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 2025-12-25 12:39:48)
| Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2025-12-25 12:39:48)
I know "exile matters" but it's still less common that casting a creature. To really make exile a theme of the set, I say be aggressive, and cost this at 1, instead of 2.
Yeah. I don't know what the most common question to Wizard's hotline is lately, but at one time, the number one question was "How does
work?". The good news is that there's an intuitive and simple answer for that question. "X = any number".
Wizards did move to have a lot of X cards pulled out of common... even Stream of Life was an uncommon in 2007-2009.
I think they got over it. It's just hard to notice that, since so many X spells are too good for common anyway. Is Slime Molding confusing to new players? Sure. But so isn't protection. If we sat down at a draft, however, and either Blaze or Slime Molding were commons at that draft, I would take those two cards over any other common I saw. I could be drafting blue/white/black, and I'd auto-pick those two cards, with the intent of playing a couple extra mountains or forest in my two color deck. Why? Have you seen what normal seven casting cost commons look like?
Under NWO, I too thought that X was too confusing for common. It's one of the most questioned mechanics.
Ah. My bad. You're right. I don't know where I imagined that X doesn't go to common. Probably from some kind of outdated design article. Haha.
Hmm... there are common X spells. X spells that deal damage to players aren't in vogue in common any more, but Death Wind, for example, is a common from Avacyn Restored. Enrage and cards that threaten to deal X damage to players are uncommon... but this one is capped by how tough your creature is. It might be fine. It's very strong for common, admittedly, but I don't know if that makes it 'wrong'.
Strange that no one commented on this. I think this should be uncommon (xspells usually don't go into common anymore), but having a flowstone ability that can boost or kill in pure red is interesting.
@Mandroid Is the number too high? Maybe 60 cards? (Half the cards in two decks)
@Mandroid Yes, I'm working on something different for this colorless one.
Nice variant to a concept which already exists. I like.
Will this be achievable?
This seems...
Too powerful. Maybe not in draft since the other cities are all uncommon, but this is nuts in Constructed where you can just go ahead and play this, the rare one and your dual-colored one of the appropriate colors. Hell, I'd even do it in a single colored deck since there is basically no drawback if you do the full 12 of them.
I think you're forgetting how strong Thrun, the Last Troll is. I've also heard that Wolfir Avenger is good. I'm pretty sure that the discussion at hand, though, isn't 'which cards with regeneration are most powerful', though, so I'll drop it.
Should regeneration stop tapping creatures? Hmm. Yeah, actually, I agree with getting rid of excessive rules over time, and I agree that tapping is unnecessary baggage. Should Wizards errata regenerate as opposed to make a new keyword? Well, it's not like they couldn't errata the keyword... I just don't know why they would, besides to keep a good name... except if you brainstormed hard enough, you'd probably come up with as good a name.
I mean, there's even precedent for Wizards doing this... Shroud became Hexproof, Fading became Vanishing and Fear became Intimidate. The three of those caused a stir, but at the end of the day, few people complained... most irritants just preferred nostalgia. However, whenever a rule gets changed in a major way (for example, mana burn is removed, damage on the stack is eliminated, Did you know that 'enter the battlefield creatures' couldn't target themselves once? Man, 2000 was a while ago...) whenever one of those rules has been changed, there's an uproar, and some people stop playing because the game 'has been dumbed down' (which... listen... saying that streamlining the rules simplifies the game... I can't get into that here. Let's just say that response drives me nuts.)
With Lifelink and Deathtouch... Wizards was changing how they approach abilities that work via dealing damage. They wanted those two abilities to match Wither and upcoming Infect and any other keyword that would use that ability. Could they have made new keywords? Sure. But, when they did that, they'd have to explain to a lot of players what the difference was, and, well, a lot of people don't know about the existence of the stack or even that those two used to have a triggered event. You'd need to explain how the game worked before getting to why you had two new keywords floating around.
With 'new regeneration', all Wizards would need to say to players is "When a creature regenerated, it used to tap the creature. That was weird. Creatures that 'reassemble' (or whatever) don't tap, so they're better." I would think more people would respond better to "They made a better keyword!" than "They changed the rules again!"
Well here's the thing. Lifelink and Deathtouch have both had their reminder text errata-ed over the years so that they are no longer triggered abilities. I think that's one of the reasons why Magic has keyword abilities--it allows you to go back and retroactively fix a mistake that exists on a lot of cards in a blanket manner and I think that should be done for Regenerate. If this is to be done officially of course, there would need to be an announcement with the rules update as was done every time a change is made to the rules of Magic (ie- the decision to discontinue mana burn).
I think it would be less of a hassle for experienced players than you think. Heck, from the time when I first started playing Magic casually around Ice Age, I didn't even know that Regenerate caused the creature to tap. And then I don't think it was until Troll Ascetic made waves in standard that someone told me about that additional rule of Regenerate.
I agree it'd be better to find a more streamlined version of regeneration. But I strongly feel that you should use a new word for it, rather than just changing the rules and reminder text.
Remember than experienced players don't read reminder text. Why would you read the reminder text on a regenerate ability? You know what regeneration does, right?
Well, here's my justification. This set I'm designing is an exile set, which means Regeneration is going to be weaker in general. I'm also unconvinced by everyone's testimony that Regeneration is currently at the correct power level since I almost never see it get played outside of limited. The last big regeneration creature that made an impact in standard that I can remember was Troll Ascetic and the last regeneration creature that saw any amount of play in standard was Blight Mamba and since it didn't do much anyways...I think Regeneration needs a boost.
Oh, yes, I've dealt damage to regenerators before just to tap them. It's also a very important thingy for group games. If each of your opponent has a creature and wants to attack you, and you have a Drudge Skeletons... well, two of those creatures will get through.
We had discussion on Void Stuff Saturation.
I once forced an opponent to regenerate his Serra Angel prior to combat so I could push through damage.
How are you going to get the animation to translate to the printed version of the card?
No, that reminder text is not a mistake. It is my goal to make Regenerate less confusing and a more relevant ability. Though, how often not having to tap the creature you regenerate will actually matter...I don't know. What do you guys think?
I was going to say something about Flamebreak, but I guess there's enough little differences for this card to be its own thing.
@jmgariepy Well would you look at that. Magic Set editor uses the wrong reminder text for Recover when it's used on creatures. I'll have to fix that.
"When another creature"? Otherwise, this will trigger itself...