Multiverse: New Mirrodin: Recent Activity

2012-11-21 04:22:34: jmgariepy commented on Exterminate

5 mana black-red used to make sense before Murder. Dropped to splashable 4 cost (but changed it to sorcery speed). Still worse than Murder, but an acceptable alternative.

I do wonder, though, if Wizards is aiming for a "Hard creature kill requires double black mana" in the same way that Cancel requires double blue. Hard to tell right now.

2012-11-21 04:20:30: jmgariepy edited Exterminate

2012-11-20 10:13:22: Alex commented on Ungestated Idea

Curious! And reasonable; it's always a cantrip, and can be rather better as a response to something being bottomdecked.

2012-11-20 05:59:37: jmgariepy edited Ungestated Idea

2012-11-20 05:59:06: jmgariepy edited Ungestated Idea

2012-11-20 05:57:41: jmgariepy commented on Ungestated Idea

Hole filling, I noticed that the Raise Dead slot hasn't been used yet. I'm not sure this qualifies for that slot, but I'm going to run with it.

I've been trying to find a way to slip this mechanic in the set, but wasn't sure how. I've got a bunch of cards in set that put things on the bottom of the library... that's going to lead to a sub-set of players who will want to 'cheat' by taking cards from the bottom of their library. I can think that's unfair, and make them unhappy, or I can give them what they want.

It's not like this mechanic hurts anyone... I just wasn't sure how to flavor it. But this seems good... it plays with black's tradition of tutoring, and dredging things up from where they aren't supposed to be taken. Most importantly, though, it isn't an abusive engine. That's the main thing I want to avoid.

2012-11-20 05:53:30: jmgariepy created the card Ungestated Idea

2012-11-20 05:21:24: jmgariepy edited Pluck the Weave

2012-11-20 04:48:07: jmgariepy commented on Ibok's Prototype

Hmm... my intent was similar to Alex's method. You should be able to play this in any two color deck and go big with it. That said, I'm not sure how to not lead people down the wrong path... I can see why, Vitenka, you assumed the different colored mana needed to stay different... I just can't figure out how to stop that thought process. I guess I just need to remain receptive and let drafters play with it, with no imput from me, to see if this is a common problem.

As for the stats... they're morphable. This card has a high likelihood of having a different casting cost and p/t based on the needs of the set, so I'm not too concerned with what's fairest right now.

2012-11-19 17:20:11: Vitenka commented on Ibok's Prototype

Oh; I was reading "Spend only different" to have memory. So you'd need {b} {u} , then {r} {g} , then {w} {?}

2012-11-19 17:13:13: dude1818 commented on Ibok's Prototype

+1/+1 is definitely sufficient. Artifact creatures shouldn't get good P/T pumping; even Steel Hellkite costs {2} to get +1/+0.

2012-11-19 17:10:07: Alex commented on Ibok's Prototype

Oh, it certainly can go +6, or +8, or +10. In a {b} {u} deck, I can pay {b} {u} to activate this, then do that again, then do that again 3 more times. Same in a {w} {u} deck. That's giving rather more efficient power pumping to several colours than they normally get.

2012-11-19 15:41:34: Vitenka commented on Ibok's Prototype

Very efficient - but you can only do it at either +2 or +4; +1 and +3 are unavailable to you, can never go +5 or higher?

Doesn't seem too horrible.

2012-11-19 15:38:00: Alex commented on Ibok's Prototype

Yikes. That'd suddenly be very efficient. The only time I've seen pumping that efficient has been on Shades (Nantuko Shade etc) and on Ursapine. This is a little common; I'd guess it's not intended to be a powerhouse.

2012-11-19 13:19:59: Vitenka commented on Ibok's Prototype

It is fun. It seems excessively restrictive for not being a huge boost - could it be +2/+2 instead?

2012-11-19 11:58:58: Alex commented on Ibok's Prototype

Fun little card.

2012-11-19 01:30:29: jmgariepy commented on Ibok's Prototype

I kept tripping over the wording. Don't ask me why, but I just couldn't get those two sentences out of me. My brain just goes blank sometimes. That said, I wasn't against the idea of people being able to activate their ability, and having nothing happen if they didn't pay two different colored mana, so I tossed in that. It isn't standard, though, and people don't like to learn things that they don't need to learn, so thank you for the correct wording.

2012-11-19 01:28:43: jmgariepy edited Ibok's Prototype

2012-11-18 17:14:48: dude1818 commented on Ibok's Prototype

I don't understand why you worded this way. Why not simply say that you're required to spend different mana?

" {2} : ~ gets +1/+1 until end of turn. Spend only mana of different colors to activate this ability."

2012-11-18 10:24:07: jmgariepy created the card Ibok's Prototype

2012-11-12 05:07:45: jmgariepy commented on Pluck the Weave

Good. Glad the only one who got confused was me, when I over-analyzed. Switched to Dude's suggestion.

2012-11-12 05:07:06: jmgariepy edited Pluck the Weave

2012-11-11 20:44:15: dude1818 commented on Pluck the Weave

I think "two mana of different colors" reads better, but I don't see anything wrong with card.

2012-11-11 09:31:13: Vitenka commented on Pluck the Weave

Uh - no, I was reading this as a variant on Force Spike and pals; only with a colour restriction. Though, saying that, a counterspell that can only kill mono-PAID spells, (rather than just mono-COLOURED spells) is an eeenteresting idea. But a different one.

2012-11-11 09:00:24: jmgariepy commented on Pluck the Weave

Ah. I get the impression that 'differently colored' did not work. I was asking for an alternative to Mana Leak, but I think you thought the card requested that your opponent paid two different colored mana when he cast the spell.

Well, that's awkward. And, now that I look at it, that's a hard distinction to notice, since you just turned the word "pays" into "paid" in your own mind and got a different spell. Hmpf. I'm not sure how to resolve this, but I'm thinking I'm going to have to sneak " {2} " into the text, even though it will make the card read sloppier...

2012-11-11 08:32:34: Vitenka commented on Pluck the Weave

Yeah; I think "differently coloured" works.

Though now you've got me wondering whether paying two mana from a {r/w} source is acceptable - it feels like it shouldn't be.

2012-11-11 07:10:41: jmgariepy edited Pluck the Weave

2012-11-11 07:10:17: jmgariepy edited Pluck the Weave

2012-11-11 07:09:07: jmgariepy edited Pluck the Weave

2012-11-11 07:08:03: jmgariepy edited Pluck the Weave