Madoka Magi-ka: Recent Activity
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-19 05:35:34)
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-19 05:35:34)
@jmgariepy You have a blog? Me too! Ashita no Anime is an anime review blog and I intend to showcase my set there once Gatecrash gets released and I don't have to compete with real Magic for quite as much attention. Also because I want to continue polishing it a bit, so I'll be releasing my set to the greater public sometime in February, too.
But if you want to work with me on a "better than basic" article, sure. Sounds like fun. I'll keep playtesting and see if I can find some of the kinks in the design of my "build" lands so I have a little more to say on the matter. I'm a fairly experienced writer myself so don't worry about carrying my end of the discussion, I can express myself quite well. ^_^
Let me give you a little of my reasoning as to why I even decided to try "better than basic." I currently live in Japan and I play four different, very healthy Japanese TCGs (by healthy, I mean a lot of people currently play them). And the resource systems in those games don't rely on just one card type that serves virtually no other purpose than to provide resources to fill 20% or more of a deck. All the cards have a use for some stage of the game. I'm not suggesting turning Magic into Duelmasters (or Kaijudo as it's now called) where every card is also a land, but giving the lands a purpose outside of producing mana I think, plus with my somewhat limited experience playtesting thus far, will make Magic more fun and more consistent.
Now adds 2 mana instead of 3.
Grief Seed is already pretty dang wordy, so I don't know if adding another line that says, "ETB tapped" is such a good idea. It's approaching Mana Vault levels as far as lines of text go. So I think I'll go the Palladium Myr route.
Playtesting some of my other cards shows that even with some of the creative restrictions I'm coming up with, a lot of my designs are undercosted.
It might be fine as is if it just ETBed tapped. As it is, it doesn't matter when or even whether it untaps; the burst of mana it gives you on turn 4 is all that matters. If it ETBTs but the opponent could untap it... well, okay, they wouldn't, even if doing so dealt you about 5 damage.
A -> would be better; they printed Palladium Myr, although that's a lot more killable.
@Alexander: Good. I'm happy to see when someone is able to figure out what they like, and able to design to their tastes. As far as I'm concerned, that trumps any other philosophy of game design I know. :)
Vitenka's not wrong... you are exploring territory both inside and outside the game. May I suggest establishing a new baseline? Personally, I think you should pull the dual-lands forward, call them basic and shoved one in each pack; once players unruffle their petticoats, they wouldn't have any problem accepting the rest of your non-basic design. Arbor looks pretty fair when you could 4x (or more?) Savannah.
I also may want to work with you on a future article for jmgariepy.com on the 'Better than Basic' issue. By the time I got done with my previous response, I knew I had plenty of material to just write an article on the subject... but I'm not a fan of repeating what MaRo says and calling it a day.:-p Nobody learns anything from that type of writing... people just become more entrenched. Since you've got a completely different take on the subject, though, I think it'd be cool if we bounced our opinions off of each other. Not a debate... we'd probably get too petty if we went after the details. More of a point/counterpoint.
I probably won't start working on the article until February, so take your time thinking and designing around it if you want. If you don't want to do a lot of writing, but want your opinion expressed, that's cool. I'm more than happy to do all the writing based on your pointers, then show you the results before posting. I'm a weird guy, because I'm pretty sure either way would be fun for me to do.
As long as everyone has 25 of each and every one of these funnylands; I'd agree.
Given that's not true; I disagree.
But you're certainly able to outclass basic lands. Doing so moves your set firmly into "You can't play this alongside real mtg" territory, though.
I think I've finally put my finger on what I find most annoying about Magic--and it's the basic lands. I got around to playtesting my set yesterday and I can't tell you guys how good it feels to be able to get colored mana off of nonbasic lands that don't ETB tapped and have a useful ability. I know I would play more real Magic if Wizards made lands like this. Most of the time these "Build" lands I've made don't do anything, but when I'm stuck late game and I need anything but a vanilla land, it's so good to know that if I hit a land, I'm not screwed.
Mark Rosewater is so wrong. The mana system as it current is constructed is horribly flawed and I've made something brilliant. ^_^
Moved the "Build" cost to the top of the text box, just like Kicker.
How about CMC and : ? I know about Basalt Monolith, but I wanted control of when it untaps to be in your opponent's hands. What if it was more like Thran Dynamo?
This, of course, assumes you aren't playing a group game with 'frenemies'. If you played this card, I'd untap it for you every chance I could get. It's nice to have a powerful friend... it distracts my other opponents. :)
So it's a Basalt Monolith that damages opponents as well? You know how broken Basalt Monolith was, right? I was using it in the MTGO Cube to cast Consecrated Sphinx or Wurmcoil Engine on turn 4 (well, turn 3 off a Mox).
Because it is a mana source, you should probably use your original wording. I wouldn't let yourself tap it in response without playtesting it first.
Changed the mana ability from "only during main phase" to sorcery speed to match typical magic wording.
Also, does the clause about only being able to activate the mana ability during your main phase make sense for power level? Or should you be allowed to tap this during your upkeep if your opponents untapped it, potentially use your mana on an instant and deal 1 damage to each of them?
"each opponent may pay . If they do, untap Grief Seed." Does this work?
I liked the XYR Fireball too, but I understand it was apparently the most confusing of its printings. I don't understand why, but them's the stats from the people who run the helplines.
Barring a few tweaks here and there, this is the last card for my set of 233 cards plus 20 basic land.
That said...now what? Do I start playtesting them? Do you guys want me to post them all here, or is there a better way for me to get an entire set of cards evaluated as a single unit rather than individual cards here and there?
@SadisticMystic I think the additional cost is easier to understand than a card just telling you to exile a card. Is there any precedent for that kind of effect/cost? Ok, how about this:
As an additional cost to cast Madoka’s Blessing, exile a card from your hand. Put a number of +1/+1 counters equal to the converted mana cost of the card exiled with Madoka's Blessing on each of up to X target creatures.
Personally, I'm more in favor of Y. I always have been. The version of Fireball with as it's mana cost was the first time I understood what that card did.
Does it need to be an additional cost? Mythic status generally goes with cards that are aesthetically pleasing, and Y is one of those ugly things that they never use unless there's absolutely no way to avoid it.
"Choose X target creatures. Exile a card from your hand, then put +1/+1 counters on each of those creatures equal to the exiled card's converted mana cost."
Switched X and Y.
@jmgariepy You're right, switching X and Y will make this card better. Your wording confuses me so I'm going with the wording that was used on the Shoals.
That looks right. Wizards tries to avoid both Double-X and Y... but on a Mythic? That seems fair... though I think "As an additional cost to cast ~, exile a card. ~ targets up to Y creatures, where Y is equal to the exiled card's converted mana cost. Put X +1/+1 counters on each of Y target creatures"
Though, now that I think about it, shouldn't the X ability and the Y ability be switched? If I have a four casting cost creature in hand and two creatures in play, the Y is wasted. I assume more players would be happy to get more counters on less creatures, if given the option.
The last part of this card's ability templates to Chandra, the Firebrand's last ability.
Decided that one X in the casting cost may have been broken so made it two X's. Also figured out how to word the text properly.
Heh heh. I actually designed this as a white card, but my set is almost done and I'm out of rare slots for white. So I flavored this card as someone getting emotionally fired up about someone getting ahead in the game and "catching up" by bringing the opponent back down to size. I dunno if that's a good enough excuse to not make room in white for this card, but I'm so close to finishing my set that for now this is going to stay red. Everyone's comments are much appreciated and will be taken into consideration as I fine-tune things.
I vote for white. It's symmetric, and ostensibly about enforcing (or making up!) a "rule" of some kind.
Changed the wording for the exiled card requirement to an additional cost.