Weekend Art ChallengeClick through to see this weekend's art and the design requirements for your single card submission, due Monday morning. Every submission warrants feedback, which I will try to provide, and which everyone is welcome to provide as well.
If you choose, you may use that feedback to revise your submission any number of times. I will post and review the most recent submission from each designer some time on Monday, life permitting. To help ensure I recreate your design accurately, please use CARDNAME instead of ~ in your submissions.
Design a card that lets Spike play mind games ala Gifts Ungiven or maybe Pain's Reward (Thanks, Jules). Alternately design a card that reads and plays perfectly for this art, but still works well as a Magic card. For bonus points, do both.
Gifts Unridden 3R
ReplyDeleteInstant
Target player gains control of each permanent you control. Whenever a permanent that player controls becomes tapped this turn, gain control of it at end of turn.
Noli equi dentes inspicere donati.
I'm not seeing how to reach equity (much less profit) with this, short of floating enough mana for a big Gigadrowse, but that's clearly Johnny territory. What am I missing?
DeleteTargeting yourself for a mass-Bazaar Trader is one thing. Drop a Curse of the Nightly Hunt or Grand Melee first and you can turn this into an Insurrection. Presumably you can use this in some places where Donate would be effective.
DeleteMostly, though, you're tempting your opponent to try and go all-in with the resources you just gave them; or forcing them to stall for a turn, or you're kingmaking in multiplayer.
I think that this can steal and give lands would make it super-annoying. I can imagine a lot of new players not realizing it and being pounced on.
DeleteThat temptation's unlikely to work when they have all your lands and they can always just go for it next turn when they won't have to give you permanents. I'm not convinced this is a fruitful direction for a spike-y design, but at the very least it ought to be an enchantment so that you'll gain control of something.
DeleteIf I control everything, why can't I afford to wait one turn to use it?
Deletemind gaaaames
DeleteNo, really, though, a big splashy effect that really only does anything for you if you can Jedi Mind Trick your opponent into destroying themselves is probably not something we want in Magic, and this is a poorly-tuned iteration of that effect.
Gifts Unridden 2R
Instant
You and target player may exchange control of any number of target permanents. You each draw a card.(Both players must agree on permanents exchanged.)
Forbidden Love {1}{B}
ReplyDeleteEnchantment (rare)
Privately choose two nonartifact creatures controlled by different players. (Note their names and put that under Forbidden Love.)
When one of the chosen creatures dies, reveal your choice. The controller of the other creature sacrifices it. Sacrifice Forbidden Love and draw a card.
I like the flavor, and could see something like this in Conspiracy.
DeleteWhat happens if a player controls two creatures with the same name?
The name thing (and the actual mechanics of playing this card in general) is problematic. I love the concept, though.
DeleteYeah, choosing a specific creature without marking it isn't an enforceable thing, and if you go just by names than getting two creatures out by the same name is a problem too.
DeleteNEW IDEA!
DeleteFeign Generosity {2}{B}??
Sorcery (rare)
Target opponent searches your library for a card and casts it without paying it mana cost. Then you search your library for a card and cast it without paying its mana cost. Shuffle your library.
Too Johnny?
DeleteNo, that's very Spikish and very awesome. I'm already mentally trying to break it in a control deck-- Fated Retribution maybe? Plasm Capture? Counterlash? The order in which the spells go on the stack is a little bit weird, but also makes this card much safer.
DeleteI have to confess, I was thinking they would resolve their spell first and then you yours (because that opens up more room for cleverness), but you're absolutely right it would resolve in the opposite order. That's safer (and that safety may be necessary to balance the card), but this confusion is bad and the card needs to make it clear. Reminder text?
Delete(Your spell resolves first.)
Ugh.
I think the reminder text solves it, and I like the idea. There's probably a solution in the templating to save it.
DeleteI think Feign Generosity is severely broken. You run it in a deck with four Emrakuls and various rituals that let you power out an Emrakul on turn 1. Even if they cast an Emrakul of their own, you get your extra turn first and swing, annihilating their Emrakul (and putting it back into your library) in the process.
DeleteBan Emrakul?
DeleteI say that flippantly, but I'm entirely serious. Any card that ruins so many other cards isn't good for the game.
Less bold options include changing 'cast for free' to 'put on the stack' or 'put a permanent OTB."
DeleteThe permanent option is interesting. At that point it's kind of like a more balanced (?) version of Show and Tell.
DeletePermanent OTB is interesting. "Put a spell onto the stack" is a really, really weird way of trying to circumvent cast triggers, and I'm not sure that's a road worth going down.
DeleteI'm sure you can play with the benefit side to find the most fun/least broken iteration, but I would make sure the cost is at least CMC=4, as the speed with which this ends the game just isn't that fun. Omniscience for 2BB seems a lot fairer than 2B. Further testing could push it all the way up to CMC=6, I'm not sure!
DeleteThe free casting seems too dangerous to make it through development at any remotely castable cost. Can we use the Praetor's Grasp effect instead?
Delete{3}{B}
DeleteTarget opponent searches your library for a permanent card and puts it onto the battlefield under his or her control. Then you search your library for a permanent card and put it onto the battlefield. Shuffle your library.
In legacy, that's playable, but probably not *too* strong. Griselbrand, Hive Mind, or Omniscience at 3B will be enough to win the game through your opponent's copy nearly 100% of the time, but it's CMC=4 and needs some deckbuilding around it, so that might be fine.
DeleteIn Modern, I imagine there's something you could do by giving both players an Omniscience on turn 4, but the strongest option might be Karn, -3, exiling the opponent's Karn.
To make the card more interesting, I would add "with a different name".
Consuming Jealousy 1B
ReplyDeleteEnchantment - Curse Aura
Enchant Player
Enchanted player has "Whenever a permanent enters the battlefield under an opponents control you may exchange control of that permanent and a permanent you control that shares a type with it. If you do, you lose 3 life."
Made me think of this idea as well, though it does not fit the art:
DeleteArchfiend of Envy BBB
Creature - Demon Incarnation
Exile CARDNAME from your hand: Gain control of target spell you dont control. You lose 3 life. Put CARDNAME into play from exile under target spell's controller.
4/5
Im not exactly sure this works, but the idea is that for you its just an efficient vanilla beater, but if your opponent plays something that you reallllllllly want, you give him your jealousy and gain his card instead.
Perplexing Chimera?
DeleteWhy would you enchant an opponent?
DeleteHow is this powerful optional ability a curse?
Can it just be a global enchantment?
Archfiend is neat. Why is it so cheap?
Archfiend was supposed to be 2BBB
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDiplomatic Deception B
DeleteSorcery
You and another target player each exiles the top four cards of their library. Then each player secretly chooses Split or Steal. If both players chose Split, each player may put two of the cards exiled from the top of their library in this way into their hand. If one player chose Split and one chose Steal, the player who chose steal may put all cards exiled from the top of their library in this way into their hand. If both players chose steal, do nothing.
actually they would need to be exiled "Face down" to make this card work way better. so the card would be
DeleteDiplomatic Deception B
Sorcery
You and another target player each exiles the top four cards of their library face down. Then each player secretly chooses Split or Steal. If both players chose Split, each player may put two of the cards exiled from the top of their library in this way into their hand. If one player chose Split and one chose Steal, the player who chose steal may put all cards exiled from the top of their library in this way into their hand. If both players chose steal, do nothing.
Trouble with prisoner's dilemma here is that one player has invested a card and the other hasn't. As the other player, I want to choose Steal every time, because I either get four cards or no one gets any (and my opponent is down 1).
DeleteWhat if it was a cantrip?
DeleteThat removes the bias, which is huge. It also pushes us from 9 lines to 10, both brutal. It changes the fundamental question to:
Delete"Do I expect to benefit from drawing two cards now more than my opponent?"
If the answer is 'no,' you should steal. If the answer is 'yes,' you have to guess how your opponent answered. If you think she answered 'yes' and that she's wrong to have done so, you should split.
So it's much better, but steal is still usually the correct answer.
That's my analysis. Could be off.
Delicate Dealings B
DeleteSorcery
Target player discards a card. Exile cards from the top of your library until you reveal a card of the same type. Target player may chose to lose life equal to the number of cards exiled this way. If they do not, put all cards exiled this way on top of your library in any order.
Any reason the second target player can be someone other than the first?
DeleteDo we want to restrict either target to an opponent?
I could discard my only artifact, choose not to pay life, and reorder my entire deck.
Ah very true. Lets go with
DeleteDelicate Dealings B
Sorcery
Target opponent discards a card. Exile cards from the top of your library until you reveal a card of the same type. The chosen opponent chose to lose life equal to the number of cards exiled this way. If they do not, put all cards exiled this way on top of your library in any order.
I'll probably try to find a cleaner implementation later, but for now:
ReplyDeleteEnticing Offer 2UU
Sorcery (R)
Exile the top card of target opponent's library face down, you may repeat this process any number of times. Choose a creature that player controls, he or she may have you gain control of it. If he or she does, that player puts the exiled cards into his or her hand. Otherwise, you may cast any number of nonland cards exiled this way without paying their mana costs.
I like this idea a lot, but the implementation does need some cleanup. For one thing, this reads "2UU: Mill target opponent out unless they have an instant-speed combo kill." It's also potentially broken in multiplayer, where you can collaborate with an opponent to give them a (mostly) free Enter the Infinite. Luckily both of these issues can be fixed with a first sentence that's actually shorter and cleaner.
Delete"Exile up to seven cards face down from the top of target opponent's library."
Cool. Can we target the creature, so it's established what the stakes are before we begin? If you got to look at the cards as they are exiled, it seems like that would open up great bluffing/reading potential.
DeleteAny way to make what happens to the cards symmetrical?
Take 2:
DeleteEnticing Offer 2UU
Sorcery (R)
Choose target creature an opponent controls. Exile the top card of its controller's library face down, you may repeat this process up to seven times. That creature's controller may have you gain control of it, then reveal all cards exiled this way. Whichever player doesn't control the creature may cast any number of them without paying their mana costs.
Text is probably still too long, but gameplay's better. I'd love to make the stopping condition "as long as that creature's power is greater than the number of exiled cards" but that would make the text even longer.
Soul Mate 1GG
ReplyDeleteSorcery (Rare)
Name a creature you control, then search your library for a card and exile it face down. Target opponent names a card. If the exiled card shares a creature type with either of the named cards and doesn't have the same name as either of them, you may play it without paying its mana cost.
Inspired by Jay's submission. It's pretty complicated, but I tried to make it as simple as I could. Very weird with Tribal. Feedback welcome and appreciated.
DeleteCan this be named A Horse of Another Color?
DeleteI like it. Name changed to A Horse of Another Color.
DeleteCan we make the opponent name a creature card? Having them choose something without a creature type when they don't have any idea what you're getting feels wrong.
DeleteThat aside, having to confirm creature types of cards that aren't in front of you feels like a hassle, maybe just:
"Choose a creature you control, then search your library for a card and exile it face down. Target opponent names a card. If the exiled card shares a creature type with the chosen creature and wasn't named, you may play it without paying its mana cost."
I'm not sure what you're referring to re: making the opponent name a creature card, but I like your version a lot better anyway-- thanks! New submission:
DeleteHorse of a Different Color 1GG
Sorcery (Rare)
Choose a creature you control, then search your library for a card and exile it face down. Target opponent names a card. If the exiled card shares a creature type with the chosen creature and wasn't named, you may cast it without paying its mana cost.
Oh, and if this is not too late... "Then shuffle your library."
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteChosen Destiny (rare)
ReplyDelete3WW
Legendary Enchantment
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, exile a card from your hand face down.
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a fate counter on CARDNAME.
If you would lose the game, instead you may sacrifice CARDNAME. If you do, reveal the exiled card. If its converted mana cost is the same as the number of fate counters on CARDNAME, you win the game. Otherwise, you lose the game.
Ramp into Chosen Destiny, put a 1cc spell on it, concede next turn. Or resurrect Phage or cast all the Phyrexian mana spells. Or play Final Fortune.
DeleteConcession doesn't technically work, as your permanents are no longer in the game as you concede. But playing this+Lich's Mirror with Warrior's Oath+Final Fortune sounds fun!
DeleteConcession causes you to leave the game, which in turn causes you to lose the game. If you leave the game, you aren't the owner of anything in the game anymore, so you can't have any effect replace the game loss.
DeleteI like that Johnny has an avenue into this card. Chosen Destiny + any land + any Pact (then choosing not to pay the upkeep cost) would also do the trick. Is 3WW too cheap for half of an instant-win combo that leaves you extremely vulnerable to instant-speed removal? (If your opponent Naturalizes this card in response to Final Fortune, you just lose.)
Very cool. The fate flavor is cool (though more part of green's philosophy than white's), and I could also see this with the flavor of outsmarting your opponent and them falling into your trap (this flavor wouldn't need to be legendary). Anyway, very cool card.
Delete"if you would lose the game, instead you may sacrifice CARDNAME. If you do, reveal the exiled card."
Deletecould be
"if you would lose the game, reveal the exiled card."
Greener Pastures [4GW]
ReplyDeleteSorcery [Mythic Rare]
Separate all creatures controlled by you and target opponent into two piles. That opponent chooses one pile and gains control of all creatures in it. Then, you gain control of all creatures in the other pile. (Attached cards and counters remain attached.)
So... I don't play any creatures and I get to take half of yours? I don't like the incentives that creates!
DeleteGood point. Hrm.
DeleteOne option would be to mandate you have creatures by saying the opponent must control the same number of creatures.
Hrm.
"Separate any number of creatures you control and the same number of creatures target opponent controls into two piles."?
DeleteThat seems to work.
DeleteSquire of the Open Pasture {1}{W}
ReplyDeleteCreature - Human Knight (u)
As long as an opponent controls more lands than you, CARDNAME gets +2/+2.
1/2
I like that as a new white effect.
DeleteThis encourages players to mana screw themselves.
Deletemind gaaames
DeleteI like cards that encourage unusual play patterns; in this case, in 99% of cases it makes more sense to play your land before you attack, but here, it may be more advantageous to attack first.
DeleteWhat I don't care for are the unelegant numbers. A 1/2 that gets +2/+2 feels really weird. Why not another +1/+2? Or +2/+1 to make it a square 3/3?
I agree with Evan. +2/+1 sounds good, or (if the Squire callback isn't important) maybe 1/3 and +2/+0.
Delete2/2 +1/+1?
DeleteCertainly an option. I was going to say that it was a little above the curve in Limited at that point, but then I saw that it's uncommon.
DeleteI see your points but stand by my numbers. +2/+2 makes the upgrade worth the paying attention to, and a 1/2 is just strong enough that you don't hate yourself when it's powered down. 3/4 is the new white body!
Delete(This is my submission.)
DeleteName: Horse Trading
ReplyDeleteTBD
First attempt
DeleteHorse Trading 2BB
Sorcery (R)
You and target opponent reveal your libraries. Starting with your opponent, both players chooses a permanent card from the others deck and puts it onto the battlefield under his or her control. Shuffle all libraries revealed this way.
Inspired by Feign Generosity, but I think I've designed it in such a way that instead of being broken with Emrakul it would actually be a strong hoser against decks looking to sneak it into play. In the right deck this is probably just Path to Bribery, but bribery was never terribly strong in standard and this card has more potential in eternal formats. I really like it in EDH, where the political nature of Horse Trading comes more into play and you're less likely to be able to build around the restriction of playing only non-permanents.
Was hoping for something like this.
DeleteIs it still black?
What other color would it be? Previous effects like this have been blue (bribery and acquire), but I'd argue that those effects are miscolored. Black is the color of plucking things out of libraries. It's also the color of Capitalism.
DeleteThe symmetry of the effect is such that I could also see some justification from white. The problem there is that the flavor of the effect is always such that this will be build into a deck where the other player usually gets the rawer end of the deal, as per the flavor.
Thus, black?
Maybe 1UB?
Deletehttp://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/78968578840/what-makes-a-card-like-bribery-blue-and-not-black
DeleteSo:
Horse Trading 3UU
Sorcery (R)
You and target opponent search each other's libraries. Both players choose a permanent card from that deck and put it onto the battlefield under his or her control. Then each player whose library was searched this way shuffles it.
I like this lot. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a way to tweak it for multiplayer madness that doesn't make it unreadable, but I can't think of anything better than Order of Succession's wording, which I'm not quite comfortable sticking in booster packs.
DeleteYes. Honestly, I like it as is for multiplayer because it plays off of the second meaning of the name: Political Horse Trading. I think it'd be fun in a Zedruu deck where you can play favorites by giving away goodies to your opponents in exchange for Truces. You could make some kind of crazy, symmetrical Jace, Architect of Thought ultimate where you got a card from everyone and everyone got a card from you, but that would just have to be so expensive and probably immediately end the game in any larger multiplayer game.
DeleteMind if I shrink "Then each player whose library was searched this way shuffles it." to "Then both of you shuffle your own libraries."?
DeleteI see your argument for black or blue-black here and for Bribery as well. I mean, I made Feign Generosity black.
Shorter:
DeleteHorse Trading 3UU
Sorcery (R)
You and target opponent search each other's libraries for a permanent card and put them onto the battlefield under their control. Then those players shuffle their libraries.
"Under their control" is vague, but it's good enough for me / Design.
DeleteYeah, I stuggled with that:
DeleteHorse Trading 3UU
Sorcery (R)
You and target opponent search each other's libraries for a permanent card and put them onto the battlefield under that player's control. Then those players shuffle their libraries.
Choose whichever wording you feel is less ambiguous. As near as I can tell there's no precedent.
DeleteWhat happens if there are no premanents left?
DeleteHorsy's choice 2BB
ReplyDeleteSorcery Uncommon
Choose two creatures target player controls. That player sacrifices one of them and puts 2 +1/+1 counters on the other.
"We can afford to keep only one of them. You choose."
I feel like I've seen a very similar design somewhere before, but I can't think where. I like it. A couple minor notes:
Delete-Something like 1B is probably a better cost for this. It's worse than most spot removal because of the restrictions and choice.
-To avoid awkward corner cases, I suggest the template "Choose two target creatures controlled by the same player."
Cannibalize
Deletehttp://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=5118
Yep, it is similar to cannibalize (that must have been my subconcious inspiration) but you can give the choice to the opponent. Indeed we could go for a lower cost and modify the templating. This version of cannibalize has more mind games potential however.
DeleteGiving the opponent the choice makes it a lot worse. I'm also not sure I see the mind game aspect. Won't they always choose to just sacrifice the weaker creature?
DeleteWhat are you dropping the cost to?
DeleteCan I spell it "Horsey's Choice"?
Yes, you can Jay. The cost would drop to 1B.
DeleteHowever Wobbles got me thinking and I might need to alter it as seen below, but it is too word that way.
Horsey's Choice 2BB
Sorcery Uncommon
Exile, face down, two target creatures controlled by the same player. You may look at these cards. Select one to receive 2 +1/+1 counters if it returns to the battefield. The player that controlled these creatures chooses one of the two face down cards and returns it to the battlefield under his control.
Any ideas welcome
It's clear to the owner which card will get the counters, just not which card is which, right?
DeleteIf you play this on yourself, it's four mana and a sacrifice for +2/+2.
If you play it on an opponent, it's most likely you'll put the counters on the weaker creature, so they can choose between the good one or the weak one +2.
If you switch it up, then they get weak one or the good one +2. The difference between the two creatures needs to significant for your opponent's not to be dominant in favor of the card with the counters.
Simple example. He has a 2/2 and a 4/4. If you counter up the 2/2, he'll be getting a 4/4 back regardless. If you counter up the 4/4, he'll get a 2/2 or a 6/6. In neither case is it correct for him to choose the card w/o counters on it.
The good news is, that's no longer the case when he's got a 1/1 and a 6/6, the bad news is, he could end up with more power than he had before you cast Horsey's Choice if you're tricky, and is only down a 1/1 if you're not.
Basically, there's neat stuff going on here, but the card's only worth playing in unusual circumstances. At {B}, that might change?
That would be one way to do it. The other would be adding lines of text at the end: The player that controlled these creatures chooses one of the two face down cards, returns it to the battlefield under his control and looses life equal to its power."
DeleteStill I am not too proud of myself this week.
8 lines isn't enough?
DeleteFinal decision?
Final descision is to make it cost B. I wish there was a cleaner way to word it.
DeleteMerchant's Offer XGGG
ReplyDeleteSorcery (R)
Choose target creature an opponent controls with power X or less. That creature’s controller may have you gain control of it. If he or she doesn’t, search your library for a creature card with power X or less and put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
Does this have to be blue?
"Gain control" is purely a blue thing as far as I know. The choice-based setup obscures that a bit, but this kind of choice is usually blue too. The card could very well be mono-blue; UW and UG are also defensible. Mono-green is less so, both mechanically and conceptually.
DeleteConverted mana cost is usually a better indication of value than power, so I would change to check that, and also shave 1 or 2 mana off the cost to compensate. Keep in mind that at XG this would be a mostly-worse Green Sun's Zenith, which might be powerful but would not be broken by any means.
Beyond those changes, I like this design a lot.
I feel like the opponent's choice skews heavily toward "no" because Chord of Calling (w/o Convoke) is so often worse than Mind Control. That said, it is perhaps the many cases that buck this trend that make the card interesting: Either all my creatures aren't that good, or I know you can get a Nekrataal or Primeval Titan and can afford that even less than a Mind Control.
DeleteDefinitely not mono-green. Has to include some blue (or maaaybe white). Probably UG, but not strictly.
I chose power over CMC for a couple reasons:
ReplyDelete1) If there's any color that would have a mechanic that cares about power, it's green.
2) This card is supposed to be designed for Spike, therefore I don't want it to be a strictly worse GSZ/Chord of Calling 99% of the time. (Remember, not only do you not always get the tutor, but since it targets, you require the opponent to control a creature with power X or less in the first place.)
3) Caring about power will hopefully encourage players to cast it at low values of X at least some of the time. In the right deck setup you can threaten something absurd like a turn 4 Trostani's Summoner, but to be an effective threat the opponent has to believe you're playing that deck setup, which is where the mind game comes in.
Will post updated version with new mana cost later. Still debating on whether my dev instincts like XUGG, XUUG, or XUG.
You're right, checking power makes for a tutor effect that is in many respects more interesting. You're also right that it's substantially more powerful. As a baseline for measuring power level, consider that you can always get a Progenitor Mimic with this, which is at least as good as stealing the creature in the first place (and is even in the right colors so you can hardcast it).
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhat about…
DeleteChoose target creature an opponent controls. That creature’s controller may have you gain control of it. If that player doesn't, search your library for a creature card with equal or lesser power and put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
?
Huh...I quite like that. Makes costing easier too. Final submission, set at 5cmc per Mind Control standard:
DeleteMerchant's Firm Offer 2GUU
Sorcery (R)
Choose target creature an opponent controls. That creature’s controller may have you gain control of it. If he or she doesn’t, search your library for a creature card with power less than or equal to that creature’s power and put it onto the battlefield, then shuffle your library.
Since Mind Control is strictly better than this (aside from sorcery vs. enchantment), I'd suggest 2GU as a casting cost. The drawback here is roughly analogous to Soul Ransom.
DeleteThe vast majority of the time, this is worse than Mind Control, though fetching something crazy like Progenitor Mimic, Gigantomancer, Hornet Queen, etc will sometimes be better.
DeleteEven so, I would support 3GU or 1GUU.
Is there anything on the mothership stating that Mind Control effects are Auras for logistical reasons rather than power-level reasons? I would assume that the ability to not have your creature un-stolen by a random O-Ring or Disenchant is strong enough that "gain control" sorceries don't get printed all that often.
DeleteYou can also collaborate with a multiplayer opponent to get the tutor effect every time, though Spike doesn't care about that.
1GUU seems fine.
As an aside, I like how all five colors of Magic are represented in this art.
Forced Equinity 1WW
ReplyDeleteSorcery
The player with the fewest lands may put three Gold counters onto the battlefield. The player with the fewest creatures may put three 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens onto the battlefield. The player with the fewest cards in hand may scry 3.
Before I started posting to this blog I never thought of myself as much of a spike. After the third time Jay called one of my designs "a nice treat for spike" I had to change my mind. And then, of course, when I try to make a treat for spike on purpose for once I end up with something straight out of Commander 2015.
Accepting suggestions for less punny names and for your impressions as always.
Heh.
Delete"My Kingdom for a Horse?"
I like this as a fixed Balance / Land Tax / whatever. It stands out to me that the first and second effects are better than the last in a vacuum (and better than one another depending on what turn it is), but obviously "draw three" would be worse in the other direction.
DeleteEquine Charity?
Charity?
Communist Horse Show?
Compassion for Our Lessers?
Had to do a gatherer search just to make sure Charity wasn't already taken. It is an excellent, resonant name!
DeleteCharity 1WW (R)
Sorcery
The player with the fewest lands puts three Gold counters onto the battlefield. The player with the fewest creatures puts three 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens onto the battlefield. The player with the fewest cards in hand reveals the top three cards of their library, puts one into their hand, and the rest on the bottom of their library in any order.
Shaved a few letters by making the triggers mandatory.
This is nine very cramped lines when you write out the full rules text for Gold artifact tokens. Could one of the three abilities be shaved (compare: Timely Reinforcements)?
DeleteThis is meant for a hypothetical future where Gold is evergreen and doesn't need to have reminder text on a rare.
DeleteThe Spiky part of this card is that you can juggle giving your opponent one effect so you can get two yourself. You could also go one and one, or you could get a pure benefit, or you could give your opponent two irrelevant effects for the one that you need. All depending on when you cast the spell. Also, this is meant to be a Balance riff, not a new, weaker, symmetrical Timely Reinforcements. I totally get that I'm pushing a boundary here, but that's not a bad thing.
That's the problem: Gold's text isn't reminder text—It's rules text. It literally doesn't work if it's not there.
DeleteKnight Trainee
ReplyDelete(B/W)
Creature - Human Squire - Uncommon
BB: Monstrosity 1
WW: Monstrosity 1
When this creature becomes monstrous, if you paid BB, it has first strike protection from white. If you paid WW, it has first strike and protection from black.
1/1
Should be an "and" before protection from white.
DeleteCan't say I agree that this knight is monstrous, but:
Delete{WB}{WB}: Monstrosity 1.
When this creature becomes monstrous, it gains first strike. If you paid BB, it gains protection from white. If you paid WW, it gains protection from black.
Relevant Gatherer search
DeleteFie on you sticklers.
DeleteKnight Trainee {WB}
Creature - Human Squire
{WB}{WB}: Ennobled 1 (If this creature isn't ennobled, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes ennobled.)
When Knight Trainee becomes ennobled, it gains first strike. If you paid BB, it gains protection from white. If you paid WW, it gains protection from black.
1/1
Still has memory issues. Ordinarily this won't matter, but what if your opponent is also a black/white deck?
DeleteEnnobled would be great, if monstrosity weren't waiting in the wings to shout lack of innovation at it. That's not to say it's not reasonable design, but many players will condemn it. Even so, it might be worthwhile in the right context. Would love to talk about this kind of mechanic reuse more.
DeleteJenesis has a point. If you're playing this in mono-black or mono-white, or if your opponent is one or zero of those colors, it's okay, but if you're BW and your opponent is too, ich.
I agree with the memory issues, and don't see a good way out of it. This makes me want to try out "Dark Knight//Redeemed Knight" and "Oathsworn Knight//Oathbreaker Knight" as transform cards, even though they're probably strictly too cute.
DeleteHow cool would a summer release of, say, 25 new cards all with strange abilities based on existing mechanics be? You could do a riff on the central mechanic from every set or you could just take the sweetest design that got cut from every design file and package them together. That would also make a fun weekend challenge.
DeleteLimited players would hate it, but Constructed players might like it. Put it in the multiplayer product and you're set. They're /kind/of/ doing this now.
DeletePlanechase 2012 kind of did this with 21 cards spread across 4 existing mechanics. I agree this would be a fun thing to put into the summer multiplayer product.
DeleteRighteous or Mighty GW
ReplyDeleteInstant R
Target opponent chooses one or three. You may search your library for that many creature cards with converted mana cost equal to the number they didn't choose, reveal them, and put them into your hand. If you do, shuffle your library.
I think these numbers are about right for this effect, changing this to two and three probably doubles the mana cost.
I like how you can cast this turn 2 into everything you got with it on turn 3. Not sure how it connects to the art, but certainly an interesting card in its own right.
DeleteThe card was originally about finding two creatures, it shifted away from that losing its relevance to the art..
DeleteThis definitely leans toward Melvin, but there's good overlap between Melvin and Spike, and this lives in that space.
Delete"You may" and "if you do" seem unnecessary once you've committed to casting this spell.
Horse Trading (Rare)
ReplyDelete3BB
Sorcery
Choose a card type. You and target opponent search each other's library for a card with the chosen type and reveal it. The player that didn't choose last may choose a different card type. If he or she does, repeat the process. If not, exile the revealed cards and both players shuffle his or her library.
Wobbles beat me to it. I knew that name would get grabbed by someone especially given the design parameters. But I'm at the GP in Richmond and didn't habe much time. I haven't looked at the wording on a card. It's templated to avoid multiple shuffles, but the template may need work. I will look at it when I get home tonight and submit any changes I see.
DeleteYeah, it seemed like low hanging fruit, but I think it's so apropos.
DeleteOn the design itself, isn't this just a much worse Extract? It's symmetrical, 5 mana, and it gives your opponent the chance to repeat as necessary. I think this could be much more aggressively costed, but like a lot of the "Chain" spells from Onslaught I'm not sure I see much incentive for the opponent to repeat the process.
Finally, how does the "different card type" work past the second time you do it? Could you name Creature, Instant, Creature? Or is it that once you've named a card type it's totally done?
Good luck at the GP!
It's supposed to repeat as many times as people choose types. If I cast is and choose artifact, you can choose creature. But if you do, I can choose enchantment, and you can choose instant, then I can choose land, you can choose planeswalker, I can choose sorcery, and you can choose tribal.Etc, But you may not want to give me another go at it, and not choose at some point along the way. You get it. I'm still working on templating.
DeleteHorse Trades (Rare)
Delete2WB
Sorcery
Starting with you, you and target opponent may choose a permanent type not already chosen. Then both players may search the other’s library for a card of the chosen type and exile it. Repeat this process until no one chooses a permanent type.
I choose creature, and you choose enchantment.
DeleteThen I choose artifact and you choose land.
Are we done (because there are no more unchosen permanent types)?
If types from the last round aren't meant to count, does this go on until our decks are depleted of permanents because I can keep choosing a type even if you stop?
Don't forget the shuffle.
More importantly, is this fun? Seems mean and violating.
Types chosen as the spell resolves, so At most 2 artifacts, 2 creatures, 2 enchantments, and 2 lands will be exiled.
DeleteGood question about fun. It doesn't seem oppressive to me. It's important to keep in mind that your opponent will have looked through your library first time around, so they'll get to decide if they want to choose a new permanent type with full information.
Good call on the shuffle.
Horse Trades (Rare)
2WB
Sorcery
Starting with you, you and target opponent may choose a permanent type not already chosen. Then both players may search the others library for a card of the chosen type and exile it. Repeat this process until no one chooses a permanent type. Then each player shuffles his or her library.
Oh, I see what you said about choosing. That wasn't what I wanted. It's suppose to be I choose creature, both player's search for a creature and exile them. Then you can choose nothing and we both shuffle and it's over. Or you can say artifact because you saw a good one the first search of the library. If you do, then I will get to choose another type.
DeleteThe problem is mutiplayer formats. "Starting with you, you and target opponent may choose a permanent type not already chosen." is only suppose to mean that two players are involved in the action. Not that they choose together each go around. In a multiplayer game I also don't want the other player to think they can choose another player when they repeat the process.
Hmmm...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI mean, part of the problem with this is just that you have to work SO HARD just to get the value of one Cranial Extraction out of it. Removing just one copy of one card has a miniscule effect on most decks. Extract gives you the choice of one card for 1 mana, and this would be considerably worse. Maybe word it like cranial extraction, so that players can go back and forth naming cards?
DeleteI agree. I'm tired of working so hard on templating for such a slight effect. Commander friendly, Cranial Extraction for all!
DeleteHorse Trades (Rare)
1WB
Sorcery
Starting with you, each player may search an opponent's graveyard, hand, and library for up to four cards with the same permanent type and exile them. Then each player shuffles his or her library.
XGG Last Minute Charge
ReplyDeleteSorcery
An opponent names a card. Search your library for a creature card with converted mana cost X or less and put it onto the battlefield. You can't search for the named card.
Consider:
DeleteAn opponent names a card. Search your library for a creature card with converted mana cost X and another name. Put it onto the battlefield and shuffle your library.
(Possibly for XG)
Thanks for the wording suggestion! I'm unsure of the cost - the drawback is probably pretty effective in tournaments, and I guess the base is fairly equivalent to Chord of Calling. I'll go with your wording.
DeleteXG Last Minute Charge
Sorcery
An opponent names card. Search your library for a creature card with another name and converted mana cost X or less. Put it onto the battlefield and shuffle your library.
To clarify, I intentionally omitted "or less," suggesting that the mini-game of prohibiting which creature you can get is more interesting if the range you can get is smaller.
DeleteThis was really interesting, but quite difficult.
ReplyDeleteI think the most interesting things about Gifts Ungiven are:
* The mind-game isn't just tacked on, it arises naturally out of the card.
* It represents excellent card advantage, a boon for spikes
I actually think Fact or Fiction may be a better example, because it has less potential for being tricky in advance, but:
* It's more fun for spikes because you get a gauranteed upside that you get what you need most.
* It has more variance: gifts ungiven leads people to cheat the game by building decks with functionally identical cards with different names, or cards that come back from the graveyard, which is fun the first time, but when everyone's worked it out, there's no more interesting decisions to make. Whereas fact or fiction is different every time, and rewards (the most interesting thing for spikes) both players for understanding the current game state best.
So, that was what I tried to capture. Unfortunately, I considered a lot of variants, and couldn't come up with anything which worked as naturally as fact or fiction.
So:
Horse Fair
2U
Sorcery U
Reveal the top 3 cards of your library. Target opponent chooses a number. Either pay that much life and put those cards into your hand, or put those cards into your graveyard and draw that many cards.
This is often Concentrate, at least Sign in Blood, and occasionally better. I like your rarity and CMC, but think this wants to be blue-black.
DeleteThe life:cards ratio is closer to 2:1, which makes the opponent's choice a bit less interesting. Basically, if they want you to keep what they see, they choose 2, and if they don't, they choose 3 or 4.
You might want to put an upper limit on the number you're opponent chooses - otherwise I choose 100 every time and watch as you lose the game.
DeleteI guess just change the wording to "draw up to that many cards." This card reads very excitingly (draw that many cards!), and it seems more powerful than Concentrate. I guess they can just choose 0 if they don't want you to have any cards, but it's rather tricky to evaluate.
DeleteZach's right, it needs "up to". I think there must be a better fix, but I'll go with that for now.
Delete"The life:cards ratio is closer to 2:1, which makes the opponent's choice a bit less interesting."
Hm. I don't think the ratio DOES need to be exact. Even if was just 0.5 life per card, the opponent still has the incentive to guess as high as they dare without having you take that many cards instead. The interesting decision should be "how many random cards are equivalent to these three" regardless of the life (which might be 0 if they're all lands, or 10 if one is a limited bomb). But OTOH, I guess it might be a better decision if the opponent had an incentive to be more precise and not cautiously round down.
But if it becomes "draw 3 (?), pay on average 6 life", I'm not sure what mana cost is right. Then it definitely needs to be B/U, in fact, for that much life, it's probably just B. But 2B, 6 life, draw 3, ugh, can that be right?
I forgot to say, thank you for the feedback, I'm sorry I couldn't think of anything till Sunday night, I think the card should be tweaked, but I didn't leave enough time to work out the best implementation.
DeleteRemove the life portion entirely.
DeleteReveal three cards. Opponent chooses a number. You take the revealed cards or draw that number of cards.
(and then it doesn't beg for black in the color)