I was unaware that this info was apparently datamined in mid-May and I have seen zero discussion on these boards so I wanted to start a discussion. If things here are not solid enough or rely on too much speculation, feel free to move this to the rumor mill. Was uncertain where this belonged.
Information from a recent tweet that was since deleted suggests that an upcoming historic event on Arena will have "nerfed" versions of banned cards available to play with. Highlights include Omnath that Scries 1 instead of drawing a card on ETB, a legendary field of the dead, Fires of Invention for an extra , Winota that only looks at the top 4 cards, Uro that doesn't Ramp you, and so forth. All of the cards are apparently specifically marked with the Arena "A" symbol next to their name (in the similar way that UB cards have a unqiue holograph at the bottom). There is no official news of these changes lasting longer than a single weekend event, though there seems to be reasonable concern about these changes becoming back and becoming permanent or being repeated.
Potential Benefits:
Most digital games have the ability to roll out nerfs rather than just dealing bans/suspensions like we have seen in Arena. If Wizards has worries that the card design in Arena looks "less polished" than similar online games because they keep having to ban and outlaw cards, that's something I can sort of understand.
I can likewise appreciate wizards not wanting to have cards that "technically" exist in Arena but that can't be played anywhere (like Oko). A change to the system that allows players to keep playing with all of their cards instead of saying "we goofed, have some wildcards" may be positive in some ways.
As far as balancing tools go, the ability to "nerf" cards is a lot faster and more nuanced than the traditional answers of printing counters or banning cards. It lets you "fine tune" the power of a dominant deck to maintain meta diversity without totally shutting down the deck or waiting a few months in the hopes that there is a good answer coming.
If nerfs are successful, we may also see buffs to some tier 2 cards and archetypes in historic to increase meta diversity without needing to wait for a major shake-up in the Historic pool.
Potential Downsides
This is the definition of functional errata, which has long been against MTG's philosophy. I know a few people who freaked out when Ajani's Pridemate was changed to force you to put on counters. Some people have recently been sad that a plague engineer can now shut down infect decks due to the creation of the phyrexian subtype. We are talking about much bigger changes here.
If the physical cards are not changed to match the errata, gameplay in arena wanders ever-further from the physical card game experience. Further, this errata would cause the meta of physical and digital magic decks in standard to look different if nerfed cards from recent sets are ever unbanned in digital standard.
If the physicai cares ARE changed to match the errata, that risks pissing off the commander players. Making Winota decks less playable or making Agent of Treachery (which now needs to be cast from hand to ETB) unusable in blink decks, for example, would earn Wizards a lot of ire.
Some of the cards being discussed above have been nerfed nearly to the point of being practically unusable. There is an argument to be made that it's better to just ban a card rather than making it so weak that it's technically legal but unusable.
Let's consider getting rid of the crooked mulligan rule, to justify that people are only able to see these dynamics because they are able to bypass the aspect of challenge that should be there without it. And then design more intelligibly accordingly.
You are welcome to post cards that make the assumption of changed game rules in threads of your own. Preferably while specifically indicating which game rules you envision being changed.
What you have just done however, is go into someone else’s thread and posted: “If you stop using the actual game rules that I don’t like and agree with how I think the game should work, this card is absolutely terrible”.
I am clearly designing cards to be played with all of the actual rules, including the ones you don’t like. Including the rules that I don’t like. It is assumed on this thread that everyone is using all of the real rules unless they say otherwise.
Does this make sense?
It is not my job to say “I am worried that this card is too powerful because I am using certain rules that ReaptheWhirlwind does not like”.
It is in fact YOUR job to say “I think that my card is balanced in part because I feel that the current mulligan rules should be changed to greatly reduce the odds of starting with a specific card in your hand” when you make a card under those assumptions as you are the one deviating from the “default” assumptions.
The rules I am using are the default. The fact that you assume that everyone is using your value calls on the rules in their own card designs and games is... wrong. Like, most people play by the actual rules.
As we are using different rules assumptions, your commentary gives me no useful information to inform my designs. Replying to this thread is cheaper than Therapy but the catharsis of posting these responses seem to be the only redeeming value your posts have.
Who can afford another 2 life? It's intended to replace shocklands?
But as a singular entity, will never see that kind of utility, because you can't secure that kind of consistency with only 4 copies.
I would suggest maybe an adaptation, if you recall, that I used to hotfix a land concept I had, which allows 6 copies per deck instead of 4.
...dude, you are slightly embarrassing yourself when you keep talking about cards without any knowledge of the meta.
1. There’s an entire deck archetype dedicated to running down your own life total in modern.
2. Modern decks that rely on drawing a specific card you have only 4 copies of DO function in modern. Consider amulet of vigor in amulet Titan decks. Those deck lists often only have amulet to allow you to benefit from your bounce-lands the turn they come out and yet the deck can put up results. Your insistence that such decks can’t exist ignores the fact that they exist.
3. One possible problem with this card, as previously indicated, is that this card could effectively function as Amulet of Vigor 5-8 in a amulet bloom deck or similar build, allowing someone to essentially play a new bounce land each turn.
Ultimately, it depends on the size of the usable “dungeon package” we receive. If we can regularly expect this card to attack as a 4/4 (lost mine) or if we can expect it to spit out a 4/4 token the first time it attacks (which then becomes a 5/5 due to the anthem effect), this card is pretty nice.
Everyone essentially has access to all dungeons ever printed at the start of each game. I for one hopes that wizards does NOT make too many of them or else dungeon decks would be a bit too versatile.
I for one agree that dice rolling will be the new thing.
I think that dungeons will be enchantments that let you roll a dice once on ETB and once whenever you enter the dungeon, getting an effect based on how high you roll.
I think that big T Will have a high ward cost, will get some combination of haste and/or trample, and will shuffle itself into your library when it dies. Also, it will be mythic just because.
So... I am overly excited about the dragon Knight as that seems to suggest to me that Dragonborn may be dragon humanoids in the Same way that orochi were just snakes (unless there is some famous armored dragon from FR that I’m not familiar with). Any opportunity for red to get CMC 1-3 dragons that aren’t super gimmicky is welcome in my book.
Yeah, this is odd. Essentially lets you play an extra land each turn if you have a very specific mana base. Amulet bloom exists and is probably faster so I'm not sure how I feel my own card now.
This isn't a healthy standard. And it's one that you're going to self-righteously turn your back on when it's convenient for you, or to your leisure, or to your benefit, when the opportunity comes. It's unjust to hold people up to standards like this, especially given patterns of behavior like this.
1. I want to start out by saying that you are Absolutely Correct that people on this card creation forum may recommend changes from established rules and building patterns, if that is what you are trying to say.
2. With that said, there is a vital difference between how other people on this forum make arguments for change in the rules and how you have been doing so thus far. This vital difference may account for why you are getting such a negative response.
2A: When one of us do not like a rule and feel that it should be changed, we create a thread about that change specifically. While there may be card designs in that thread, those designs largely exist to support the argument being made (often that doing so would allow for greater design space). If I felt that there should be language in mtg to choose when abilities trigger (to allow modal cards like commands to have two abilities resolve in either order or to give a creature either an ETB trigger OR a Death trigger), I would compose a new thread making that argument to see how people feel about that change. I would ask more experienced players whether that disrupts any other rules in significant ways and actually propose specific language for a possible replacement as needed. Finally, I would not take the conversation outside of that one specific thread (where people looking at the thread for the first time could easily look at the history of that discussion) to post more cards that follow a hypothetical set of rules. In short, if I do not like the rules, I would try to engage the community in a specific discussion about the rules.
2B: What has been happening in most of your threads, meanwhile, is that you post a card that does not follow the rules, you are informed of the rules, and you respond by essentially saying "but how would you like it if there wasn't a problem with the rules"? It seems transparent in most of these discussions that you were not fully aware of the rules that you broke and that you do not understand the surrounding rules well enough to actually engage in a discussion about those rules, what specific rules would change, what specific new language would be created, and so forth. You are routinely provided with alternative wordings that preserve most functionality of the cards you design but you ignore those in almost all cases. Worse, you repeatedly repeat these errors through new threads in a way that may leave new posters confused. I may be one of the few people who remembers the original thread in which you posted "deus ex" abilities and your reasoning for why the game needs a constant flow of cards. You do not link back to that thread when you make a new deus ex card, do not include a link in your signature, and do not even give new posters the basic respect of acknowledging the rules problems already discussed with those mechanics... which leads these same discussions about the rules problems to continue on loop. Even a small note in the opening posts of those threads like "Others have claimed that the language used for Deus Ex would not function as intended but I believe that the intention of this ability is clear and that the rules should accommodate it" would stop a lot of repeated discussions and save you a headache.
Greaves is on the high end of power but ts fine. A simple card with a simple effect is good.
Firecrackers are too cheap. 2 is a perfectly reasonable cost for this effect. Other than that they are an interesting design. It really captures the concept of startling something.
I have to disagree. At just one more mana it's not going to be worth its place in the deck. You can run solid removal for 2.
The 1 mana cost is what makes it attractive and versatile.
I can understand wanting a card you make to be decent but there are some mechanical “dead zones” in the design space of MRF where card designs don’t exist for a reason.
For example, red can get 2/1 creatures for 1 mana with upside at rare (such as falkenrath gorger) so it would make sense for a plain elite vanguard to exist in red... but none have ever been printed. Mark Rosewater has stated that the combination of a consistent “aggro” theme for red in limited environments and the presence of burn spells that can hit players in every sense would make a plain 2/1 for 1 in red too dangerous to appear more than occasionally in drafts and sealed decks.
Looking at your card, it feels like it is almost there. Having 1 damage for 1 colorless mana at instant speed seems a bit too efficient for colorless cards however. moonglove extract and vial of dragonfire show what colorless cards can do as far as direct damage. While your card is not broken “in a vacuum”, it fails to conform the standards for what such a card could start... and this is more dangerous for colorless cards than most other cards as it can lead to that card appearing in most combat-based decks (probably not to the same degree as mental misstep or dismember but colorless “cost-efficient” cards that do not play into a VERY specific strategy are always somewhat at risk).
I’d say it’s in a state where nearly anything can fix it, though. Make the mana cost . Make an activation cost of . Remove flash from the card. Any of those three changes and this seems like a pretty real card.
One other thing that I’ll quickly point out, though, is that the untap and remove from combat effects aren’t really used any more in part because a quirk in the rules allows you to target a creature of yours after it has dealt damage but while it is technically still attacking, essentially giving it vigilance. The fact that newer players often miss this interaction makes wizards a bit likely to create that effect nowadays. You can remove that possibility by forcing the first ability to target a creature “you don’t control”
Reap actually listened to feedback and changed his card accordingly.
Has the polarity of the earth's core shifted? Is this the end of days and Ragnarok befallen us? Did I fall into a mirror universe and miss everyone's new goatees?
Wait... are you trying to say that you don’t have a goatee? How on earth does that work?
Re: Fetaltadpole: that re-design is pretty slick. Thoroughly enjoying it
Nice to have people reentering the card design scene.
re: loaded dice
1.Construct is a creature type and can only be listed for creatures or tribal cards. The ability to temporarily be a creature via morph doesn’t count.
2. The first ability does not need to say “this turn”. That language would be reserved for an activated/triggered ability or instant/sorcery spell.
3. “Modal” is not a term used in black-bordered magic. Also, I personally do not feel that this card would work as intended. Pretend you have this card out and your opponent tries to cast ojutai’s command. You choose the modes “counter target creature spell” and “draw a card”. Because there is no creature spell to target and that is the spell’s only target, the entire spell is countered for lack of targets. That type of counterintuitive interaction seems a bit iffy.
4. The at random effect doesn’t always work as intended, either. Consider effects that make opponents discard at random. You would instinctively choose which cards your opponent is discarding instead... but the card still doesn’t give you knowledge of what the card is so you end up with the same effect with extra steps. Also, making the choice function as a modal effect would make the card impossible to function on MTG online or Arena as effects that put cards on the bottom of the library in any order would give you a separate option to choose between for each possible configuration of cards rather than simply putting them in the order of your choice, which would create a huge number of choices very quickly.
regarding Decaying Dice:
Precombat main phase is the term I believe you are looking for.
I was inspired by Thrasta's hexproof (of all things) to see if I could make an interesting card with dash.
Cliffborn Skirmisher
Creature- Human Rogue (U)
Haste
Cliffborn Skirmisher has flying as long as it entered the battlefield this turn.
Dash
3/2 The high ground means little if you can't keep it
Is that too good for an average limited environment?
1. Most card hosers hose 2 colors because each color has 2 enemy colors. This card hoses two enemy colors AND an allied color, which is stylistically messy.
2. Color hosers who can’t be countered have thusfar been red or green because both of those colors are the enemy of blue. Having this card gain resistance to counter spelling means that this card is actually good against 4 colors (even if one of those colors can bounce and block it).
3. Why protection from sources rather than just the colors. There is no “green source” that would be blocked by this protection and not “protection from green”.
While this card isn’t overly egregious from a rules standpoint (other than protection from sources?), this card strikes me as something haphazardly thrown together to resemble a previous style of card but that did not understand while the previous versions were the precise way that they are.
While we do not wish to block innovation, we only wish to promote innovation made with full mindfulness of what has come before and not “blind innovation” made by someone with no grasp of the rules to start with.
Information from a recent tweet that was since deleted suggests that an upcoming historic event on Arena will have "nerfed" versions of banned cards available to play with. Highlights include Omnath that Scries 1 instead of drawing a card on ETB, a legendary field of the dead, Fires of Invention for an extra
Potential Benefits:
Potential Downsides
What thoughts do all of you have on this matter?
You are welcome to post cards that make the assumption of changed game rules in threads of your own. Preferably while specifically indicating which game rules you envision being changed.
What you have just done however, is go into someone else’s thread and posted: “If you stop using the actual game rules that I don’t like and agree with how I think the game should work, this card is absolutely terrible”.
I am clearly designing cards to be played with all of the actual rules, including the ones you don’t like. Including the rules that I don’t like. It is assumed on this thread that everyone is using all of the real rules unless they say otherwise.
Does this make sense?
It is not my job to say “I am worried that this card is too powerful because I am using certain rules that ReaptheWhirlwind does not like”.
It is in fact YOUR job to say “I think that my card is balanced in part because I feel that the current mulligan rules should be changed to greatly reduce the odds of starting with a specific card in your hand” when you make a card under those assumptions as you are the one deviating from the “default” assumptions.
The rules I am using are the default. The fact that you assume that everyone is using your value calls on the rules in their own card designs and games is... wrong. Like, most people play by the actual rules.
As we are using different rules assumptions, your commentary gives me no useful information to inform my designs. Replying to this thread is cheaper than Therapy but the catharsis of posting these responses seem to be the only redeeming value your posts have.
...dude, you are slightly embarrassing yourself when you keep talking about cards without any knowledge of the meta.
1. There’s an entire deck archetype dedicated to running down your own life total in modern.
2. Modern decks that rely on drawing a specific card you have only 4 copies of DO function in modern. Consider amulet of vigor in amulet Titan decks. Those deck lists often only have amulet to allow you to benefit from your bounce-lands the turn they come out and yet the deck can put up results. Your insistence that such decks can’t exist ignores the fact that they exist.
3. One possible problem with this card, as previously indicated, is that this card could effectively function as Amulet of Vigor 5-8 in a amulet bloom deck or similar build, allowing someone to essentially play a new bounce land each turn.
otherwise, I think it’s an easy pass.
I think that dungeons will be enchantments that let you roll a dice once on ETB and once whenever you enter the dungeon, getting an effect based on how high you roll.
I think that big T Will have a high ward cost, will get some combination of haste and/or trample, and will shuffle itself into your library when it dies. Also, it will be mythic just because.
Also, let’s not ignore the Tarrasque in the room. Do you guys think big-T will be red, green, or Gruul?
1. I want to start out by saying that you are Absolutely Correct that people on this card creation forum may recommend changes from established rules and building patterns, if that is what you are trying to say.
2. With that said, there is a vital difference between how other people on this forum make arguments for change in the rules and how you have been doing so thus far. This vital difference may account for why you are getting such a negative response.
2A: When one of us do not like a rule and feel that it should be changed, we create a thread about that change specifically. While there may be card designs in that thread, those designs largely exist to support the argument being made (often that doing so would allow for greater design space). If I felt that there should be language in mtg to choose when abilities trigger (to allow modal cards like commands to have two abilities resolve in either order or to give a creature either an ETB trigger OR a Death trigger), I would compose a new thread making that argument to see how people feel about that change. I would ask more experienced players whether that disrupts any other rules in significant ways and actually propose specific language for a possible replacement as needed. Finally, I would not take the conversation outside of that one specific thread (where people looking at the thread for the first time could easily look at the history of that discussion) to post more cards that follow a hypothetical set of rules. In short, if I do not like the rules, I would try to engage the community in a specific discussion about the rules.
2B: What has been happening in most of your threads, meanwhile, is that you post a card that does not follow the rules, you are informed of the rules, and you respond by essentially saying "but how would you like it if there wasn't a problem with the rules"? It seems transparent in most of these discussions that you were not fully aware of the rules that you broke and that you do not understand the surrounding rules well enough to actually engage in a discussion about those rules, what specific rules would change, what specific new language would be created, and so forth. You are routinely provided with alternative wordings that preserve most functionality of the cards you design but you ignore those in almost all cases. Worse, you repeatedly repeat these errors through new threads in a way that may leave new posters confused. I may be one of the few people who remembers the original thread in which you posted "deus ex" abilities and your reasoning for why the game needs a constant flow of cards. You do not link back to that thread when you make a new deus ex card, do not include a link in your signature, and do not even give new posters the basic respect of acknowledging the rules problems already discussed with those mechanics... which leads these same discussions about the rules problems to continue on loop. Even a small note in the opening posts of those threads like "Others have claimed that the language used for Deus Ex would not function as intended but I believe that the intention of this ability is clear and that the rules should accommodate it" would stop a lot of repeated discussions and save you a headache.
Final note: If you feel that we abandon the standards that we hold you to, feel free to find an example and link us to it. To show you an example of when we don't, let's look at a brief exchange on your apex predator thread.
1. One poster comes up with a card (re)design they think would work
2. Another poster reports an obscure rule that would stop that design from functioning
3. The first poster acknowledged that they did not know that rule and that they will need to keep that rule in mind for the future
This is not some super esoteric standard that we are holding you up to. This is the standard that we are keeping for all of us.
I can understand wanting a card you make to be decent but there are some mechanical “dead zones” in the design space of MRF where card designs don’t exist for a reason.
For example, red can get 2/1 creatures for 1 mana with upside at rare (such as falkenrath gorger) so it would make sense for a plain elite vanguard to exist in red... but none have ever been printed. Mark Rosewater has stated that the combination of a consistent “aggro” theme for red in limited environments and the presence of burn spells that can hit players in every sense would make a plain 2/1 for 1 in red too dangerous to appear more than occasionally in drafts and sealed decks.
Looking at your card, it feels like it is almost there. Having 1 damage for 1 colorless mana at instant speed seems a bit too efficient for colorless cards however. moonglove extract and vial of dragonfire show what colorless cards can do as far as direct damage. While your card is not broken “in a vacuum”, it fails to conform the standards for what such a card could start... and this is more dangerous for colorless cards than most other cards as it can lead to that card appearing in most combat-based decks (probably not to the same degree as mental misstep or dismember but colorless “cost-efficient” cards that do not play into a VERY specific strategy are always somewhat at risk).
I’d say it’s in a state where nearly anything can fix it, though. Make the mana cost
One other thing that I’ll quickly point out, though, is that the untap and remove from combat effects aren’t really used any more in part because a quirk in the rules allows you to target a creature of yours after it has dealt damage but while it is technically still attacking, essentially giving it vigilance. The fact that newer players often miss this interaction makes wizards a bit likely to create that effect nowadays. You can remove that possibility by forcing the first ability to target a creature “you don’t control”
Wait... are you trying to say that you don’t have a goatee? How on earth does that work?
Re: Fetaltadpole: that re-design is pretty slick. Thoroughly enjoying it
re: loaded dice
1.Construct is a creature type and can only be listed for creatures or tribal cards. The ability to temporarily be a creature via morph doesn’t count.
2. The first ability does not need to say “this turn”. That language would be reserved for an activated/triggered ability or instant/sorcery spell.
3. “Modal” is not a term used in black-bordered magic. Also, I personally do not feel that this card would work as intended. Pretend you have this card out and your opponent tries to cast ojutai’s command. You choose the modes “counter target creature spell” and “draw a card”. Because there is no creature spell to target and that is the spell’s only target, the entire spell is countered for lack of targets. That type of counterintuitive interaction seems a bit iffy.
4. The at random effect doesn’t always work as intended, either. Consider effects that make opponents discard at random. You would instinctively choose which cards your opponent is discarding instead... but the card still doesn’t give you knowledge of what the card is so you end up with the same effect with extra steps. Also, making the choice function as a modal effect would make the card impossible to function on MTG online or Arena as effects that put cards on the bottom of the library in any order would give you a separate option to choose between for each possible configuration of cards rather than simply putting them in the order of your choice, which would create a huge number of choices very quickly.
regarding Decaying Dice:
Precombat main phase is the term I believe you are looking for.
Cliffborn Skirmisher
Creature- Human Rogue (U)
Haste
Cliffborn Skirmisher has flying as long as it entered the battlefield this turn.
Dash
3/2
The high ground means little if you can't keep it
Is that too good for an average limited environment?
2. Color hosers who can’t be countered have thusfar been red or green because both of those colors are the enemy of blue. Having this card gain resistance to counter spelling means that this card is actually good against 4 colors (even if one of those colors can bounce and block it).
3. Why protection from sources rather than just the colors. There is no “green source” that would be blocked by this protection and not “protection from green”.
While this card isn’t overly egregious from a rules standpoint (other than protection from sources?), this card strikes me as something haphazardly thrown together to resemble a previous style of card but that did not understand while the previous versions were the precise way that they are.
While we do not wish to block innovation, we only wish to promote innovation made with full mindfulness of what has come before and not “blind innovation” made by someone with no grasp of the rules to start with.