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 00:54:53)
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-19 00:54:53)
I'd agree that CMC 4 is a bit scary for this spell, since it's a counterspell of sorts as well as a mass-evasion and mass-combat trick spell. It's not any one effect that does it, but the flexibility and sum of all the possible uses of it that make it something to really watch out for. It might be ok at , but a card with such a flexible effect has a pretty good chance at getting broken somehow.
Can it have P/T if it's not a creature, though? I thought only creatures can have power and toughness according to the rules of the game.
Hmm, I think the [+1] is too strong in an aggressive deck. For example, I could see this being played as a 4-of in Modern or Legacy Zoo because turn 1 dual + Wild Nacatl, turn 2 dual + Kyubey, the Incubator + another Wild Nacatl isn't too hard to fathom and you've got a 4/4 hitting you on turn 2 (which is much bigger than a 3/3 that can be Lightning Bolted), and by turn 3 you've got 2 4/4s and a 3-loyalty PW on the board, plus whatever else you've got in your hand. I think this would even be too strong at [0].
While I agree with Vitenka, mostly, I would definitely drop this in a creatureless deck... especially one with a heavy artifact base. In fact, I could really use this in the creatureless EDH deck I'm building right now... I'm getting tired of all the Wrath of Gods ruining my fun.
Flipping a couple of comments up - the "Each creature" letsa it hurt shroudy first-strike creatures.
I don't know why this says "each" creature it's blocking. AFAICT, it can't be made able to block multiple creatures by Valor Made Real or any other such effect, as they all only target creatures.
Considering that this can't be saved by Shelter or Stave Off either, and I'd normally rather just have Wall of Denial. I suppose this can be an approximation to Wall of Denial outside those colours.
True, it's firstiest strike. But unless you have a LOT of mana up, Wall of Spears still seems likely to be more widely useful. As I say - it's a good card. I just don't personally happen to like it enough to put in a deck; for four mana I usually want to be doing something other than delaying my opponents medium sized non-evasive creatures.
I was inspired to make this card by some comments Mark Rosewater talked about on his Tumblr today. Saying that walls aren't creatures, they're either enchantments or artifacts. So I set out to create just that.
Does 4 mana really sound high for a blocker that can't be targeted by direct damage or creature spells? The only way to get rid of this is a 4 power attacker or a destroy artifact effect.
I also templated the damage ability in such a way that it doesn't target the attacker, allowing it to get around hexproof and shroud. With a sufficient amount of open mana this could even kill an attacker that blunders into it before any damage can be dealt to this wall if you know how to play your combat timing.
I was assuming that was just funky strange templating, since lethal damage still kills it. If it can't take non-combat damage then, um. It's still an artifact and still not all that tough. I like it, I think it's a good card - but no, I don't think I'd use up a 4-drop slot with it.
Edit: Ok, I had to try it. But I can't find "May block an additional creature" except on other creatures. Maybe in a slow metalcraft deck that wants a blocker?
How about if you factor in that creature destruction doesn't kill this, Vitenka? Would you think about it then?
Ignoring the magic templating stuff... It feels like a Rocket Launcher but it really isn't, it's a colourless Wall of Fire. Which means it's probably only slightly overcosted, even though it's usually pretty weak. Wasn't expecting to come to that conclusion. It's almost always worse than a Wall of Spears and yet.. just sometimes... it's a much better rattlesnake. And Living Wall was a venerated staple of some decks. And although I'd usually prefer the much cheaper Steel Wall, again, sometimes you want to be able to kill.
So, all in all, seems like a good card. It's quite a nasty "Dare you attack into me?" but only if you can keep the mana up. And it's vulnerable enough to not lead to a complete stall.
...I still wouldn't play it though.
OK, I'm sorry the interesting variants earlier got whittled away, but I think the current version with the option to pay for an effect when the land enters is a good design: interesting, useful and simple[1].
I would still just have this come into play tapped (or produce colourless, or be legendary), to line it up with most current non-basic lands, but it's ok if someone doesn't want to use that rule in their sets.
FWIW, come to think of it, if the effect you wanted before was "You can either have this untapped, or have this tapped and pay 2WW to gain 4 life", would that be equivalent to just having it enter untapped, but adding to the activation cost?
[1] Edit: I think it's important that the effects are ones that give an incremental advantage at almost any time. Eg. gain life, damage to players, draw cards, etc. I think it would be a mistake to put too-reactive effects on the lands (eg. damage to creatures), because that makes too many feel-bad moments where you feel obliged to hold the land until later, which is interesting tactically, but probably putting too much emphasis on the lands for most players (and too non-interactive if they create board-altering effects that can't be countered).
Decided to stop being cute with "play" and "enters the battlefield tapped" and just changed it to a simple ETB ability.
Alternatively, you could do like this:
": Put ~ from your hand into play tapped and gain 4 life. You can't play other lands this turn and you can't play this ability if you've played a land this turn."
Which is a bit messy, but... no... I apologize. "As" and "ETB tapped" is a much better alternative. I do find it annoying how a simple etb effect doesn't work well with untapped lands. It goes a long way to explain why they haven't done this yet. I assume we'll see this all in good time because it's good usable space, but it's probably been brought up in RnD twenty times and shot down twenty times for rules confusion/confusing players.
Asking for mana costs in a replacement effect really doesn't work, and it's a subtle fact that no existing cards use such a template, because that requires a window for activating mana abilities, which can get really messy. To pick "Cards that Make You Want to Tear Your Hair Out for $400", suppose you have Opalescence Humility, and Ashnod's Altar against your opponent's Worms of the Earth. You play this land, tapping two Plains and sacrificing the animated Humility for mana, which was the only thing that shut off the ability of Worms of the Earth....EEP?
It would work in errata, but it's fiddly enough and "rules-ese" enough that I think it'd be unprintable on new cards.
Would this work? "If ~ would ETB, you may pay . If you do, ~ ETBs tapped instead and you gain 4 life." Sort of like Balduvian Outpost.
Edit: Oops, Balduvian Trading Post.
Sorry, that doesn't quite work within the rules. You can have Eldrazi-style "cast" triggers on any nonland card, but doing it on lands is much, much fiddlier.
For one thing, triggered abilities aren't "activated". For another thing, there aren't many sane modifications you can make to the act of playing a land. If your ability was written:
> When you play this land, you may pay . If you do,...
Then it'd be fine (although kinda odd-for-the-sake-of-it and should probably turn into an ETB trigger). But that's a triggered ability, which uses the stack; so it absolutely can be tapped to pay for its own ability.
If you want to modify the action of the land ETBing by being played, such that it'll enter tapped, you'll need to use a wording using "As" or "instead". Something like:
> Build - As ~ ETBs, you may pay . If you do, ~ ETBs tapped and you gain 4 life.
That works, for the same reason that Battlefield Forge (Edit: I mean Sacred Foundry) does. And you can't tap it for itself. That's using "Build" as an italicised ability word. Using it as a genuine keyword ability would be rather harder and even more fiddly.
I suppose exiling a creature every three turns maybe isn't too strong. It's a bit like Lux Cannon but with a bunch more restrictions.
@Alex Maybe was too ambitious since I'm also trying to make the planeswalkers in this set flavorful to match the anime. A cost planeswalker still has a good amount of novelty even in a world with Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded being the cheapest planeswalker at 2 CMC. But this set is explicitly designed with the theme of "exile matters" so I really want to stick with the second ability exiling the creature. There's also a subtheme of "sacrifice matters" since the whole block is going to have as few mentions of "destroy" as possible. Maybe if this was a blue card I would be more willing to compromise with bounce, but as it is colorless it's going to have to be either exile or sacrifice. Which would be more appropriate do you think?
Increased casting cost from 0 to 1. Increased cost of second ability from -2 to -3.
@Vitenka. I think arguments can be made for this kind of "strictly better than basic lands." For one thing, you have to spend a lot more mana in green to tutor nonbasic lands like these than you would basic lands. And I disagree that it would unbalance the game because the majority of vintage and legacy decks I see hardly use basic land anyways, so why does standard have to be any different? It still irks me that Ruination never reached competitive status.
@Alex This card's ability is not an ETB trigger, it's a "cast" trigger like most of the eldrazi abilities. But since you can't cast a land, I said "play" since I figured that would be a distinct rule separate from ETB triggers that most other permanents have.
@jmgariepy So based on what I just said to Alex, no. You can't tap this land to pay for its Build cost since you have to pay for the ability before it hits the battlefield and then it enters the battlefield tapped. Even if you have an Amulet of Vigor you still can't use this land to pay for its Build cost because you payed for the ability before it entered the battlefield (unlike Rupture Spire). The fact that this is causing confusion shows that I need to change the way Build is worded. Let me think on it and I'll get back to you.
I'm not a fan of 'better than basic', but I'm won't argue with someone who disagrees with me on the subject. I will say, however, that not having a basic land type is probably more powerful than having a basic land type, sac lands not withstanding. Plains is probably the exception, since Plainswalking is very rare, and Cryoclasm hasn't been in the core set for a couple years.
What I really wanted to mention was that this card... it may or may not be able to tap for its own ability, and that's rather awkward. I assume you mean "As you play this land" instead of "When"... that solves some of the issues, since you can't activate it while the card is coming into play ("When" sets up a trigger you can respond to), and the land tapping in the process is a bit more intuitive. But even when fixed, I assume some players will try to tap it for its own ability anyway, because that's what players do... they try to look for an advantage, and if they don't know how something works, they assume that things work to their advantage. Maybe that's fine... the land taps itself, which should be a good hint... but it does make me wrinkle my nose.
If you make any land better than basic, all land is better than basic; and you then have to rebalance the whole game. (((Run and Hide))).
Still; I do miss the proper dual lands.
Yeah, Wizards' policy on "no card strictly better than a basic land" is one of those most frequently disagreed with by designers on this site (and elsewhere). I happen to agree strongly with Wizards' policy here, but you're free to disagree here :)
I think the change from sac to an ETB-triggered ability is quite reasonable.
I like this. It's a Battlegrowth every turn, but only once per creature. In fact it's pretty much Vigean Hydropon with an occasional Hunter of Eyeblights moment. I don't know why the Hydropon cost 3, but it's probably too good to get it for .
So the [+1] is nifty. The ultimate is fine as an ultimate for a -cost PW: a limited Shriveling Rot has some use, but needs some setting up. The problem is the [-2].
If you really want this to be -cost, the [-2] needs to change. The [-2] is the kind of card advantage that people tend to want in a planeswalker, but it's too good to get repeatable card advantage for . (Note that Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded doesn't have any abilities that give card advantage; I suspect this is precisely because card advantage on a cheap planeswalker is just too powerful.)
Change the [-2] to something else and it would probably be playable as a Vigean Hydropon. Which is probably about all you can ask for on a -cost planeswalker.
I'm wondering what would be weak enough for the [-2]. Even "Return target creature with a +1/+1 counter on it to its owner's hand" would probably be a bit too good. Maybe if you had that at a cost of [-3], that'd work.
Ok, so it's not as broken as other broken cards; it was still a zero cost "Put a +1/+1 counter on a creature every turn"; which costs with an 'artifacts only' restriction on Energy Chamber. As it is now; I think I like it. Brings out the alternate use better, though it still makes a weenie deck pretty strong. No idea how to cost this; it still seems too good to be a zero cost.