Well I think infect being more powerful was the fixing as poison was seen as a pointless novelty and infect was a (too successful) attempt to make it relevant. I believe it was a pet project of Rosewater and he was super excited to have made a more interactive and interesting poison mechanic. I believe he now views it as a failure but I don't religiously read the mothership articles anymore.
Pointless history dispute aside I am still bitter that wastes wasn't make a land type. It's such an ugly bit of obsfucating to have a card that is a basic land and has a type but that type isn't a basic land type. Endlessly frustrating to me. Because otherwise a dual land that was waste/x is an incredible design and I wish it could exist so badly. I love the design space of colorless mana symbols despite the bad start and want more of it. Having a cycle of lands that are just just land: forest waste would go such a long way but that's not possible right now. And I just realized this was more pointless historical grievance airing so joke is on me.
I like the wall. Don't know if I want that ability key worded but I would love to see that as an uncommon in a battlecruiser set if they ever want to recreate the magic that is ROE limited again.
With the way WotC has leaned into being an Esport first and foremost I could see this being implemented as it would be great online and is very true to flavor but I agree that it is a memory nightmare just like the updated Day/Night is a memory nightmare in paper. Day/Night was a very cool mechanic with a ton of cool designs that I enjoy playing. But I don't like them in paper. Lucky for me this works right now as I only play online since covid happened but it leaves huge rules baggage if it pops up as a 1 or 2 of in a random game down the line.
I also think the current iteration with the mfdc's being uncastable until you've played a creature is probably not great. You would need an incredibly high asfan for it to be usable in limited. And a high number of pushes creatures if you ever wanted the spells to be playable in constructed (or have absolutely pushed spells that make playing these creatures worth it).
The idea is very cool that opens a ton of fun design space but has two major hurdles to pass.
Name change seems cool. I don't know a ton about the mirrari but it's definitely evocative. And we're clearly just going to have to agree to disagree on the second ability and that's fine.
That said I have no idea what the difference between "excluding from" and "restricting the power of" those seem close to synonymous to me. Am I wrong that you worked backwards from wanting to not work with Emrakul and the other Eldrazi or was there another reason for choosing 8? I ask because if that was the reason Griselbrand and Archon are considered more powerful options to cheat into play than every eldrazi but emrakul. I do understand this casting makes it a bit different so you might be right to want to avoid them but another flavorful way would be to restrict it to only casting black creatures and it looks much less clunky.
@Breathe I prefer Go for the throat to slaughter pact. Prefer Snuff Out to both though.
@Armando
1. Nissa>Jadelight/Visionary>Tracker
2. Ehhhh pretty indifferent on all three Char>Light/Intervention is my guess though.
3. Depends on how heavily you support graveyard shenanigans for Champion imo. If yes it's #1 if not it's 3. I'd put oracle slightly ahead of Seer but it's close.
My point is that the second ability on the saga should be changed as it's an ability that doesn't fit with the card unless you know it's specifically meant to combo with Scion of Darkness, and doesn't even help Scion the card you were designing for by much. Your creatures won't be able to make a buffed attack until the 4th turn after you've played this at best. That is an eternity. If you want to keep that part of the card and not make it awful (not my preferred option but an option) make it put +1/+1 counters on your creatures when an opponents creatures etb's under your control so you can benefit on the 3rd turn rather than the 5th.
I still think it would make more sense to return a creature from your graveyard to your hand as the second ability as that will synergize with all the self discard you listed that this card will want your to have in your deck. This makes the play pattern less punishing if you have to discard your expensive creatures to Anje or Burning Inquiry before you can play your Evil...
As for the life cost remark the power of Griselbrand is that he has lifelink so you can gain back the life you spent to draw cards. This isn't really relevant to the design of Evil... though. My point was more that capping the creature cost at 8 in the first ability doesn't matter a ton since 2 of the 3 most cheated into play creatures cost 8 mana, there is hardly a functional difference capping at 8 as opposed to 14.
As for The Evil that Men Do I love the first ability and last if it's templated correctly. The second ability feels like it belongs on a completely different card and doesn't make a ton of sense to me here. Scion of Darkness really doesn't need an anthem to help it once it's hitting. If the idea is to support it I'd make the ability do something along the lines of making the opponent discard (more in color and still feeds Scion like you want to do with this) or returning a creature from your graveyard to hand so you can refuel for the next cycle through the saga.
Just going to bump this part because I really like Evil but I think that second ability needs a rework. With the card you seem to have designed this card to synergize with Scion of Darkness, is that correct? If so the second ability doesn't seem to do what you want it to, at least the first time through the loop.
Scion creates the reanimate trigger when it deals combat damage. Then the creature would ETB giving the +2/+2. So it would be relevant for blocking with their creature, but then the third ability triggers on your upkeep so you lose the buff before you are able to attack. This would feel really bad to not be able to use it offensively with the card it's designed for. I also think that it's broadly an unneeded ability as usually hitting with Scion is enough if they have anything in your graveyard. That's why I recommended the possible tweaks I quoted. I do like the tweaks overall making it cost 3 is quite aggressively costed but it needs and outlet so I think that's okay. At 4 it was a cute follow up to Liliana of the veil but that's a super minor thing that shouldn't be considered.
One other tiny note capping the discarded creature cost as high as 8 is a bit unwieldy. I understand why you've done it but 8 includes the number 2 and 3 cards people try to cheat in after Emrakul in Griselbrand and Archon of Cruelty. So I don't think it's worth restricting at all since you want to include Scion.
I'm only pushing it because I think it's a really cool card with an absolute clunker of a second ability. Is it too strong now at 3 mana as an infinite value engine? Maybe but I love the idea.
I think that the idea of the drawback is pretty reasonable for a pushed green spell but destroying creatures isn't a bend, it's a flat out break. Which I know you don't care about but I'm telling you as no one will accept that particular design because of that. At GB it's a perfectly acceptable card and in the Assassin's Trophy, Abrupt Decay universe of very pushed answers. If you want it to be mono green and pacify those who care about color pie you miiiight be able to get away with non creature permanents and a version of land, artifact, or enchantment could be printed tomorrow imo (it's very pushed but would be okay). If you don't want to appease them then I'll just drop the link to your opinions on the color pie here so that conversation can be avoided happening again.
As for The Evil that Men Do I love the first ability and last if it's templated correctly. The second ability feels like it belongs on a completely different card and doesn't make a ton of sense to me here. Scion of Darkness really doesn't need an anthem to help it once it's hitting. If the idea is to support it I'd make the ability do something along the lines of making the opponent discard (more in color and still feeds Scion like you want to do with this) or returning a creature from your graveyard to hand so you can refuel for the next cycle through the saga.
The new version looks great. The only thing I suggest changing is exiled stored as opposed to exile into storage. You don't want a subzone in exile called storage. It needlessly complicates future designs.
Alternatively you could use a storage counter similar to the silver counters on Karn, Scion of Urza. It might be unwieldy and it is parasitic but it might be worth doing.
I'm really curious to see how this works out for your group. I definitely agree with the idea that blue tends to be more highly drafted than it can support but I worry that without that part holding it back it will just run over everything. Looking forward to seeing if my thesis is false.
A different type of Ghostbusting. I hope Arlinn lives because she's been used well this story but it wouldn't shock me if she didn't survive the human victory. I could easily see r&d not wanting to have to continuously design flip walkers.
This concept of Sorin wounding Sigarda in one story and then realizing she’s exactly what humans always needed in the very next is awkward. Then again, we’re talking about the moron that gave up on his own critical creation knowing she could not be replicated, plunging his home world into irreparable peril for minimal benefit to enact a petty vendetta.
I actually really like that part of it. Let main characters make things worse! Especially when they're in line with the characters flaws (Sorin is irritable, selfish, petty, and usually unwilling to listen to other perspectives)! Payoffs are only satisfying when they're earned and Sorin learning the error of his ways is pretty much the best payoff in terms of plotting we've had in an MTG story in a looooong time.
I honestly think that the way Sorin has been written this visit to Innistraad might be the best magic plot I've ever read. It's not saying a ton but they used what we knew about him, set up stakes based in his history, and played with what we like and dislike about him as a character. It's great stuff from a plotting perspective even if the writing is uneven at times!
It just bugs me so much that the flavor on the actual cards is lying about the story they are claiming to tell. The cards are all >90% of players will ever learn about the story. I know it's silly because I really liked the story they've told for once it's just that most people won't realize what's actually going on with Sorin because he barely features in the flavor text.
Edit: Unless something changes this is decidely not what happens. Saying Arlinn interrupted proceedings on a card when it was the combo of Sorin and Sigarda is just so weird.
This is the first time in a while the cards I've been excited about are so different to yours. But you do get into the why in your explanations. I'm definitely trying to support midrange green and spells matter red so it makes sense Manaform Hellkite and Cemetery Prowler are higher up my list. I also like the call of Jacob Hauken as a potential sleeper. I just have no clue how good or bad it's going to be and am really excited to see it in action!
Pointless history dispute aside I am still bitter that wastes wasn't make a land type. It's such an ugly bit of obsfucating to have a card that is a basic land and has a type but that type isn't a basic land type. Endlessly frustrating to me. Because otherwise a dual land that was waste/x is an incredible design and I wish it could exist so badly. I love the design space of colorless mana symbols despite the bad start and want more of it. Having a cycle of lands that are just just land: forest waste would go such a long way but that's not possible right now. And I just realized this was more pointless historical grievance airing so joke is on me.
I like the wall. Don't know if I want that ability key worded but I would love to see that as an uncommon in a battlecruiser set if they ever want to recreate the magic that is ROE limited again.
I also think the current iteration with the mfdc's being uncastable until you've played a creature is probably not great. You would need an incredibly high asfan for it to be usable in limited. And a high number of pushes creatures if you ever wanted the spells to be playable in constructed (or have absolutely pushed spells that make playing these creatures worth it).
The idea is very cool that opens a ton of fun design space but has two major hurdles to pass.
That said I have no idea what the difference between "excluding from" and "restricting the power of" those seem close to synonymous to me. Am I wrong that you worked backwards from wanting to not work with Emrakul and the other Eldrazi or was there another reason for choosing 8? I ask because if that was the reason Griselbrand and Archon are considered more powerful options to cheat into play than every eldrazi but emrakul. I do understand this casting makes it a bit different so you might be right to want to avoid them but another flavorful way would be to restrict it to only casting black creatures and it looks much less clunky.
@Armando
1. Nissa>Jadelight/Visionary>Tracker
2. Ehhhh pretty indifferent on all three Char>Light/Intervention is my guess though.
3. Depends on how heavily you support graveyard shenanigans for Champion imo. If yes it's #1 if not it's 3. I'd put oracle slightly ahead of Seer but it's close.
I still think it would make more sense to return a creature from your graveyard to your hand as the second ability as that will synergize with all the self discard you listed that this card will want your to have in your deck. This makes the play pattern less punishing if you have to discard your expensive creatures to Anje or Burning Inquiry before you can play your Evil...
As for the life cost remark the power of Griselbrand is that he has lifelink so you can gain back the life you spent to draw cards. This isn't really relevant to the design of Evil... though. My point was more that capping the creature cost at 8 in the first ability doesn't matter a ton since 2 of the 3 most cheated into play creatures cost 8 mana, there is hardly a functional difference capping at 8 as opposed to 14.
Just going to bump this part because I really like Evil but I think that second ability needs a rework. With the card you seem to have designed this card to synergize with Scion of Darkness, is that correct? If so the second ability doesn't seem to do what you want it to, at least the first time through the loop.
Scion creates the reanimate trigger when it deals combat damage. Then the creature would ETB giving the +2/+2. So it would be relevant for blocking with their creature, but then the third ability triggers on your upkeep so you lose the buff before you are able to attack. This would feel really bad to not be able to use it offensively with the card it's designed for. I also think that it's broadly an unneeded ability as usually hitting with Scion is enough if they have anything in your graveyard. That's why I recommended the possible tweaks I quoted. I do like the tweaks overall making it cost 3 is quite aggressively costed but it needs and outlet so I think that's okay. At 4 it was a cute follow up to Liliana of the veil but that's a super minor thing that shouldn't be considered.
One other tiny note capping the discarded creature cost as high as 8 is a bit unwieldy. I understand why you've done it but 8 includes the number 2 and 3 cards people try to cheat in after Emrakul in Griselbrand and Archon of Cruelty. So I don't think it's worth restricting at all since you want to include Scion.
I'm only pushing it because I think it's a really cool card with an absolute clunker of a second ability. Is it too strong now at 3 mana as an infinite value engine? Maybe but I love the idea.
As for The Evil that Men Do I love the first ability and last if it's templated correctly. The second ability feels like it belongs on a completely different card and doesn't make a ton of sense to me here. Scion of Darkness really doesn't need an anthem to help it once it's hitting. If the idea is to support it I'd make the ability do something along the lines of making the opponent discard (more in color and still feeds Scion like you want to do with this) or returning a creature from your graveyard to hand so you can refuel for the next cycle through the saga.
Alternatively you could use a storage counter similar to the silver counters on Karn, Scion of Urza. It might be unwieldy and it is parasitic but it might be worth doing.
I didn't realize that. Thanks for the correction!
I actually really like that part of it. Let main characters make things worse! Especially when they're in line with the characters flaws (Sorin is irritable, selfish, petty, and usually unwilling to listen to other perspectives)! Payoffs are only satisfying when they're earned and Sorin learning the error of his ways is pretty much the best payoff in terms of plotting we've had in an MTG story in a looooong time.
I honestly think that the way Sorin has been written this visit to Innistraad might be the best magic plot I've ever read. It's not saying a ton but they used what we knew about him, set up stakes based in his history, and played with what we like and dislike about him as a character. It's great stuff from a plotting perspective even if the writing is uneven at times!
Can't help with the first 2 much but with your cube I'd go Carrion Feeder >>>> Carnophage > Sarcomancy.
It just bugs me so much that the flavor on the actual cards is lying about the story they are claiming to tell. The cards are all >90% of players will ever learn about the story. I know it's silly because I really liked the story they've told for once it's just that most people won't realize what's actually going on with Sorin because he barely features in the flavor text.
Edit: Unless something changes this is decidely not what happens. Saying Arlinn interrupted proceedings on a card when it was the combo of Sorin and Sigarda is just so weird.
Thanks for the [p]review as always.