The Commander sets and other supplemental sets tend to break the color pie more often than others, probably because they have less oversight from MaRo.
Edit: I just realized I was thinking of Chaos Warp, not Beast Within. New Phyrexia bled all of the colors toward black. Look at Elesh Norn, for example.
Picture would have a mortally wounded eagle after he's pulled out some sort of hidden crossbow and loosing it at an enemy that had turned his back. In the background, other actually dead eagles.
I really wish I could say "Destroy all hands". Added planeswalkers to the chopping block. This at least means whatever deck youre playing to take advantage of this must be using something other than planeswalkers to break the symmetry.
Compared to In Garruk's Wake it's still balanced. I might have gone too far with this.
Making the caster discard=creatures of their's that got destroyed will usually be 0 or 1, but=all creatures destroyed is a pretty huge drawback (still possibly interesting space). I might make it "each opponent discards a card for each creature they controlled destroyed this way" and 7 mana.
Well I made it symmetrical but I still feel like that wouldn't touch on it's problems. If you're casting a board wipe, as you said, it'll be in your favour. Usually wiping out 3 creatures on the opposing side and you won't really want to do that if you have more than 1 creature. Decks with creatures probably just won't play this.
Well, it's 6 mana. So by then they probably have 2 or 3 cards in hands tops. The board obviously has at least 2 or 3 creatures on it; or you wouldn't have bothered to cast this.
If they don't have a small hand, or creatures in play - they haven't been casting stuff and you win anyway.
So yeah. Make it at be symmetrical hand discard, and it looks fairer. A 6-mana board sweep is mean; but not hideous. One that leaves them with no cards; but you with cards; is just impossible for anyone except blue to guard against.
They'd have to have a whole board of creatures. But yes, that was the idea of this card. You believe it should cost more?
I mean if it they have a board, you assume they've put their hand on the board, and if they have cards in hand it means they haven't committed to the board right?
WOAH. This is totally brutal, since it will frequently be leaving people with no hand and no board -- an extremely difficult situation to come back from.
I like the idea behind the mechanics here - a card that's explicitly good in the early game.
But in the late game, this is a dead card. Why, therefore, would I put it in my deck? Especially when it's flat out just an Unsummon that you sometimes cannot use.
So yeah; problem here is that both mechanics on the card are coming across as a negative.
How about phrasing it as an upside, instead: Return target card to owners hand. If they have 6 or more cards in their hand, exile it instead.
Or, less powerful and more blue: UEOT, target creature cannot attack or block. Initiative - return it to owners hand.
That said, I'm not sure which way around this should be. Should the restriction say lots of cards in hand or not a lot?
Initiative is more common in the early game when your opponent is more likely to have cards in hand. Thus if you lose initiative later in the game, this card will be useless as your opponent will be near empty handed right?
But if you make it that they need low cards in hand then it may lead to counterplay wherein you hold cards in hand to ensure you can't be Disperal Coup'd. Do you think that'd be better?
The Commander sets and other supplemental sets tend to break the color pie more often than others, probably because they have less oversight from MaRo.
Edit: I just realized I was thinking of Chaos Warp, not Beast Within. New Phyrexia bled all of the colors toward black. Look at Elesh Norn, for example.
Beast Within is a color pie break and shouldn't have been printed
I could increase the cmc but beast within did.
That is some long reminder text. Why not "As an additional cost to cast this, you may reveal a card that shares a color with it from your hand?"
These colors don't get to destroy creatures or specifically planeswalkers. I think you need to template it like Fatal Push.
Am I allowed to get away with templating like this? I feel it should make a token creature as well, like Beast Within or Aura Mutation
Nerfed P/T. Added bounce without Init. Added bounce buff with Init.
Avenging Arrow
Picture would have a mortally wounded eagle after he's pulled out some sort of hidden crossbow and loosing it at an enemy that had turned his back. In the background, other actually dead eagles.
I really wish I could say "Destroy all hands". Added planeswalkers to the chopping block. This at least means whatever deck youre playing to take advantage of this must be using something other than planeswalkers to break the symmetry.
Compared to In Garruk's Wake it's still balanced. I might have gone too far with this.
Making the caster discard=creatures of their's that got destroyed will usually be 0 or 1, but=all creatures destroyed is a pretty huge drawback (still possibly interesting space). I might make it "each opponent discards a card for each creature they controlled destroyed this way" and 7 mana.
--CF
Well yes. I was angling for "All players discard that many cards".
Or heck; why not go for the exciting "All players discard their hands."
Well I made it symmetrical but I still feel like that wouldn't touch on it's problems. If you're casting a board wipe, as you said, it'll be in your favour. Usually wiping out 3 creatures on the opposing side and you won't really want to do that if you have more than 1 creature. Decks with creatures probably just won't play this.
Well, it's 6 mana. So by then they probably have 2 or 3 cards in hands tops. The board obviously has at least 2 or 3 creatures on it; or you wouldn't have bothered to cast this.
If they don't have a small hand, or creatures in play - they haven't been casting stuff and you win anyway.
So yeah. Make it at be symmetrical hand discard, and it looks fairer. A 6-mana board sweep is mean; but not hideous. One that leaves them with no cards; but you with cards; is just impossible for anyone except blue to guard against.
They'd have to have a whole board of creatures. But yes, that was the idea of this card. You believe it should cost more?
I mean if it they have a board, you assume they've put their hand on the board, and if they have cards in hand it means they haven't committed to the board right?
WOAH. This is totally brutal, since it will frequently be leaving people with no hand and no board -- an extremely difficult situation to come back from.
--CF
I like the idea behind the mechanics here - a card that's explicitly good in the early game.
But in the late game, this is a dead card. Why, therefore, would I put it in my deck? Especially when it's flat out just an Unsummon that you sometimes cannot use.
So yeah; problem here is that both mechanics on the card are coming across as a negative.
How about phrasing it as an upside, instead: Return target card to owners hand. If they have 6 or more cards in their hand, exile it instead.
Or, less powerful and more blue: UEOT, target creature cannot attack or block. Initiative - return it to owners hand.
That said, I'm not sure which way around this should be. Should the restriction say lots of cards in hand or not a lot?
Initiative is more common in the early game when your opponent is more likely to have cards in hand. Thus if you lose initiative later in the game, this card will be useless as your opponent will be near empty handed right?
But if you make it that they need low cards in hand then it may lead to counterplay wherein you hold cards in hand to ensure you can't be Disperal Coup'd. Do you think that'd be better?
I deleted my comment because I didn't see Link's.
Woops. Forgot to change the cost