2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Reincarnation — Dynamic Ad Insertion Keyword
    Seeing as this is an interesting ability with a reasonable amount of design space how should it be balanced? As is its not balancable. Drop the p/t bonus? Add a cost? Both options are interesting but their are even more points to consider. Should this exile or be reusable?

    The way its works I see it as Shaman King style oversouls. However I don't think an execution that captures that is reasonable. Instead I'll initially opt for a kicker like extra cost and make it a once time use.

    Sword Saint 1WW
    Creature - Human Warrior
    First Strike, Vigilance, Lifelink
    Oversoul(Whenever a creature enters the battlefield under your control you may pay ~'s mana cost. If you do, exile ~ from your graveyard. That creature gains all abilities of ~ and gets +X/+Y where X is ~'s power and Y is its toughness.)
    2/2


    Is this too restrained? Should the cost be uncoupled from the cards cost? Should it be reusable? Is it overly complicated?
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Reincarnation — Dynamic Ad Insertion Keyword

    Only it's doesn't need a cost—because you can't build a winning strategy at the beginning of the game with the notion pitched due to the probability factor. Probability is a significant aspect in development. It will see things succeed whose properties succeed within its natural container. You will not have to adjust anything. But more importantly, will see things fail unless implemented around properly. I have given a graphic example of this in the past, with the set of lands that only work when the range is increased to allow 6 copies of them in the deck.
    Now, I am not against revision of the keyword, or that a cost could be assigned to the functionality. I just want to make a clear point that this is not needed; as neither is the Aura type. In fact, adding that type could botch the flavor-dynamics, and opens up functionality that this doesn't want to have; but wants to be more solid state than this would create.
    There is so much wrong here that I can only conclude that you don't know what most of the words you used mean. Because you are obviously lacking is comprehension skills ill try to be as simple as possible.

    This ability isn't bad, but it is unreasonably difficult to balance because you didn't put a cost in its activation. Your proposed card while strange isn't a problem because spending multiple resources to get a few 'free' +3/+3 auras on a creature isn't significant. However, the ability is a problem because getting a few +5/+5 auras or anything higher is significant. This is why I said you either make it cost something or you are forced by the design of the ability to only put this on small creatures.

    Your lack of understanding or unwillingness to accept that your design has obvious problems can't be handwaved away by using words you obviously don't know the meaning of. Fortunately, others here see that this is an interesting ability and can engage in a discussion of its pros and cons. Honestly, it would do your design a disservice for you to continue in the discussion as you don't understand how the game works and actively discourage people from fixing your mistakes.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Reincarnation — Dynamic Ad Insertion Keyword

    Comp rules easily hammers out the technicalities of this card being attached to another card (without ever having to give it another type); and can also easily rule that a card attached this way is exiled if removed or otherwise would be put into a graveyard.
    They also can solve this much more easily by giving it the aura type so that is what will happen. I know you feel you can hand wave away any problem by saying the rules can be rewritten to handle it. However, a good designer has to ask themselves(or someone who knows how to the rules work) "How can what I want to do be done in the current framework" then They ask "is there a better way to do this". Only a bad designer starts with "the rules will bend around my idea."

    Since there is only like an 8% chance of pulling that combo with Pocket Hulks in your opening hand to perform on turn 1, I don't think it was worth addressing. Even with just 1 Hulk the chance is still like 12% or something. You could add lots of other 0 cost creatures, draw/discard, but you're still not building a game winning strategy from that. It still dies to removal, and Lightning Greaves will extend the time range, and plummet the probability even lower.
    There are many problems with this mindset and none of them are related to your actual card.

    The problem is the mechanic itself. It needs a cost or the problem they pointed out will occur because you are proposing a mechanic, not a single card. meaning there will be a number of cards with this ability and it would be easy to discard a few on turn 1 or 2 and get a huge creature for "free". Or you create the limitations of these being no bigger than 2/2 so thst isn't a problem.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on New to MTG Arena. Some questions/help
    A bit late but I'll answer as I can

    I don't use a tracker so I can't recommend one. I didn't even know that was a thing.

    Opening a pack gives you progression towards wild cards. Every pack gives you 1 progression(of 6) towards an Uncommon and 1 progression(of 6) towards the "rare slot" which if I recall correctly is 3 rares then a mythic.

    Boosters can occasionally replace a normal card with a wild card of that rarity.

    The random reward are based on either game wins for the day or mastery level. The random cards usually come from a specified pool of cards, The mastery cards usually from that set while the other cards are from standard. Some events have historic cards instead.

    When obtain a 5th copy of a common or uncommon either from opening packs or from sealed you get progress towards the vualt with contains 6 wildcards, 3 uncommon, 2 rare and 1 mythic.

    When you open a 5th rare or mythic, either from opening packs(this can only happen if you have 4 copies of every rare in the set already) or from sealed you will receive gems; 20 gems for a rare and I think 40 gems for a mythic.
    Posted in: MTG Arena
  • posted a message on Expanding Opportunities
    The problem with this is really the modal cards that let you choose more than one, especially the ones that let you choose the same options multiple times. As such its safer to just make the card ignore those and only function for specifically "Choose one"

    Expanding Opportunities 1UR
    Enchantment
    If you would cast a modal spell choosing exactly one mode, instead choose all modes.

    This doesn't play nice with escalate cards, as escalate is actually just a cost-increasing mechanic disguised as a kicker variant. If you desperately want to function with the cards that allow you to choose more than one and allow choosing the same mode over and over then the only option is to make copies. Though even that has to jump through extra loops due to how copies work.

    Expanding Opportunities 5UR
    Enchantment
    Whenever you cast a modal spell exile it. If you do, create a copy for each of its modes. You may cast those copies without paying their mana costs.


    This version is WAY stronger than the previous versions but it's the cleanest way to get the function you want.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Retaking control from control magic
    Yes, new instances of anything overwrite old instances. In this case base control was the player whom the vampire entered the battlefield under. Then you created a control changing effect with Control Magic. Then your opponent created a new control changing effect with Captivating Vampire. The more recent control changing effect put it under your opponent's control so they control it.
    Posted in: Magic Rulings
  • posted a message on Likato, Grim One (BG hatebear legend)
    3 is considered a reasonable place to put effects that shut down the opponent's ability to play at all so at 3 the first effect is fine. It's difficult to say if you could afford to make them any stronger even putting at 3.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Likato, Grim One (BG hatebear legend)
    That first one feels very convoluted. First it goes "Ha! You can't search your library, search your graveyard instead." Followed up with "Ha! Again! You can't take cards from your graveyard, they go back into your library." I can understand what its doing but it feels very tedious.

    The second one is much better. Do X instead, when they do X related thing get Y is much better than the Do X instead or rather do Y instead of X...

    Still, as a two mana fetch lands don't work anymore its possibly too harsh. Arbiter has a way around and stops both players.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Pathos of the Exile (1-mana black removal)
    The game you're playing here trying to close loopholes is a fool's errand because you are still running into loopholes, some of which are worse than the ones you were preventing.

    Pathos of the Exile B
    Instant (Uncommon)
    Exile target creature you don't control and target basic land you do control.

    This is the most balanced version. The best way to break parity is to crop rotation the land you target but that requires a very specific deck while most other versions either have a much steeper cost or are circumvented by heavily played cards such as Lotus Petal or Chrome Mox.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Xout, Existence Thief (UB identity thief planeswalker)
    At 5 you can make it each opponent discards so you don't have to worry about targeting. The conditional card draw is much more balanced.

    I don't think you need to limit it by CMC at 5 but if you are unlimit the card type. Maybe nonland.

    At five CMC the starting loyalty might be too low. Its hard to judge such things but the rest of the card is a nice package.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Xout, Existence Thief (UB identity thief planeswalker)
    At less than 5CMC planeswalkers don't get to generate flat card advantage with a +. This plus would be very strong on a 5CMC walker such that I don't think at 5 it would be fine.

    The - is laughable weak in comparison to the plus but the plus is fairly insane so it isn't actually that bad. Being a 4 mana clone + would be a fine design but that mana restrictions really kills this ability. At 4 mana costing nearly all of its loyalty, you can reasonably copy any creature if you are sticking with the life loss theme.

    The ultimate is fairly perfect. Normally it would be loosely connected with the theme of stealing things but the life loss on the previous two ability and the swapping life totals on the ultimate makes for a nice little story. However, you are losing a minimum of 8 life to swap life totals. That is a lot of life. Because of this, I think it should plus more but also cost more but not at the same level. The plus needs to be reworked to fit a 4CMC walker and while doing that it should be bumped up to +2 while the ultimate goes up to -10. This makes the investment of plusing better as it's harder to keep them off ultimate but that just makes the threat of it larger.

    Overall its an interesting walker. The plus is way too strong and the - is a little weak, on other card types such disparities in function could balance each other but on a walker that doesn't really work unless its the other way around. The + can't be such a powerhouse on anything less than 5CMC and that's pushing it.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Rummage
    Quote from Creedmoor »
    Quote from user_938036 »
    Dredge is a broken mechanic and attempts to fix it are foolish at best.

    Moving on from that. This is either completely broken because of its dredge or its unplayable garbage because of its high cost. Its hard to judge if dredge would want this or not but it has all the right mechanics.

    I don't know what you could do besides removing dredge to make this reasonable.


    Honestly I think you're wrong. When looking at the context of Dredge decks that perform well in various formats, yes it is a very powerful mechanic. But if a card only Dredges for 1 or 2, I think its fine.

    I'm designing this card because of [card]Shenanigans[/cards], which is a very great design in my opinion.

    Dredge became a monster mechanic simply because the designers thought that milling was a tradeoff; but in actuality it fueled some broken decks. The important feature of Dredge is how many cards you have to mill; and it seems apparent that most cards should feature a really low Dredge number in order to be reasonable, as long as the card effect itself is not something that is too powerful to recur turn after turn. It can totally be reused as a mechanic, but played safe.
    I may have been unfair in my assessment of dredge as a whole. It isn't storm which is possibly impossible to balance on any card with a reasonable effect.

    Dredge just has a problem of the cards can't actually be good in themselves. They have to be either narrow answers or underpowered effects that you don't want over and over.

    I stand by my evaluation of your card. It is either drastically underwhelming or is being abused for its dredge effect. And there isn't a reasonable way to balance it withouut removing dredge.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Rummage
    Dredge is a broken mechanic and attempts to fix it are foolish at best.

    Moving on from that. This is either completely broken because of its dredge or its unplayable garbage because of its high cost. Its hard to judge if dredge would want this or not but it has all the right mechanics.

    I don't know what you could do besides removing dredge to make this reasonable.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • posted a message on Anyone else salty at Wizards?

    Also, I heard that Oko was a misprint, that his "target artifact or creature becomes a useless 3/3" was actually supposed to be "target artifact or creature YOU CONTROL becomes a 3/3 dork". Does anyone know if that's true?
    What was said was similar but not actually this. The play testers mostly used Oko to turn their own food into 3/3 creatures. They only occasionally use it to shut down powerful artifacts which is why they were shocked when it was so oppressive shutting down all relevant threats. They simply didn't see it as a valid use. Which is obviously a problem but when you look at a site like this where the major are looking at using his +1 only on himself and a very small minority are all "hey! doesn't this seem strong when using it on opponents stuff?" it gets hard to blame them for missing its use. They just don't have enough time or people to try everything and unless they implement some odd procedures such as "1 person has to use a card that seems OK in a way no one else uses it to see if its broken" it isn't easy to find this problems.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on How pushed can a legendary vanilla creature be?
    5/3 would definitely be too large for standard or a limited in which that color pair is expected to be easy to cast such as Ravnica but in a more powerful set such as a masters set it might be fine if its alongside answers such as lightning bolt and fatal push at common.
    Posted in: Custom Card Creation
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.