LibraryPlane: Recent Activity
LibraryPlane: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Skeleton | Underpinning Theme | expensive stuff matters theme | About LibraryPlane |
Recent updates to LibraryPlane: (Generated at 2024-04-30 06:34:53)
This is a good ability for common... possibly a cycle. It's just screaming to be a part of a 'color matters' block. In normal magic, though, it's a bit of a waste of space. Without heavy support, I assume this card would be the butt of a few snarky comments by frustrated players.
Maybe your set could have a 'black makes things black' theme? Add an enchant creature that gives a bonus and happens to make a creature black as well, and a creature that taps to make another creature black and gives intimidate perhaps? Throw in 7 cards in block that care about whether a creature is black or not and voila: minor mechanic.
Cool, 11 more blue commons to go.
I'd forgotten about Plagiarize. I didn't anticipate that kind of templating. Can 'you draw a card instead' do the same job as 'instead that player skips that draw and you draw a card'?
I was overreacting when I left that comment about Deceiver Exarch. Really I just wanted to whine about it. Why does it get flash? Is deception flashy? Felt like it was unnecessarily cramping Atemporal Near-Things style, what little of it there is.
I like your 'target creature is blocked' suggestion, jmgariepy, but it's better suited for another card. There's not really anything to like about this card. Bad name, bad flavour text. Everything about it must go! But I appreciate the help all the same.
A nice common version of Plagiarize (which also proves that your instinct was correct that the one-or-more version was not common).
Yeah, the one or more is definately not common, but as it is now I think its fine at common. It is an interesting variation but as its a sorcery its not overly powerful.
Given a couple of years, we'll forget that Deceiver Exarch exists, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. If it really bugs you, though, why not make it a 0/5 or 0/6? A few more Flash cards that have a purpose, but don't blow out the opponent can always be usefull.
Also, to represent the fact that the card is a split moment in time, you'd think that the creature wouldn't be able to attack or block, but I can't construct how this would be a usable card without giving it some other ability. Maybe when it enters the battlefield, target creature is blocked, then it leaves the battlefield? That seems kind of funny to me, but costs less than ...
Yeah, that's the kind of thing the card concept requires. But this kind of top-down design is useless if it won't resonate with anyone. I think the only course of action is to ditch it and come up with something new. But then I haven't made much progress thinking up a replacement. It's tough to work flash into a blue creature, especially one that doesn't have flying.
changed the card with reference to Camruth's suggestion
Your replacement effect suggestion is quite a bit better than what I have here. Do you think that could stay at common? What if I limited it to just one draw rather than 'one or more cards'? My instinct says that 'one or more cards', though considerably more interesting, has too much swingy-potential for common. I'd like to keep this one common; I see myself running out of room in blue uncommon.
changed it in line with Camruth's suggestion
My original templating for this card used 'as an additional cost to cast this spell, discard a card.' But I changed it because I didn't want this spell to be weak against countermagic. This was before I came up with the card concept though; now I think it fits pretty well, as it is my experience that if you claim to have undermined an axiom and are proven wrong, you lose big. Also it'll make my soft counter (not yet designed) more significant.
Do you think it's too weak compared to cancel? I'm designing this set so that players will always have plenty of cards in hand, so it will often happen that one can ditch a useless land for a draw. I'm a little fuzzy on the power levels of contemporary counterspells, as I haven't played since way back when 4 counterspells where automatically included in any deck running blue.
You could add an activated return to hand ability to represent it no longer being where it was during the next discreet moment???
As this card is currently worded it would definately interact interestingly with cards like Howling Mine, Font of Mythos, Razormane Masticore, etc. The potential card draw of this card "as-is" is huge for a common, even at .
I certainly think that Fatigue with the cantrip rider is the better way to go though I would make it an Uncommon for .
Alternately, you could go with a replacement effect... "The next time target player would draw one or more cards, you draw that many cards instead". Not specifically draw step theft but blanket draw theft instead.
You could go with the..."As an additional cost to cast this spell, discard a card. Counter target spell. If you do, draw a card."
This means you can only cast it if you have another card in hand to discard but you only get the draw if the counter is successful which would make it a strictly worse Cancel what with mandatory discard and conditional draw. Seems to basically do what you want from the card though.
It's fatigue, but better. I wanted to make a more interesting card advantage card than just another divination knockoff.
There's a good chance I'll change that second line into 'draw a card'. Written this way, the card conveys draw step theft better, but I can't justify the inelegance of it unless I have a few cards like howling mine to make draw steps more significant. That said, I do intend on making cards along those lines (but then I am a little doubtful that I'll be able to pull them off).
Not sure about the templating; I was looking at wanderwine prophets, but I thought 'additional' sounded more appropriate than 'extra', as in paradox haze.
Also, I'm not sure about UU. This is slower than divination so it ought to be cheaper. But UU is a pretty big colour commitment. Then again, 1U seems too powerful, and completely eclipses fatigue. I'm leaning to UU because I figure this isn't a Limited turn-two play anyway, so it's not important that it work with the kind of aggressive curve that takes a mana cost of CC to be risky.
I looked up 'if you do' on gatherer. The rulings on academy rector are ambiguous. It says 'you do not have to find an enchantment if you don't want to'. Is this referring to the fact that when it is put in your graveyard, you MAY exile it, thus triggering the tutor, or does it mean to imply there is a hidden 'may' after the 'if you do'?
If 'if you do' has a hidden 'may' in it, then the templating is wrong for this card. I want it to force you to discard then draw, not be a strictly better cancel. But even if that's not a problem, I'm still not happy with the templating, as it seems to me that if the only card you have in hand is Deny Axiom, weird things might happen. Maybe you counter the spell then nothing else happens since you can't discard. Or you counter the spell, can't discard, but draw anyway.
I'd prefer if this spell couldn't be cast unless you have an extra card in hand to discard. But the only way I can think of adding that kind of requirement to the card is with an awkward 'cast ~ only if you have two or more cards in hand' clause.
This used to be a 2/2 flyer for 3. I changed it to match Tome Ferret, and also because a gadfly makes more sense at 1/1 (though I suppose history's gadflies typically hit harder). It does seem weaker than Tome Ferret though, and I may give it haste to compensate.