Thursday, September 3, 2020

CCDD 090320 - Lightning Berserker

It always bothered me a little that there wasn't much point in blocking Ball Lightning. Absorbing a few points of damage isn't normally worth losing an X/2 or X/3 creature, so the Lightning was basically just a burn spell that could be "countered" by first strike or instant-speed removal. Eventually I decided to make a version that didn't have that problem.

Rare versus mythic is a hard call, but for some reason this felt mythic to me. I think it's the high upside and the awesome feeling of getting to whack your opponent again and again if they don't have a way of interacting. It's much more of a Timmy than a Spike rationale (though this happens to be very strong against control decks that play at sorcery speed).

11 comments:

  1. Viashino Sandsprinter tells me that this could be common and stronger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, I forgot about that one! The main difference with Lightning Berserker is that it doesn't have to be recast every turn.

      Delete
    2. What's the functional difference between the second block of rules text and "~ can't block"?

      Delete
    3. Oh, I see-- Giant Solifuge is similar and arguably better. Yes, that's a good point. This version has some room for ETB / death trigger synergy, and it dodges sorcery speed removal (including sacrifice effects / board wipes), but overall I agree it plays similarly (and I didn't realize that).

      Delete
    4. Another way to look at it is, if Ball Lightning were printed for the first time today, would it be a rare?

      Delete
    5. No clue. My mind goes to the common Lightning Shrieker but that was a special case in many ways. If the mana cost on Ball Lightning was 2RR rather than RRR I'd have no problem saying uncommon, I think.

      Delete
  2. Good question about why ball lightning exists though. It might be more interesting to have "trample haste" and "sac" on DIFFERENT creatures. I guess, the interesting point is forcing damage through when they're low enough on life they have to block something.

    But making the blocking decision more meaningful any turn but the last one, I guess you could give some other bonus, e.g. cards or mana. Or make it cheaper but with the downside that damage done to it is done to you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Doesn't this creature just not recur if your opponent blocks it? Since the "if you do" points to sac-ing at end step condition. Maybe I am misunderstanding a little bit. I would gladly lose a creature to keep something like that off the field forever. Although I guess against control-y decks that dont run man creatures, this would be a slam dunk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the point. The whole issue with ball lightning cards is they are just basically burn spells. This is trying to introduce some gameplay.

      Delete
    2. Right, it's intentional that one can interact with this effectively by blocking or otherwise removing it. As zefferal pointed out it ends up being pretty much like a normal creature that way.

      Delete
  4. Adding a saboteur trigger could also incentivize blocking. Something like

    Ball Lightning up the Stage 2RR
    Creature-Elemental R
    Trample, haste.
    Whenever ~ deals combat damage to a player, exile that many cards from the top of your library. Until the end of your next turn you may play those cards.
    At the beginning of your end step, sacrifice ~.
    5/1

    The impulsive draw trigger could be changed to a fixed number, which would shorten the rules text, but also decrease the incentive to block. I’m not 100% sure on the mana cost/power toughness numbers.

    ReplyDelete