General Custom Cards: The Lab
- Thread starter anotak
- Start date
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I assume the idea of the
in this card's casting cost is a flexible cascade spell. Unfortunately cascade is a cast trigger, so while this does give itself cascade as soon as it's on the stack, that's too late to actually trigger the ability.I'm quite sure the cascade trigger does work. The first step of casting a spell is to put it on the stack; cascade triggers when you complete the process of casting the spell, at which point it has been on the stack for a while. Even if that weren't the case, triggers for an event are checked after the event occurs.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
If that is true I would say this is a headache of a card. It's probably the reason why Wizards uses the "while this is on the stack" wording only very, very rarely #mtgelegance
In addition, this is a pretty busted card, as you can just chain through your deck if you hit the right cards.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Yeah, that's at least less confusing. Does not match Maelstrom Nexus though, that card says "The first spell you cast each turn has cascade."
I'm pretty sure you get what I mean. The templating for giving other spells cascade is now the same
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Oh, sorry, no, I didn't get what you meant. Uh, yeah, never mind what I said. Go with sigh's wording if you really want this spell to exist, it's much cleaner!
I dislike the "Keyword; Other X have keyword." pattern of templating (e.g. Herald of Dromoka, Vela the Night-Clad, Sublime Archangel). I do see how it would be good for clarity in this case though.
As for the power level, I don't think it's anywhere near busted. The variance is high, but no matter how much mana you spend, there is a strong likelihood of just getting a 3 drop and a 1 drop. The power level does go up a lot if you have Ancestral Vision. Possibly the spell just shouldn't exist because of the high variance.
As for the power level, I don't think it's anywhere near busted. The variance is high, but no matter how much mana you spend, there is a strong likelihood of just getting a 3 drop and a 1 drop. The power level does go up a lot if you have Ancestral Vision. Possibly the spell just shouldn't exist because of the high variance.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Well, that was kinda what I was getting at. In a high variance situation you cast this for five (X = 3) and get 10 mana worth off spells. That's kinda gross. Basically any time you get three spells of this you're happy, though I'll concede that immediately hitting a two drop when casting this for X = 5 sucks balls.
I think this spell needs to cost at least XXG, not XGG. It's so, so strong at XGG (since each card it hits also has cascade):
1GG: Cascade 2-drop into 1-drop = 3 mana and 2 cards for 3 mana
2GG: Cascade 3-drop into 2-drop into 1-drop: 6 mana and 3 cards for 4 mana
3GG: Cascade 4-drop into ... into 1-drop: 10 mana and 4 cards for 5 mana
1GG: Cascade 2-drop into 1-drop = 3 mana and 2 cards for 3 mana
2GG: Cascade 3-drop into 2-drop into 1-drop: 6 mana and 3 cards for 4 mana
3GG: Cascade 4-drop into ... into 1-drop: 10 mana and 4 cards for 5 mana
It would be interesting if we used the old-school "effects affect everyone" design:
Stack Headache:
XXG: Sorcery
As long as Stack Headache is on the stack, spells have cascade.
Sudden Storm:
XXUG: Instant
As long asSudden Storm is on the stack, spells have flash.
As long asSudden Storm is on the stack, spells have cascade.
TIL "Sudden Storm" is a shitty common from BNG :'(
Stack Headache:
XXG: Sorcery
As long as Stack Headache is on the stack, spells have cascade.
XXUG: Instant
As long as
As long as
TIL "Sudden Storm" is a shitty common from BNG :'(
Those are the best case scenarios. The worst case scenario is that you hit a 1 drop. The average case is going to be somewhere in between. Casting at 5 mana, if your deck has an equal number of 1 through 4 drops, you will cast an average of 2.08 spells and the sum of their CMCs will average 4. At 7 mana, with an equal number of 1-6 drops (which is overly optimistic), you cast 2.45 spells on average with an average total CMC of 6. I'd call that pretty fair.
Your suggestion doesn't make much sense in any case, as costing XXG is not really worse than being XGG (you lose the flexibility to cast it for even costs, but gain the ability to cast it off a single green).
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
The only thing you are not taking into account is going off with multiple spells in the late game. Cast this for four, cascade twice, then cast another four-drop and cascade twice. Eight mana spent, five spells cast. You're back in control! It's not as good as I initially thought, but it does have a very high variance with truly nutty best case scenario's.
so i have a question
how would you feel if the mechanic from
became:
Court Hussar
Creature - Vedalken Knight
Vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, look at the top three cards of your library, then put one of them into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.
Evoke
1/3
how would you feel if the mechanic from
became:
Court Hussar
Creature - Vedalken Knight
Vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, look at the top three cards of your library, then put one of them into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.
Evoke
1/3
so i have a question
how would you feel if the mechanic from
became:
Court Hussar
Creature - Vedalken Knight
Vigilance
When ~ enters the battlefield, look at the top three cards of your library, then put one of them into your hand and the rest on the bottom of your library in any order.
Evoke
1/3
Same thing, makes no difference to me. Now make evoke cost 2, or give it flash
Chris Taylor
Contributor
I mean that does read better
Some duckweed is going to complain that evoke doesn't make flavour sense on a non spirit, but fuck that guy.
Some duckweed is going to complain that evoke doesn't make flavour sense on a non spirit, but fuck that guy.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
You mean the second duck from the bottom?
yeah the third duck from the top has a major problem with your templating
Chris Taylor
Contributor
My phone's predictive text is behind this tomfoolery!
no, i mean the second deck from the right
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Yes