Give it shroud
General Custom Cards: The Lab
- Thread starter anotak
- Start date
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
That's a clever solution actually! Like it!
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Another way would be to have it be a beginning of combat trigger
Playing the Odds 
Sorcery
Secretly choose a number three or less. An opponent chooses a number. You draw as many cards as you chose. If the numbers are equal, that opponent draw that many cards as well.
alternative wording?:
You and an opponent secretly choose numbers three or less. Then those numbers are revealed. You draw as many cards as you chose. If the numbers are equal, that opponent draw that many cards as well.
Sorcery
Secretly choose a number three or less. An opponent chooses a number. You draw as many cards as you chose. If the numbers are equal, that opponent draw that many cards as well.
alternative wording?:
You and an opponent secretly choose numbers three or less. Then those numbers are revealed. You draw as many cards as you chose. If the numbers are equal, that opponent draw that many cards as well.
damn you snuck in before i edited it
i just forgot to include the
costi was debating making it cost
but i decided that's a bad ideai wanted to make it sorcery so that if your opponent guesses right in the early game it matters more
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Fair trade, but giving them a Mountain instead of an artifact can be a bad deal for you. Why not give them a treasure instead? Or make it treasure for artifact, and/or Mountain for non basic.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Ok, understood. I don't know if the slight upside of ramping yourself by killing an artifact you control (something you don't really want to do most of the time) is worth the downside of ramping your opponent by killing an artifact they control (something you don't really want to do most of the time). Of course changing a nonbasic into a basic Mountain is a fair trade.
I really do like the fetching a basic from the basic land box though, that's great design space for a cube. I would use the Wish-cycle as inspiration for the wording though. I would also exile the target, pretty much like modern blue polymorph effects work, viz. Curse of the Swine. This prevents your opponent from using recursion to get the target back.
I'ld be very tempted to let it target creatures and planeswalkers too, by the way, though maybe not at that cost?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Eh... Direct damage deals with both of those. When they want a red spell to "destroy" they simply use an arbitrarily large number, viz. Star of Extinction. Also, there's been stuff like Aftershock and Grenzo's Rebuttal. It's not exactly on color, but it's not too much of a problem in this case either imo.
Anyway, that was just an offhand remark at the end there, the main point was that you could use existing templating to word your card idea, and to say I really liked your idea of tapping into the basic land box!
Still, I have to agree. For a card literally about smashing something to rubble, exiling feels very off flavor. I would look at finding a different way to strengthen the card. Maybe it could have Flashback--Sacrifice a Mountain?
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Its probably fine as destroy, if there are color pie issues?
Card looks dope. If it existed in the real world, would prob be mythic or have a higher cost?
Card looks dope. If it existed in the real world, would prob be mythic or have a higher cost?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I am fully aware that red does not normally get to destroy creatures and planeswalkers, but it can effectively do so through thoroughly in-pie mechanics, as exiling, damaging creatures as well as planeswalkers, and dealing massive amounts of damage are on color. Case in point.
+
Yes, putting "exile target creature or planeswalker" on a red card may "break" the color pie, but it doesn't break the color pie, if you know what I mean. Especially with the spell giving them a basic Mountain and the nature of red's on color mechanics, I feel this is far less of an offender than, say, Hornet Sting. So, if your format wants the effect, I would know which of the following two executions I would choose...
One respects the color pie but is clunky as shit, the other "breaks" the color pie, but is elegant, and does, for almost all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the clunky card.
+ Yes, putting "exile target creature or planeswalker" on a red card may "break" the color pie, but it doesn't break the color pie, if you know what I mean. Especially with the spell giving them a basic Mountain and the nature of red's on color mechanics, I feel this is far less of an offender than, say, Hornet Sting. So, if your format wants the effect, I would know which of the following two executions I would choose...
One respects the color pie but is clunky as shit, the other "breaks" the color pie, but is elegant, and does, for almost all intents and purposes, exactly the same as the clunky card.
The even more elegant solution is to edit the rules to allow you to damage lands and artifacts. (This is probably a joke.)
Also, your second example custom can hit basics, which is also a functional change. Fixing that does decrease the elegance of the card though. "Exile target nonenchantment permanent unless it's a basic land" is the first rewording that came to mind, but I'm pretty sure that lets you target your own basic to just go get a mountain....
So I guess it's "Exile target nonenchantment permanent that isn't a basic land" or thereabouts. That's fine.
But if we don't want it to be exiled, and we also don't want it in the graveyard, then what we want is pretty similar to Song of the Dryads, right? Except if we want to be able to give it flashback...
"Target nonenchantment permanent that isn't a basic land becomes a colorless Mountain land. (This effect lasts indefinitely.)"
Memory issues. Perhaps some classic text like "Mark the changed card with a counter", or if we prefer a more modern template we could put a rubble counter on the permanent and say it's a Mountain as long as it has a rubble counter on it? But #elegance.
Also, your second example custom can hit basics, which is also a functional change. Fixing that does decrease the elegance of the card though. "Exile target nonenchantment permanent unless it's a basic land" is the first rewording that came to mind, but I'm pretty sure that lets you target your own basic to just go get a mountain....
So I guess it's "Exile target nonenchantment permanent that isn't a basic land" or thereabouts. That's fine.
But if we don't want it to be exiled, and we also don't want it in the graveyard, then what we want is pretty similar to Song of the Dryads, right? Except if we want to be able to give it flashback...
"Target nonenchantment permanent that isn't a basic land becomes a colorless Mountain land. (This effect lasts indefinitely.)"
Memory issues. Perhaps some classic text like "Mark the changed card with a counter", or if we prefer a more modern template we could put a rubble counter on the permanent and say it's a Mountain as long as it has a rubble counter on it? But #elegance.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Oh absolutely! I'm not saying you should definitely use the three mana spell, I'm saying that if your environment needs the effect, it's better to break the color pie a bit and use the elegant wording. Now, whether this is the case is doubtful, since red already has so many ways to deal with creatures and planeswalkers through direct damage. Hence "I'ld be very tempted to let it target" rather than "I'ld definitely let it target" in my original post. You are all more than likely right that it's a bad idea to actually print the card as I suggested.
This is a good point. I did change it to exiling, because I have the feeling it would feel horrible to essentially impose card disadvantage on yourself (your opponent essentially isn't down a permanent, though a basic Mountain is obviously worse than whatever you targeted), only for your opponent to regrow your target.
I think this card is basically red's variant of Path to Exile in cube. A basic Mountain is obviously worse than a basic land of your choice from your deck, but a creature is generally a more desirable target than an artifact or nonbasic land. The only reason I don't believe it could see play in a real Magic set as is, is because it would force everyone to play at least two basic Mountains in their sideboard to not lose on the spot to the land destruction aspect of this spell.
Like I said, I love the design Anotak! I didn't mean to criticize your original idea, because, given that we use these customs in our own cubes only, using the basic land box as a resource is a great idea!
Still, I have to agree. For a card literally about smashing something to rubble, exiling feels very off flavor. I would look at finding a different way to strengthen the card. Maybe it could have Flashback--Sacrifice a Mountain?
I should have added “non-conditionally” since red can exile with damage. Not directly exile. My bad.
——
We know what you mean. Mark Rosewater have had that debate with so many amateur designers throughout the years. I have seen this color pie break many times and it never looks good if you ask me and ask MARO. People can obviously do whatever they want with their own custom cards in their own environmemt but since this is a feedback site we are giving you feedback.
——
There is nothing elegant about a card that breaks the color pie unless elegance in your MtG vocabulary means ‘few words’.
Finally: You can do what you want but you can also ask yourself the question “Why has MtG never done this?”. If your answer is “They appearently don’t know that it will functionally be the same outcome” then it is you who have misunderstood something. If your answer on the other hand is “I understand it is not the same but I am going with it anyways because I believe my 8 players will understand the card fine and it could lead to some interesting aspects of drafting, deck building and/or playing.” then you have found something good and something worth testing.
I have done this several times and never had any complaints. (Because we can do whatever we want in our very own non-sanctioned sandbox of fun.)
Enjoy
<3
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
I think I have already made this clear in my earlier posts, but yes, I know straight up exiling target creature or planeswalker is not a red effect. So...
Now, one last time. Given that my format wanted a red spell that could deal with lands, artifacts, creatures, and planeswalkers, and given that I wanted to use Anotak's idea of using the basic land box as a resource, I would choose the "exile target nonenchantment permanent" ("that isn't a basic land", good thinking Miasmir!). It is unlikely my format actually needs this effect, since red is already naturally adept at dealing with creatures and planeswalkers, so the need for breaking the color pie probably isn't there. If it were though, this would be the place MaRo's colleagues would overrule him and say: "Sorry, but we need this effect, and if we do it your way it looks crap." And he might respond: "I agree it looks crap. So find another way to do it!"
Don't worry, this is not my answer. I merely used this argument to explain why, in this corner case, I would choose this wording rather than strictly adhere to the color pie.
For the record, MaRo might be the guardian of the Color Pie, that doesn't mean that he always "wins". Cards like Chaos Warp, Hornet Queen, Hornet Sting, and Augury Adept get printed because other designers/developers within WotC feel that sometimes flavor and/or simplicity should overrule the color pie.
Finally, I love the snappiness of this quote, but come on. You really want to call that card on the left more elegant because it doesn't break the color pie? Really?! Because that was what I was talking about, relative elegance.
Now, one last time. Given that my format wanted a red spell that could deal with lands, artifacts, creatures, and planeswalkers, and given that I wanted to use Anotak's idea of using the basic land box as a resource, I would choose the "exile target nonenchantment permanent" ("that isn't a basic land", good thinking Miasmir!). It is unlikely my format actually needs this effect, since red is already naturally adept at dealing with creatures and planeswalkers, so the need for breaking the color pie probably isn't there. If it were though, this would be the place MaRo's colleagues would overrule him and say: "Sorry, but we need this effect, and if we do it your way it looks crap." And he might respond: "I agree it looks crap. So find another way to do it!"
Nope. None of your designs were elegant in my personal opinion. I never claimed the left side was elegant. However it is only my opinion and it is nothing personal!
I believe I have answered the other questions already. It is always fine to test weird things but the common ground is this: It is not worth Breaking the color pie for this. But my opinion is more like: Do it. Go crazy and report back with the testing results.
I believe I have answered the other questions already. It is always fine to test weird things but the common ground is this: It is not worth Breaking the color pie for this. But my opinion is more like: Do it. Go crazy and report back with the testing results.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Ok, your definition of elegance is way more narrow than mine, and you are arguing from a completely different angle than me. Your mind's made up already, so there's not much sense arguing over whether my design could theoretically see print if the need arises, because you refuse to envision a situation where that need exists, or at least refuse to acknowledge that sometimes you have to break the color pie a little to fulfill a mechanical need or evoke a certain flavor.
I feel our points of view are way closer to each other than the discussion here would suggest as well. I do agree my design is not in red's part of the color pie. I do agree it's not desirable to break the color pie, and this shouldn't be done lightly. The only part where I disagree is that the color pie is not some sacred truth that never can be bent to our needs.
PS I don't intend to run the card as I suggested, because I don't think red needs this effect in my environment. I had been running a custom that dealt with artifacts and creatures, but Abrade nicely filled that hole, in much the same way that my custom did.
I feel our points of view are way closer to each other than the discussion here would suggest as well. I do agree my design is not in red's part of the color pie. I do agree it's not desirable to break the color pie, and this shouldn't be done lightly. The only part where I disagree is that the color pie is not some sacred truth that never can be bent to our needs.
PS I don't intend to run the card as I suggested, because I don't think red needs this effect in my environment. I had been running a custom that dealt with artifacts and creatures, but Abrade nicely filled that hole, in much the same way that my custom did.
I do not think that is very fair.
You put a card design up on the forum in order for it to be evaluate but then dislike the honest feedback. Was I suppose to do anything else?
I do not think it is fair to call my view on elegance and design for narrow since all I did was call both of your versioner for non-elegant designs based on one of the many criteria for elegance. I would call your left design for ‘clean’ but not elegant. Was I suppose to do anything else?
And I do not believe my opinion was set in stone. No more than Wizards of the Coast’s opinion is set in stone. I actually do not believe your comment was fair at all.
You put a card design up on the forum in order for it to be evaluate but then dislike the honest feedback. Was I suppose to do anything else?
I do not think it is fair to call my view on elegance and design for narrow since all I did was call both of your versioner for non-elegant designs based on one of the many criteria for elegance. I would call your left design for ‘clean’ but not elegant. Was I suppose to do anything else?
And I do not believe my opinion was set in stone. No more than Wizards of the Coast’s opinion is set in stone. I actually do not believe your comment was fair at all.
