[Assorted] Card Repository: Recent Activity
| [Assorted] Card Repository: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Card Cycles | Factions | Planeswalker Profiles | Color Combinations | Cardset Overview | Related Cards | Fragmented Permanents | Planeswalker's Guide |
Recent updates to [Assorted] Card Repository: (Generated at 2018-10-17 08:29:19)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
Additional thoughts on hellbent/madness. Variant of one-sided Wheel of Fortune/Shattered Perception.
No clue (heh) on appropriate cost/rarity.
Heh. Yes, this is entertainingly playable in Izzet, Golgari, and especially Time Spiral-style Rakdos.
Oh, it's "discard it" - I read it as "discard a card" when I glazed though the card text.
Effectively, it's self-mill, but the card takes a detour through the hand.
Looting allows you to discard other cards than the card you have drawn; if changing the order of card draw and discard is enough to re-define the color between "loting" and "rummaging", then why not a change that entirely removes any informed choice?
You might as well argue that this is a form of rummaging with front-loaded cantrip as vice versa.
The colors would follow the context of the set and a madness-like ability in black-red is an option. IIRC that's the colors the ability had in TS-block - and where it's currently traded for the next Ravnica-based set.
Shouldn't this be, uh, blue? Let's be honest here, the first ability is looting.
I don't know. Still inspired by Whisper Campaign, but a little further off.
see above
Fortunately that's an easy fix; I moved the if-clause to the beginning because I felt I could get away starting the next sentence with a "Then" that way, while having a subclause between the casting and the next sentence felt more like I should use the longe "If you do". But clarity wins out in this case.
So, how I decided on the cost and why my line of thought wass wrong: At first I approximated the base effect at
(Tahazzar pointed out Arc Trail, so I was correct, but I was too lazy to look it up) and I decided to consider the cost for the ability approximately a cantrip, so I put it at 
- at the last moment I decided to be rather save than sorry and add another mana symbol because removal is always a little more tricky.
Did everyone notice my mistake? I forgot to acknowledge the hoop you have to jump through and acknowledge that you shouldn't pay for the cantrip twice if you exile the card the second time.
Since I'm not trying to make this particular spell "sexy" it should still cost
. I also could go for a simple single target variant at three mana, because the scariest part of this is probably the best case being so much better than the average case.
I hope to make the equal first and second cost work through the restrictions the requirement puts on when you cast the spell.
If I test this for a set, I'll obviously test all combinations of increasing, decreasing or stagnant cost. One thing I like about the idea of not altering the cost from first to second casting is that it keeps the combinatorics equal - at five mana you can cast your
spell into a 
upsurge or vice versa, and equally easy you can calculate casting your 
spell into upsurging itself plus a 
from the graveyard. The ideal playstyle for this might be to just get the perfect curve with it, and I want that not to be complex.
I started there and immediately followed your line of thinking: There's no point since Opt & co are the obvious enablers and upsurge.dec already is trying for instants and sorceries anyway...
Thanks everyone so far! A lot of food for thought.
Let's get to the edits I'm already positive on...
If I go over my spells and introduce the updated "ally"/"enemy" wording this might be turned on for any spell cast by your team.
Thoughts?
I hadn't thought of this in advance, but I agree that "You may cast this from your graveyard if/as long as you have..." is clearer about needing to pay for it.
And likewise, I like the mechanic, but I'm worried about the cost of being able to use it. Maybe just a cheaper Upsurge cost and more expensive first casting would do enough to make the pay-off turn work. Although it might be nice if it was distinct from flashback in more ways, but I'm not sure how (is there any possibility of it having flashback, but getting a discount for the CMC of spell previously cast?)
I also note, at first I didn't notice this was any spell, not just instant and sorceries. That's probably reasonable, there's no point having it too restricted, and it may turn out that way anyway (there's probably more inst/sorc cheap cantrips than ones on permanents), but I wasn't sure.
Oh cool, I like where you're going with this.
On cost: That was my first thought, that this was too expensive. But I didn't want to jump on the "make it cheaper" bandwagon before someone had something to say about the mechanic. By the way, I like the mechanic. Good job.
I think something that should be kept in mind when costing these cards is to think of what it would cost to give the card flashback. Because if you presented this card as a spell that costs
and has flashback for 
, it would become apparent to most people that the spell was too expensive. And you still have a hoop to jump through.
Most flashback cards are cheaper on their first pass. Upsurge, as written, has fixed costs. While I understand the simplicity argument, I think that might be a design mistake. The first reason is because it forces you to create unappealing cards. As printed, Lightning cascade probably does cost
. But that's unsexy. If it cost 
with an Upsurge cost of 
it would be much more palatable. Alternatively, if it cost 
with an upsurge cost of 
, the opportunity to 'cheat' the card by discarding it then casting it for it's upsurge cost might be considered pretty damn hot (even if the player is only monkeying around to get an Arc Trail.)
But the other problem with not separating the cost from the Upsurge is that Upsurge cards do a poor job triggering other Upsurge cards. Upsurge needs cheap spells to trigger. It's a challenge to fire a Lightning Cascade into a Lightning Cascade as written. It's much more appealing to fire a Firebolt into an upsurged Lightning Cascade.
That's not to say you shouldn't design some upsurge cards that are expensive to cast and to upsurge. I like the tension inherit in forcing players to shove a few Opt like cards to fire off expensive Upsurge cards. But some people are going to want to just put a pile of Upsurge cards into a deck, add 24 land, and go to town. I wouldn't want to tell those people 'no'.
I think the ordering is what makes it more easily to be misinterpreted. Ie. if Oathsworn Vampire's rules text was "If you gained life this turn, you may cast ~ from your graveyard" instead then the same would apply to it as well. It would make it read out like a triggered ability or something.
When to use "as long as" and "if" is arbitrarily as far as I know (the effect is the same) though there seems to be a convention indeed. I see for example that Hooded Horror's oracle wording has been "fixed" when you compare it to the actual one that appears on the printed card.
It's about past tense, right? Then again, Drownyard Behemoth makes me wonder... Shouldn't it be "~ has hexproof if it entered..."?
I probably have overcompensated on the cost. I wonder whether simple cantrip cost or half cantrip cost is appropriate...
for both castings? 
.
It is a potential 4-for-1 - or at least a way to turn previously favorable blocks into trades.
I require deeper insight before making that call. Do you have the same problem with the text on Oathsworn Vampire or Marang River Prowler?
Notice also how the two cards showcase when to use "if" or "as long as". Reminder text avoids "as it resolves". I pondered "If you do" over "Then" as well.
The keyword made me think you could cast it for free. I think it would be better if the upsurge had a cost of its own that would make it much more flexible as well. Arc Trail for 5 doesn't look tempting even though it isn't that bad given upsurge.
My suggestion for the wording:
The name is uncomfortable close to the surge keyword's name... Given the similarities, is that intended? Maybe "Surge back", you know, flashback, but with surge clause xD ?
Thinking about variants of flashback/jump-start.
See Whisper Campaign.
rarity: uncommon >> rare
See Titans' Fight.
In an ideal world this would trample, but I also like how this spell cares about both high power AND high toughness to maximize the effect.
Not using "lethal damage" etc. wording due to ease of abuse with damage prevention effects.
Replicate-variant
Inspired by Aura Design.
Kinda like Haphazard Bombardment but not so superfluous and more compact.
+"nonland"
Red-white answers (as in variants, not cards you play to invalidate it) to Assassin's Trophy are currently popular.
On the one hand this wants to be an instant, on the other hand instant speed adds so much to this it doesn't add to other spells and I want to keep the cmc down (on a whim, honestly).
For future reference.
Well, to me it seems that you're still iterating on Blessed Soldier. What I mean by wrong direction is that it started out as a fairly simple keyword with 4-line reminder text in Soldier. Now with this it has become a keyword with 3-line reminder + activated ability with 3 lines. Then there's this concept of "+1/+1 Aura token of all colors" that sounds kinda vague and waggy. The activated ability also seems like a thing you have to read 2+ times to get properly. The "the next time this would die, it doesn't" seems more meaningful than "the first time targeted, counter" as well.
The initial concept seems like it could even have evergreen capabilities (ie. Divine Shield from heartstone) while this new with countering and activated abilities is teetering more on the side of "nonsense design" IMO that I would hard time including in a set of mine. It uses a lot of design tools to achieve relative little, which is a bad sign.
Is an Aura that grants +1/1 more complex that an Aura that grants 1-shot hexproof? What is the intended gameplayb to you?
I ask because your comment seems to try to be helpful, but I cannot figure what the critical thought is.
This whole experiment seems like it's moving in the wrong direction. These variations are becoming more and more complex instead of more simpler and/or elegant. Shouldn't it all be about "What is the absolute minimum version that will create the intended gameplay?"