Unsatisfied Edict

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unsatisfied Edict -
Sorcery
Note the name of two permanents target player controls. That player sacrifices a permanent, then you reveal the noted name. If that player didn't sacrifice a permanent with that name, he or she then sacrifices another permanent.
"Your first offering didn't quite please me."

previous version


Unsatisfied Edict -
Sorcery
Note the name of a non-land permanent target player controls. That player sacrifices a non-land permanent, then you reveal the noted name. If that player didn't sacrifice a permanent with that name, he or she then sacrifices another non-land permanent.
"Your first offering didn't quite please me."

let 'm sacrifice land if they want to
Good idea, here you go..

Unsatisfied Edict -
Sorcery
Target opponent sacrifices a land.

let 'm sacrifice land if they want to



I think so also. Otherwise this card wouldn't be much fun to play.
Don't be too smart to have fun
Just to make sure, you would change the card to allow players to sacrifice lands, but wouldn't change anything else?
it's comparable to fissure

but the note taker could write any random permanent so it's a fairly probable double sacrifice at 4 mana 
a player could have forest, overgrown tomb, and swamp in play which would make for some very interesting choices. I think it would be a fun card, however, it seems pretty bad if it can't hit lands because there are too many times where it's a dead card.
Don't be too smart to have fun
Yeah, I wanted to design something that's as close to Fissure as possible.. Unfortunately, it's often useless because most players don't play non-land permanents.. Seriously, I disagree with you! ô.Ô
Yeah, I wanted to design something that's as close to Fissure as possible.. Unfortunately, it's useless pretty often because most players don't play non-land permanents..



lol, come on, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying from my perspective it feels like it should hit any permanant.

however, I kinda see what you're trying to do. Combine this with damnation and you have enchantment/artifact destruction in black.
Don't be too smart to have fun
Actually, the restrictive non-land condition often forces opponents to sacrifice things like artifacts + enchantments and that might be a very large problem..
The thing I see about it is that with any permanent sacrifice, players will indulge in many different types of nonbasic lands and so there's simply too many choices to get it right on the first time.

Though, I like that, cause it punishes people for using nonbasic lands which needs to be the case more often.
So yeah, demanding the sacrifice any permanent would make a lot more sense, but I would like to avoid the situation where you play the card on your fourth turn and your opponent has only three different lands, but nothing else.. Maybe just have the player write down ~two~ names?
So yeah, demanding the sacrifice any permanent would make a lot more sense, but I would like to avoid the situation where you play the card on your fourth turn and your opponent has only three different lands, but nothing else.. Maybe just have the player write down ~two~ names?



That's the fun part. Imagine if the opponent has treetop village, swamp and forest in play. Maybe you want them to sacrifice the treetop village because you don't have a way to deal with it easily but maybe they don't have another black mana source and you want them to sac the swamp. Such a challenging scenerio to pick correctly makes cards like this a lot of fun.

Here's another one forest, forest, treetop village in a mono green deck. Of course you want them to sac the village and if you write down treetop village they will be forced to sac it no matter what. Now if you opponent knows that then he'll sac the village anyway and you might take a chance by writing forest down getting two lands.

I think that these mini games are fun and I would certainly have fun with a card like this.



The other way I was thinking you could do it was to have the opponent sac a permanant and then you reveal the name and he sacrifices a permanant of that name if there is still one there. So basically it's targetted sacrifice like fissure which actually has a chance of getting 2 objects (potentially re evaluate the CMC if implemented in this manner).
Don't be too smart to have fun
But don't you have the same fun with other versions of the card which don't force players to sacrifice 1-2 lands on your fourth turn? I like that other version that you suggested, although writing down the names of cards provides design space that I won't explore further, because I already posted two cards with the mechanic..
But don't you have the same fun with other versions of the card which don't force players to sacrifice 1-2 lands on your fourth turn? I like that other version that you suggested, although writing down the names of cards provides design space that I won't explore further, because I already posted two cards with the mechanic..



It just didn't feel right. The original version might have been a slightly better barter in blood. Maybe it should have been limited to creatures?
Don't be too smart to have fun
As you can tell from the last change, I would prefer to simply increase the number of card names, especially because the card shouldn't compare to existing cards like Barter In Blood..
Sign In to post comments