there is no card with oracle text "created by". It's "created with". Notice something about "created with"? It only appears on rares and a mythic. This makes it an obscure rule part. I.e. only way a newish player has encountered this rule literally only if he played battlebond previously and managed to draw that exact card. You're more literally more likely to have played A planeswalker from any edition (that has one or more planeswalkers) than to encounter that rule.

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.

Well, you are right. However, you'll notice that some cards/effects NEVER feature at common. Hell, until late planeswalkers were RARE or MYTHIC. The fact that "created with" appears ONLY on a few RARE and MYTHICS, is a cause for concern.
It tells me, that Wizards are super wary of it. To me, that's makes it worse than any red flag.

You can't possibly think "I talked to some people and they all agreed with me" is a convincing argument.

I talked to people on Custom Magic discord. While not omniscient, they have few important thing going for them over "people who agree with me".
A) I presented this as my own idea - so they didn't agree with me
B) They play magic
C) They design custom cards for fun, are way more knowledgable

Giving the boon to all familiars would be more complex. It would also be more parasitic.

You could make it more narrow. You could make it not stack. E.g.

Cat Lady 3CMC
Creature - Human Wizard
When ~ ETB create a 1/1 white creature token Cat Familiar.
All Cat Familiars you control have Reach.
2/2

It only affects specific Cat Familiars and it gives them a non stacking evergreen. Parasitism on some level is to be expected. You can't have

What did discord say to your corruption mechanic?

Lifeloss with extra steps. It's major part of why I gave up on it.

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?

Benalish is a Creature Anthem, and Lords are Tribal Anthems, not much to say there?

Because we didn't use the same definition of what parasitism is. If you call EuroAsia Europe, and I say China isn't in Europe and you say it is, then in essence we're both right.

[Ninjaman]

Sure, I guess. I was under impression most of community uses those terms.

It doesn't. Look at the links I posted.

You do realize that's a joke, right? It's a play on "Money for nothing and chicks for free".

Me: You said this.
You: Where did I say that.
Me: Show literal quote where you said it.
You: It was a joke.

Really?

You claimed that Lay of the Land is abysmal. I'm telling you Attune isn't as abysmal because it's power creep on Lay of the Land.

I never claimed Attune was abysmal. I never even claimed it was bad.
Stop trying to make counter arguments to points I never made.

A. This isn't cloudshift.

It kinda is. Cloudshift requires players to know that when a creature leaves play and comes back it is a new object. The Familiar mechanic requires the same.

B. Even if you don't include the terms "created with"/"created by" appears only on cards of RARE or MYTHIC rarity. It absolutely is an obscure rule. And it's going to trip players. Especially new players.

Because they haven't been needed for anything before now. If it wasn't a set mechanic then no it wouldn't be used at common, but it is a set mechanic.

I think there is a difference between printing a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1 creature that has <<EVERGREEN>> as long as 2/2 is on the field, and a 2/2 with <<EVERGREEN>> and 1/1. For one when the latter is simpler and easier to track.

A being simpler than B doesn't give that B is too complex.

What's easier to calculate a board with four 2/2 or a board with three 1/1 Zombies and a Zombie lord?

In essence what's easier to calculate nothing or several things? Keep in mind we're talking about common. Commons are usually very simple.

I've already said that the fact Tiger's Warden can die in combat and the cat then dies with 2 damage on it is enough that it probably shouldn't be common.

Ok, but why is it a powerful card?

Blade splicer is a powerful card because it is efficient, which none of the other splicers are.

Rest had less impactful keywords. The least impactful being at common.

Are you trying to tell me flying is less impactful than first strike?

I mentioned some evergreen keywords were not ok e.g. first strike or flying.

Why was that even mentioned when none of my cards gave wither of those?
Caller of Gales gives flying at common. As does Helium Squirter. Lowland Oaf. Merrow Levitator. Zephyr Charge. There's also the many flyers that gives something flying when they attack.

I have a problem with it affecting another creature because then you have to take those effects into consideration when defending/attacking with/into it. I.e. board compexity.

Again it's not more complex than soulbond.

Soulbound probably isn't a good mechanic to look up to - it's about 6 on Storm scale. It's been noted as affecting playability, albeit it works a bit differently. What your "familiar" mechanics gains in simplicity with it not being affected by entering creatures it loses in versatility. Not much affects it.

A six on the storm scale isn't even bad, and this even straightens out some of those issues. I'm not sure what you mean by flexibility. Yes you can't bond with something new, but that's probably a good thing. Every familiar card affects itself, that's kind of the point.
Maro put madness as an 8 on the storm scale, but that was used later.

I never said anything about ETB being a problem, ever.

I never claimed you did. The part you quoted is my reply to this:

and that it somehow doesn't have 4 lines of rules text;

Also there is no card with oracle text "created by". It's "created with".

From earlier in the thread:

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

You're right, thank you.

I've already acknowledged that.

Notice something about "created with"? It only appears on rares and a mythic.

Because it had no reason to appear on commons until now.
Those cards aren't rare because they use "created with". They're rares because they do complex things.

This makes it an obscure rule part. I.e. only way a newish player has encountered this rule literally only if he played battlebond previously and managed to draw that exact card. You're more literally more likely to have played A planeswalker from any edition (that has one or more planeswalkers) than to encounter that rule.

Nothing about the mechanic relies on you having encountered the rule before though.
It's quite easy. The creature makes one token, and then it gives the one token created with it some bonus while it's one the field. Knowing the other cards that use the same phrase doesn't really help you.

Well, you are right. However, you'll notice that some cards/effects NEVER feature at common. Hell, until late planeswalkers were RARE or MYTHIC. The fact that "created with" appears ONLY on a few RARE and MYTHICS, is a cause for concern.
It tells me, that Wizards are super wary of it. To me, that's makes it worse than any red flag.

No, it tells us that it hasn't been necessary for anything. All the cards were very much rares in design. If they made a simpler card that required the same wording it could therefore probably be an uncommon. When you then make it a mechanic it counts as less complex, and it can be moved to common.

I talked to people on Custom Magic discord. While not omniscient, they have few important thing going for them over "people who agree with me".

That's still all you represented. Your argument was "I talked to these people and they agree with me".

A) I presented this as my own idea - so they didn't agree with me

The point wasn't that they went "yeah, you're right." The point is that you're now going "I also talked with these people and they say that I'm right."

B) They play magic

I strongly hope you do too.

C) They design custom cards for fun, are way more knowledgable

Oh, they design custom magic cards for fun?
*Looks at You Make The Card*
*Looks at You Make The Card Challenge*
*Looks at 1000+ cards designed in set editor*

You could make it more narrow. You could make it not stack. E.g.

If you limited it to the same type of familiar, and made one card card per type per rarity, and made the commons not stack then it would be better, but it would still be more parasitic.

Cat Lady 3CMC
Creature - Human Wizard
When ~ ETB create a 1/1 white creature token Cat Familiar.
All Cat Familiars you control have Reach.
2/2

Correct wording is
"When Cat Lady enters the battlefield, create a 1/1 white Cat Familiar creature token.
Cat Familiar creatures you control have reach."

It only affects specific Cat Familiars and it gives them a non stacking evergreen. Parasitism on some level is to be expected.

It's not a bad design, it's actually quite cool, it's just not what I'm going for. It's still a tribal mechanic, and familiar wasn't meant to be tribal.

You can't have

I assume you meant to write some more here.

Lifeloss with extra steps. It's major part of why I gave up on it.

So everything we said that you ignored?

Benalish is a Creature Anthem, and Lords are Tribal Anthems, not much to say there?

There is saying that you were wrong in calling Benalish Mashal a lord.
With creature anthem I first thought you meant an anthem that is a creature, but then you said lords are tribal anthems, which I guess means it's an anthem only for a tribe. If Benalish Marshal is then an anthem for creatures, isn't that just an anthem?
You claimed Benalish Marshal was a lord:

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

Because we didn't use the same definition of what parasitism is. If you call EuroAsia Europe, and I say China isn't in Europe and you say it is, then in essence we're both right.

If I call EuroAsia Europe I am wrong.
Your definition of parasitic is narrower than mine. Only work in a specific set vs Works best in heavy conjunction with the mechanic itself. So if it's parasitic by your definition then it ought to also be parasitic by mine.

[-D-]

It doesn't. Look at the links I posted.

I did.

Me: You said this.
You: Where did I say that.
Me: Show literal quote where you said it.
You: It was a joke.

Really?

Yes. From my perspective.

Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: Makes an offhand reference to it being free.
You: OOOOH! You said it was free.

So, yes. Ignore multiple time I said it was undercosted and focus on that one time I called it free.

It kinda is. Cloudshift requires players to know that when a creature leaves play and comes back it is a new object. The Familiar mechanic requires the same.

Ok. Where does Cloudshift uses "created with"?

Those cards aren't rare because they use "created with". They're rares because they do complex things.

You're forgetting, that Wizards could have created this mechanic time and time and time and time again. And they didn't. Perhaps there is a reason. One such reason is that they don't work with anything outside of the set, so they make for horrible Constructed/Limited cards.

Because they haven't been needed for anything before now. If it wasn't a set mechanic then no it wouldn't be used at common, but it is a set mechanic.

Someone once told me, that if it was never done before, maybe there is good reason Wizards never did it. Oh, wait. That was you.

A being simpler than B doesn't give that B is too complex.

Yeah, but in your case one has memory issues, other doesn't.

Blade splicer is a powerful card because it is efficient, which none of the other splicers are.

Partially true, but undercosted probably isn't enough to push it to rare.

Are you trying to tell me flying is less impactful than first strike?

No. I listed them both as possibly problematic. You might have point about first strike. It seems I valued it too much.

Oh, they design custom magic cards for fun?
*Looks at You Make The Card*
*Looks at You Make The Card Challenge*
*Looks at 1000+ cards designed in set editor*

So? Look at planescluptor. Most of the sets there have their creator on magic discord. Plus they playtest their cards. That's qualitatively better than some forum card thread and someone with 1000+ cards designed in set editor.

If I call EuroAsia Europe I am wrong.
Your definition of parasitic is narrower than mine. Only work in a specific set vs Works best in heavy conjunction with the mechanic itself. So if it's parasitic by your definition then it ought to also be parasitic by mine.

Depends. What if you don't have a word for EuroAsia? But have one for Europe, because there are no syllables for Asia. But yeah, should have used neutral terms, I keep forgetting you are nitpicking incarnate.

My definition is also the one lead designer uses. It's also listed on mtg gamepedia.

[Ninjaman]

I did.

Then you should realize what definitions people use.

Yes. From my perspective.

Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: I said it's undercosted.
Me: Makes an offhand reference to it being free.
You: OOOOH! You said it was free.

So, yes. Ignore multiple time I said it was undercosted and focus on that one time I called it free.

You literally said it was free. I don't know how you can possibly be salty that I called you out for something you literally said.
Free is undercosted, so that's not even a defense.
This is you once again making a statement, then not correcting it immediately once I reply to that statement, and then only later going "Oh that wasn't what I meant at all."

It's not even a reference. If it was you would have said "You get effect for nothing and energy for free."

Ok. Where does Cloudshift uses "created with"?

Created with aren't difficult words to understand. Familiar and cloudshift both require the player to know that once a creature leaves play and comes back it is a new object. I've explained that multiple times now.

You're forgetting, that Wizards could have created this mechanic time and time and time and time again. And they didn't. Perhaps there is a reason.

Are you seriously making the argument "If this idea was good Wizards would have already done it"?

One such reason is that they don't work with anything outside of the set, so they make for horrible Constructed/Limited cards.

What the hell are you talking about?
Familiar creators create tokens on ETB, so they work with everything other creatures that create tokens on ETB work with. Aside from that they're all workable creatures in their own right, they don't depend on synergy in any way. There isn't a lot of synergy for them in the set. That's like saying Huntmaster of the Fells doesn't work with anything outside the set, despite the decks that played him played no other werewolves and no werewolf support.
Familiar payoffs work with any creature that creates tokens, (Avenger of Zendikar, Hornet Queen, Ant Queen, Darien King of Keldor).

Someone once told me, that if it was never done before, maybe there is good reason Wizards never did it. Oh, wait. That was you.

Show me the exact place where I made that claim.

Yeah, but in your case one has memory issues, other doesn't.

It has the same memory issues Soulbond has. Soulbond's memory issues clearly isn't a deal breaker.

Partially true, but undercosted probably isn't enough to push it to rare.

No. I listed them both as possibly problematic. You might have point about first strike. It seems I valued it too much.

You did value it too highly. Wing Splicer is an uncommon and flying is generally better than first strike. If Blade Splicer had cost 3W it would have been an uncommon, if Wing Splicer had cost 2U it would have been a rare.

So? Look at planescluptor. Most of the sets there have their creator on magic discord. Plus they playtest their cards. That's qualitatively better than some forum card thread and someone with 1000+ cards designed in set editor.

So? They haven't playtested the familiar cards.
You're still just saying "I know someone who has more experience than you and they say that I am right".
Aside from the fact that this is a very bad attempt at an argument from authority, you haven't even shown the feedback of these people.
You've just claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that some people on a discord server made some complaints about my design, some people from the discord create sets on planesculptor and some of the sets on planesculptor are very good.
Do you really not see how much of a non-argument this is?

Also even looking at the featured sets on Planesculptor there are cards that break the red flags.

Depends. What if you don't have a word for EuroAsia? But have one for Europe, because there are no syllables for Asia. But yeah, should have used neutral terms, I keep forgetting you are nitpicking incarnate.

It's easy to see everything as nitpicking when you are consistently wrong.
You are using terms outside their usual meaning and without explaining the meaning when you use them. How could you possibly not see the problem with that?

My definition is also the one lead designer uses. It's also listed on mtg gamepedia.

And as you can see by the forums I linked, nobody cares.
R&D also differentiate between insta-blink and flicker, doesn't mean the rest of us do.


I see you didn't reply to the part where I said I hoped you played the game. I don't want to take this as meaning you don't, because I am assuming you do, but your failure to acknowledge that is alarming.

I also see you once again decided not to explain your stance on Benalish Marshal being a lord.

[-D-]

Then you should realize what definitions people use.

Well, no, the thing is, it's easy to confuse one with the other.

You literally said it was free.

I literally said it was a joke. What part of that you don't understand?

I don't know how you can possibly be salty that I called you out for something you literally said.

This is you once again making a statement, then not correcting it immediately once I reply to that statement, and then only later going "Oh that wasn't what I meant at all."

I'm not salty about it, it's your one-way nitpicking personality. I admit, my knowledge of terms and their applications isn't perfect. And I make mistakes. I write tokens instead of counters, etc. But I mean yours.

And I correct them.

Created with aren't difficult words to understand

In terms of Magic. They absolutely are. Do me a favor, find your friends that don't play magic. Then playtest your cards.

Are you seriously making the argument "If this idea was good Wizards would have already done it"?

Show me the exact place where I made that claim.

Wasn't this the same argument you were making before in the thread - when I wanted to have an instant removal that removed creature or artifact?

I honestly can't. The forums are so ****ing slow, I can't bear to search them. I got multiple 503 when trying to find it.

It has the same memory issues Soulbond has. Soulbond's memory issues clearly isn't a deal-breaker.

It doesn't. Because it uses a different wording. Also soulbound functioned differently. You could soulbound any entering creature, instead of just spawning a creature on ETB.

So? They haven't playtested the familiar cards.

So? You didn't playtest corruption, but were certain it would play badly?

You can make inference based on encountering similar cards, and I'm relatively certain it would cause confusion with new players.

You're still just saying "I know someone who has more experience than you and they say that I am right".

You're still missing the point. I'm telling you it's wonky and bad, others are telling you it's wonky and bad, and you're doing your best "LALALALA can't hear you" impression. Despite this being feedback, from your potential players/peers.

Aside from the fact that this is a very bad attempt at an argument from authority, you haven't even shown the feedback of these people.

You've just claimed, without any evidence whatsoever.

I honestly didn't think you would imply I would lie. I'll go to discord again and fetch you actual quotes.

Feedback

Also even looking at the featured sets on Planesculptor there are cards that break the red flags.

Umm. You're allowed to break red flags in 20% of your cards. I think the whole mechanic is flawed on a more basic level.

It's easy to see everything as nitpicking when you are consistently wrong.

It's easy to see everything as wrong if you are consistently nitpicking. After all, perfect is the enemy of good.

I see you didn't reply to the part where I said I hoped you played the game. I don't want to take this as meaning you don't, because I am assuming you do, but your failure to acknowledge that is alarming.

I also see you once again decided not to explain your stance on Benalish Marshal being a lord.

I don't answer pointless questions. Mainly because you then make more quotes I need to answer and that just keeps multiplying, turning the page into a "Quote Wars".

[Ninjaman]

Well, no, the thing is, it's easy to confuse one with the other.

And now that I've explained what definitions people use it hopefully won't happen again.

I literally said it was a joke. What part of that you don't understand?

The part where you constantly make a claim and then change it to mean something else when I call you out on it.

I'm not salty about it, it's your one-way nitpicking personality. I admit, my knowledge of terms and their applications isn't perfect. And I make mistakes. I write tokens instead of counters, etc. But I mean yours.

I'm not nitpicking. Most of the mistakes I point out are pretty major, and you just change it without acknowledging it, or just straight up ignore it.
From what I have seen your knowledge is actually very lacking, which is why it is so annoying that you seem to think you know so much.
It's very difficult to take criticism seriously from someone who doesn't have a good enough grasp at the game to distinguish counters from tokens.

And I correct them.

Half the time you don't even acknowledge that, you just flat out say something different.

In terms of Magic. They absolutely are. Do me a favor, find your friends that don't play magic. Then playtest your cards.

No it isn't. It's super straight forward. When this creature enters the battlefield you create a token, and the token it created then has this thing. There is nothing to be confused about when you're not recurring/blinking. And even when you are recurring/blinking that still just requires the same rules knowledge that it requires to know that cloudshift stops removal.

Wasn't this the same argument you were making before in the thread - when I wanted to have an instant removal that removed creature or artifact?

No. It wasn't. I said that white is primarily enchantment removal and secondarily artifact removal, so it's a lot more okay for a white card to deal with enchantments without dealing with artifacts, than it is to deal with artifacts without dealing with enchantments. It is a thing wizards do occasionally, in dedicated artifact sets. Your set wasn't an artifact set and therefore I argued the design would be better if it removed enchantments instead or in addition.
You're just saying "This mechanic is bad because if it was good wizards would have done it".

It doesn't. Because it uses a different wording. Also soulbound functioned differently. You could soulbound any entering creature, instead of just spawning a creature on ETB.

Of course soulbond function differently, that was actually an issue with the mechanic, part of what made it difficult to understand. It has the same memory issues as soulbound because it requires you to keep the two creatures together to remember the function together.

So? You didn't playtest corruption, but were certain it would play badly?

Yes, and we've explained all the reasons why it would.
The fact that some of the people who allegedly agreed with your criticism of familiar, allegedly playtested their own sets, doesn't lend a lot of additional weight to their alleged criticism of familiar, since they haven't playtested those. All criticism they have that is backed up by arguments is still entirely valid, but you haven't shared those.

You can make inference based on encountering similar cards, and I'm relatively certain it would cause confusion with new players.

What similar cards? What cards are similar to familiar?
You claiming you're relatively certain doesn't count for anything.

You're still missing the point. I'm telling you it's wonky and bad,

And when pressed on that your arguments hold up poorly.

others are telling you it's wonky and bad,

Allegedly.

and you're doing your best "LALALALA can't hear you" impression.

That's a pretty dangerous amount of projection you're doing there.
I have addressed every bit of criticism that has been raised against the familiar mechanic. That's not to say there isn't some valid criticism, there just haven't been any deal breakers.

Despite this being feedback, from your potential players/peers.

And I have addressed this feedback.
As I've said I'm not planning on doing anything with this mechanic, it was mostly a test. But if I were interested in actually implementing it I would make it and try it out to see if it was intuitive or hard to track, I wouldn't just take your gut feeling as gospel.

I honestly didn't think you would imply I would lie.

I don't think you lied. But even you have to realize how unconvincing "I talked to someone and they think you're wrong" is.

I'll go to discord again and fetch you actual quotes.

Feedback

Wow, two random people's first impression was that it was bad, better scrap the whole idea now, that definitely means it's unworkable.
I'm also curious, actually, about why you just showed that card, instead of either the even simpler ones, or some of the more complex commons.

Umm. You're allowed to break red flags in 20% of your cards.

And there will definitely be less than 20% cards that will have familiar, even if it did break red flags.

I think the whole mechanic is flawed on a more basic level.

You've been completely unable to voice that viewpoint in a meaningful way so far, but in case you want to give it another go I'm still here.

It's easy to see everything as wrong if you are consistently nitpicking. After all, perfect is the enemy of good.

Another complete non-argument. I have multiple times demonstrated that you are wrong very clearly. Your desire to label all criticism as nitpicking does not make it so.

I don't answer pointless questions. Mainly because you then make more quotes I need to answer and that just keeps multiplying, turning the page into a "Quote Wars".

If you had just replied "I do play the game" that would have been the end of it. There would be no need for me to reply to that.
Not only have you still not explained your stance on Benalish Marshal being a lord, you haven't even confirmed that you actually play the game.


Also, you claimed the mechanic had to be on common if it was a set mechanic, but miracles were uncommon and over. Even if the mechanic was too complicated for common it would be fully possible to make about 10 uncommons and about 5 rares. I would cut the familiar synergy cards, but those were a maybe anyways.

[Ninjaman]

On a different note, some time ago reading an article about how so many different mechanics are really just kicker made me want to make a set with several different kicker mechanics.
So what I'm currently at is five 3 color factions, but not divided into shards or wedges. The factions and their mechanics are:

Eonta (Grixis)
Empower:
Pay an additional cost, if you do this instant or sorcery has a stronger effect.
Example:
Maddening Epiphany - R
Sorcery - C
Empower 2 (You may pay an additional 2 as you cast this spell.)
Discard a card, then draw a card.
If Maddening Epiphany was empowered, discard a card, then draw two cards.

Forain (Sultai)
Advantage:
Pay an additional cost. Do something good, and something bad if you didn’t pay the cost. Bad can either be a related downside or a symmetric effect.
Example:
Unbound Vegetation - 2G
Sorcery - C
Advantage 1G (You may pay an additional 1G as you cast this spell.)
Search your library for two basic land cards and put them onto the battlefield tapped. Then shuffle your library. Sacrifice a land unless Unbound Vegetation has advantage.

Osver (Mardu)
Perform:
Pay an additional cost. When this creature enters the battlefield, if you paid its perform cost, do something.
Example:
Raised Noble - 1B
Creature - Zombie Noble - C
Perform 1B (You may pay an additional 1B as you cast this spell.)
When Raised Noble enters the battlefield, if it performs, each opponent loses 2 life and you gain 2 life.
2/1

Perau (Naya)
Colossal:
Colossal N. You may pay an additional cost as you cast this creature. If you do, it enters the battlefield with N +1/+1 counters on it. It's the only of the five where the ability does something by itself. There might be uncommons and up that care about a creature being colossal.
Example:
Brach Wolf - 1G
Creature - Plant Wolf - C
Colossal 2 2G (You may pay an additional 2G as you cast this spell. If you do, it enters the battlefield with 2 +1/+1 counters on it.)
2/2

Umil (Bant)
Aid:
Pay an additional cost. If you do this creature makes tokens on ETB.
Example:
Wolf Caller - 1G
Creature - Human Druid - U (Haven't made a common with this ability)
Aid 2GG (You may pay an additional 2GG as you cast this spell.)
When this creature enters the battlefield, if it is aided, create two 2/2 green Wolf creature tokens.
Wolves you control get +1/+1
2/2


All colors are present in three factions. Five 2 color combinations are present in two factions, five are present in only one.
The set will have card that care about paying additional costs. Example:
Forain Harpy - 2B
Creature - Harpy - C
Flying
Whenever you pay an additional cost of a spell, each opponent loses 1 life and you gain 1 life.
2/1

I'm liking Colossal the most because of how simple it is. I think advantage is really interesting, but it's also the most complicated one with the smallest design space. I might swap it out for simply cantripping.
To not step on Colossal or Aid, no perform card makes tokens or gets counters on its perform.
Colossal and Umil can be supported in the form of cards that care about counter or tokens, but since the other abilities can't I doubt I'll do a lot of that.

All the abilities have a shorthand for paying the cost: Is empowered, Has advantage, Performs, Is colossal, Is aided.
The names are subject to change.
I'm wondering if other wording would be better, like making perform:
Perform N (You may pay an additional N as you cast this spell. If you do, when it enters the battlefield it performs)
When Cardname performs, do something.

I am curious to what other kicker mechanics could be done. I want to avoid multikicker effects, so no replicate, and want additional costs not alternative costs, so no overload.
Buyback is possible, but has some issues with repetitive game play.
Pay to scry could possibly work.

[-D-]

And now that I've explained what definitions people use it hopefully won't happen again.

It's a good thing this didn't come off as extremely patronizing.

It's very difficult to take criticism seriously from someone who doesn't have a good enough grasp at the game to distinguish counters from tokens.

I know the difference, I accidentally type one instead of the other. Typing mistakes happen.

and you're doing your best "LALALALA can't hear you" impression.

That's a pretty dangerous amount of projection you're doing there.

others are telling you it's wonky and bad,

Allegedly.

Wow, two random people's first impression was that it was bad, better scrap the whole idea now, that definitely means it's unworkable.

No it isn't. It's super straight forward.

Yeah. Projecting.

Also Allegedly? Did you not see the discord screen I posted? I picked one at random. I'm pretty sure I posted Tiger Warden and the response I got was:

Use cat tokens if that's what you want tho don't add confusion for meh

it wont give the boost to previously created tokens. when it enters back from exile, it's a new object, and wont recognize the earlier tokens
so yeah. more confusion than its worth

I have addressed every bit of criticism that has been raised against the familiar mechanic. That's not to say there isn't some valid criticism, there just haven't been any deal breakers.

No, you haven't.

• It's hard to track => It's Cloudshift
• It's uses complex wording => They can learn the wording from Cloudshift.

No it isn't. It's super straight forward.

To you? Yes.
To me? Yes.
To average NWO player? HOLY HELL. NO. LIKE NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.

I had a guy at Dominaria prerelease tried to counter a spell, by returning creature I sacrificed as part of kicker to my hand.

Let me repeat that. He tried to prevent cost payment. With a bounce.

Explain to me, how that player won't be confused by your give X to all creatures created with CARDNAME.

Let me give you a preview of what happens when you play that card with him. I'll call him Jim, for no reason.

Jim: Ok. I have a Tiger Warden. And I summon another Tiger Warden. Now my Cat tokens have "+2/+2" because they were both created by Tiger Wardens.
Jim: Now I flicker my new Tiger Warden and have three cats. Since all were created by Tiger Wardens, my three cats have +2/+2.
Me: That's not how it works Jim. Only last one gets buff.
Jim: But it says cards created by "Tiger Warden". That means any Tiger Warden. You're a cheater! Judge.
Judge: Looks exhausted, because he's seen this scene play out at least seven times already.

Words on "Created with SUMMONER" and their colloquial meaning i.e. created by SUMMONER whichever, whenever - will clash with MtG meaning - i.e. last token that specific SUMMONER created.
How can you not see this?

You're just saying "This mechanic is bad because if it was good wizards would have done it".

And you're not answering this question - Is there maybe a reason they haven't done this? This wording has been around since Mirrage. And they used it Modern = 0 times.

And I told you why Wizards probably didn't use it. It's complex rule interaction. It's confusing. You're probably right about it not impacting board.
But on the flip side, it's non-interactive (with other sets). Sure you can use "Familiars summoner", but why should one? From a Constructed players perspective all Familiar Summoners are underwhelming compared e.g. Young Pyromancer. I mean even for Cat generation they are underwhelming.

The fact that some of the people who allegedly agreed with your criticism of familiar allegedly playtested their own sets, doesn't lend a lot of additional weight to their alleged criticism of familiar, since they haven't playtested those. All criticism they have that is backed up by arguments is still entirely valid, but you haven't shared those.

Yeah, I don't need to playtest a card to know that some players, especially younger ones are going to be confused with this. They get confused by flicker. This is way complex than flicker.

You've been completely unable to voice that viewpoint in a meaningful way so far,

Because you're ignoring my complaints. And not just mine. But yeah, I get it, killing your pet mechanic is a hard thing to do.

you haven't even confirmed that you actually play the game.

Pretty sure I did, way, way ago.

Also, you claimed the mechanic had to be on common if it was a set mechanic, but miracles were uncommon and over. Even if the mechanic was too complicated for common it would be fully possible to make about 10 uncommons and about 5 rares. I would cut the familiar synergy cards, but those were a maybe anyways.

Miracle is Storm 9. Not the greatest mechanic to emulate IMO. But also it could be due to flavor (I mean, miracles aren't common). I did not claim this MaRo's did in article on NWO.

"If your theme is not at common, it's not your theme." Because the theme by its nature tends to involve complexity (themes tend to require players caring about something you don't normally care about), it meant that we had to allocate a certain portion of our common complexity to supporting the theme.

If familiars are a theme of your set - which it seems - they should be at common. And unlike most things they kept to it - all keyword abilites, keyword actions, and ability words they made so far were at common.

[Ninjaman]

It's a good thing this didn't come off as extremely patronizing.

At this point I've stopped bothering.

I know the difference, I accidentally type one instead of the other. Typing mistakes happen.

It was one example. You do a lot of stuff like that.

Yeah. Projecting.

Glad we can agree.

Also Allegedly? Did you not see the discord screen I posted? I picked one at random. I'm pretty sure I posted Tiger Warden and the response I got was:

Oh you're pretty sure?
I've asked this several times, but I have to ask again, because you don't seem to get it.
Do you really not see how unconvincing this is?

No, you haven't.

• It's hard to track => It's Cloudshift
• It's uses complex wording => They can learn the wording from Cloudshift.

That's a gross misrepresentation.
Knowing that a creature leaving the battlefield and entering again is a new object is the same as cloudshift.
The tracking is the same as soulbond.
You only think the wording is complex because it had no reason to show up before. When it shows up on this mechanic it's pretty straight forward.

I have addressed all of those points.

To you? Yes.
To me? Yes.
To average NWO player? HOLY HELL. NO. LIKE NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.

I think you're assuming players to be a lot stupider than they already are.
The creature comes into play and creates a token. Then that token has an ability while you control the creature. I don't see where the big points of confusion come from.

I had a guy at Dominaria prerelease tried to counter a spell, by returning creature I sacrificed as part of kicker to my hand.

Let me repeat that. He tried to prevent cost payment. With a bounce.

Explain to me, how that player won't be confused by your give X to all creatures created with CARDNAME.

And while I was in middle school we thought plains were white permanents. The fact that we didn't understand those effects didn't keep wizards from making them.
There are a lot of simple things in magic that guy isn't going to understand, I'm not sure why this one thing is the one that counts. If he misunderstands interactions that we know are reasonable then him misunderstanding an interaction isn't evidence for that interaction being unreasonable.
The argument for it being bad should be someone who understood the other mechanics, but failing to understand this.

Jim: Ok. I have a Tiger Warden. And I summon another Tiger Warden. Now my Cat tokens have "+2/+2" because they were both created by Tiger Wardens.

You would get the same issue with lots of printed cards.
If I have a Heliod's Pilgrim and I play a second one, do I get to tutor twice, since both trigger when Heliod's Pilgrim enters the battlefield?
If I have two Stampede riders and a creature with power 4, do both my stampede riders get +2/+2?
This confusion isn't limited to familiars.

Jim: Now I flicker my new Tiger Warden and have three cats. Since all were created by Tiger Wardens, my three cats have +2/+2.
Me: That's not how it works Jim. Only last one gets buff.
Jim: But it says cards created by "Tiger Warden". That means any Tiger Warden. You're a cheater! Judge.
Judge: Looks exhausted, because he's seen this scene play out at least seven times already.

Not knowing that it's a new object would create problems with blinking in general, but that doesn't keep wizards from printing blink.
Knowing that when a card's name appears on a card that means this card is also very basic knowledge that wizards assume you know. If you were that afraid of confusion you could even change the wording to "Created with this creature".

Does Jimmy know what happens when you blink a transformed card or a morph?
Does he know the CMC of a transformed creature?
Does he know how Bile Blight interacts with morph creatures?
Heck, does he even know that unmorphing doesn't use the stack?
Are any of these signs that the mechanics shouldn't be used?

Words on "Created with SUMMONER" and their colloquial meaning i.e. created by SUMMONER whichever, whenever - will clash with MtG meaning - i.e. last token that specific SUMMONER created.
How can you not see this?

Created with cardname literally means created by this very instance of this creature, not a different creature with the same name, not the same physical piece of cardboard leaving the battlefield and returning.
It's the same knowledge required for cloudshift to function, which to my knowledge isn't a problematic card.
It's the same knowledge required to know that one Skophos Warleader activation doesn't pump both of them.

And you're not answering this question - Is there maybe a reason they haven't done this? This wording has been around since Mirrage. And they used it Modern = 0 times.

Ah, I see what you did there, kinda tricky, but it didn't work.
You said they haven't used in modern, which is true. The reason you used that wording is that you knew it had been used in modern times, 2016 and 2018 to be precise. In battlebond and in a commander precon, both of which are quite casual products.
So they have used that exact wording recently, and have apparently had no problems with it.

And I told you why Wizards probably didn't use it. It's complex rule interaction. It's confusing. You're probably right about it not impacting board.

It's not complex though. Wizards have used it for complex stuff, but how I'm using it it's not complex. Also it's allowed to be a little more complex at common than it would otherwise be if it's a set mechanic, because players will familiarize with it.

But on the flip side, it's non-interactive (with other sets).

It's amazing that after all this time you still don't appear to have the faintest clue about what interactive actually means.
Familiar cards are just creatures, they die to removal like everything else.
In case you didn't mean non-interactive but non-synergetic, that's also wrong. They still create tokens with any kind of recursion.
It's also worth pointing out they don't need synergy. Not every mechanic is a synergy mechanic. What does unleash synergize with? Yes a few cards that care about +1/+1 counters, but for the most part you're just playing good creatures.

Sure you can use "Familiars summoner", but why should one? From a Constructed players perspective all Familiar Summoners are underwhelming compared e.g. Young Pyromancer. I mean even for Cat generation they are underwhelming.

Of course all of the commons I have showed aren't constructed playable. I already posted an idea for a rare that could see constructed play:
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

Huntmaster of the Fells saw play in decks that didn't have any kind of synergy, they just played it because it was a strong card. You could easily print familiar cards like that.

Yeah, I don't need to playtest a card to know that some players, especially younger ones are going to be confused with this. They get confused by flicker. This is way complex than flicker.

They get confused by flicker, which is fine.
They also get confused by this, so that's not fine.
That reasoning doesn't hold up.

Because you're ignoring my complaints. And not just mine. But yeah, I get it, killing your pet mechanic is a hard thing to do.

I've replied to every piece of criticism that has been directed the mechanic.
It's not a pet mechanic, I've explained several times that I thought it up to see what could be done with it, and have not plans for actually using it for anything.
Knowing that the interactions work for interesting rares is actually what I'm more interested in, like:

Mirror Crafter - 3UU
Creature - Elf Wizard - R
When Mirror Crafter enters the battlefield, create a 0/0 blue Reflection creature token. That creature enters the battlefield as a copy of any creature on the battlefield.
At the beginning of your upkeep, you may have each creature token created by Mirror Crafter become a copy of target creature.
2/2

Miracle is Storm 9. Not the greatest mechanic to emulate IMO.

Not sure where you get 9 from, but the previously linked article says 8, and a new miracle card was printed after that.

If familiars are a theme of your set - which it seems - they should be at common. And unlike most things they kept to it - all keyword abilites, keyword actions, and ability words they made so far were at common.

Miracles was a theme, and a keyword, yet it only appeared on uncommon and higher.
There was also Planeswalkers in War of the Spark.
There's Sagas.
Familiar doesn't need to be a major theme, I've already said I would cut out the familiar support cards, which I might have done anyway. It's not even keyworded, so you could very easily put just a few cards in.
Since it's not keyworded you could also just have the "Creatures created with" clause on uncommons and higher, but still have commons that created tokens, and still have it feel thematically cohesive because it's creatures that come with a friend, especially if it was flavored to be wizards with a familiar.

[-D-]

At this point I've stopped bothering.

Yeah, I've noticed.

Glad we can agree.

Me too. I'm glad you're seeing how you're projecting /troll

Do you really not see how unconvincing this is?

I guess I understand.

However, I'm not lying - the only response I got for your designs were - it's too complex for effect; too much complexity; And do a buff for all Familiars. The fact that every single response to it was "it's complex" should maybe tell you something. Maybe something about - complexity.

Anyway, if you believe I'm misrepresenting, go to Discord, post it yourself.

You only think the wording is complex because it had no reason to show up before. When it shows up on this mechanic it's pretty straight forward.

Yeah, no. It appears rarely:
A) because it's complex i.e. a TON of confusion for newcomers - so it's only used for cards that spawn MULTIPLE copies. I.e.
B) causes memory problems in large amounts.
C) can be done more elegantly with existing mechanics e.g. "token matters" vs "created with matters" theme.

I still can't believe you don't understand how the wording "created with" is going to be either a pitfall for newcomers and/or a nightmare to track.

I think you're assuming players to be a lot stupider than they already are.

Not really. Remember the feedback I got. Like four or something people (me excluded) responded. And they have all been consistent in that it's just too complex.

And while I was in middle school we thought plains were white permanents. The fact that we didn't understand those effects didn't keep wizards from making them.

Yes, but tracking for what permanents is a knowledge check. Checking for "created with" is both a knowledge and a memory check.

As a side not out of things that reference colorless permanents/cards/etc at common you have basically Hedron Blade and Lithomancer's Focus. And even those might be reprinted today at higher rarity (uncommon), like Ancient Stirrings.

There are a lot of simple things in magic that guy isn't going to understand

So if you're carrying three hundred pounds on your back, I should add fifty more! In for the penny, in for the pound, right?

Yeah, that's not how NWO works.

Ah, I see what you did there, kinda tricky, but it didn't work.
You said they haven't used in modern, which is true. The reason you used that wording is that you knew it had been used in modern times, 2016 and 2018 to be precise. In battlebond and in a commander precon, both of which are quite casual products.
So they have used that exact wording recently, and have apparently had no problems with it.

And I see what you did there. Newcomer != casual.

NWO applies to Standard viable sets, i.e. sets designed for new people. It also doesn't apply to cards in Modern Master, or boosters that are Modern/Commander/Brawl specific (e.g. having both -1/-1 and +1/+1 counters and like eight different keywords in draft environment).

But ok, let's look at cards using proper wording i.e. created with. There is 6 of them in total. In how many sets? And all of them are rare... And all of them spawn many copies. And there is like single per set... Hmm. :THONK:

It's amazing that after all this time you still don't appear to have the faintest clue about what interactive actually means.

INSERT whatever word you use for your set MaRo's definition of parasitism.

What I mean is "created with" is non-interactive. It's a highly complex wording meant to deal with permanents that spawn multiple copies. Which they don't do in your set.
And it doesn't interact with anything else either. It just interacts with the stuff that permanent created. And you have no way to generate tokens. At least I hope, so. If you do, then it's a whole another level of memory compexity.

Of course all of the commons I have showed aren't constructed playable.

I meant it as a criticism of all printed cards, regardless of their rarity. Can you print overstated card, yes. But then that's on the card itself, nothing to do with "created with" mechanic.

Not sure where you get 9 from, but the previously linked article says 8, and a new miracle card was printed after that.

https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/pos...he-storm-scale

9 doesn't mean we'll never reprint this card. It means likelihood of us reprinting a standard viable <<INSERT MECHANIC>> card is close to a minor miracle. Only 10 and 9.5 mean, we'll reprint this in Standard card after a major Miracle (e.g. Second Coming, Apocalypse, etc.) Also it can change. Luckily chances of Miracles haven't change since 2017.

Miracles was a theme, and a keyword, yet it only appeared on uncommon and higher.
There was also Planeswalkers in War of the Spark.
There's Sagas.

The Miracle was a horrible theme. It got 9 for a reason.
WotS Planeswalker as a theme is a departure, but honestly, that set produced so much problem, it's probably best not repeated.
Saga's weren't the theme. It was Historic matters. Sagas were part of that Historic mechanic.

So we have:
A) Horrible mechanic
B) A mechanic that literally can't appear at common. And still managed to cause huge problems.
C) Not a theme

Since it's not keyworded you could also just have the "Creatures created with" clause on uncommons and higher, but still have commons that created tokens, and still have it feel thematically cohesive because it's creatures that come with a friend, especially if it was flavored to be wizards with a familiar.

A solution to your predicament is simple. Choose one:

A) Crowd favorite. Make Familiar a theme. Scrap "created with" for a flat buff to familiars (e.g. Cat Familiars or Cat Familiars with 1 power, etc.). Everyone kept suggesting it, and it is the wording most people are already well-acquainted with. And honestly it does everything you want in a more cross-set interactive manner.
B) Keep at higher rarity - Rare or Mythic would be preferable. Maybe uncommon, but honestly, if it's not creating multiple copies, the "created with"-complexity is wasted on it. But then it's not a theme.
C) Don't make a Standard compliant set.