I haven't posted anything in a while so here's a couple of variable-magnitude spells.
Rioting CrowdsXR
Sorcery (C)
Each creature can’t be blocked this turn except by X or more creatures.
Traumatic ScreamsB
Sorcery (U)
As an additional cost to cast Traumatic Screams, pay X life.
Each opponent puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
Crowds seems fine, though generally I'd rather play Falter in most games. Wave of Indifference is a similar concept you may have forgotten about.
Screams though is really interesting. It's an alternate win condition for infinite life decks, but I hardly care about that. It seems balanced. How about having it mill X+1 to give it a bit of punch (You can pay 0 life to mill 1)? It might be a nice tool against top-deck strategies / cards.
Traumatic ScreamsB
Sorcery (U)
As an additional cost to cast Traumatic Screams, pay X life.
Each opponent puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
This card is a serious enabler. Dangerous as hell. Bound to be restricted in Vintage. I love it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
Traumatic ScreamsB
Sorcery (U)
As an additional cost to cast Traumatic Screams, pay X life.
Each opponent puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
It's good, but it seems incredibly annoying in a Commander setting.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
Second one... I just don't know.
Seems a bit crazy.
Then again, I thought New Jace's second ability was crazy too, and this one isn't nearly as ridiculous as that. Mill 20 for +0. I still can't get over that.
Maybe it should cost some more... like UB instead of B, since Milling is kind of blue's thing.
I'm on the side of this being too strong. Life gain is the one thing Wizards doesn't tend to hold back on too much. If you want to dedicate a deck to it, its pretty easy. Given that this is on par with Hatred & Channel, you ought to probably take a lesson from the past.
If it were "target player", you would be correct. As of now, it's "each opponent", which will make it beloved in many casual circles.
Woops, missed that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
I'm on the side of this being too strong. Life gain is the one thing Wizards doesn't tend to hold back on too much. If you want to dedicate a deck to it, its pretty easy. Given that this is on par with Hatred & Channel, you ought to probably take a lesson from the past.
Yeah, but given milling is literally three times weaker and less effective than burn... :|
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're having creature problems I feel bad for you son
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
I don't think Traumatic Screams is too powerful: odds are it isn't really useful at all. In order to say it is too powerful, we should be able construct a plausible situation where it would be used to win the game. Are we doing so by milling out your opponent's entire deck? If so, how much life did you gain and what turn is it to enable that victory? I think the answer is that you've gained 20+ life and it is turn ten. That does not make an overpowered card.
Imagine a "perfect draw". If you play first you need to mill them for 54 - your turn number (so 53 on turn one) to win. So you need to gain 34 life by turn one, 33 by turn two, 32 by turn three, etc.
32 by turn three is possible in vintage with a ridiculously improbably draw, but goldfishing turn three in vintage isn't remotely impressive. I think gaining 30 life by turn five in standard may be doable, but it's a pretty easy win condition for your opponent to attack. If they manage to do a couple of damage to you then you don't win. If by turn five you are at 50 life it suggests your opponent hasn't been doing anything, which means they aren't an aggressive deck, which makes me pretty confident they can counter one card to stop you from winning. Even then, winning goldfishing on turn five in standard is no very impressive either.
It could be a cheap kill card for an infinite life combo deck, but nasty creatures also serve as kill cards for those decks and have big advantages over a card like this: 1) they do something if you didn't pull off infinite life; 2) once you've used your infinite life combo you usually aren't in a desperate rush to win anyway.
At best I could see Traumatic screams as a finisher in A) a deck with an infinite life combo, or B) as a finisher in a "normal" mill deck after a large portion of the opponent's library has already been depleted. Either way, I certainly wouldn't foresee it being overpowered in any way. Though maybe it should be a rare card anyway, for being pretty narrow, and not being terribly useful in multiples. As a "junk rare" it would be easy to pick up for Constructed as a single, and in limited it's stronger anyway due to the smaller deck size.
At best I could see Traumatic screams as a finisher in A) a deck with an infinite life combo, or B) as a finisher in a "normal" mill deck after a large portion of the opponent's library has already been depleted. Either way, I certainly wouldn't foresee it being overpowered in any way. Though maybe it should be a rare card anyway, for being pretty narrow, and not being terribly useful in multiples. As a "junk rare" it would be easy to pick up for Constructed as a single, and in limited it's stronger anyway due to the smaller deck size.
For 1 black turning infinite life into "I win" does seem sort of overpowered. Of course you don't even need infinite life... you just need some moderate lifegain.
Is it broken? Probably not. But it still feels uncomfortable - any card that says "I win... or I do nothing" hurts limited. So it is surely rare.
I think Piar meant that Mental Misstep could keep it in check in formats like Legacy where there is a much bigger cardpool with which to try and break it. Arguing if it would be broken in a totally nonexistent Standard environment isn't all that useful.
Traumatic ScreamsB
Sorcery (U)
As an additional cost to cast Traumatic Screams, pay X life.
Each opponent puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
This should target a single opponent and be a common. It simply isn't a multiplayer game type of card and affecting multiple opponents makes it "too good/complicated" to be common. I would be disappointed to open a pack and get this as an uncommon and totally pissed if it were a rare.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
And if I opened it as a rare, I'd probably try to think of a way to make it work in a deck. Probably turbo-fog, since that's the most straightforward intersection of lifegain and milling. Different strokes for different folks, etc.
And if I opened it as a rare, I'd probably try to think of a way to make it work in a deck. Probably turbo-fog, since that's the most straightforward intersection of lifegain and milling. Different strokes for different folks, etc.
Are you saying that it can't be a common (if it only targeted one opponent)?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
I wouldn't want it to be common, because it really sucks in multiples. How often are you going to be casting more than one of these over the course of a single game? Only in multiplayer, and the most popular multiplayer format by far doesn't even let you run more than one of these in your deck. It's a narrow card with extremely powerful potential under a very specific set of circumstances, and it doesn't have enough "wow" or "splash" to warrant a mythic rarity, so being rare makes the most sense to me now. I can't remember why I made it uncommon initially.
I wouldn't want it to be common, because it really sucks in multiples. How often are you going to be casting more than one of these over the course of a single game? Only in multiplayer, and the most popular multiplayer format by far doesn't even let you run more than one of these in your deck. It's a narrow card with extremely powerful potential under a very specific set of circumstances, and it doesn't have enough "wow" or "splash" to warrant a mythic rarity, so being rare makes the most sense to me now. I can't remember why I made it uncommon initially.
"Really sucking in multiples" is certainly a factor, but not necessarily a reason in and of itself to make a card rare. Outside of limited, rarities are nonexistent. Not everything is designed for limited or assigned a rarity for limited, as much as many like to think it is and want to convince everyone else that it is. And WotC damn sure isn't designing specifically for Commander, at least not yet, unless you count the actual Commander precon cards. If you're designing for precon Commander decks, than just say so. But even then, I doubt anyone would be happy if this were a chase rare in a Commander deck. And if it were, then that probably means that WotC designed a mill deck for a 100 card per deck format? Wow. And if a deck like that can win commander, mere 60 card decks should be a snap to mill - thereby pushing the secondary market value of this chase rare through the roof (as well as precon CommanderMill.dec).
That being said. The card is still awesome. I understand your logic, and I can see it as a rare. I just think it's better suited as a common. Perhaps a compromise - Uncommon?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
Tell Nagle he isn't designing specifically for Commander. He made Wrexial specifically to act as a general to hose the popularity of extra-turn cards in that format. Those other various multicolored legends we've been seeing lately like Glissa and Jor Kadeen are also made with Commander in mind. I'm fairly certain the unusual abundance of legends in the Alara block is no coincidence either. Two cycles of legendary mythics, in the same color combinations, in the same block? Highly unusual, and not consistent with the rest of the block's themes, until you take into account that they all function as three-color Commanders.
Rarities aren't "nonexistent" outside of limited. Their impact is reduced, but they still have impact for the person who gets their cards by buying a couple of booster packs at a time. Flooding someone's collection with narrow-use cards like this is something I'd be concerned about.
Tell Nagle he isn't designing specifically for Commander. He made Wrexial specifically to act as a general to hose the popularity of extra-turn cards in that format. Those other various multicolored legends we've been seeing lately like Glissa and Jor Kadeen are also made with Commander in mind. I'm fairly certain the unusual abundance of legends in the Alara block is no coincidence either. Two cycles of legendary mythics, in the same color combinations, in the same block? Highly unusual, and not consistent with the rest of the block's themes, until you take into account that they all function as three-color Commanders.
True, but I wasn't talking (or apparently even thinking) about actual commanders. I was talking and thinking about nonlegendary cards designed for commander. And don't forget, I don't think there's anything wrong with designing commander specific cards, I just think if that's what you have in mind, it would be nice if you said so to begin with.
Yes they are. It's the scarcity of money that matters, not cards. This is not semantics, it's reality. I can buy packs, boxes, and cases until I have 20 copies of every rare in a given set if I have the money. I can buy one of the 5,000ish played Beta Black Lotus for $2,000ish bucks, or I can buy one of the 7 PSA10 Beta Black Lotus for $20,000+. I appreciate that you (and other decent designers) take demographics into consideration when buying (EDIT) designing btw. I realize that the average player doesn't have unlimited money and that WotC is always reaching for that next generation of player.
Their impact is reduced, but they still have impact for the person who gets their cards by buying a couple of booster packs at a time. Flooding someone's collection with narrow-use cards like this is something I'd be concerned about.
Again, I see your point, but then every collection is flooded with garbage commons, narrow or not. The occasional narrow common isn't a bad thing as long as it is an occasional thing. This is narrow like Treasure Hunt is narrow - a card that I adore, designed a decade ago, and was surprised to see as a common. And like I said before, I can see this as a rare, I just don't like it as a rare, especially as a Commander rare.
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rioting Crowds XR
Sorcery (C)
Each creature can’t be blocked this turn except by X or more creatures.
Traumatic Screams B
Sorcery (U)
As an additional cost to cast Traumatic Screams, pay X life.
Each opponent puts the top X cards of his or her library into his or her graveyard.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Screams though is really interesting. It's an alternate win condition for infinite life decks, but I hardly care about that. It seems balanced. How about having it mill X+1 to give it a bit of punch (You can pay 0 life to mill 1)? It might be a nice tool against top-deck strategies / cards.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4557651&postcount=1
TheWarden's Creative Commons Music Pick Project (Retired):
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=336498
This card is a serious enabler. Dangerous as hell. Bound to be restricted in Vintage. I love it.
If it were "target player", you would be correct. As of now, it's "each opponent", which will make it beloved in many casual circles.
The last should be rare, and is probably too powerful.
It's good, but it seems incredibly annoying in a Commander setting.
Seems a bit crazy.
Then again, I thought New Jace's second ability was crazy too, and this one isn't nearly as ridiculous as that. Mill 20 for +0. I still can't get over that.
Maybe it should cost some more... like UB instead of B, since Milling is kind of blue's thing.
Not really.
You only need to gain 1 life to win with Hatred, Channel into Fireball, or Phyrexian Processor. You need to spend 50+ life for the kill with Traumatic Screams.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Woops, missed that.
Yeah, but given milling is literally three times weaker and less effective than burn... :|
You got 99 attackers but I'm blocking with 1.
The Winner is Judge | 7
This Winner is Also Judge | 6
Club Flamingo | Lots
Imagine a "perfect draw". If you play first you need to mill them for 54 - your turn number (so 53 on turn one) to win. So you need to gain 34 life by turn one, 33 by turn two, 32 by turn three, etc.
32 by turn three is possible in vintage with a ridiculously improbably draw, but goldfishing turn three in vintage isn't remotely impressive. I think gaining 30 life by turn five in standard may be doable, but it's a pretty easy win condition for your opponent to attack. If they manage to do a couple of damage to you then you don't win. If by turn five you are at 50 life it suggests your opponent hasn't been doing anything, which means they aren't an aggressive deck, which makes me pretty confident they can counter one card to stop you from winning. Even then, winning goldfishing on turn five in standard is no very impressive either.
It could be a cheap kill card for an infinite life combo deck, but nasty creatures also serve as kill cards for those decks and have big advantages over a card like this: 1) they do something if you didn't pull off infinite life; 2) once you've used your infinite life combo you usually aren't in a desperate rush to win anyway.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
For 1 black turning infinite life into "I win" does seem sort of overpowered. Of course you don't even need infinite life... you just need some moderate lifegain.
Is it broken? Probably not. But it still feels uncomfortable - any card that says "I win... or I do nothing" hurts limited. So it is surely rare.
EDIT: I was referring to Legacy/Vintage/Modern (though Misstep is currently banned), where such a card is more likely to be in a broken combo.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
This should target a single opponent and be a common. It simply isn't a multiplayer game type of card and affecting multiple opponents makes it "too good/complicated" to be common. I would be disappointed to open a pack and get this as an uncommon and totally pissed if it were a rare.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
Are you saying that it can't be a common (if it only targeted one opponent)?
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
"Really sucking in multiples" is certainly a factor, but not necessarily a reason in and of itself to make a card rare. Outside of limited, rarities are nonexistent. Not everything is designed for limited or assigned a rarity for limited, as much as many like to think it is and want to convince everyone else that it is. And WotC damn sure isn't designing specifically for Commander, at least not yet, unless you count the actual Commander precon cards. If you're designing for precon Commander decks, than just say so. But even then, I doubt anyone would be happy if this were a chase rare in a Commander deck. And if it were, then that probably means that WotC designed a mill deck for a 100 card per deck format? Wow. And if a deck like that can win commander, mere 60 card decks should be a snap to mill - thereby pushing the secondary market value of this chase rare through the roof (as well as precon CommanderMill.dec).
That being said. The card is still awesome. I understand your logic, and I can see it as a rare. I just think it's better suited as a common. Perhaps a compromise - Uncommon?
Rarities aren't "nonexistent" outside of limited. Their impact is reduced, but they still have impact for the person who gets their cards by buying a couple of booster packs at a time. Flooding someone's collection with narrow-use cards like this is something I'd be concerned about.
R Citizen Cane (Feldon of the Third Path)
True, but I wasn't talking (or apparently even thinking) about actual commanders. I was talking and thinking about nonlegendary cards designed for commander. And don't forget, I don't think there's anything wrong with designing commander specific cards, I just think if that's what you have in mind, it would be nice if you said so to begin with.
Yes they are. It's the scarcity of money that matters, not cards. This is not semantics, it's reality. I can buy packs, boxes, and cases until I have 20 copies of every rare in a given set if I have the money. I can buy one of the 5,000ish played Beta Black Lotus for $2,000ish bucks, or I can buy one of the 7 PSA10 Beta Black Lotus for $20,000+. I appreciate that you (and other decent designers) take demographics into consideration when
buying(EDIT) designing btw. I realize that the average player doesn't have unlimited money and that WotC is always reaching for that next generation of player.Again, I see your point, but then every collection is flooded with garbage commons, narrow or not. The occasional narrow common isn't a bad thing as long as it is an occasional thing. This is narrow like Treasure Hunt is narrow - a card that I adore, designed a decade ago, and was surprised to see as a common. And like I said before, I can see this as a rare, I just don't like it as a rare, especially as a Commander rare.