Cool Card Design of the Day4/27/2015 - Spells that give your opponent a choice are only effective when both options are worth the cost of your card, and most interesting when the choice is close and changes throughout the game. Here's one.
Late in the game, the second choice will usually be better since you can afford to pay extra mana and the spell being countered is more likely to be big and important. In the early game, the spell as stake is cheap and perhaps forgettable, but not being able to cast another spell until you can afford two spells might knock you out. Hopefully the mid-game is where you really have to think about the choice.
What's the worst tribute design that's better than Impede? What's the best that's worse?
I don't like how if the opponent misclicks this on Magic Online they just lose the game. The second ability creates a really gross binding ability that I don't like putting in the game even if you let the opponent opt out.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that the tax sits on top of your next spell rather than in front of it. But that would be "Its controller must pay {X} at the beginning of their next upkeep. If they don't, they lose the game" which is easier to do, but much worse to mis-click. Could be "they can't cast anything until they do pay" but that's more complicated.
DeleteOr could be "counter the next spell its controller casts unless they pay {X}."
DeleteEvan: Great!
DeleteI've wondered about the "next spell" templating before. Do you think this spell is printable? How much would it have to cost to be balanced? Is it better or worse than straight Counterspell?
DeletePreemptive Counterspell UU
Sorcery
Counter the next spell target opponent casts.
I think it probably isn't too powerful, at least at 1UU, but I think it is unprintably awful to play against.
DeleteA non-symmetrical hesitation?http://magiccards.info/sh/en/33.html
DeleteUU is the "right" cost to make it constructed viable, but it's probably not that fun to play against. I'd rather it cost 2UU and cantrip or something.
The "counter their next spell" could just be the other mode.
DeleteImpede
UU
Instant
Target spell's controller chooses one:
-Counter that spell.
-Counter the next spell its controller casts.
Preemptive Counterspell is likely fine as a one-of, since the opponent can choose which spell is countered. It's the ability to cast another Preemptive Counterspell before they're in the black again that sounds miserable. But it's a sorcery and probably doesn't stack like "loses their next turn" so at least you can try to cast two spells in one turn to land one.
DeleteImpede
ReplyDelete1U
Instant
Target spell's controller chooses one:
- Counter that spell.
- That spell's controller discards two cards.
Entwine 1B (That spell's controller chooses both if you pay the entwine cost.)
2UB for Counterspell+Mind Rot (at instant speed) seems far too strong, but add some cost to the entwine, and that's pretty neat.
DeleteRaises the question of whether a spell you can play in a mono-color deck can have a multi-color effect if the other color has mana symbols on the card. Very debatable. Not at all sure which side I'm on.
Blue gets discard very rarely. Mindculling, for example.
Deleteisn't that considered a large bleed due to New Phyrexia? Not saying it can't do it but NPH isn't a shining example of color pie faithfulness.
DeleteGuys, do note, this isn't a blue spell that says "Target player discards two cards" - the player CHOOSES whether they want this effect.
DeleteNow, I don't know if out-of-color punisher effects are still allowed, as they haven't been seen in a long time. But I don't feel as if they're super dangerous or anything - though they're still something to be concerned about.
Note the way it is worded if the opponent has zero cards in hand they can choose the discard two cards option. Unclear if that is what is desired.
DeleteNew Phyrexia is the second worst set for color precedence after Planar Chaos. It was all about bleeding.
DeleteTrue. Though give me some credit for not bringing up Piracy Charm as an example of blue discard : )
DeleteI'm fine with bleed on punisher cards as long as one of the choices is on-color. But for the entwine version of Impede, I wonder if {UB}{UB} would work as a cost for the spell itself and then make the entwine cost {U}{B}: this way the opponent chooses the black or blue effect, and if you want both, you have to pay for both colors.
Imagine
Delete{wu}{wu}
Instant
An opponent chooses one:
- You gain seven life.
- You draw two cards.
Entwine {W}{U}
Immolate
{br}{br}
Instant
Target opponent chooses one:
- CARDNAME deals 3 damage to each creature that player controls.
- That player loses 3 life and you gain 3 life.
Entwine {B}{R}
Imperil
{rg}{rg}
Instant
An opponent chooses one:
- Creatures you control gain +2/+2 until end of turn.
- Creatures you control gain double strike until end of turn.
Entwine {R}{G}
Implore
{gw}{gw}
Instant
An opponent chooses one:
- You put a 3/3 green Elemental creature with trample onto the battlefield.
- You put two 1/1 white Bird creatures with flying onto the battlefield.
Entwine {G}{W}
I like this color model.
DeleteEvan, those are fantastic!
DeleteI like these a lot, though I'd like them a lot more if they were just gold instead of hybrid.
DeleteAlso, for Imperil, I think the two modes are too similar. They do almost exactly the same thing on most board states, which makes for uninteresting punisher cards.
Very clever model for Melvin tickles.
DeleteOn review, Imperil is the weakest of these designs because if you don't entwine it your opponent can just do the math and always pick the "right" choice; there's little room for nuance. Suggestions?
DeleteRoad Less Traveled W
ReplyDeleteInstant
Exile target creature. Its controller chooses one:
• Put that creature on top of its owner's library.
• That creature's controller gains life equal to that creature's power.
Oooh, this is an interesting one. I like it a lot!
DeleteImpede
ReplyDeleteUU
Instant
Target spell's controller chooses one:
- Counter that spell.
- Lands that player controls don't untap during his or her next untap step.
This accomplishes basically the same thing, but it reduces the memory issues involved and makes the "opt out" less brutal. I could also see:
Impediment
1U
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant non-land permanent
At the beginning of the upkeep of enchanted permanent's controller, that player may pay that permanent's mana cost. If he or she does, sacrifice Impediment. If he or she doesn't, that player sacrifices the enchanted permanent.
Really surprised that an Impediment style card hasn't seen print. Am I missing it?
DeleteI could also see it in white (with better templating):
Impediment
1W
Enchantment- Aura
Enchant non-land permanent
At the beginning of the upkeep of enchanted permanent's controller, that player sacrifices it unless they pay that permanent's mana cost. If he or she does, sacrifice Impediment.
Soul Tithe
Deletethat's the one. Does it become common if it only happens once? Could it cost 1 mana?
Delete