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 2025-06-28 17:42:22)
| Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2025-06-28 17:42:22)
With "Memory" being the major mechanic of this set I'm designing, I needed a returning mechanic since it's R&D's policy to include a returning mechanic every set (with the exception of RTR) and it had to be something that helped Memory. So Recover isn't going to be as much of a drawback in this set as it appears in a vacuum.
I think (((Another Chance))) has some really interactive qualities as well since its recover trigger combos with the card's text.
I'm also designing this set as a nod to my favorite Magic set of all time--Odyssey. Odyssey is the set I first started playing for standard and I loved the puzzle challenge of working with Threshold, Flashback, Incarnations and Madness.
Well, Alexander does have some precendence to work with when using recover. I kind of doubt Wizards would use that mechanic again for a little while, since I think it caused a few more nose wrinkles than nods... and I do think it's important to note that it comes from an expansion with intentionally anachronist design... but most non-desingers don't think it's weird to return a mechanic that some people liked. Actually, I'm in the camp of liking Recover, because I like working with stress, even though I'd avoid designing around it myself because I know most players do not like stress.
That being said, I think if one was to recover Recover, you'd need to have it do a few new backflips to get the "I like new things" group on board, and diminish the voice of the "I don't like drawbacks" crowd. Maybe a heavy flavor resonance? Ooh... or maybe a "When you Recover"? Or possibly an "If this is exiled from your graveyard" beneficial effect, so that the down side is mitigated...
The problem with recover is that as soon as a creature dies, you must either return this to your hand or exile it. Recover makes it too easy to fail to remember triggers; that's why beneficial triggers now get "You may".
Added an image.
Well, Reciprocate was uncommon... and they did make a full framed player's reward card out of it, expecting the card to end up in a lot of tournament decks... but it never caught on. I don't know what sort of lesson one should take from that. Evidently the Future Future League thought it was a powerful, flexible card... but it didn't see the type of play that Condemn got...
@Vitenka This was meant to be a better version of Avenging Arrow but with some restriction to balance the cost. But I forgot about Reciprocate, so I see I needed to up this card's power.
removed "damage to you" and made it just, "damage."
Gut feeling: This seems about right; and quite flavourful.
Hmmm. Exile rather than destroy; and can hit (big) pingers... but attackers only after they've dealt the damage.
I can see this. It's a lot cheaper than Avenging Arrow; but that 3 damage requirement is a reasonable restriction (and avenging arrow is crappy)
Oh! Hah! Reciprocate. Which is this but without the restriction (but uncommon).
I like this keyword.
It doesn't seem like there's enough exile to support Memory. I see like 1 Recover card New Arrival Kyouko & a couple of white rares. Possibly Kumano, Master Yamabushi type effects in red, and more generic exile in white. There could also be "self-mill" theme in blue, except exiling your own cards.
Changed "destroy target wall" to damage. This set is trying to use as few destroy effects as possible.
I suppose I should complain Tunnel; but it's kinda needing a refresh. It's a real shame there's no mana burn any more, that would make this card just about perfect.
deathtouch changed to first strike
Something not yet touched on, as these comments are more focused on the nature of equipment sub-types and the like, is that granting deathtouch as reward for equipping this creature is one of those subtle design traps people fall into.
That is to say, nearly any equipment that grants power increases (as you would expect from an offensive weapon like a sword) will push this creature's power to a point where having deathtouch is redundant. They do still put deathtouch on high powered creatures every so often (like Grave Titan and Harvester of Souls), but I'd suggest something equally flavorful and on-color that also consistent gameplay relevance (like first strike, to represent a "quick draw" concept).
Yes, I was hinting at an equipment with "Sword" in its type line when I made Vengeful Sayaka as some of you guessed. I wanted to try doing something that Wizard occasionally does by referencing cards that don't exist yet in other cards that have either been spoiled or already released.
I think the first real example of this practice was Shield of Kaldra which referenced Helm of Kaldra before Fifth Dawn was released.
What do you guys think? Is this design space worth exploring? I would want all equipment printed in the past to be updated with types to fit the new rule of course, but Wizards have proven they're not above going back and modifying old cards to fit with current designs, so I think it could work.
It's like a more specialized version of equip, which is why you could design a card that without it's ability is identical to Warpath Ghoul in CMC and power/toughness.
Mm. But it does raise the question of whether you design cards for the way you would like Magic to look, or do you design each card to be the best it can be, given the way Magic exists. I used to do a lot more of the former before designing on Multiverse. Now that my cards are up for individual scrutiny, however, I don't do things such as make white About Face style cards, because I know that, despite how I think White should have that ability, the first comment will be "White doesn't have that ability".
Actually, now that I think about it, I think a little of both nowadays. It's just now, I preempt the obvious response with a sentence explaining why I think white having About Face (to use the same example) is fine. So, now that I've said a bunch of nothing... Hey, Alexander! What's your intent? Is this card supposed to assume that equipment has a subtype going forward, or is this for all cards that say "Sword" in their name (Which may sound awkward, but is actually pretty reasonable... barring the fact that some swords are called scimitars, i.e.)
(Oh, also, while the card may have some rules hiccups, I also think it's pretty cool)
Equipment could have further subtypes (the type line would be a bit cramped and technically it would be subtypes of artifact, not equipment) like "artifact - sword equipment". So you could do that for this set.
It's probably best just to make this "while equipped" -- that's hopefully specific enough people will get the sense of the character (and lots of equipment are swords).
It would also be possible to say "if this creature's power is increased by an equipment" but probably too nasty in the rules.
It would be possible to go back and add a section to the comp rules saying which equipments are swords, but almost certainly not worth it for one card.
Or Worldslayer.
Annoyingly, although it is utterly perfectly clear what you mean by this - equipment doesn't have subtypes like 'sword' so this wording would probably need to be something like the ugly: "As long as ~ is equipped with an artifact with sword in the name, it has deathtouch"
Whch is now too wordy for a common. And STILL won't trigger on Leonin Scimitar
Reduced casting cost from
to 
. Same as Warpath Ghoul.
@SadisticMystic Thanks, good to know. Updated.