|
|
Post by Jartis on Oct 30, 2021 2:12:27 GMT
viriss is correct Edit: Though I would like to clarify that in a 1v1 situation they could choose if it targets them directly or a planeswalker they control
|
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Oct 30, 2021 2:34:52 GMT
What does "Chooses how this attacks this turn"... mean? I imagine it's like Boros Battleshaper but in design space not really explored because it's meaningless in a duel unlike the battleshaper. They choose which opponent (possibly themselves) or planeswalker an opponent controls that the elephant attacks. They can't force you to pay any additional costs to attack ( Propaganda, Norn's Annex) So it's a 4/4 for 2 with actually, literally no downsides because the one choice you've added to it is a choice opponents can't actually make, because it has to attack each combat if able? |
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Oct 30, 2021 4:41:01 GMT
I imagine it's like Boros Battleshaper but in design space not really explored because it's meaningless in a duel unlike the battleshaper. They choose which opponent (possibly themselves) or planeswalker an opponent controls that the elephant attacks. They can't force you to pay any additional costs to attack ( Propaganda, Norn's Annex) So it's a 4/4 for 2 with actually, literally no downsides because the one choice you've added to it is a choice opponents can't actually make, because it has to attack each combat if able? Not sure if I'm in favor of or against the card as is but I do want to note a few interesting points: - It's worth noting that Ruhan of the Fomori was clearly based on the same logic. - Chances are a design like this would be printed in a supplemental product meaning it only would get considered in the context of Legacy/Vintage, Commander, and kitchen table. I think it's interesting how this card would be a non-issue in the former two cases but perhaps awkward (for power reasons) to regularly use in the third case. - Jartis you would probably want to take the above two points into account for that matter as a 4 mana card is played and perceived differently than a 2-mana one even if the intentions are the same. (Also - Ruhan is a Commander, which gives it more general use cases than Bone White Elephant.) - I think the boring answer is to just increase the cost, but at the same time I think there's a lot of room to make a more interesting punisher effects here. Make it force opponents to loot or create Treasures or etc... |
|
MonkeyChewToy
1/1 Squirrel
Back in the Saddle
Posts: 52
Favorite Card: Darksteel Relic
Favorite Set: Battlebond
Color Alignment: Blue, Green
|
Post by MonkeyChewToy on Oct 30, 2021 6:03:36 GMT
 Idk how happy I am with it, but I wanted to get something out there. Lots of discussion on this interesting fellow but I feel like we're overlooking the most major flaw: the type says zombie, but the art is clearly a skeleton. 
That said, while it seems strong for an uncommon, "attacks each turn" is a stronger drawback than "can't block," and there have been plenty of aggressively-costed can't-blockers. Coupled with "my opponent decides if I hit their face or their 'walker" in 1-on-1 and "I have no idea who I will attack this turn" in multiplayer, I don't think this is entirely outside the realm of possibility. I do think the chaos feel is a good fit for black-red.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jartis on Oct 30, 2021 7:33:42 GMT
MonkeyChewToy Gonna be honest...forgot Skeleton was it's own type Edit: OMG and that means I missed the chance to make the type "Skelephant"! But honestly, kinda impressed with how much feedback this card is getting when I thought it was basically a throwaway design. The card I wanted to design is still under construction, and probably won't get done in time, but I wanted to have something for the contest. That said, I'll definitely take all these critiques into consideration. I had worried about its cost-to-power ratio, weighed the value of making it an uncommon vs a rare, debated if making it two color was enough to justify a slightly pushed design, etc. As has been mentioned, I definitely don't think I'd put it in a set that was gonna be Standard legal, but I don't think its out of place in certain other formats. I dunno, I'm still playing around with it. Nice to see the discussion, though 
|
|
|
|
Post by BinaryBolas on Oct 30, 2021 8:56:28 GMT
MonkeyChewToy Gonna be honest...forgot Skeleton was it's own type Edit: OMG and that means I missed the chance to make the type "Skelephant"! But honestly, kinda impressed with how much feedback this card is getting when I thought it was basically a throwaway design. The card I wanted to design is still under construction, and probably won't get done in time, but I wanted to have something for the contest. That said, I'll definitely take all these critiques into consideration. I had worried about its cost-to-power ratio, weighed the value of making it an uncommon vs a rare, debated if making it two color was enough to justify a slightly pushed design, etc. As has been mentioned, I definitely don't think I'd put it in a set that was gonna be Standard legal, but I don't think its out of place in certain other formats. I dunno, I'm still playing around with it. Nice to see the discussion, though I personally like designs like yours a lot since it is a small design that was seldom touched on, and it is "simple" enough that it could see printed. If I were to balance this card, I would make it die to bolts (4/3 maybe) and that's it. Since it has no visible ETB effects and has no haste, in today's MTG standard it is easier to deal with it if it dies to 2 mana removals. On the other hand, if this card needs to be perfected, the wording on the second paragraph should be more specific on what your opponents choose, I think. (I think it needs to be like Tahngarth's text right?) |
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Oct 31, 2021 0:17:42 GMT
So it's a 4/4 for 2 with actually, literally no downsides because the one choice you've added to it is a choice opponents can't actually make, because it has to attack each combat if able? Not sure if I'm in favor of or against the card as is but I do want to note a few interesting points: - It's worth noting that Ruhan of the Fomori was clearly based on the same logic. - Chances are a design like this would be printed in a supplemental product meaning it only would get considered in the context of Legacy/Vintage, Commander, and kitchen table. I think it's interesting how this card would be a non-issue in the former two cases but perhaps awkward (for power reasons) to regularly use in the third case. - Jartis you would probably want to take the above two points into account for that matter as a 4 mana card is played and perceived differently than a 2-mana one even if the intentions are the same. (Also - Ruhan is a Commander, which gives it more general use cases than Bone White Elephant.) - I think the boring answer is to just increase the cost, but at the same time I think there's a lot of room to make a more interesting punisher effects here. Make it force opponents to loot or create Treasures or etc... There's a world of difference between a 2 mana 4/4 and a 4 mana 7/7 as far as viability in aggro goes. Remember, even if you intend for a card to only be played in multiplayer, there's literally nothing stopping it from migrating to single player. Designing a multiplayer focused card that's actually stronger in singleplayer is how you wind up with True-Name Nemesis. |
|
MonkeyChewToy
1/1 Squirrel
Back in the Saddle
Posts: 52
Favorite Card: Darksteel Relic
Favorite Set: Battlebond
Color Alignment: Blue, Green
|
Post by MonkeyChewToy on Oct 31, 2021 3:49:29 GMT
There's a world of difference between a 2 mana 4/4 and a 4 mana 7/7 as far as viability in aggro goes. Remember, even if you intend for a card to only be played in multiplayer, there's literally nothing stopping it from migrating to single player. Designing a multiplayer focused card that's actually stronger in singleplayer is how you wind up with True-Name Nemesis. So what you're saying is... it's printable?  I think the Skelephant is a strong card, there's no denying that it's powerful. I think it would make a splashy rare, and if its toughness were a tad lower, I would just consider it a 'meh' uncommon, like Frost Walker. It's no True-Name. All it does is attack; no evasion, no haste, no protection: it's just a body that turns sideways. Probably the best comparisons would be with Exemplar of Strength—whose downside is effectively negligible if you played Khalni Garden on turn one, for example—or Bloodrage Brawler, whose downside is just as often an upside for Fiery Temper. You might even compare it to Thundering Rebuke, because often that's all it will be: your opponent will simply block it or send it towards their 'walker and kill it soon after. I agree that, if we want to dream of being in WotC R&D one day, we should be mindful of cards' effects on multiple formats. "It's for Commander" isn't really a great excuse for not balancing a card—though, for the record, I think "I just threw this together for the contest and I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with it" is a perfectly valid excuse.  But frankly, I'm not sure this card is that unbalanced. Consider the following: - Ashenmoor Gouger was a decently powerful card in its day, though it was overshadowed by Faeries and 5-Color Control in Standard. It's a 4/4 that can't block for
 .
- The cost difference between Bloodrage Cyclops and Scavenging Scarab (in two colors that often have similarly-sized creatures in the middle of their curves) suggests that "attacks each turn" is worth a savings of
 compared to "can't block." - Assuming colored mana is roughly equal to
 , this would put us probably around if, as you say, there is no other downside. (Agree to disagree there.)   is a more restrictive cost than , (compare Spike Jester to Rakdos Shred-Freak,) so we can push the stats a little—that probably brings us down to something like  .- Since we're not silver bordered, we'll have to round one way or the other—and we might as well round down and have ourselves some fun.
TL;DR— the5lacker is right that we should be mindful of other formats; Jartis is right that a silly little dead elephant for 2 mana is not the new True-Name. |
|
|
|
Post by zybourne on Oct 31, 2021 4:54:41 GMT
|
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Oct 31, 2021 13:25:21 GMT
There's a world of difference between a 2 mana 4/4 and a 4 mana 7/7 as far as viability in aggro goes. Remember, even if you intend for a card to only be played in multiplayer, there's literally nothing stopping it from migrating to single player. Designing a multiplayer focused card that's actually stronger in singleplayer is how you wind up with True-Name Nemesis. So what you're saying is... it's printable? I think the Skelephant is a strong card, there's no denying that it's powerful. I think it would make a splashy rare, and if its toughness were a tad lower, I would just consider it a 'meh' uncommon, like Frost Walker. It's no True-Name. All it does is attack; no evasion, no haste, no protection: it's just a body that turns sideways. Probably the best comparisons would be with Exemplar of Strength—whose downside is effectively negligible if you played Khalni Garden on turn one, for example—or Bloodrage Brawler, whose downside is just as often an upside for Fiery Temper. You might even compare it to Thundering Rebuke, because often that's all it will be: your opponent will simply block it or send it towards their 'walker and kill it soon after. I agree that, if we want to dream of being in WotC R&D one day, we should be mindful of cards' effects on multiple formats. "It's for Commander" isn't really a great excuse for not balancing a card—though, for the record, I think "I just threw this together for the contest and I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with it" is a perfectly valid excuse. But frankly, I'm not sure this card is that unbalanced. Consider the following: - Ashenmoor Gouger was a decently powerful card in its day, though it was overshadowed by Faeries and 5-Color Control in Standard. It's a 4/4 that can't block for .
- The cost difference between Bloodrage Cyclops and Scavenging Scarab (in two colors that often have similarly-sized creatures in the middle of their curves) suggests that "attacks each turn" is worth a savings of compared to "can't block."
- Assuming colored mana is roughly equal to , this would put us probably around if, as you say, there is no other downside. (Agree to disagree there.)
- is a more restrictive cost than , (compare Spike Jester to Rakdos Shred-Freak,) so we can push the stats a little—that probably brings us down to something like .
- Since we're not silver bordered, we'll have to round one way or the other—and we might as well round down and have ourselves some fun.
TL;DR— the5lacker is right that we should be mindful of other formats; Jartis is right that a silly little dead elephant for 2 mana is not the new True-Name. is printable if you have access to the printer. A 4/4 for 2 that attacks each combat is still definitely entirely too strong, and that attempt at hard-math rules simply doesn't work. Mana cost isn't determined by checklist, it's determined by the impact a card has, and a 4/4 swinging on turn 3 is substantially more of a problem than a 4/4 attacking on turn 4. Very few things will be able to trade with it, which means either you're doing 4 damage to the dome for free, or you're going to get to 2-for-1 with it. Both of which are very good for an aggro deck. Would it see play in competitive Legacy/Vintage tournaments? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a serious problem at the kitchen table. |
|
MonkeyChewToy
1/1 Squirrel
Back in the Saddle
Posts: 52
Favorite Card: Darksteel Relic
Favorite Set: Battlebond
Color Alignment: Blue, Green
|
Post by MonkeyChewToy on Nov 1, 2021 20:24:03 GMT
Anything is printable if you have access to the printer. A 4/4 for 2 that attacks each combat is still definitely entirely too strong, and that attempt at hard-math rules simply doesn't work. Mana cost isn't determined by checklist, it's determined by the impact a card has, and a 4/4 swinging on turn 3 is substantially more of a problem than a 4/4 attacking on turn 4. Very few things will be able to trade with it, which means either you're doing 4 damage to the dome for free, or you're going to get to 2-for-1 with it. Both of which are very good for an aggro deck. Would it see play in competitive Legacy/Vintage tournaments? No, of course not. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a serious problem at the kitchen table. In the interest of assuming that you are still engaging in this in good faith, here is a way to trade with a 4/4 for two mana in every color for about a nickle apiece. Here's a way to attack with a 4/4 on turn three in every color except black, (though you can simulate a two-mana 4/4 attack with Tyrant's Choice,) for roughly a dime apiece. I hope this helps alleviate your concern about 'serious problems' at kitchen tables. The reality is that kitchen tables are the best environment for self-balancing. Friend wrecking everyone's face with a 4/4? Jam four Divine Arrows in your deck. Friend overrunning the table with their dredge deck? Pick up some Tormod's Crypts. Or just tell them you won't play with them as long as they're playing a deck that everyone hates. It's virtually impossible to design to kitchen table balance, because every table has different standards. I once played with a group who insisted Izzet Guildmage should be banned, because of a combo deck my friend played. Conversely, I played with a different group who thought Golgari Grave-Troll (banned in modern, restricted in vintage,) was perfectly fine, because it couldn't attack through Pacifism. There's infinite variety among playgroups, and they will simply play the cards they like and ignore the ones they don't. I'm unclear on what exactly you're hoping for here. Is your goal to help other designers to get better at design by thinking critically about their cards? If so, I think you're missing the mark. And if not, what is your goal, and why isn't it helping your fellow designers?
|
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Nov 1, 2021 22:18:34 GMT
This thread is now closed, the poll can be found here. And here's the next challenge! |
|
But frankly, I'm not sure this card is that unbalanced. Consider the following:
"When in doubt, do a common."