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 03:05:00)
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-19 03:05:00)
In this instance, I don't really care that Mark Rosewater says that life gain should NEVER be red. He and I agree on most things, but we have some disagreements, too (he even disagrees with R&D frequently =P). Threatening cards do all kinds of non-red things (that's one of the big charms of this sort of design).
Breaking Point, Browbeat and Book Burning all have done things red doesn't have access to outside of those cards (outright creature destruction, straightforward card draw, and milling).
I'd count Collapsing Borders as ok even if lifegain is nonred, although I don't know if Rosewater would agree :)
Aww. I always liked Collapsing Borders. Maybe it's the exception that proves the rule.
This isn't mono-red. I just read something on Maro's tumblr about lifegain never being red, no matter what.
LOL, nice name.
Good question. 5 dmg seems about right -- enough that it matters, but not so much that no-one will ever take it. And 2-3 mana seems right: any more and you might as well play lava axe, and 1 would be a bit ridiculously cheap even if the card wasn't that strong.
Judging from Vexing Devil a rare 1 mana card can give an opponent a choice between two 4-5 mana common effects. So this 2 mana card probably wants two 5-6 mana effects. (Very roughly, I'm coming to why this isn't exact.) How much life can you gain for 6 mana? Angel's Grace gains 7 life for four mana, and isn't usually seen as very strong. So I'd suggest at least 10!
The trouble with that is that even then the card may not be that attractive: if I have a pure aggro deck, I probably aim to win before my opponent can significantly attack me, so they probably don't care so much if I gain life, only insofar as once my attack has petered out, if I gain 10+ life I have a couple more turns to draw burn spells before they kill me. But that can slow the game down quite a bit, so it may not affect the outcome that much, just make things slower.
That said, in any sort of race, this would be a very interesting question of when do I play this, so I do quite like it.
I'm also not sure if it's red: red can do anything in exchange for threatening damage, but lifegain doesn't feel that red; it could be red/white or maybe red/green, or possibly black. But I'd leave it as red for the moment.
I really want to push the concept of a Browbeat style card but with life gain. Can I get some advice on what would be some good, balanced numbers for this card? (CMC, damage and life gain all factored in)
Changed CMC from 4gg to 2ggg and reduced the toughness from 8 to 4.
Changed "target creature" to "target creature you control" so you can't exile your opponent's creatures.
Made the effect of the [+1] ability optional by adding "up to one" so that it can be activated when there are no creatures on the battlefield.
Probably. I always check right before I go to bed (which can take up to an hour and a half if I find something good on here).
Yes, "up to". That's the ticket. You have crazy timing with me Dude. I think we hit Multiverse at the same hour every night.
I want to point out that current wording means "Put 0 or 1 counters on target creature." It has the counter-adding as optional, not the targeting. You want "Put a counter on up to one target creature."
It still sits too close to Crusade for me to call fair. I can accept that Mythic is as Mythic does, though.
That being the case, Alexander, I don't think you fixed the targeting restriction as much as you thought you did. It still needs to target a creature... it just now doesn't need to give that creature a counter upon resolution. So you can target your opponent's creatures without fear, but if you play this on round one, without any creatures in play, you still wouldn't be able to activate the ability for lack of targets. Was this the intent? Does anyone have a suggestion on how that can be 'fixed'?
I thinking making the first ability optional is sensible: it doesn't need it from power level concerns, but I think it's still a good thing that people can always activate +1 abilities, since they expect to be able to.
I was going to say the first ability may still be too good, but now I'm not sure: on turn 1, it's comparable to Oran-Rief, the Vastwood, costing an extra card initially instead of costing one land-tap a turn. It's obviously better later on when you can add counters to creatures that are already in play, but it may matter a bit less then. And having other abilities obviously makes it stronger, but then, it is mythic.
Added "you may" to the [+1] ability to let you use it first turn when there may be no creatures on the battlefield.
That's indeed the general rule for planeswalkers. But a 1-mana planeswalker has to be an exception to many planeswalker rules, and I think the "you can always use the [+] ability" rule is a sensible one to vary in this exceptional circumstance.
@jmg: It could break that rule, but from reading about MTG development, they make it so it doesn't happen partly because it creates some feel-bad situations, where YAY I've cracked my first Mythic planeswalker!! And then the first time I try to play him, I finally get him into play!!!, but then I can't legally DO anything with it. Sadface town.
While I agree that this is still too strong (compare it to Leonin Scimitar if you want. I mean, honestly, there are many decks that would be cool just getting a single +1/+1 counter on one of their creatures, and having the opponent waste a Shock or an attack step for .) I do like the synergy of the abilities, and what this card is meant to represent. I'd say something about "[+1] abilities on Planeswalkers shouldn't target your own creatures, since you won't be able to get any counters if you don't have creatures", but this card seems to be an exception to that rule, since 1 casting cost Planewalkers probably shouldn't auto-explode in 5 turns.
I still think it's too strong; I believe this card would get banned in many formats. Also, Planeswalkers are always designed such that you can always use one of their + abilities, even on an empty board.
I don't think WotC mind occasionally printing one-drops that'll have effect in Legacy. They're about the only cards that will.
Sensible edit. This is now a very good creature, but it can at least be chump-blocked.
Reduced power from 7 to 5 and changed trample to haste.
@Cymerdown Mark Rosewater has said repeatedly that Magic is a game that is all about breaking its own rules. I don't see how Wall of Guns is any different than an artifact that makes everyone skip their upkeep or an enchantment that lets you untap all of your creatures and take an additional combat step.