Soradyne Laboratories v1.2: Recent Activity
| Soradyne Laboratories v1.2: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
Recent updates to Soradyne Laboratories v1.2: (Generated at 2025-08-18 20:16:26)
Ha, yeah, that's just how mill is always written out. I've never looked at the Infraction Guide in detail, but I suspect you might actually get a game misconduct for touching your opponent's library outside of shuffling, so they probably just spell it out that way so that people don't casually perform the action.
Sorry, yes, jmg understood me and I think SFletcher misunderstood me. I admit my phrasing was very confusing. When I said "damage-still-happens", I meant that the damage is still dealt but has a different effect, as people have subsequently stated.
The point about defending player performing the action is an interesting one. I can see that technically it should be the case, but I might be tempted to have the reminder text as I suggested earlier and have the Comp Rules spell out in full that it's actually defending player who does the flipping. I don't know who the people are who get uptight about letting opponents touch their cards, but I wouldn't think they'd be sufficiently fussed to complain about that without also finding out that the detailed rules say the defender is the one to touch the cards.
Why is this a 'Protocol' Drone? Aside from a potential C-3P0 reference?
This could be a Library Drone, Laboratory Drone or something like that: Card Catalog Drone.
OK, that makes a bunch of sense--I'll look at those Runes with that in mind: truthfully, they're the most awkward and thus in need of fixing. Should take a couple days but I can gear something up.
Also: I have not seen Mad Men.
@Alex - Don't forget that it has to be phrased such that the defending player performs the action:
"This creature deals damage to players in the form of the defending player putting that many cards from the top of his or her library into his or her graveyard."
That's a really silly sentence, but it would maintain the same basic functionality, while still allowing for damage-related modulations.
I don't know that Wither and Infect are sufficient precedent for that being how it should be done, as Wither and Infect are two very similar abilities that explore similar flavor, but I also don't know that there's much value in maintaining the current replacement effect. Regardless of which form, you would still have a contingent of players who fail at reading reminder text and believe that the card deals damage AND mills players.
That's a fair point, and some of the other frequent commentators can attest to the fact that it was considered early on. Here's the challenge though: How do you word it?
The result of trying to make it work that way was incredibly cumbersome, and we eventually settled on what you currently see. The thing that really made me certain we got it right with this templating comes down to a confirmation in two words:
Undead Alchemist.
Wait, I'm a tad confused over here. As far as I'm concerned, changing Mindstrike to a damage type doesn't increase complexity, except in very rare scenarios (i.e., damage prevention or redirection... both of which don't appear as a repeatable effect in common nowadays). It certainly has little to no effect on point 2, which makes me think you might be a bit confused SFletcher. Perhaps you're thinking that Alex and I are suggesting that the creature deals damage in addition to milling the opponent? I am definitely not for that at all. We're suggesting that Mindstrike becomes a type of damage, in the same way that Infect deals damage to players in the form of poison counters. It's actually kind-of-sort of how the rules do this sort of thing nowadays (See also: Wither, Lifelink, Deathtouch and Infect). In fact, many players (and, I'd guess, most experienced players) will just assume that Mindstrike is a type of damage, not read the card carefully, and treat it as such.
I can understand the flavor perspective, if you're major beef happens to be "Well, I don't like calling it a type of damage, because this is supposed to be espionage, not damage," but I got to admit, that sort of reasoning seems a bit misguided to me. The vast majority of the time, people won't notice the difference, so the flavor implications will be lost on them. The rare times they will notice the difference, however, is when the interaction comes up in a game, the player finds out that, no, what they thought was true is wrong, and they get a little upset because of it.
I'm opposed to the idea for two reasons:
1) By making it a replacement for damage, it changes the way an opponent has to think about blocks. Combined with the Feint ability, this makes for an environment where engaging your adversary, i.e. combat, is not necessarily just about doing damage.
Debronia, the home nation of Soradyne Laboratories, is a very modern setting with no outward enemy to deal with (at this point in the story). The social and strategic environment is one of suspicions and ulterior motives. So from a flavor and thematic standpoint, Mindstrike helps to paint the combat element of the game as something more than just trying to smash face, it's also a means of gathering intel, of preventing an opponent's effective actions, of diverting attention from your other plans.
2) Modeling the creatures to serve a more narrow purpose – milling – makes them fit a more narrow build style. In a draft environment, this helps make the mechanic work because fewer player will grab random Mindstrikers based on general body. You're taking them because you intend to go for the mill, and if you wind up NOT going for the mill, your Mindstrikers really only serves the role of a blocker or a weak diversion.
Disincentivizing Mindstrikers among normal creatures actually makes them stronger in drafts since players taking them can get them in higher densities. See Infect for an applied demonstration of this.
Yeah, actually, I just assumed that Mindstrike was dealing damage. I'm very much for it, too, since it increases interaction with damage prevention, instead of thumbing its nose at it.
Could you make Mindstrike into a "damage-still-happens" ability rather than a damage-replacement ability? They're all the rage these days, you know, with wither and infect, and with lifelink being retrofitted into that model.
Something like "Mindstrike (This creature deals [combat] damage to players in the form of putting that many cards from the top of that player's library into his or her graveyard.)"
A note on the UtiliRune Auras: This cycle is one that I feel illustrates the "consumer goods" end of Soradyne Laboratories really well, but a large part of that comes from the ability to give them "World's Fair" type names. I actually want the names to sound a little dated and cheesy, because that's how we feel about brands from the post-war era now. "Electrolux". "Phone-O-Scope". "MagiKwik". "Toast-O-Lator". Things you'd find in your grandmother's basement. Ideally, the art for these cards would even look like the ads from that era.
If Don Draper were selling this set, how would he market the auras and equipment?
Honestly, I don't really understand why this isn't just Nature's Claim. Yes, this wording allows you to emphasize the importance of aura and equipment in the set, but I don't know there needs to be a better Nature's Claim just for the sake of flavor.
Possible names: Darrowhill Charm (harking back to the land.) Farmhouse Charm (Evoking a horseshoe-or the shoe of some other animal that works the land/is hoofed-minotaur?)
Given green's role in the set-and the hint in the name-the idea is that this charm should be about the truth-recovering wizards to reclaim it, generating mana to cast spells to probe it, counters on creatures to investigate it.
Perhaps 'Reporter's Charm'? As with the miner, a specific kind of hat could be invoked in the image in order to convey they object.
Definitely wants some flavor text to help tie in the name. I can easily make the connection but a quote from Broodmore: "The quality required to excel in science or battle are the same: relentless focus."
Something like that.
Why Giant as the creature type? And how do Giants work with Wizards?
I like the name and I like the ability, I'm just curious about the Giant/Wizard connection.
What if this was called 'Restoration'? Disengage works but there's the +3 life part that doesn't quite jibe. Whereas restoring something implies bringing it back to its true nature (something green wants to do) as well as making it as shiny as new (the +3 life).
Maybe 'Granite Ridge Charm'. I know it seems pedantic but I'm realizing that a few more things that ensure a sense of place are a good thing. I can see this item, a piece of rock taken from the Ridge, shaped and enchanted (or honed) and sold in stores.
The name suggests a little 'Brawndo! the Thirst Destroyer!'
I kind of want to go "Swagger Spice": Strong enough for a human, but made for a goblin. /horrible
Maybe 'Battle Cologne'; if you're close enough to wash it off, you're too close. For rhyming fun: Warzone Cologne.
"Kreik's confidence booster had a family name, but the soldiers just called it Warzone Cologne"
It can't have a Slith-ability because it never actually deals damage to players, as Mindstrike replaces that function with a mill-effect.
It could have the Vulturous Zombie ability, but then you would still be looking at something inappropriate for Uncommon.
Can the art for this be of a guy outside hunking over a fire with a small frying pan?
If it was when it hit the opponent; I probably wouldn't have blinked.
What if it simply had a diffrent trigger? Such as, "Whenever an effect causes an opponent to put cards into their graveyard from their library, put a +1/+1 on this creatre."
I got to admit that I don't disagree with SFletcher, partly because this sort of card depends on the environment it is in, and partly because I have no idea if this card is fair or not... which means it needs testing, not nerfing. Mindstrike in general reminds me of Bushido... and this creature, to me, vaguely looks like a 2/2 that gets Bushido X, where X is the number of times it attacked. That's good... but more of a Vampire Nighthawk 'I can't believe they printed that card' sort of good. And every keyword wants at least one of those. If SFletcher wants to draw that line on early black in this set, that sounds fair. As long as he's cool understanding that close to all Mindstrike decks and about 30% of the non-Mindstrike decks will pack this card... and few opponents will play red if black is dominant with this card.
As for it not being a black ability... sure it is. Black likes to attack. Maybe not as much as red, but it gets in there. All creatures use +1/+1 counters. Just because there hasn't been a card that's rewarded a black creature in this specific way doesn't mean there can't be.
I probably would've overlooked it if this was a 1/1 but the point that the ability as it stands is more green should also be taken under advisement. The only other creature in the color that works similarly that I can think of is Szadek but even that has to hit a player.
Szadek also sucks but that's not the point; the point is that this comes down very early and by turn 4 cannot be removed except by a large/group blocker or mass removal, not to mention eating nearly everything that one could put out there.
There are no 3/3s (or larger) for 2 in B that don't have a drawback of some sort, even at uncommon nor can I think of any mono-B spells that mill 3 cards for 2 mana. Now I know Mindstrike is a B ability for the block but as I said: if this was a 1/1, I probably wouldn't have blinked.
M_Houlding's suggestion of giving it the illusion drawback is a very good one, I believe and it would allow this creature to remain at it's p/t and ability levels.
I've been banging on this one for a day or so and then:
Miner's Charm.
We already know the Coal Road has miners and it's all black there. Plus as an image, the old headlamps could make for great artwork.
Considering that you've already put "skittering" in the name, is there any reason this shouldn't be a naturally large creature with the illusion/skittering drawback? (i.e. "Whenever this becomes the target of a spell or ability, sacrifice it.")
I don't know that it's especially problematic in its current form, but I also don't know that it needs to be a constantly growing thing, especially with an effect that I believe only exists on the aforementioned Raging Ravine and the just-released Predator Ooze.
If this were a 4/4 with the illusion-drawback, I think you'd have an interesting scenario where the creature is aggressive, blocks well, but your opponent won't really want to "waste" real removal on it because mindstrike is somewhat innocuous in its impact on the gamestate. The illusion-drawback also has an interesting relationship to the rest of your set, as it defines a subset of cards that don't play well with the aura/equipment subtheme prevalent in your white/blue lineup.
It's very quickly going to be effectively unblockable (well, un-anything-but-chump able)
Dunno, try it, I guess - I've not really got a gut feel for how much of a discount mindstrike is worth.
Besides, uncommon gets plenty of "game-breakers", and I'm still not convinced thi counts as one.
I think it would be fair to consider any Innistrad block draft or sealed pool with up to two copies of this as a reasonable test, since the set does have several mill enablers already.