loadingreadyrun.com

What about this... does this card seem feasible? Or is it still too broken?



I know, the name could actually be "Pact Lotus", but I really did start with the idea of a black market contraband thing that you have to pay for eventually.

While the upkeep trigger does generally prevent using it early in the game, the times when it will be most meaningful are when you're using it to win the game the turn you get the mana. The problem with Black Lotus isn't that it gives you 3 mana; it's that it costs nothing to do so. I could see an argument for the tap/sac effect at 3 mana since it's mana neutral, or maybe having a mana cost for the activation.

That said, I still think it's a really neat take. Too bad fast mana is pretty inherently busted. I don't think there's any real way to fix it

Think I have to agree with Artirian. The drawback does nothing to mitigate the channel fireball issue of fast mana or potential means of recurring it on the same turn. It also runs afoul of 'can't lose' or stifle effects.

Fast mana is cool, but has some very real downsides. Allowing Black Lotus in design really limits design space - even with drawbacks.

I really like your line of thought though, so here's my take on that Black Lotus variant.

"""
Black Lotus Variant {0}
Artifact
~ enters the battlefield with 3 [type] counters.
At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a [type] counter from ~.
X, T, Sacrifice Black Lotus Variant: Add three mana of any one color to your mana pool. X is the number of [type] counters on ~.
"""

To get mana acceleration from this is a bit more difficult to do on the turn you play it - it only functions as filtering. You can only use it as ramp after it's been out for a few turns (and your opponent has had time to prepare/deal with it) unless you have ways of removing counters.

To counter the problem of recursion, should it be exiled, maybe?

That had crossed my mind, but the sleepy part of me wasn't sure if 'can't be sacrificed' clauses might get toes stepped on in that case. In hindsight it's such a negligible interaction that is cut out, and there's relevant upside for removing the possibility of recursion.

I do like exiling the Lotus rather than sacrificing it; I stuck with sacrifice for this card text just so that it feels more like the original. As for the "vanishing" or "fade counters" variant, that's really interesting... and makes me wonder why it couldn't just be straight-up vanishing, use it or lose it after 3 turns!

My concern with vanishing/fade is that they would nerf it too much -- only getting one turn with the ability to use it at its full potential on top of not getting that full potential right away, just felt a bit too hard to make worthwhile without breaking it. (And if you're making it without the 'X mana where X is the number of [counter type] counters', then the downside is meaningless.)

Ok, Hi all! I have need of more wording help:

[NAME] 2UR
Legendary Creature

If another card would cause you to roll a die or flip a coin you may perform that action up to two additional times, replacing the original result with the newest one.

Exile target spell you control from the stack: Put a copy of the exiled spell onto the stack with randomly chosen targets. If one of the targets chosen has already been targeted this turn by a spell with the same name as the exiled spell, you take damage equal to double the exiled spell’s converted mana cost. Otherwise, you may put a new copy of the exiled spell onto the stack and repeat this process. Activate this ability only once per turn.

4/4


Here's what it's supposed to do: Copy's a spell with random targets, you can do this as many times as you like and stop freely, but don't control the targets and if one hits twice you take a penalty and can't do it any more.

I also realize that this could get out of hand and would like some ways to temper it (if necessary) while keeping the theme intact for the most part.

You cannot target as part of a cost.Off the top of my head, I would probably have it copy the targeted spell, then exile it at the end. (Will think more on it on the morrow.)

I think if I take out the target part it might fix that. Thinking like Nivmagus Elemental.

Wording it like Nivmagus would certainly work. If you use this ability on a spell that doesn't target, it will create infinite copies with no drawback, (such things are usually templated with the caveat "with a single target"). I would suggest something along the lines of:

Exile an instant or sorcery you control with a single target: Copy that spell with it's target chosen at random. If a card or player has been targeted by a spell with the same name as the exiled card more than once, [Cardname] deals damage to you equal to twice the converted mana cost of the exiled card. Otherwise you may create a new copy of the exiled spell.

It's a tricky one particularly because of the timing of declaring targets and a spell coming off the stack.

Yeah, I like that and I would have to have the qualifier for it being a targeted spell. What do people think of the risk vs reward of this card? I know people tend to avoid things of chance in Magic, but I want it to be attractive enough to try in some situations, but not unpunishing so that it's always a sure thing.

The character on the card is a legendary gambler so a big flashy high risk/high reward effect is what I want, but if it never goes off it's pointless. I was also thinking that on a loss/bad roll it might exile all copies from the stack, but that could be too harsh. Not sure.

What do people think?

Double Homicide Sorcery 3BW
destroy up to two target tapped creatures

I understand the reason behind it, but 'up to' kind of makes it a flavor fail.

Narset Helmsmasher
legendary creature - Human Warrior
cost WR p/t 2/3
Noncreature spells your oppositions cost 1 more to cast.
Heroic - Whenever you cast a spell that targets Narset Helmsmasher, put a +1/+1 counter on Narset Helmasher and you may discard a card. If you do, draw two cards.

Nothing particularly outrageous with it, but it seems a bit unfocused (especially for a low drop) and just overall powerful... any RW deck will play it.

growing legion 1GW enhancement
when growing legion enters the battlefield choose a power and a toughness.

If an effect would create one or more tokens under your control, it creates that many plus one. If you create tokens with the chosen power and toughness create two additional token instead.

Would a fixed version of this be actually balanced? It's currently not good because it's an on-cast trigger and there would be no "enchanted creature" yet.

But what I think it's trying to do is: Whenever an Aura ETBs under your control, you can Disentomb. Then, an opponent can discard 2 cards. If so, exile the enchanted creature. (And of course the Aura then goes to the graveyard.)

From what I'm thinking, it's almost balanced, on the bad side. A 3/3 for 5 isn't great, but getting a free Disentomb with every Aura is pretty good, if you build your deck around it. And you get to keep your Disentombed creature even if your opponent 2-for-2's you by discarding. I think it'd be a perfectly playable Constructed card, but probably bad in Limited.

Regarding "Growing Legion":
This seems to be overpowered to me; my Ghave commander deck is drooling over it. Just making one extra token each time is heinous! I could see it being reined in a bit, by making the power/toughness setting be dialed in based on an X cost in the casting cost, and then say that if an effect would create a token with power or toughness equal to X, then make an additional one. Perhaps it would have to be XGW and come into play with X (something) counters on it, then check when making tokens whether the token has P or T equal to the number of (something) counters on it.

This then would function much as you wrote for making bonus 1/1 saprolings, but if you intend to Populate 3/3 Centaurs then it's gonna cost you a bit more. And just leave it at making one bonus token per instance, don't go overboard with the two bonus tokens, because SHEESH that's strong! *cough* Lingering Souls *cough*

Regarding Abuncaradker:

I guess if the second clause was phrased as "Until end of turn, any player may discard two cards. If they do, that player exiles target enchanted creature." That way, players get an option to do this after the aura has resolved. The thing about this wording, though, is that it doesn't limit the choice of enchanted creature; there could be another creature that has been wearing its pants since before the turn began, that could be selected as the target - heck, it could even be a creature controlled by another player! So the targeting might need to get a good bit more wordy.

Growing Legion is in a similar vein to Parallel Lives. It costs one less total and one more colour, and instead of doubling the number of tokens, it adds one extra (or two in certain situations). Thus, in some situations it's vastly stronger than Parallel Lives, but in the majority it will be equivalent power for less mana investment. My conclusion: Increase the cost by one, I think. That should mean that it's generally as powerful as and sometimes less powerful than Parallel Lives, with the occasional (but build-aroundable) situation where it's stronger (and in all situations, complimentary to).

The design 'intent' of Abuncaradker is a bit unclear, but this looks like it would be the closest to the original while functioning under current rules:

"Whenever a creature becomes the target of an aura spell you control, any player may discard two cards. If they do, exile that creature, otherwise you may return target creature card from your graveyard to your hand."

'Any' could be changed to 'another' - but the original does not have this caveat.

Re: WP&P - it doesn't target an enchanted creature, and unless it specifies that they are making a choice (even just by saying '_an_ enchanted creature'), there isn't actually an 'enchanted creature' (since the Abuncaradker itself isn't actually an aura).

SixFootTurkey wrote: there isn't actually an 'enchanted creature' (since the Abuncaradker itself isn't actually an aura).

The way I was approaching it is that the "when cast" trigger that Abun generates includes an "until end of turn" time window, so that sometime after the aura has resolved a player can still have the option to do the discarding. Thus, with a resolved aura, there would indeed be an enchanted creature on the board. The thing is, there might be well more than just that one enchanted creature out there, which is why I said the wording probably needs to be a bit better.

And I think your approach does actually do the "wording things better" such that it's only the creature that is being targeted by the aura that is in jeopardy of exile. I notice you've altered the "when cast" to "when a creature becomes the target" which is slightly different but maybe not functionally so...

Mmm, point. I was trying to retain the target in the triggering reference without having to resort to 'the target of that spell' wording.

It could be switched to 'whenever you cast an aura spell targeting a creature' which allows you to use 'that creature' to refer to it.

Relentless Revenant - (B)
Creature - Zombie Horror
Counters remain on Relentless Revenant as it moves to any zone other than a player's hand or library.
Whenever Relentless Revenant is put into the graveyard from anywhere, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
As long as Relentless Revenant is in the graveyard, you may pay (B) for each +1/+1 counter on it. If you do, put it onto the battlefield. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.
1/0

This is probably undercosted in some way, and the intent is a playable low-cost zombie in formats like Highlander. It's not really a one drop, since it straight dies if played for less than two mana, but the hope is the reliable increase in damage potential helps offset that, at least temporarily. Thoughts?