ArkiThe7th
1/1 Squirrel
Any plant is edible if you’re not a coward.
Posts: 82
Favorite Card: Wee Dragonauts
Favorite Set: Pauper Masters (wait a second...)
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by ArkiThe7th on Jun 9, 2021 11:14:24 GMT
Our next question is from me: So, we have "This spell can't be countered", but what about "This spell must be countered"? What would that mean for the meta, and how would you go about making sure the rules can actually support this ability?
To be honest I don't really know enough about most formats to have any idea about whether a card a niche as this would eben be worth playing in any deck, but let's put that aside for now. If Magic were to be a purely digital format, the rules could handle an effect like this much better, but in paper Magic one need to force everyones' hands to be revealed.. Mostly inspired by Insist:
Bold Temptation Sorcery When you cast this spell, each player reveals their hand until end of turn. This spell must be countered if able.
Draw a card.
I could also see this ins red - or maybe using hybrid mana? I don’t have much to say on this matter, I think this card would work well. Even if it’s very niche, it’s an interesting design. Also, good wishes for your sibling from me, foureyesisafish
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 9, 2021 17:44:27 GMT
foureyesisafish : Here's hoping for a full and speedy recovery.
Do you have any thoughts on the ability "This spell must be countered"?
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 9, 2021 19:34:10 GMT
Our next question is from me: So, we have "This spell can't be countered", but what about "This spell must be countered"? What would that mean for the meta, and how would you go about making sure the rules can actually support this ability? Finally have some time to answer this so going to take a shot at it while I can: Our next question is from me: So, we have "This spell can't be countered", but what about "This spell must be countered"? What would that mean for the meta, and how would you go about making sure the rules can actually support this ability?To be honest I don't really know enough about most formats to have any idea about whether a card a niche as this would eben be worth playing in any deck, but let's put that aside for now. If Magic were to be a purely digital format, the rules could handle an effect like this much better, but in paper Magic one need to force everyones' hands to be revealed.. Mostly inspired by Insist: Bold Temptation Sorcery When you cast this spell, each player reveals their hand until end of turn. This spell must be countered if able.
Draw a card. I could also see this ins red - or maybe using hybrid mana?
The way I see it there are two ways to read this effect: "Forcefully discard all counterspells" - This seems to be the interpretation that is being run with right now and frankly I think it's pretty clunky. It's a mix of , , and type effects all at once which would make it hard to make flexible designs and forcing a player to reveal their hand every time seems like unnecessary busywork. (It's not dissimilar from Miracle, where you have to now explicitly change the way you are doing stuff with the cards in your hand or force the player to always reveal hand, like Daij's example.) I think it would be better to take a softer interpretation that reads something like: Spell Magnet Instant Magnet (If a spell would counter target spell, it must target this spell instead.)This makes it a more graceful effect that only interacts with Counterspells on the stack or coming onto the stack, and prevents constant hand revealing from clogging up the game's flow. Since it's a less powerful effect that doesn't roll up multiple colors effects into it all at once, it would also be easier to distribute this effect among the various colors - for example, White could get a hatebear design like: Magnet Priest Creature Flash Magnet (If a spell would counter target spell, it must target this spell instead.)2/2 Going with this interpretation, "Counter target counterspell" is actually pretty strong if done right but it usually needs to be very efficient to do so. To put it another way, Reverberate is not considered strong , Guttural Response is fairly decent, Red Elemental Blast starts to draw comparisons to why Cryptic Command is run (being more than "just" a counterspell), and Veil of Summer is just so much raw value for a non-Blue color to counter spells it's considered very strong if not borderline OP. I think this sort of " Lure for Counterspells" effect is pretty similar in that regard and probably just becomes about being costing it appropriately - I would consider it worth maybe 0.5 to 1 colored mana all by itself.
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 14, 2021 15:48:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 14, 2021 17:12:54 GMT
For the record: Unless I missed something, I was the first one to respond to our current question
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 14, 2021 18:41:37 GMT
|
|
foureyesisafish
7/7 Elemental
Posts: 388
Favorite Set: Ikoria: Lair of the Behemoths
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by foureyesisafish on Jun 15, 2021 14:42:20 GMT
Didn't I also reply?
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 15, 2021 18:00:56 GMT
foureyesisafish: That was the previous question. We're now on So, we have "This spell can't be countered", but what about "This spell must be countered"? What would that mean for the meta, and how would you go about making sure the rules can actually support this ability?
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 15, 2021 19:50:29 GMT
honestly, other than a one-off design, I don't think it has much usable design space.
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 18, 2021 20:00:46 GMT
If foureyesisafish has no thoughts on the current question, perhaps we should move onto the next one.
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 18, 2021 23:25:21 GMT
Considering they still might have some continuing RL issues / other things in mind, I guess that would be the best
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 19, 2021 14:54:08 GMT
Ok then. Our next question is also from me: As has been proven time and again, 3 life is not nearly enough. You're ALWAYS paying it. If you were to increase the amount of life, what number would you think is enough to make it an actual, hard decision, and why did you choose that number?
|
|
foureyesisafish
7/7 Elemental
Posts: 388
Favorite Set: Ikoria: Lair of the Behemoths
Color Alignment: Blue, Red, Green
|
Post by foureyesisafish on Jun 19, 2021 18:28:51 GMT
If foureyesisafish has no thoughts on the current question, perhaps we should move onto the next one. but I did answer it? I questioned if it would work.
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 19, 2021 19:26:07 GMT
If foureyesisafish has no thoughts on the current question, perhaps we should move onto the next one. but I did answer it? I questioned if it would work. I'm sorry, it's getting a little hard for me to keep track. I'll do better next time.
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jun 20, 2021 7:17:08 GMT
To be honest when I first looked at this question I thought it was going to be pretty cut and dry but the more I thought about it the more I realized how subjective it really was. Paying life in increments of 2 (Phyrexian mana) has been done before and it can be pretty rough to shell out that 4 life for a Dismember unless you are playing Death's Shadow, for example. Other cards like Gut Shot and Mutagenic Growth aren't thst remarkable for that matter unless played in very specific strategies that work with the free effect they provide. I think it's better to look at the problem in the context of the card. While I don't have much experience with Terror of the Peaks I do feel like it is worth pointing out a comparable hasty dragon like Thundermaw Hellkite or Glorybringer is bringing a 'guaranteed' 4-5 damage to the player's face if it isn't killed right away. Given that perspective the 'insurance' of a guaranteed 3 damage even if the Terror dies doesn't see that unreasonable. I'm admittedly curious if you were running Terror of the Peaks in a deck during the episode prep and thus could provide some more insight on if the 3 life payment impacted games at all. On the other hand something like Dash Hopes definitely doesn't cost enough life to meaningfully threaten anything on the stack, because usually paying 5 life is more important than losing a valuable advance in your gameplan. Something like 7 life or even 10 life so that putting yourself much closer to lethal would probably be more suitable.
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 20, 2021 16:53:22 GMT
ZephyrPhantom : I run a slightly modified Plumb the Pests list on Arena, and Sedgemoor Witch is vitally important to that deck's functionality. Without it, you're almost completely guaranteed to lose, so it's disheartening to see removal spell after removal spell being pointed at it and players taking the 3 like the nothing it really is.
On the flipside, with Terror of the Peaks, I've only ever played against them, and they're immediately eating my removal every single goddamn time, even if I'm at 4 life and they're playing a Burn deck and have a full hand. I don't fucking care, it's too much of a threat to let live, and the 3 life is only nontrivial if I'm already at 3.
|
|
ArkiThe7th
1/1 Squirrel
Any plant is edible if you’re not a coward.
Posts: 82
Favorite Card: Wee Dragonauts
Favorite Set: Pauper Masters (wait a second...)
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by ArkiThe7th on Jun 22, 2021 13:16:01 GMT
I agree with ZephyrPhantom that paying life is very conditional. It’s a very dangerous mechanic. Especially when you substitute mana with paying life. *cough Phyrexian mana *cough* There’s many different factors in a scenario affecting how much life you’d be willing to play. For example: many decks use Phyrexian mana to accelerate their win before their opponents catch up. For those decks, they could pay tons of life as long as they keep tempo. While other decks use it for off-color spells which can be a bit more dangerous and usually results in more difficult decisions. As for forcing an opponent to pay life, I’m not a huge fan of this mechanic because there tends to be no good middle ground. Either the cost is too small to matter and your opponent always pays it, or it’s too much and it basically just says “hexproof” or something similar. I’d prefer if this style of card used something more interesting and dynamic than paying life. I don’t know what would work better though…
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 22, 2021 17:41:09 GMT
i'd say 5 might be better.
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 23, 2021 20:59:43 GMT
This is a rather tough question. Terror of the Peaks obviously basically has an unkeyworded Ward - which is kind of a powered down Hexproof except when (at least to me) it really isn't. I don't see the life payment ones as normal spell protection but rather as sort of a punishment for targeting them - because you basically always do it anyway (unless you can't, which means you're probably dead anyway ). As such, I can't really answer the initial question either, because if 3 life is a fitting punishment already and I (again) don't thnk the point here is to disencourage your to blow it up..
|
|
ArkiThe7th
1/1 Squirrel
Any plant is edible if you’re not a coward.
Posts: 82
Favorite Card: Wee Dragonauts
Favorite Set: Pauper Masters (wait a second...)
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by ArkiThe7th on Jun 24, 2021 9:32:26 GMT
i'd say 5 might be better. For what, exactly? The Ward cost or something else? Like I said, it’s very different based on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 25, 2021 3:22:35 GMT
for ward.
|
|
ArkiThe7th
1/1 Squirrel
Any plant is edible if you’re not a coward.
Posts: 82
Favorite Card: Wee Dragonauts
Favorite Set: Pauper Masters (wait a second...)
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by ArkiThe7th on Jun 25, 2021 11:53:08 GMT
Ah, okay. That would probably make it a more difficult decision. It might get a little too close to the range of “just hexproof,” though.
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 25, 2021 16:06:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 27, 2021 15:21:26 GMT
I've given plenty of time. Moving on without foureyesisafish .
So, dangerousdice said 5, and I would say that that's actually where designing/developing a life payment for ward should start, and it should only ever go up from there. In fact, I'd say start in the 5-7 range, depending on things like color and expected deck archetype, with Burn getting the lower numbers, because Burn is most able to capitalize on sudden, massive losses of life. I wanna see something like "Ward--Lose all but 1 life".
Actually, this question has a bit more depth now that I think about it, because if we apply the life loss to lands, we start to notice an increase in reticence (except in Death's Shadow players, but those people are freaks with a capital "Keep that riffraff the fuck away from me!"). With the painlands, the upper limit for how much you'd be willing to lose to them was usually around 5, whereas with the Shocklands, you'll only ever not take the 2 when you know you can absolutely get away with it, like on turn 1 with a two-drop in hand. However, when it comes to the Zendikar Rising lands, having to pay the 3 life seems like the biggest feelbad hassle there is. A strange, illogical reaction.
And finally, which of Strixhaven's five colleges do you think best represents Mrs. Widgery's Lodgers?
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 28, 2021 20:12:49 GMT
Considering their head's, Ransak Boggett's, physical fitness (despite his age) and his prowess in easily avoiding all those traps Trymon had set up for him, I'd say Lorehold is the obvious answer!
|
|
|
Post by dangerousdice on Jun 29, 2021 4:34:48 GMT
quandrix. i'm taking a total shot in the dark here, as I have no clue what your talking about, but quandrix is (probably) a safe bet.
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 29, 2021 19:06:20 GMT
quandrix. i'm taking a total shot in the dark here, as I have no clue what your talking about, but quandrix is (probably) a safe bet. You need to read up on your Sir PTerry. #GNU
|
|
ArkiThe7th
1/1 Squirrel
Any plant is edible if you’re not a coward.
Posts: 82
Favorite Card: Wee Dragonauts
Favorite Set: Pauper Masters (wait a second...)
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by ArkiThe7th on Jun 30, 2021 10:20:46 GMT
I’ve just started reading all of the Discworld novels, but I’ll get back to you in 1-3 years.
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Jun 30, 2021 16:53:37 GMT
ArkiThe7th: Well, you're in luck, because the current question only references the first two books.
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Jun 30, 2021 21:35:21 GMT
ArkiThe7th : Well, you're in luck, because the current question only references the first two books.
To be honest, I've never met anyone reading the Discworld books in order If I remember correctly, Mort was my first one
|
|