Cool Card Design of the Day 11/30/2015 - Dev can tweak the cost and stats here, but the core identity is an aggressive red creature that the opponent can force into a bad attack.
I like the idea, but I don't love the life payment, as that doesn't feel very Red to me. I think I would simply say that your opponent may choose to have it attack. Of course, that should turn out being almost exactly the same as "attacks each turn if able" since if I don't want it to attack you should, and vice versa, but as many players are so bad at that kind of decision, I think it is still interesting enough to print at Uncommon in some set. Also, because of the hidden information element, we may both think it shouldn't attack even though only one of us is right. The additional layer where my wanting it to attack when you think I shouldn't reveals some additional information is also really neat.
Ooh, I totally didn't get that. But it still seems clunky, when "attacks if able" would be basically the same.
How about something like, "if an opponent lost life this turn, ~ attacks if able and if it attacks, get +?/+?", so you've an incentive to shock your opponent before combat and boost it up, but there's still the possibility of them cracking a fetchland or something and dragging it into combat when you didn't want to.
Jack, that version is clever. What size would it be? Rarity? My guess is it would have to be a constructed-level rare in order to satisfy all its masters.
Reminds me of Dumb Ass. That had an ability truly worse than "attacks each turn if able", because the opponent could choose to have it not attack when it was a useful threat, and attack when it'd get eaten by a blocker.
I would hope it is unnecessary, but Magic tries pretty hard to avoid easy outlets to set your own life total. In modern there are a few three mana ways to do that, like Wall of Blood, but I don't see any two mana ways, and unless someone assures me otherwise, I'd rather leave it that way.
I would ask development if it could be removed, but I figured better safe than sorry.
I like mine better because there are fewer questions of who chooses first if you don't understand how the turn structure works. This is worded like it is asking players to make a choice simultaneously, and that will confuse newer players.
I don't have nearly the objection to having "But not more than once each turn" that you seem to.
I actually think how big a wrinkle we think lines of text like that are is one of the more interesting pieces of this discussion. Commenting that you visibly view it as more unaesthetic than I do is relevant to what I consider the most engaging piece of this discussion to me.
We both clearly agree that the line of text is undesirable, but for me only mildly so. As it is purely an aesthetic sensibility, I don't think it is one that can easily be articulated/debated, merely one that can be remarked upon. Isn't that what this forum is for?
Absolutely. I'm just saying that you have assigned a magnitude/investment to one of my statements that I have not, and thus came to a conclusion that is unfounded.
Cool Card Design of the Day
I like the idea, but I don't love the life payment, as that doesn't feel very Red to me. I think I would simply say that your opponent may choose to have it attack. Of course, that should turn out being almost exactly the same as "attacks each turn if able" since if I don't want it to attack you should, and vice versa, but as many players are so bad at that kind of decision, I think it is still interesting enough to print at Uncommon in some set. Also, because of the hidden information element, we may both think it shouldn't attack even though only one of us is right. The additional layer where my wanting it to attack when you think I shouldn't reveals some additional information is also really neat.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not common though.
I like the life pay for flavour reasons. You cut yourself and he becomes bloodcrazed!!!
DeleteOoh, I totally didn't get that. But it still seems clunky, when "attacks if able" would be basically the same.
DeleteHow about something like, "if an opponent lost life this turn, ~ attacks if able and if it attacks, get +?/+?", so you've an incentive to shock your opponent before combat and boost it up, but there's still the possibility of them cracking a fetchland or something and dragging it into combat when you didn't want to.
Jack, that version is clever. What size would it be? Rarity? My guess is it would have to be a constructed-level rare in order to satisfy all its masters.
DeleteReminds me of Dumb Ass. That had an ability truly worse than "attacks each turn if able", because the opponent could choose to have it not attack when it was a useful threat, and attack when it'd get eaten by a blocker.
ReplyDeleteI don't get your argument. Even if they don't pay, you could still attack
DeleteBlood-fueled Gargoyle RR
ReplyDeleteCreature - Gargoyle (U)
Defender
Pay 1 life: ~ loses defender and attacks this turn if able. Any player may activate this ability, but not more than once each turn.
3/2
Nice.
Delete"But not more than once each turn" seems unnecessary.
I would hope it is unnecessary, but Magic tries pretty hard to avoid easy outlets to set your own life total. In modern there are a few three mana ways to do that, like Wall of Blood, but I don't see any two mana ways, and unless someone assures me otherwise, I'd rather leave it that way.
DeleteI would ask development if it could be removed, but I figured better safe than sorry.
"At the beginning of combat on your turn, any player may pay 1 life. If any do, ~ loses defender and must attack this turn if able."
DeleteI like mine better because there are fewer questions of who chooses first if you don't understand how the turn structure works. This is worded like it is asking players to make a choice simultaneously, and that will confuse newer players.
DeleteI don't have nearly the objection to having "But not more than once each turn" that you seem to.
How much of an objection do I have?
Delete(It's super easy to read that kind of thing into feedback, but rarely accurate or helpful.)
I actually think how big a wrinkle we think lines of text like that are is one of the more interesting pieces of this discussion. Commenting that you visibly view it as more unaesthetic than I do is relevant to what I consider the most engaging piece of this discussion to me.
DeleteWe both clearly agree that the line of text is undesirable, but for me only mildly so. As it is purely an aesthetic sensibility, I don't think it is one that can easily be articulated/debated, merely one that can be remarked upon. Isn't that what this forum is for?
Absolutely. I'm just saying that you have assigned a magnitude/investment to one of my statements that I have not, and thus came to a conclusion that is unfounded.
Delete