(To encrypt a card, exile it face down. You may look at it at any time.)
Re: Encrypt:
1. If you're using it as inject, the title doesn't make sense. Thus I would not suggest using encrypted cards as a resource.
2. If your plan is to put encrypted cards in your hand, or play them... then this is similar to any number of existing mechanics.
3. I'm also not sure if you want to be able to Encrypt from anywhere. I think the best version would be to have encrypting always hit the top card of your library. (To Encrypt, exile the top card of your library face down. You may look at it at any time.)
However, I love the name. It has clear flavor. My suggestion would be to have there be special conditions that let you do certain things with encrypted cards.
For example: Spymaster2U
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
You may Decrypt two Encrypted cards with different names instead of pay Spymaster's mana cost. If you do, draw a card. (To Decrypt an Encrypted card, place it in its owner's graveyard.)
2/2
Decrypt Bolt1R
Instant (C)
Encrypt 2, then Decrypt a card. ~ deals damage equal to that card's mana cost to target creature.
Uncover Secrets2U
Instant (U)
Draw a card for each encrypted card you own, then discard that many cards minus 1.
Conclusion: The name is what matters here.
___________
Reviews:
Enigma Encoder - If this taps to draw you a card every other turn, it's boring. But what it really does is let you encrypt multiple cards with other effects, then tutor out the best version. That's quite strong.
Classified Information - 1. Note that on my wording, this reads "Encrypt 2", then blah blah. 2. On it's own, this is really great design. But I suspect there'll be many ways to encrypt in your set, so this will be "choose the best of 7 cards" more often than not, and that's just too powerful.
Dead Dropper - Now this is interesting. Maybe make "Decrypt" means putting a card on the top of your library? So if Encrupt's a thing, this is fine. But this is neither an enabler or an abuser; it's just fine; not a signature card to show what the mechanic does. You might just as easily make a 3/2 that Scry 2s when it ETB.
Unknowable Agent - 1. I like the drawback here. However, since he encrypts a card, and there will be few ways to get rid of said cards, then it's pretty much all upside. 2. This feels black. 3. Just make a 3/3 for 1B that dies if you don't have an encrypted card. Straightforward, interesting.
Whitewash - And here's where things go south. Now all you're doing is using encrypt as an alternative for exile. If they can decrypt it (to their hand, or whatever), then it's just a slightly worse exile. If not, it's just exile.
How about: WhitewashW
Instant (U)
Exile target creature attacking you. Its controller encrypts cards equal to its power. (To Encrypt, a player exiles the top card of your library face down and may look at it at any time.)
Note: Maybe make some cards have the ability to play them if they're encrypted by paying their Unencrypt cost (Or ditch decrypt as I've described it above and make Decrypt a madness-like alternate cost?).
Smuggler - The best thing about this is it's name, which is clearly black:
Krovikan Smuggler1B
Creature - Human Rogue (R)
Whenever ~ ETB or attacks, Encrypt 1. (To Encrypt, exile the top card of your library face down. You may look at it at any time.)
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to an opponent, you may pay 2 life. If you do, put an encrypted card in your hand.
2/2
Explosive Message - Actually... this is quite interesting on it's own. But for your set, how about:
Explosive Message1RR
Instant (C)
Explosive Message deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
Decrypt R (As long as this card is encrypted, you may play it for its Decrypt cost.)
If you go with this Decrypt, then it's just a madness variant. Which is okay with me, since I love Madness.
To recap, here are my suggestions:
1. Encrypt N: (To Encrypt N, exile the top N cards of your library face down. You may look at it at any time.)
2. Decrypt [cost] (You may cast this card for [cost] as long as it is encrypted.)
3. Choose a theme for Encrypted cards:
A. Encrypted cards are a resource to be spent (IE, your version of Ingest). B.Encrypted cards serve as sub-library you can look at and draw form.
(If this is the case, then maybe Encrypt says: (To Encrypt N, exile the top N cards of your library face down. You may look at it at any time. If you would draw a card, you may instead put an encrypted card in your hand.)
C. Encrypted cards are a resource whose content matters (IE, you can send encrypted cards with certain attributes to the graveyard to get some effect.)
Example: Instead of playing Zombie Dragon's mana cost, you can put an encrypted zombie card and an encrypted dragon card into your graveyard.
D. Encrypted cards serve as a win condition. (To Encrypt N, exile the top N cards of your library face down. You may look at it at any time. If you have 20 or more encrypted cards, you win the game.)
Honestly, I think option b. is the best, as it works really well with your "bury if you don't have an encrypted card" drawback, still lets you print Decrypt [cost] cards, and serves a practical in-game role, similar to Scry.
Why is the information in the art box, rather than in empty space already on the card? (IE, text box in the corner; mana in the title line?).
I'm also not sure I like the type line being a cut-out, rather than having it's own line. It means the line shifts in size when the card is an instant vs a legendary creature - mutant ninja turtle.
I will say this: This latest version looks much better.
Edit: Another reason why this won't work: 1WGRBU will run dangerously close to the p/t box. For classic and modern frames, 1BB and 1BU took up the same space. Here, they take up different numbers of text boxes.
Mind you, you could "solve" this by putting the p/t in a box on the other side... or by putting it back where it belongs in the lower right hand corner.
....
Also, while you're at it, you might as well just make new mana symbols with a space for the # inside of the symbol; so they work like colorless symbols (IE, 3 would take up the same space as a white mana symbol with a "3" in it representing 3 white mana.) Interestingly this would also let you print color-identifiers by printing a white mana symbol with a 0 in it.... both of these innovations would actually add something to the existing card design; with mana costs being more straightforward and easier to read (a green mana symbol with a seven in it is easier to read than GGGGGGG; same with an energy symbol with a 7 in it than EEEEEEE).
1. Persuasive reasons? Clearly not. It's been quite some time since Future Sight with a minor cardface revision, so you need more than old arguments to persuade me that left > right costs.
1a. Furthermore, 2nd text box is cluttering, not optimizing. So the thread promises one thing, then does another.
2. You say:
This is at least the second comment you have made which hasn't featured meaningful criticism or critique. Thank you for sharing your impressions. Feel free to withhold them now that you have shared them.
How about this: What, in principle, would count as an acceptable criticism for you? If you can't offer an example, your stance is inherently untestable, and thus posting it for critique is deceptive, as nothing can count as such a critique.
One with Nothing iconic 1cmc black card? Vampiric Tutor is more inline with the other tutors, plus it would get more people to try to buy packs.
Don't think I didn't think that. Vampiric Tutor in standard seems dangerous, as such I'd be happier with a reprint in a block set than a core set.
Note: As per my Proposal mark 2, I've moved the "full art" cycle to one cycle per rarity (C-1CMC instants, U-1CC creatures, R-2CC sorceries, M-planeswalkers), so I don't propose giving One with Nothing a full art card anymore.
However, depending on how many rares the core set gets, One with Nothing could be an excellent "bad rare" to print, as it's simple, interesting, and was once constructed playable. Mind you, I preferred Shining Shoal as a response to Owling Mine, but not every deck in the format ran white and Owling mine was interesting and a force to be dealt with.
Does a core set NEED "bad rares" of this kind? Many bomb limited creatures will fill this role, end up being cheap on the 2ndary market, and attract casual players. But one thing One With Nothing will do is teach new drafters that not all rares are worth 1st picking, or even mid-pack-picking. 5 years ago I'd have kicked myself for even considering it to be reprinted anywhere, let alone a core set. But I've been persuaded as I've come to value simplicity and the need to have available answers should WOTC mess up again. Wizard's response to Owling Mine was to stop printing Boomerang effects w/o non-land, and to stop printing Stone Rain effects under 4 mana, often not even at 5 mana. But having One with Nothing, Zombie Infestation, and Peace of Mind in a core set would help just in case they make similar mistakes in the future.
Besides, in terms of "epic fails," pulling a One With Nothing probably feels more memorable than pulling whatever the next worst card in the set would be. It makes for a better story than "I opened an Orgg."
Make no mistake, it's quite easy to construct a set that includes only standard constructed playable cards. But such a set might be relatively small. And it might play rather poorly in limited.
Many people in WOTC will tell you a set needs "bad cards," or "limited only" cards. They'll try to convince you that a set needs these for balance and for teaching purposes. Others will tell you that printing bad cards is a leeway to avoid over-testing; sort of a time-saving measure like watering down the beer you serve your customers because "beer costs a lot of money, and we'd go under if we sold non-watered down beer." Others think it's a shrewd business practice to sell people things they don't want or need. Still others are okay with anything.
I'd like to think my design philosophy is more sound than each of these. I want all cards to be at least in the running for being good in some constructed format. Commander, multiplayer, constructed limited formats [cube], archenemy, standard, legacy, tribal formats, pauper, etc, etc.
Gaea's Might passes this test. If I'm running 5 color zoo, I have to look at this as a lava axe for G that an also act as a removal spell or counterspell to some removal spells. Is that good enough? I don't know, but I need to think about it. That's more than I'm willing to say for Giant Growth in the same narrow situation, so that's saying something. It's a great limited card, simple, clean, interesting, and teaches you how to build decks. But it's also fringe-constructed playable.
Worldly Counsel feels like it'd serve a similar "Maybe" role in standard or modern in combo or control decks. Instant speed draw with upside is nice. Probably standard control decks (if they don't have access to better instant speed draw...), and probably only in modern combo decks with a particular mana base.
None of these are strictly worse than other cards (as far as I recall), and all can be powerful in the right situation. That makes the excellent cards for what others might consider "filler" slots for a set - cards that won't dominate a format, but might add to the game nonetheless. For creatures, you can get the same effect by taking existing cards and simply changing their creature type; but for spells that's tough to do and Domain offers an innovative way of doing so that helps shape a limited environment while still offering constructed potential.
I'm pretty sure it hasn't been addressed. This design makes the cards look generic, bland, and confusing. I have yet to see a reason in favor of any of the changes in question.
For example, why does my mana cost have to be vertical and take up part of the card frame separate from the card name? Current cards fit both aspects into a single text box; this latest version does not. It's change-for-change's sake that actually does the opposite of the thread's title - De-optimizes. Trading 1 text box for 2 is not helpful, but it's done at least THREE TIMES on the current design.
Did you cast Void Winnower? Its just astounding to me how you are woefully missing the point here. I can't....
I choose my words carefully. Maybe you should do the same, as you keep saying things that are false and easy to disprove.
What's worse, you never seem to note that, upon this correction, that you misspoke or had a false assertion. It's always my fault for not automatically agreeing with your secret subtext.
It is a good choice to support a light goblin tribal subtheme. It's probably not what I would go with personally.
Why not? It's been printed. It wasn't broken. It combines two iconic cards into one practical version. It doesn't strictly obsolete anything (well... anything I can think of).
From a coreset design perspective, what more could you ask for a lord? Especially a lord that might be downshifted to (U)?
He costs 1RR. This means that he is difficult to splash. Red is notable for being an often splashed card in limited due to removal. "Hate drafting" this if I can splash it... and then maybe go deeper red... would be easy at 2R - He can make my deck if I need him to. But at 1RR I cannot splash him realistically. Thus if I hate draft him, I don't have the change to play him.
There is a huge difference between taking something on speculation and hate drafting something.
Not for splashable cards. If I have to choose between a mediocre uncommon card I might run and a build-around-me uncommon that can help an opponent snowball that's also a C- creature on it's own in a color I might splash for removal, I might take the latter to hate draft, knowing that there is a path to me running it should draft go poorly... or really well.
And no, you aren't going to splash a goblin chiefmate into your WB deck because, as I've already pointed out several times, you won't have any goblins in WB and a 2/2 haste for 3 is an aweful card to splash for. If you are splashing for a 3 mana 2/2 haste, then something has gone horribly wrong in your draft or horribly wrong with set design.
Powercreep aside, I don't think you're thinking through the entire draft. One tends to start with one color and prioritize removal and bombs, both of which you might splash for. However your "I'd splash it" removal might become your 2nd or 1st color with enough support. If I've got 3 liGHtninGBolt and a CHaR, I'd run a 2/2 haste for 2R as one of my creatures if it meant red was my 2nd color, instead of my 3rd.
Draft is dynamic, and a good drafter will be open to changing colors, hate drafting, and splashing. The easier to cast you make a spell (again, ignoring the fact that making a card easier to cast w/o other changes increases it's power level), it takes away interesting draft choices. Hate drafting is no longer -1 to your cardpool if you can easily run targets of hate-drafting.
Goblin Chiefmate 2R
Creature - Goblin {U/r}
Haste
Other goblin creatures you control get +1/+1 and have haste.
2/2
Unacceptable obsoleting of an existing card.
Easily splashable; is there any situation in which you pass this card (other than to get removal you could use on this card... or a bomb)? I think not.
This latest attempt looks significantly better. However, many of the problems still exist.
- The separated type/subtype "lines" is confusing; I could see doing two lines one atop the other, above the normal text box. But separated is nonsense.
- The duplicate information is still annoying/inappropriate. Your opponent needs to know the WHOLE CARD, not the p/t. Do you forget what the P/t of your opponent's creates are regularly? I've never known this to be an issue.
- The black bar w/ reverse p/t and the set symbol seems wasteful. Set symbol can easily be tucked in the type/subtype bar/bars.\
- Why put the symbols on the left, rather than right?
Finally - I love full art cards. But making all cards full art is actually quite busy, and quite restrictive for artists. "Make sure half of your art is so unimpactful that we can cover it w/ a text box and no one will be confused." You've taken a premium thing and made it... everyday. And it's immediately apparent that making it everyday causes problems.
Final thought: At least full art removes the "lack of flavor" from your format, since your format is now "clear text boxes over art atop a black bar." So the art alone grants flavor.
Test: Take a crappy draft common you'll never use again (maybe you were about to throw out your 13th copy of Final Reward), take a black marker to the art and completely black it out. Now look at the card. That boarder is oozing flavor.
Master Smith was the last designed... and I feel needs work.
Sideshow Wizard, though, plays weird - in limited, you can look at your opponent's colors, and then get something from those colors from your sideboard. Your opponent doesn't know what it is. In draft, it encourages hatedrafting removal slightly earlier; if your opponent tries to remove it, you can play your copy. And that's probably the best case scenario in limited; but sometimes you'll just get a free creature or something.
In constructed, as you say, throw a Mind's Desire or whatever in the sideboard, and go crazy. It won't work for everything... but it's quite interesting and will serve to foil some things. That's quite a nice niche for a card. Constructed contender, but not tier 1.
Hornune might be too strong. Maybe he'd need to say "3 or less" or something...
If there were a 2/3 creature that coughed up llanowar elves every turn for 0, I'd cost it more than 3cc. Freakshow shaman is precisely that (with dryad arbor), plus more. Undercosted.
Would you rather I change XX to X2, or add the clause "non-land"?
Jace's Denial1UU
Instant (U)
Dedicate - Jace (You may remove a loyalty counter from a Jace planeswalker you control rather than pay ~'s mana cost.)
Counter target spell.
The stats are 2/2 so that he can trounce 1/1s, of which a good core set will have several, but will trade with 2/2s. He is not a wall to throw in front of your opponent's stuff. Lords being fragile is nothing new, and it helps to teach players about risk and strategy. Do they swing with everyone? Do they risk it?
He costs 1RR. This means that he is difficult to splash. Red is notable for being an often splashed card in limited due to removal. "Hate drafting" this if I can splash it... and then maybe go deeper red... would be easy at 2R - He can make my deck if I need him to. But at 1RR I cannot splash him realistically. Thus if I hate draft him, I don't have the change to play him.
The core set should have fun goblins, it shouldn't lead to an intensive goblin tribal draft. Core drafts should teach players how to draft, not how to draft for a tribal set.
It's about smooth gameplay and letting players cast their spells, and reducing swinginess.
Actually, isn't it encouraging swinginess, as more people can productively hate draft, splash, and play cards that give substantive advantage but are hard(er) to remove.
I'm on record in the thread as saying Lightning Bolt, but there's a big difference between a lord blocking grizzly bears and living and blocking and dying.
Goblin Lord A 1RR
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1. t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/2
Goblin Lord B 2R
Creature - Goblin {U}
Other goblins get +1/+1. t : Target goblin gains Haste until end of turn.
2/3
Goblin Chieftain
Not budging here. Your 1RR is functionally worse (and YOU may be okay with this, but I am not). Your 2R one is just garbage in comparison. No one wants it. Also, "you control".
I don't like LoTA for a few reasons. His (oddly worded) symmetrical activated ability is off; his mana cost is too splashable for the lord convention, and he's a 2/3 again defying convention.
Splashable mana costs and 2/3 bodies make the lords play significantly better though.
Yes... it's amazing how giving creatures more power or toughness and/or giving them an easier to play mana cost makes them able to be played better.
But the tribes in question are primarily single-color, so splashability merely serves to undermine the focus on that creature type. Why wouldn't you hatedraft a lord in a color you're splashing for lighting bolt or Pacifism? But you're not going to splash for 1CC cards not in your tribe, are you?
It's almost as if these iconic mainstay conventions are taylored to drafting ques.
As for (U) vs (R), while I have no doubt some people will draft tribal, half of the creatures in a core set wouldn't have supported creature types for those 5 tribes. I've drafted core sets where you got a rare lord and got 2-3 commons to support it.
That is an easy problem to fix though. All you need is a high as-fan for the relevant creature types.
?
A satisfactory core set should be a base set, providing a skeleton of competitive cards, checks, and balances, and introducing players to the game and lore of magic. Magic is about... magic. So you want to have a variety of creatures with a variety of types to attract players. You can have a tribal skeleton, but not enough that a (mostly non-rotating) tribal deck will stay in standard tier 1 for ever.
At uncommon we are talking about ~4.5 lords per draft, so on the order of half of players in any given pod would be incentivized to include tribal themes in their decks. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, just make sure there are interesting things to do for players who don't like or are tired of tribal.
I'm actually predisposed to think that a core set should be larger than other sets... whether across the board, or only at rare. That said, sure. The big difference between a core set and a tribal block, though, is that the tribes are only mildly supported. Think Amonkhet Cats, rsther than zombies.
Alternatively, if you have the cycle at rare and maintain the needed asfan to support them, you get to make them more interesting/splashy, and reduce the rate of tribal to ~2 drafters per pod, which should make your limited environment more diverse as long as you include interesting things to do aside from tribal.
As with everything, you want testing to say anything about limited. But pre-testing, I think this is a plausible move - especially if you can do lords like Cementery Reaper that play a variety of roles, and is worth running for either lordship or tokenship.
But yes, I think a core set should give the skeleton for many deck archetypes. Red Burn. White weenie. Tribes 1-5. Reanimator. Even some form of combo deck... for better or worse.
Evasive Action clearly is "too good" by WOTC's current standard, but even when it only hits for 2 mana, that's good enough for many 5 color decks in the early game, and it just goes up from there. Tribal Flames is efficient removal at 2, but the decks that can run it will use it for 5 mana. I could see a fetchland/dual land heavy burn deck running this today...
Gaea's Might/Might of Alara are relatively weak, as they require setup. But 5 color zoo would have to consider splashing for them, and 3 color zoo would have to consider bending their fetchland mana base to get +5/+5 for 1 mana. If there's a 5 color infect, it'd run this.
And that's the genius of Domain - if there's a 5 color deck of an archetype, they'll have to look to Domain cards to see if there's a fit. In 5 color control, no one plays mana leak.
Worldly Counsel is your standard-draw-spell variant of choice, useful in combo decks and the like. There are better cards in modern, but if reprinted in standard, it'd have a decent shot.
Samite Pilgrim - Dominates limited, like many samite healer effects. Won't be reprinted, so don't worry about evaluating it.
Re: Encrypt:
1. If you're using it as inject, the title doesn't make sense. Thus I would not suggest using encrypted cards as a resource.
2. If your plan is to put encrypted cards in your hand, or play them... then this is similar to any number of existing mechanics.
3. I'm also not sure if you want to be able to Encrypt from anywhere. I think the best version would be to have encrypting always hit the top card of your library.
(To Encrypt, exile the top card of your library face down. You may look at it at any time.)
However, I love the name. It has clear flavor. My suggestion would be to have there be special conditions that let you do certain things with encrypted cards.
For example:
Spymaster 2U
Creature - Human Wizard (U)
You may Decrypt two Encrypted cards with different names instead of pay Spymaster's mana cost. If you do, draw a card. (To Decrypt an Encrypted card, place it in its owner's graveyard.)
2/2
Decrypt Bolt 1R
Instant (C)
Encrypt 2, then Decrypt a card. ~ deals damage equal to that card's mana cost to target creature.
Uncover Secrets2U
Instant (U)
Draw a card for each encrypted card you own, then discard that many cards minus 1.
Conclusion: The name is what matters here.
___________
Reviews:
Enigma Encoder - If this taps to draw you a card every other turn, it's boring. But what it really does is let you encrypt multiple cards with other effects, then tutor out the best version. That's quite strong.
Classified Information - 1. Note that on my wording, this reads "Encrypt 2", then blah blah. 2. On it's own, this is really great design. But I suspect there'll be many ways to encrypt in your set, so this will be "choose the best of 7 cards" more often than not, and that's just too powerful.
Dead Dropper - Now this is interesting. Maybe make "Decrypt" means putting a card on the top of your library? So if Encrupt's a thing, this is fine. But this is neither an enabler or an abuser; it's just fine; not a signature card to show what the mechanic does. You might just as easily make a 3/2 that Scry 2s when it ETB.
Unknowable Agent - 1. I like the drawback here. However, since he encrypts a card, and there will be few ways to get rid of said cards, then it's pretty much all upside. 2. This feels black. 3. Just make a 3/3 for 1B that dies if you don't have an encrypted card. Straightforward, interesting.
Whitewash - And here's where things go south. Now all you're doing is using encrypt as an alternative for exile. If they can decrypt it (to their hand, or whatever), then it's just a slightly worse exile. If not, it's just exile.
How about:
Whitewash W
Instant (U)
Exile target creature attacking you. Its controller encrypts cards equal to its power. (To Encrypt, a player exiles the top card of your library face down and may look at it at any time.)
Now it's a condemn variant, rather than a Final Reward variant.
Note: Maybe make some cards have the ability to play them if they're encrypted by paying their Unencrypt cost (Or ditch decrypt as I've described it above and make Decrypt a madness-like alternate cost?).
Smuggler - The best thing about this is it's name, which is clearly black:
Krovikan Smuggler 1B
Creature - Human Rogue (R)
Whenever ~ ETB or attacks, Encrypt 1.
(To Encrypt, exile the top card of your library face down. You may look at it at any time.)
Whenever ~ deals combat damage to an opponent, you may pay 2 life. If you do, put an encrypted card in your hand.
2/2
Explosive Message - Actually... this is quite interesting on it's own. But for your set, how about:
Explosive Message 1RR
Instant (C)
Explosive Message deals 3 damage to target creature or player.
Decrypt R (As long as this card is encrypted, you may play it for its Decrypt cost.)
If you go with this Decrypt, then it's just a madness variant. Which is okay with me, since I love Madness.
To recap, here are my suggestions:
1. Encrypt N:
(To Encrypt N, exile the top N cards of your library face down. You may look at it at any time.)
2. Decrypt [cost]
(You may cast this card for [cost] as long as it is encrypted.)
3. Choose a theme for Encrypted cards:
A. Encrypted cards are a resource to be spent (IE, your version of Ingest).
B. Encrypted cards serve as sub-library you can look at and draw form.
(If this is the case, then maybe Encrypt says:
(To Encrypt N, exile the top N cards of your library face down. You may look at it at any time. If you would draw a card, you may instead put an encrypted card in your hand.)
C. Encrypted cards are a resource whose content matters (IE, you can send encrypted cards with certain attributes to the graveyard to get some effect.)
Example: Instead of playing Zombie Dragon's mana cost, you can put an encrypted zombie card and an encrypted dragon card into your graveyard.
D. Encrypted cards serve as a win condition.
(To Encrypt N, exile the top N cards of your library face down. You may look at it at any time. If you have 20 or more encrypted cards, you win the game.)
Honestly, I think option b. is the best, as it works really well with your "bury if you don't have an encrypted card" drawback, still lets you print Decrypt [cost] cards, and serves a practical in-game role, similar to Scry.
Why is the information in the art box, rather than in empty space already on the card? (IE, text box in the corner; mana in the title line?).
I'm also not sure I like the type line being a cut-out, rather than having it's own line. It means the line shifts in size when the card is an instant vs a legendary creature - mutant ninja turtle.
I will say this: This latest version looks much better.
Edit: Another reason why this won't work:
1WGRBU will run dangerously close to the p/t box. For classic and modern frames, 1BB and 1BU took up the same space. Here, they take up different numbers of text boxes.
Mind you, you could "solve" this by putting the p/t in a box on the other side... or by putting it back where it belongs in the lower right hand corner.
....
Also, while you're at it, you might as well just make new mana symbols with a space for the # inside of the symbol; so they work like colorless symbols (IE, 3 would take up the same space as a white mana symbol with a "3" in it representing 3 white mana.) Interestingly this would also let you print color-identifiers by printing a white mana symbol with a 0 in it.... both of these innovations would actually add something to the existing card design; with mana costs being more straightforward and easier to read (a green mana symbol with a seven in it is easier to read than GGGGGGG; same with an energy symbol with a 7 in it than EEEEEEE).
1a. Furthermore, 2nd text box is cluttering, not optimizing. So the thread promises one thing, then does another.
2. You say:
How about this: What, in principle, would count as an acceptable criticism for you? If you can't offer an example, your stance is inherently untestable, and thus posting it for critique is deceptive, as nothing can count as such a critique.
Don't think I didn't think that. Vampiric Tutor in standard seems dangerous, as such I'd be happier with a reprint in a block set than a core set.
Note: As per my Proposal mark 2, I've moved the "full art" cycle to one cycle per rarity (C-1CMC instants, U-1CC creatures, R-2CC sorceries, M-planeswalkers), so I don't propose giving One with Nothing a full art card anymore.
However, depending on how many rares the core set gets, One with Nothing could be an excellent "bad rare" to print, as it's simple, interesting, and was once constructed playable. Mind you, I preferred Shining Shoal as a response to Owling Mine, but not every deck in the format ran white and Owling mine was interesting and a force to be dealt with.
Does a core set NEED "bad rares" of this kind? Many bomb limited creatures will fill this role, end up being cheap on the 2ndary market, and attract casual players. But one thing One With Nothing will do is teach new drafters that not all rares are worth 1st picking, or even mid-pack-picking. 5 years ago I'd have kicked myself for even considering it to be reprinted anywhere, let alone a core set. But I've been persuaded as I've come to value simplicity and the need to have available answers should WOTC mess up again. Wizard's response to Owling Mine was to stop printing Boomerang effects w/o non-land, and to stop printing Stone Rain effects under 4 mana, often not even at 5 mana. But having One with Nothing, Zombie Infestation, and Peace of Mind in a core set would help just in case they make similar mistakes in the future.
Besides, in terms of "epic fails," pulling a One With Nothing probably feels more memorable than pulling whatever the next worst card in the set would be. It makes for a better story than "I opened an Orgg."
Make no mistake, it's quite easy to construct a set that includes only standard constructed playable cards. But such a set might be relatively small. And it might play rather poorly in limited.
Many people in WOTC will tell you a set needs "bad cards," or "limited only" cards. They'll try to convince you that a set needs these for balance and for teaching purposes. Others will tell you that printing bad cards is a leeway to avoid over-testing; sort of a time-saving measure like watering down the beer you serve your customers because "beer costs a lot of money, and we'd go under if we sold non-watered down beer." Others think it's a shrewd business practice to sell people things they don't want or need. Still others are okay with anything.
I'd like to think my design philosophy is more sound than each of these. I want all cards to be at least in the running for being good in some constructed format. Commander, multiplayer, constructed limited formats [cube], archenemy, standard, legacy, tribal formats, pauper, etc, etc.
Gaea's Might passes this test. If I'm running 5 color zoo, I have to look at this as a lava axe for G that an also act as a removal spell or counterspell to some removal spells. Is that good enough? I don't know, but I need to think about it. That's more than I'm willing to say for Giant Growth in the same narrow situation, so that's saying something. It's a great limited card, simple, clean, interesting, and teaches you how to build decks. But it's also fringe-constructed playable.
Worldly Counsel feels like it'd serve a similar "Maybe" role in standard or modern in combo or control decks. Instant speed draw with upside is nice. Probably standard control decks (if they don't have access to better instant speed draw...), and probably only in modern combo decks with a particular mana base.
None of these are strictly worse than other cards (as far as I recall), and all can be powerful in the right situation. That makes the excellent cards for what others might consider "filler" slots for a set - cards that won't dominate a format, but might add to the game nonetheless. For creatures, you can get the same effect by taking existing cards and simply changing their creature type; but for spells that's tough to do and Domain offers an innovative way of doing so that helps shape a limited environment while still offering constructed potential.
For example, why does my mana cost have to be vertical and take up part of the card frame separate from the card name? Current cards fit both aspects into a single text box; this latest version does not. It's change-for-change's sake that actually does the opposite of the thread's title - De-optimizes. Trading 1 text box for 2 is not helpful, but it's done at least THREE TIMES on the current design.
I choose my words carefully. Maybe you should do the same, as you keep saying things that are false and easy to disprove.
What's worse, you never seem to note that, upon this correction, that you misspoke or had a false assertion. It's always my fault for not automatically agreeing with your secret subtext.
Why not? It's been printed. It wasn't broken. It combines two iconic cards into one practical version. It doesn't strictly obsolete anything (well... anything I can think of).
From a coreset design perspective, what more could you ask for a lord? Especially a lord that might be downshifted to (U)?
Not for splashable cards. If I have to choose between a mediocre uncommon card I might run and a build-around-me uncommon that can help an opponent snowball that's also a C- creature on it's own in a color I might splash for removal, I might take the latter to hate draft, knowing that there is a path to me running it should draft go poorly... or really well.
Meanwhile, if you're UG and Goblin Chieftian shows up... well, it's still better than Fugitive Wizard, and I might still splash for Lighting Bolt.
Powercreep aside, I don't think you're thinking through the entire draft. One tends to start with one color and prioritize removal and bombs, both of which you might splash for. However your "I'd splash it" removal might become your 2nd or 1st color with enough support. If I've got 3 liGHtninGBolt and a CHaR, I'd run a 2/2 haste for 2R as one of my creatures if it meant red was my 2nd color, instead of my 3rd.
Draft is dynamic, and a good drafter will be open to changing colors, hate drafting, and splashing. The easier to cast you make a spell (again, ignoring the fact that making a card easier to cast w/o other changes increases it's power level), it takes away interesting draft choices. Hate drafting is no longer -1 to your cardpool if you can easily run targets of hate-drafting.
Unacceptable obsoleting of an existing card.
Easily splashable; is there any situation in which you pass this card (other than to get removal you could use on this card... or a bomb)? I think not.
This latest attempt looks significantly better. However, many of the problems still exist.
- The separated type/subtype "lines" is confusing; I could see doing two lines one atop the other, above the normal text box. But separated is nonsense.
- The duplicate information is still annoying/inappropriate. Your opponent needs to know the WHOLE CARD, not the p/t. Do you forget what the P/t of your opponent's creates are regularly? I've never known this to be an issue.
- The black bar w/ reverse p/t and the set symbol seems wasteful. Set symbol can easily be tucked in the type/subtype bar/bars.\
- Why put the symbols on the left, rather than right?
Finally - I love full art cards. But making all cards full art is actually quite busy, and quite restrictive for artists. "Make sure half of your art is so unimpactful that we can cover it w/ a text box and no one will be confused." You've taken a premium thing and made it... everyday. And it's immediately apparent that making it everyday causes problems.
Final thought: At least full art removes the "lack of flavor" from your format, since your format is now "clear text boxes over art atop a black bar." So the art alone grants flavor.
Test: Take a crappy draft common you'll never use again (maybe you were about to throw out your 13th copy of Final Reward), take a black marker to the art and completely black it out. Now look at the card. That boarder is oozing flavor.
Sideshow Wizard, though, plays weird - in limited, you can look at your opponent's colors, and then get something from those colors from your sideboard. Your opponent doesn't know what it is. In draft, it encourages hatedrafting removal slightly earlier; if your opponent tries to remove it, you can play your copy. And that's probably the best case scenario in limited; but sometimes you'll just get a free creature or something.
In constructed, as you say, throw a Mind's Desire or whatever in the sideboard, and go crazy. It won't work for everything... but it's quite interesting and will serve to foil some things. That's quite a nice niche for a card. Constructed contender, but not tier 1.
Hornune might be too strong. Maybe he'd need to say "3 or less" or something...
Would you rather I change XX to X2, or add the clause "non-land"?
"Elemental" detail is present on both classic and modern cards, they look magical. They look special and interesting.
Jace's Denial 1UU
Instant (U)
Dedicate - Jace (You may remove a loyalty counter from a Jace planeswalker you control rather than pay ~'s mana cost.)
Counter target spell.
I'm quite convinced Goblin Chieftain is just about the best lord we could get for a coreset, taking inspiration from goblin king and goblin warchief.
The stats are 2/2 so that he can trounce 1/1s, of which a good core set will have several, but will trade with 2/2s. He is not a wall to throw in front of your opponent's stuff. Lords being fragile is nothing new, and it helps to teach players about risk and strategy. Do they swing with everyone? Do they risk it?
He costs 1RR. This means that he is difficult to splash. Red is notable for being an often splashed card in limited due to removal. "Hate drafting" this if I can splash it... and then maybe go deeper red... would be easy at 2R - He can make my deck if I need him to. But at 1RR I cannot splash him realistically. Thus if I hate draft him, I don't have the change to play him.
PS; rewarding numbers:
M2012 had 6 goblins:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Magic%202012%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
M2013 had 6 ggoblins:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Magic%202013%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
M2015 had 7 goblins:
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Magic%202015%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
Alpha had 3 (kinda):
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22Limited%20Edition%20Alpha%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
So let's be clear, I don't need the 17 from Onslaught
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22onslaught%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
or the 27 from Lorywn
http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&set= [%22lorwyn%22]&subtype=+[goblin]
to make tribal a fair subtheme.
The core set should have fun goblins, it shouldn't lead to an intensive goblin tribal draft. Core drafts should teach players how to draft, not how to draft for a tribal set.
You understand there's a causal connection between the two concepts?
Actually, isn't it encouraging swinginess, as more people can productively hate draft, splash, and play cards that give substantive advantage but are hard(er) to remove.
I'd run a 2/2 haste for 2R. And I'd surely be more inclined to hate draft it if I'm already splashing for a liGHtninGBolt.
Cemetery Reaper
I'm on record in the thread as saying Lightning Bolt, but there's a big difference between a lord blocking grizzly bears and living and blocking and dying.
I can assure you, it is. In limited. In constructed. Also, it's about convention.
You'll need to print several, sure.
Well... I don't have to. Cemetery Reaper, Imperious Perfect...
Goblin Chieftain
Not budging here. Your 1RR is functionally worse (and YOU may be okay with this, but I am not). Your 2R one is just garbage in comparison. No one wants it. Also, "you control".
Yes... it's amazing how giving creatures more power or toughness and/or giving them an easier to play mana cost makes them able to be played better.
But the tribes in question are primarily single-color, so splashability merely serves to undermine the focus on that creature type. Why wouldn't you hatedraft a lord in a color you're splashing for lighting bolt or Pacifism? But you're not going to splash for 1CC cards not in your tribe, are you?
It's almost as if these iconic mainstay conventions are taylored to drafting ques.
?
A satisfactory core set should be a base set, providing a skeleton of competitive cards, checks, and balances, and introducing players to the game and lore of magic. Magic is about... magic. So you want to have a variety of creatures with a variety of types to attract players. You can have a tribal skeleton, but not enough that a (mostly non-rotating) tribal deck will stay in standard tier 1 for ever.
I'm actually predisposed to think that a core set should be larger than other sets... whether across the board, or only at rare. That said, sure. The big difference between a core set and a tribal block, though, is that the tribes are only mildly supported. Think Amonkhet Cats, rsther than zombies.
As with everything, you want testing to say anything about limited. But pre-testing, I think this is a plausible move - especially if you can do lords like Cementery Reaper that play a variety of roles, and is worth running for either lordship or tokenship.
But yes, I think a core set should give the skeleton for many deck archetypes. Red Burn. White weenie. Tribes 1-5. Reanimator. Even some form of combo deck... for better or worse.
Tribal Flames is efficient removal at 2, but the decks that can run it will use it for 5 mana. I could see a fetchland/dual land heavy burn deck running this today...
Gaea's Might/Might of Alara are relatively weak, as they require setup. But 5 color zoo would have to consider splashing for them, and 3 color zoo would have to consider bending their fetchland mana base to get +5/+5 for 1 mana. If there's a 5 color infect, it'd run this.
And that's the genius of Domain - if there's a 5 color deck of an archetype, they'll have to look to Domain cards to see if there's a fit. In 5 color control, no one plays mana leak.
Worldly Counsel is your standard-draw-spell variant of choice, useful in combo decks and the like. There are better cards in modern, but if reprinted in standard, it'd have a decent shot.
Samite Pilgrim - Dominates limited, like many samite healer effects. Won't be reprinted, so don't worry about evaluating it.