Support NeoGAF

[Angry Grimace]

I suppose I'll come out and say it, too. I don't believe balance is a good mechanic, especially not one to design a whole set around. Having to care about fiddling around with numbers just does not seem like an interesting space, especially if you get punished for using too many balance-enabling spells and equipment (you can give a 1/2 creature +2/+1 only once). I was hoping you'd discover this for yourself when you started designing commons.

I encourage you to look at your playtests and determine what you actually enjoy about the mechanic, because I can assure you, it's related to something the mechanic encourages you to do, not the whole mechanic. Perhaps you would rather have a mechanic that encourages using a lot of equipment and/or heroic or a variation of it.

The big problem with "Balance" is that it doesn't function at all due to a somewhat un-intuitive twist of the rules. It's an ability that seems like it should work, but it just doesn't work and never will because ability-adding or removing effects are applied in Layer 6 and power and toughness altering effects are applied in Layer 7. The end result is that the ability simply cannot function.

The fact that it seems like it should work is why nobody's actually mentioned it. I didn't even think about it until way after he showed us a few of those custom cards.

 

[divisionbyzorro]

On Wizard's response regarding the Kozilek debacle, this part stood out to me:

The final thing I want to say is that the initial suspension and the results of the appeals of those players came out of an ongoing legal investigation regarding a leak of proprietary and confidential information, not an Organized Play investigation. They are independent processes, and we don't want players seeing these two systems as interchangeable, as they serve very different purposes. Through these appeals, it became clear to us that there are improvements we can make, including how we communicate with players under investigation. We're taking this as an opportunity to reevaluate the process and will be making adjustments to be more transparent with those involved in the future.

In other words, "our lawyers made us do it." I don't know if that makes me feel better or worse.

 

[Kyne]

Modern is a non-rotating format, but a new card or a breakout new strategy can result in speculation bringing up the price of random cards (and lowering them when they turn out not to be that great). I can't think of any cards that you'd want to hold onto if you have no interest in playing, though. There are thoughts that Stoneforge Mystic will be unbanned, but speculation is already driving its price up, so you might as well unload it if you have it, before it turns out not to be unbanned.

I do have x4.

You think if it was unbanned it would go up even higher?

 

[Ashodin]

The big problem with "Balance" is that it doesn't function at all due to a somewhat un-intuitive twist of the rules. It's an ability that seems like it should work, but it just doesn't work and never will because ability-adding or removing effects are applied in Layer 6 and power and toughness altering effects are applied in Layer 7. The end result is that the ability simply cannot function.

The fact that it seems like it should work is why nobody's actually mentioned it. I didn't even think about it until way after he showed us a few of those custom cards.

Aha. I understand now, and I can find an answer to the problem.

I suppose I'll come out and say it, too. I don't believe balance is a good mechanic, especially not one to design a whole set around. Having to care about fiddling around with numbers just does not seem like an interesting space, especially if you get punished for using too many balance-enabling spells and equipment (you can give a 1/2 creature +2/+1 only once). I was hoping you'd discover this for yourself when you started designing commons.

I encourage you to look at your playtests and determine what you actually enjoy about the mechanic, because I can assure you, it's related to something the mechanic encourages you to do, not the whole mechanic. Perhaps you would rather have a mechanic that encourages using a lot of equipment and/or heroic or a variation of it.

I respectfully disagree. I think the space of messing with P/T hasn't been fully explored, and could produce some interesting cards if working correctly. It's trying to make "power and toughness matters" in a logically "white" way.

 

[Angry Grimace]

My understanding was that P/T matters was a thing they've tried to work on for years, including in Battle for Zendikar, but they couldn't ever get it to work. There's a lot of cards that seem like they should work but don't or work in unintuitive ways, like:

Anti-Fun Brigade {U}
Enchantment [R]
{0}: Tap or untap target land an opponent controls.

The broken-est card in Magic.

 

[kirblar]

Pt matters is a fidgety mechanic that is only really conceptually interesting.

 

[Joe Molotov]

On Wizard's response regarding the Kozilek debacle, this part stood out to me:

In other words, "our lawyers made us do it." I don't know if that makes me feel better or worse.

I'll wait for the official Trick response.

 

[Genryu]

My understanding was that P/T matters was a thing they've tried to work on for years, including in Battle for Zendikar, but they couldn't ever get it to work. There's a lot of cards that seem like they should work but don't or work in unintuitive ways, like:

Anti-Fun Brigade {U}
Enchantment [R]
{0}: Tap or untap target land an opponent controls.

The broken-est card in Magic.

But what if we changed it to this?

Anti-Fun Brigade {U}
Enchantment [R]
{0}: Tap or untap target land an opponent controls. Activate this ability only once each turn and only any time you could cast a sorcery.

 

[Ashodin]

How about this?

Balance 3 — 4R (You may cast this card for its balance cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with base power and toughness equal to 3.)

References the P/T in the keyword, lets you cast something as more expensive that changes P/T on the card to a specific number.

Now that I look at it, I think I like that better than the original mechanic.

 

[ultron87]

That probably causes memory issues since it doesn't put counters to remind you or anything.

 

[Santiako]

How about this?

Balance 3 — 4R (You may cast this card for its balance cost. If you do, it enters the battlefield with base power and toughness equal to 3.)

References the P/T in the keyword, lets you cast something as more expensive that changes P/T on the card to a specific number.

Now that I look at it, I think I like that better than the original mechanic.

That's just an uninteresting kicker variant imo. The whole same p/t is just not very interesting overall. Maybe in like one card, but a whole set eh

 

[ThLunarian]

Confession: a very long time ago,when mtgsalvation was the premier site to visit for new set spoilers, I posted a fake Apocalypse spoiler. This was after we knew it was an enemy color set but before we knew much else.

My fake was:

Caldera Serpent
2UR
4/4
Islandwalk, Mountainwalk

Most of the posters in the thread believed me. I'm still proud of that design

 

["God's Beard!"]

Current full list if anybody's interested in testing out this style of strategy:

I'm interested in Infectious Bloodlust in this deck. With Jori En and Dispel and evasive creatures it gets a lot better than normal. Not sure if it's better than any of the current cards in the 75, though.

 

[Santiako]

Confession: a very long time ago,when mtgsalvation was the premier site to visit for new set spoilers, I posted a fake Apocalypse spoiler. This was after we knew it was an enemy color set but before we knew much else.

My fake was:

Caldera Serpent
2UR
4/4
Islandwalk, Mountainwalk

Most of the posters in the thread believed me. I'm still proud of that design

It was probably on mtgnews, salvation wasn't a thing until way after apocalypse

 

[ThLunarian]

It was probably on mtgnews, salvation wasn't a thing until way after apocalypse

Right good call, it definitely was mtgnews! Ah, memories

 

[Horatorobor]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";192108953]Current full list if anybody's interested in testing out this style of strategy:

I'm interested in Infectious Bloodlust in this deck. With Jori En and Dispel and evasive creatures it gets a lot better than normal. Not sure if it's better than any of the current cards in the 75, though.[/QUOTE]

I like the ideia, but I also also trying to brew something with draggon fodder and that instant that turn creatures into 3/3 elephants.

 

[red13th]

I was contemplating building a modern-frame Peasant Cube and while looking for inspiration, I noticed how the blue (and, to some extent, black) spell sections of Peasant Cubes are SO much better than my modern Cube with rares and mythics.
Counterspell, Memory Lapse, Control Magic, Fact or Fiction, Arcane Denial, Gush, Impulse, Reanimate, Hymn to Tourach, Demonic Tutor, Animate Dead... so many amazing cards that are straight up upgrades to what I'm running. :lol
Modern magic has really neutered spells.

 

[Ashodin]

Alright, I've decided to throw the whole Balance mechanic out because it's too confusing/difficult to work with/rules nightmare and just go with more simple Equipment matters mechanics.

 

[Lucario]

I found a playset of foil japanese Deciever Exarchs that have been sitting in a box for ages, and decided to list them on ebay. I don't know anything about the foreign foil market, so does a $200 offer sound fair? Should I hang onto them?

 

[red13th]

Alright, I've decided to throw the whole Balance mechanic out because it's too confusing/difficult to work with/rules nightmare and just go with more simple Equipment matters mechanics.

This seems really powerful, I like it.

 

[kirblar]

I found a playset of foil japanese Deciever Exarchs that have been sitting in a box for ages, and decided to list them on ebay. I don't know anything about the foreign foil market, so does a $200 offer sound fair? Should I hang onto them?

I'd sell them before monday to be safe

 

[aidan]

Alright, I've decided to throw the whole Balance mechanic out because it's too confusing/difficult to work with/rules nightmare and just go with more simple Equipment matters mechanics.

EDIT: Nevermind. Read the card wrong. It's probably too good as a 2/1 for W.

 

[Ashodin]

I made it a 1/1.

 

[Santiako]

I think you could bump it to uncommon and leave it as it is, and maybe put a 2/2 with that ability for 1W at common.

 

[ThLunarian]

2/1 is fine. A 1/1 with that ability wouldn't be constructed playable. Maybe not even limited playable

 

[Ashodin]

I'll do full playtesting with it once I have all the cards put together. I'm now going through and re-doing all the cards that have balance.

 

[SigmasonicX]

This isn't the time we should be concerned about the power level anyway. Ashodin, fill out your commons and see how well that mechanic plays.

 

[Infinite Stars]

It's fine as a 2/1 for 1. In order to get it to get Armament, it needs to survive to at least turn 3 with an equipment attached to it. The card would be busted in Modern if Stoneforge gets unbanned(I've been brewing a Mono White Equipment for Modern that feels insane with Stoneforge and this would push it over the edge), but I think it's fine otherwise.

 

[LaserBuddha]

How about a mechanic that has creatures entering the battlefield with X "equip counters" on them, and you can remove one to attach an equipment to it for free, perhaps at instant speed? 1 or 2 counters for most creatures or more for a big finisher guy. You could use kickers with this so you can avoid a CMC tax on these creatures for people that don't run equipment. Combine that with creatures that get some benefit as long as their power and toughness are the same. Some deep shit will go down in the combat phase.

 

[Haly]

I think that would work better with key worded charge counters on the equipment, and at sorcery speed.

Instant speed equips is just a combat headache.

Primed 2 (This comes into play with 2 charge counters. Remove a charge counter: Equip to target creature you control. Equip only as a sorcery.)

 

[Ashodin]

That sounds like a rules nightmare/too deep scenario.

Also, I heard in a block, WoTC doesn't like to combine various types of counters to keep it simple to understand.

I have a question. One of my other mechanics is Quickdraw, which allows you to cast Equipment cheaper (and equip them) but sacrifices them at next upkeep.

So my question is, if I have these two:

and

Could I cast the Blade in response to the Armament trigger to get the benefit?

 

[LaserBuddha]

I think that would work better with key worded charge counters on the equipment, and at sorcery speed.

Instant speed equips is just a combat headache.

I would compromise by putting it on the equipment but leaving it at instant speed. I would be trying to make equipment better and based on my experience with Leonin Shikari, this would go a long way. Instant speed equips are very much like instant speed spells that bump a creature's P/T or give trample, except its on the table for contemplation instead of in their hand. If most things had maybe one of these counters its not going to hose combat for the rest of the game.

But ignore me I'm an EDH player.

 

[Jhriad]

[QUOTE="God's Beard!";192108953]Current full list if anybody's interested in testing out this style of strategy:
[/QUOTE]

This looks like a lot of fun.

 

[Angry Grimace]

I drafted MRD-MRD-DST. I got owned in the first round and sold the cards I drafted for .44 tickets. Feels bad man.

 

[Angry Grimace]

But what if we changed it to this?

Anti-Fun Brigade {U}
Enchantment [R]
{0}: Tap or untap target land an opponent controls. Activate this ability only once each turn and only any time you could cast a sorcery.

The card ability isn't broken because it's too good, its because it doesn't work the way you probably imagine it does.

What it looks like it does:

{0}: Tap a land your opponent controls. Use it every turn to lock them out of the game.

What it actually does:

Ramp your opponent by 1 mana every time you use it. Why? Because "Tap or untap target land an opponent controls" will be responded to by tapping the land. You only have one legal option, which is "untap target land an opponent controls."

 

[aidan]

and

I think the reminder text for Quickdraw is a little off? It can't ETB attached to a creature. So, it might have to be along the lines of: "... If you do, it has an equip cost of (0). Sacrifice it at the beginning of the next upkeep."

 

[Giant Panda]

Boom//Bust still worth buying if it's Moderately Played? Would it still do well in value if the card spikes? First time specer here.

 

[Ashodin]

Eh? Why not? There's nothing I know of in the rules that stop Equipment from attaching if it can be done through an ability.

 

[Santiako]

I think the reminder text for Quickdraw is a little off? It can't ETB attached to a creature. So, it might have to be along the lines of: "... If you do, it has an equip cost of (0). Sacrifice it at the beginning of the next upkeep."

Why? Wouldn't it work like an aura and etb attached to something?

 

[aidan]

Eh? Why not? There's nothing I know of in the rules that stop Equipment from attaching if it can be done through an ability.

It can't become attached to a creature until after it has entered the battlefield.

212.2h An Equipment is played and comes into play just like any other artifact. An Equipment doesn't come into play attached to a creature. The equip keyword ability moves the Equipment onto a creature you control (see rule 502.33, "Equip"). Control of the creature matters only when the equip ability is played and resolved.

502.33a Equip is an activated ability of artifact Equipment cards. The phrase "Equip [cost]" means "[cost]: Move this Equipment onto target creature you control. Play this ability only any time you could play a sorcery."

I might be wrong about this, though.

 

[Ashodin]

It can't become attached to a creature until after it has entered the battlefield.

Comprehensive Rules

301.5b An Equipment is cast and enters the battlefield just like any other artifact. An Equipment doesn’t enter the battlefield attached to a creature. The equip keyword ability attaches the Equipment to a creature you control (see rule 702.6, “Equip”). Control of the creature matters only when the equip ability is activated and when it resolves. Spells and other abilities may also attach an Equipment to a creature. If an effect attempts to attach an Equipment to an object that can’t be equipped by it, the Equipment doesn’t move.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Boom//Bust still worth buying if it's Moderately Played? Would it still do well in value if the card spikes? First time specer here.

There have been Boom // Bust decks before. I don't think its going to spike. But it's a $2 card, a set shouldn't cost that much.

 

[Royal_Flush]

The card ability isn't broken because it's too good, its because it doesn't work the way you probably imagine it does.

What it looks like it does:

{0}: Tap a land your opponent controls. Use it every turn to lock them out of the game.

What it actually does:

Ramp your opponent by 1 mana every time you use it. Why? Because "Tap or untap target land an opponent controls" will be responded to by tapping the land. You only have one legal option, which is "untap target land an opponent controls."

Are you sure about this? At least all iteration of Magic Duels (of the Planeswalkers) I've played let you tap an already tapped permanent.

 

[Angry Grimace]

Are you sure about this? At least all iteration of Magic Duels (of the Planeswalkers) I've played let you tap an already tapped permanent.

Read the ability again, then read Deceiver Exarch, then read Pestermite. It's not a modal ability or an optional one. When "{0}: Tap or untap target land an opponent controls" resolves, it can only result in a legal option, which is "tap or untap." If the permanent is tapped, it will untap. If it was untapped, it will tap.

Pestermite and Deceiver Exarch get around this in two different ways: 1) Pestermite makes the binary option permissive, so you can choose not to untap a tapped permanent when it resolves, 2) Deceiver Exarch gets around it by making the ability modal: you choose to either tap or untap when you target the ability. If you choose "tap target permanent" with Deceiver Exarch and then the permanent is tapped, it basically fizzles when it resolves because the permanent is already tapped (or vice versa). There's no other option because you only picked "tap."

 

[Haly]

This is not a toggle effect. If you use Twiddle to tap a card and before it takes effect your opponent taps it, Twiddle will not automatically untap the card.

Unless there's some subtlety to the wording I'm not seeing?

 

[G.ZZZ]

Just make it like: To Arms! When this ETB, you can attach an equipment you own to it.

Ez.

 

[red13th]

If you say "(...) When it enters the battlefield, equip it to target creature" and it will achieve the intended effect?

Unless there's some subtlety to the wording I'm not seeing?

Well Twiddle Oracle text says "you may".

 

[kirblar]

Boom//Bust still worth buying if it's Moderately Played? Would it still do well in value if the card spikes? First time specer here.

Nah go LP/NM

Literally 71 LP/NM copies of the card on TCGP under $5.00

0 Copies on Ebay.

 

[Ashodin]

NM Oracle text is confusing

 

[Angry Grimace]

Unless there's some subtlety to the wording I'm not seeing?

Read the oracle wording of Twiddle.