Logic: the Processing: Recent Activity
| Logic: the Processing: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Foreword |
Recent updates to Logic: the Processing: (Generated at 2025-05-09 14:40:44)
| Logic: the Processing: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Foreword |
Recent updates to Logic: the Processing: (Generated at 2025-05-09 14:40:44)
You win the game if you control at least twelve total lands and scenes--at least four of each--at the beginning of your turn.
The land side is going to be played much more often. And the sequence you'll think about during a game.
IT would be a casting cosrt as normal, for the enchantment front side. With text "You may play this transformed as a land" or similar.
I agree it's much more natural that way around.
The linking word is 'for' in this case, the phrase is play on "not for sale".
Lands have no cost. So how would you spell out the reform cost?
So its reading comprehension issue. Sagas have terrible reminder text.
The problem is that your reminder text doesn't explain the ability well enough and dude1818 justifiably expects this ability to be intended to track information in a way that has severe logistical issue or memory issues.
The problem has already been pointed out by Tahazzar: The reminder text needs to be more specific.
Since a player doesn't get to read the magicmultiverse-comments, the reminder text has to do that job - and so far the reminder text does that job poorly.
A great way to help with that issue is exiling the card during one of the two stages.
Okay, so I realize that it's a drawback, but Azorius Signet was kinda good just being a ramp spell even if you couldn't chain it. While the supertype reduces abuse, it doesn't prevent these particular cards from being format warping.
Are there some hidden puns in these card names? "Naught"-ic?
As an experience from Pyrulea you probably want the land to be on the back - it's really simple and easier to grasp and having the mana cost on the site that needs to be paid helps as well.
At least in a vacuum.
More generally, I am a big fan of landmorph (morph, but the face-down card is redefined to be a colorless mana producing land).
As people said - it's casting a 7-cost, and then winning five combats after that. With +1, so that's probably 10 life you've hit them for, unless you were slipping an Ornithopter through. And after stealing their third land or so, they can't even slightly keep up with you.
If you're able to do all that to an opponent, you've almost certainly already won. The exception would be playing against some kind of lifegain deck that steals lands back somehow.
So the "You win if" clause is just massive overkill. So it would be better to have something that triggers sooner, to put the opponent out of their misery. I mean, this costs 7 - it's allowed to be really good! The simplest change would be to make it let you win on the third steal instead. But even that feels trinket-texty.
Maybe just have it steal a lot more land each time? And rely on the opponent scooping?
Alternatively:
Another issue with this design is (as far as I recall the scene card type correctly) that this just slaps a really large number down there - that number tells me that this card really doesn't want to be a scene. It wants to be an enchantment.
So how about making it something that cares about being a scene with a big destiny number? How about just making it a true finisher? Just a big number down there and something like "At the beginning of your upkeep, each opponent loses 1 life, discards a card, sacrifices a creature, then sacrifices a land." if you want a war of attrition or "At the beginning of your upkeep, sacrifice ~, and each opponent loses X life, discards X cards, sacrifices X creatures, then sacrifices X lands, where X is the number of destiny counters on ~." if you want to just turn this into a game ender that summons Yawgmoth in his Death Cloud form onto the battlefield.
That's also creating a sense of urgency and each of the variants is a call-back to one stage of the Phyrexian Invasion and creates its own sort of urgency to unite your opponents to unite against you and stave of the worst before your next upkeep.
Maybe it would be cool to add "Creatures you control can't block creatures attacking ~" and create a one-turn minigame in which your opponents are really encouraged to stop the invasion rather than just taking out the player, but that's just one option to turn this around.
I would even suggest something like "At the beginnig of your upkeep, you win the game." on a scene, but I don't think that the Phyrexian Invasion is the correct creative treatment for this effect - maybe something more like a scheme to become god-like e. g. Nicol Bolas during the Conflux.
The issue is that hitting the opponent five times with a 2-power creature (and likely other creatures over the course of the twelf turns this is setting up) would win you the game without the other two clauses of the card, so this card sets itself up as a win-more effect.
Now if the trigger condition was not dealing damage, but e. g. attacking then the alternate win condition would be relevant since it can grind down an opponent without needing to break their defenses.
On a similar note an effect that causes loss on both sides without actually increasing damage would further this, so why not deathtouch (or wither/infect. I'm not certain of the mechanic suite of this particualr set without looking it up) over +1/+0?
A good alternate win condition is something that can win you the game without you already achieving the better part of a standard win condition.
Obviously you could combine this with Annex etc. to speed up the clock, but that's not the story you are selling with this - if you want to make this a Johnnie piece, you make the alternate win condition the stronger focus and remove all the unnecessary "help" and go straight Chance Encounter.
Alternatively you can avoid the "alternate" win condition and replace te arbitrary static threshold with something that aids you in the actual war of attrition e. g. "At the beginning of your upkeep, you may return a permanent card from an opponent's graveyard to the battlefield under your control. If you do, each player loses 1 life for each permanent you control that player owns."
This also means in multiplayer you can be political about it - it would probably also be cool to have an abbility like "Whenever an opponent loses the game, you gain 1 life and draw a card for each permanent that player owns you controlled as that player lost the game."
This still gives you a payoff for "winning" the invasion. And sinc your new win condition is flavored aroundd you winning the war of attrition by raising their dead against them or taking over their destroyed holdings you don't need to add an ability that symbolizes the carnage onto the card - instead the mechanics encourage you to build a deck around the card that fills up the opponent's graveyard.
I don't see how this is not good narrative gameplay or what "safe space" means here at all. I never said, make a boring card, but yours is not even not "safe space" as I understand the term.
then you tell me why any card would cost 7 or more mana, if everybody could always win before then, or by hitting opponents 'only' 5 times.
+1/+0 is to give your creatures better chance to defeat the opposing armies. but it doesn't guarantee that your creatures survive combat either. thus casualties on both sides.
obviously it gives your opponents a sense of urgency. you are the biggest baddest villain the multiverse has ever known. they'd better be terrified.
someone put on their safe space hat and neglected narrative gameplay.
Agreed with Vitenka. Someone put on their creative dept. hat and never took it of to consider this as a game piece.
Let's not forget to mention that the +1/+0 means that this likely requires that you dealt at least 10 damage over the course of five turns.
Hmm. If you can hit your opponent five times; and cast a seven cost sorcery... why didn't you win already?
Stealing lands is just... incredibly rude too.
For clarity, by the time this goes off, you're on at least 12 mana. So the last clause on the card is, basically, "I was too busy humiliating you to win"?
I guess it also works as a stong "Kill me" signal in multiplayer.
Not quite. It's better vs black -X/-X and worse vs black/white "destroy" effects. Basically 100% of Wraths work against it rather than 10%. And a handful of weird colour-pie bleeds or breaks like Pongify, Beast Within, Fleshpulper Giant. This does seem far too similar to indestructible, even so.
(Also the power level here seems absurdly high compared with Darksteel Myr, but that's somewhat irrelevant in a discussion of the mechanic.)
Bit it is literally "Indestructible, except to black effects; they can hurt it"
Yes it was influenced by your post but also inspired by obsolete keywords like protection.
Indestructible is almost too good and oppressive. That's why it's not seen in large amounts.
Resilience tones down the power level, but also protects against effects that indestructible can't. More importantly is replacing several other defensive abilties that have been abandoned through the year, to balance out offense vs. defense.
Wait. Did you come up with that before or after I posted recently about indestructible as a potential blue-black evergreen mechanic?
I don't see a big benefit in switching around which of the two black major forms of removal works against this (-N/-N vs. destroy).
Indestructible has the benefit of a name that resonates well and clearly implies the mechanics.