Quote from void_nothingI've seen versions of this many times before. The +1/+1 counter version has the most interesting tension with activated abilities that include counter removal as a cost. It might be wise to put an upper limit on the ability:
Experience X (Whenever this attacks or blocks, put a +1/+1 counter on it at end of combat if it has less than X +1/+1 counters on it.)
Quote from FzGhouLBut the submission as a whole sets me at ease. As a whole, it was pretty simple. Far more simple than most submissions...
...But I think I was riding on something that felt pretty simple, so if simple is a plus, I think I might have made top15.
Quote from FfluffAnyone want to insult my submission? Especially now I've fixed some wordings Labs:Gds/gds2/Severance_Block/Sibella/Fake_Submission
Quote from guyarneyThe Fables of Gabaldon is by far my favorite submission.
Quote from Oni kadakiI don't think that's necessary, if I understand the rules correctly. Correctly me if i'm wrong, but when you play a spell, you have priority again until you pass, at which point everyone gets to respond to everything you played. Therefore, if you play a normal spell, and then playa spell with split second, they never have a chance to respond to either one.
Quote from Titanium DragonActually you're wrong; the reason other games don't do it the same way is because Magic has already stolen the best way. Lands serve a very important game function, and are not fundamentally flawed - bad play is fundamentally flawed. Lands are a fundamental part of the game, and are a major part of deckbuilding. Mana balance is key to this game. Universally, those who whine about manascrew are those who don't understand the theory of the game of Magic. Land balances the game, it balances the decks, it balances the strategies. It makes things work correctly.
They are a holy grail; they are essential to the game of magic. There is a reason they are called basic lands. One of the major reasons other games are not as good as Magic is because they can't use Magic's land system.
Quote from Titanium DragonIt is a policy of R&D not to print lands strictly better than basic lands, and since the inception of this policy this has been the case. The closest to strictly better were the kamigawa lands, and they still had the drawback off being legendary, so most decks only ran 1 copy per.
And the reason there are 301 cards is that there are 121 commons, 80 uncommons, and 80 rares, plus the normal 20 basics. This has been confirmed.
Quote from Omega GirMana screw, despite its problems, is neccesary to the health of the game. Theres a reason why basic lands exist and cards cost varying amounts of colored mana. Eliminating the system would make all cards playable in any deck.
As far as set size being 301, thats 5 less cards, but there are 20 basic land.
Quote from Omega GirSee any man lands.
Quote from "MaRo" »One of the joys of Magic design is finding new ideas that break conventions of old. And note that I don't mean breaking them for the sake of breaking them. What I'm talking about is finding design space that, on purpose and for a good reason, explores areas that were previously considered off limits. This is dangerous territory as forbidden areas are usually forbidden for a reason, but Magic design demands an explorer mentality. You have to be willing to venture into areas that have little dragons written on the edge of the map.