Microcosm Games

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
NOTE: Card has been revised since the following original post; the revised version can be found at post #55 in this thread...

Microcosm Games     
()()()()
Sorcery 

Split Second (As long as this spell is on the stack, players can't cast spells or activate abilities that aren't mana abilities.)

Singularity (This spell can’t be copied by spells or abilities, including triggered abilities, and can’t be the target of spells or abilities while in exile.  When this spell is cast, each player searches his or her opponent’s hand, library, and graveyard for all other cards with the same name as this spell and exiles them.  Then each player shuffles his or her library.) 

Players play a Magic subgame, using their libraries as their decks.  A player who concedes the subgame loses both the subgame and the main game.  When the subgame ends, players use only their remaining library from the subgame as their main game library; all other cards from the subgame are returned to the main game in exile.  Each player who doesn’t win the subgame discards his or her hand, and his or her life total becomes 4.  Each player who wins the subgame may choose one of the following — Draw ten cards; or exile up to seven permanents you don’t control; or your life total becomes 20 and you take an additional turn after this one.

Exile Microcosm Games. 

You know, Shaharazad was bad enough...when the text is too small to read on the render, you know you're trying too hard.

All cards I make have artists credited in the appropriate places. Artist names in "quotes" are DeviantArt usernames unless otherwise mentioned.

"I play a Grave Betrayal. I get all your dead things now, mwahahahaha!"
"Okay. I play a Phage the Untouchable. Piss me off and I will sac it."
"... ... ... so guys, remind me again how to sac my own enchantments?"

You know, Shaharazad was bad enough...when the text is too small to read on the render, you know you're trying too hard.

1.  Please read the card; text-size complaints are for old people.  It renders fine--view the high-resolution version if your eyesight is giving you trouble.  Thanks.  

2.  Yes, Shahrazad was bad...because, in its original form, it could spiral out of control very quickly.  The subgame concept, however, is not--provided that it can be absolutely limited to just one.  Try pretending that Shahrazad had never existed, and view this card with a fresh perspective.  The fact is, it is not Shahrazad, and its wording makes it immune from any potential for abuse.  

3.  Some of us try harder than others.  A concept does not become unworthy just because it needs additional text to avoid exploitation of loopholes by hundreds of other cards currently in existence.

4.  I'll give you more of my rationale for my design of this card as the comments unfold.  In the meantime, I'd prefer that the focus be on the card itself and not one's own preferences for whether they would play it in a deck.  This card could easily save one from losing a game, essentially allowing for a mid-game "mulligan" of sorts--if that isn't a powerful effect to have up one's sleeve, I don't know what is.  This card could easily see lots of play in blue/white decks, among others.
People shouldn't have to hold the cards two inches from their face to figure out what they do.

I think most of the time people would choose to exile the permanents, and if your opponent has 4 life and no cards in hand and seven fewer permanents than before you're definitely going to win. So you might as well just make the card say that instead of spending four entire lines of microtext on a less elegant version of it. Split second is unnecessary text too (and it's ridiculous that you can't respond to this).

http://nogoblinsallowed.com/

People shouldn't have to hold the cards two inches from their face to figure out what they do.

I think most of the time people would choose to exile the permanents, and if your opponent has 4 life and no cards in hand and seven fewer permanents than before you're definitely going to win. So you might as well just make the card say that instead of spending four entire lines of microtext on a less elegant version of it. Split second is unnecessary text too (and it's ridiculous that you can't respond to this).

You've seen Warp World, right?  Sometimes they should.  If one wants to follow this "distance from the face" rule as to what cards one will or will not play with in one's deck, fine--but that may be a foolish mistake if the card is otherwise powerful and/or useful.    

Note also that half of the text on this card is reminder text.  If the reminder text were unnecessary (in MTGO, for instance, you can choose to omit it from the card display), then the amount of text actually becomes nothing too unusual.  Players versed in all of the relevant mechanics/keywords could simply begin to read halfway down the card.  

Yes, perhaps most of the time one would choose to exile the permanents.  But if you were at 3 life when you cast Microcosm Games and your opponent is playing mono red, and there are no nonland permanents in play on either side, that may not be the wisest choice of the three--assuming that you win the subgame, of course, which is not a guarantee for anyone.  (Unlike Karn Liberated's ultimate, in which the player causing the restart typically will begin with a distinct advantage over the opponent(s), the subgame is an entirely equal "restart" of sorts (albeit with the remaining libraries at the time the spell is cast).

I want to be clear about something: part of the intent behind this card is to make the subgame win decisive vis-a-vis the outcome of the main game most of the time (say, 90%).  Unlike Shahrazad, where a loss of half one's life for losing the subgame could often be entirely inconsequential to the main game, Microcosm Games effectively shifts the "main event" to the subgame, giving it the kind of importance that now makes the subgame concept much more intriguing (again, provided that it can be absolutely limited to only one subgame, which this card does).  But while this card might save one from a main game defeat in most cases (if one wins the subgame), some main games will still not be salvageable despite the rewards to the subgame winner.  That provides it with some measure of balance.  

It's hardly "ridiculous" that you can't respond to it.  Your point about Split Second is well-taken; it may ultimately be unnecessary to prevent copying of the spell (my primary motivation for incorporating Split Second) in light of the wording of the new mechanic I introduced, (Singularity).  Frankly, however, when it came to my objective of eliminating all potential for "subgame abuse," I wasn't taking any chances.  With Split Second, everything becomes deliberate: the spell is cast, then all copies within the game's non-exile zones are exiled, and the subgame begins.  No room for the creation of loopholes.  MTGers are, as we all know, a very crafty bunch.  The benefit to Split Second is that it controls for such unforeseen (and most likely problematic) creativity simply by shutting it down before it has a chance to occur.  

On a final note, there's only the potential here for one subgame (maximum) per regular game.  No subgames within subgames are possible.  It's not actually an oppressive thing--after all, aren't we already used to playing best of 3 or best of 5 matches?  (As I suggested in an earlier comment, don't let "Shahrazad nightmares" ("Shahrazad flashbacks"?) influence how you view this card.  Those things can't happen here.                                    

You've seen Warp World, right?  Sometimes they should.  If they want to follow this "distance from the face" rule as to what cards they will or will not play with in their deck, fine--but that may be a foolish mistake on their part if the card is otherwise powerful.

warp world is 9 line of text. yours is 15. even if you take off the reminder text it's still 11.

why are you here when NGA exists and is just better

 

Sets I Made: Fleets of Ossia (complete) | Wavebreak (in progress)

Glob, that's a beautiful image. I'm pretend drooling right now. I'm still doing it. Now I stopped.

139359831 wrote:
That is a lovely painting of Richard Garfield. It really brings out his feminine side.
You've seen Warp World, right?  Sometimes they should.  If they want to follow this "distance from the face" rule as to what cards they will or will not play with in their deck, fine--but that may be a foolish mistake on their part if the card is otherwise powerful.

warp world is 9 line of text. yours is 15. even if you take off the reminder text it's still 11.


Warp World doesn't have reminder text.  Without the reminder text, mine is less than 9 full lines.  

An additional difference between this card and Warp World is this: Warp World is confusing.  It requires a certain amount of cognitive processing amongst the game's participants to follow its instructions correctly.  (I'm not saying that makes it a bad card; rather, it just requires a certain amount of patience and attention to detail to resolve it properly.)  

By contrast, every sentence of Microcosm Games is capable of being "breezed through" by players, especially more experienced players.  It is really quite simple to follow.  (We know this because we can compare the original text of Shahrazad (which was quite lengthy) to its Oracle text (which is very brief).)  The only things to really "process" here are what a subgame loser needs to do, and what a subgame winner chooses to do.  Indeed, it seems unreasonable to  consider this card's effect as anything other than straightforward in nature.                          
I saved your card image. Don't worry. It is for personal use - I won't copy it.

139359831 wrote:
That is a lovely painting of Richard Garfield. It really brings out his feminine side.
Warp World doesn't have reminder text.  Without the reminder text, mine is less than 9 full lines.

nope. the main ability alone is 9 lines, plus two more for keywords, plus if you increase the font size to compensate it'll probably add another line or two.

why are you here when NGA exists and is just better

 

Sets I Made: Fleets of Ossia (complete) | Wavebreak (in progress)

the more text that is written the greater the detail of the map to exploit
You've seen Warp World, right?  Sometimes they should.  If they want to follow this "distance from the face" rule as to what cards they will or will not play with in their deck, fine--but that may be a foolish mistake on their part if the card is otherwise powerful.

warp world is 9 line of text. yours is 15. even if you take off the reminder text it's still 11.


Lol...you're being a little unfair with your counting, I think.  

Considering the phrases "Split Second" and "Singularity" to themselves be equivalent to a full line each is padding your count just a little bit, no?  

But let's grant you the 11 line total for the sake of argument.  So what?  Warp World is in no way a maximum limit on the amount of text appropriate for a card.  You want less text?  Fine--but you'll likely find yourself playing 32 subgames with the player who knows exactly how to end-run shoddy draftsmanship done merely for the trivial purpose of reducing the supposed "burden" on the reader by a sentence or two.

(I like your animated GIF in your signature, by the way!)   
I beliueve that run is known as the erata
I think you're missing the fact that Shahrazad was too much without copy effects. This wasn't the biggest issue in Vintage where overall game time is shorter, but even there it was a strenuous process to get through. This card is more tasking, way more confusing, inelegant, a headache to read and therefore likely to be misplayed, ugly, imbalanced, obtuse, arduous, poorly conceived, and probably miscolored by the modern color pie. 

It's a mess.
the more text that is written the greater the detail of the map to exploit

I'm not clear on what you're saying--is your position that more text equals greater potential for exploitation?

If that is what you are saying, then yes and no.  More text would be more vulnerable to exploitation only insofar as more "exploitable" text exists.  If each sentence of text is perfectly clear and unambiguous, and those sentences do not create any ambiguity by virtue of their interaction with one another, then more text reduces the potential for exploitation by explicitly closing possible "loopholes" that would otherwise exist because of ambiguities created by what was not said.  Determining how much text to place on a card is simply an exercise of communicating only that which is necessary--no more, no less.  It's precisely what is done when developers are figuring out what the Oracle text for a card should be.                
Pull from Eternity, Snapcaster Mage.

Broke your Singularity without even going off-color.

If people wanna abuse it, they will find a way. It looks like you're trying too hard to keep them from it.

Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle, the cow jumped over the moon. The little dog laughed to see such sport, And the Dish ran away with the Spoon. He ran from conviction, and fed his addiction as the Dish heated the Spoon... The Spoon begged to go, but the Dish shouted : "NO!!" "The heroin will be ready soon!" "Any time doing the right thing is funny as hell, it's probably Chaotic Good." IMAGE(http://i46.tinypic.com/2jcu9fs.png)
Pull from Eternity, Snapcaster Mage.

Broke your Singularity without even going off-color.



Singularity (This spell can’t be copied by spells or abilities, including triggered abilities, and can’t be the target of spells or abilities while in exile.  When this spell is cast, each player searches his or her opponent’s hand, library, and graveyard for all other cards with the same name as this spell and exiles them.  Then each player shuffles his or her library.) 



"Go, then. There are other worlds than these." -- Stephen King, The Gunslinger

Please feel free to copy this message into your sig.

Pull from Eternity, Snapcaster Mage.

Broke your Singularity without even going off-color.



Singularity (This spell can’t be copied by spells or abilities, including triggered abilities, and can’t be the target of spells or abilities while in exile.  When this spell is cast, each player searches his or her opponent’s hand, library, and graveyard for all other cards with the same name as this spell and exiles them.  Then each player shuffles his or her library.) 






Well I'll be jivvered.
Hey diddle diddle, the cat and the fiddle, the cow jumped over the moon. The little dog laughed to see such sport, And the Dish ran away with the Spoon. He ran from conviction, and fed his addiction as the Dish heated the Spoon... The Spoon begged to go, but the Dish shouted : "NO!!" "The heroin will be ready soon!" "Any time doing the right thing is funny as hell, it's probably Chaotic Good." IMAGE(http://i46.tinypic.com/2jcu9fs.png)
Split Second [the stack resolves with out further additions after this]

The stack may no longer be responded to

no further resposes may be added to the stack


Add no more response to the stack

The stack cannot be responded to.

No further stack responses are allowed.

The stack resolves.
Split Second [no further spells or abilities may me added to the stack]

THAT'S NOT TRUE

STOP IT

http://nogoblinsallowed.com/

Stop the stack until this resolves.
I think you're missing the fact that Shahrazad was too much without copy effects. This wasn't the biggest issue in Vintage where overall game time is shorter, but even there it was a strenuous process to get through. This card is more tasking, way more confusing, inelegant, a headache to read and therefore likely to be misplayed, ugly, imbalanced, obtuse, arduous, poorly conceived, and probably miscolored by the modern color pie. 

It's a mess.

Your views on Shahrazad are clearly personal to you.  That was never the view of the Magic community or the game's developers--which is why the card was restored to legal status and remained legal for nearly a decade before it was again banned.  That eventual banning came about because of the recognition that, in its present form, Shahrazad simply was too prone to abuse with the hundred or so other spells and effects that could replicate it, recast it, pull it from the graveyard/exile, etc.  More than one subgame is most definitely strenuous (and all of the other characteristics you mention).  By stark contrast, one (and only one) subgame, assuming there is no way around such a limit, is simply none of those things, and indeed, restores the concept to viability quite nicely.        

Nobody can reasonably believe that playing a subgame with one's remaining library is "strenuous," "arduous," "confusing," "inelegant," "a headache," "likely to be misplayed," "ugly," "imbalanced" (seriously?), "obtuse" (whatever that means in this context), or "poorly conceived" (go ahead--find a loophole; I dare you).  As for your "miscolored" claim, Shahrazad was white.  This is a white/blue hybrid.  What other colors would represent this kind of effect?  Maybe black, but that's it.

Your comments are subjective and unspecific to the point that they are borderline trolling.  (For example, how is this card "more tasking" than Shahrazad?  That's an absurd claim on its face.)  If this rather benign card manages to essentially cause you to have a brain aneurysm, maybe Magic isn't the best game for you.

I'm curious: what are your feelings on Karn Liberated?   

This forum has plenty of threads with attempts to revive the subgame concept (as well as the "restart" concept).  The notion that mine is "poorly conceived" (by eliminating all of the problems that people like you would complain about) would be offensive to me if it wasn't so obviously ridiculous.  

The only thing that is a "mess" here is your comment.  With all that vagueness and bald subjectivity, one might wonder if you're actually annoyed by my card because of its wording, or because you dislike the subgame concept.  If the latter, well, no one cares what you think in that regard--there will always be players who dislike certain concepts in the game, and a corresponding group of players who enjoy those same concepts.  The relevant question here is this: if we were going to see a revival of the subgame concept, would this be a plausible form in which it could appear?  If not, why not?  And be specific, please.                                

Pull from Eternity, Snapcaster Mage.

Broke your Singularity without even going off-color.

If people wanna abuse it, they will find a way. It looks like you're trying too hard to keep them from it.


You can't Pull from Eternity this one.  The spell cannot be the target of spells or abilities while in exile.  Pull from Eternity targets a card in exile.

Singularity is something I added specifically to prevent this.    

 
I saved your card image. Don't worry. It is for personal use - I won't copy it.

Sure, no problem.  It's not my image, though.  Actually, I don't know whose it is.  I've had it in my computer files for awhile now, but it was so long ago that I have no clue where on the internet I originally found it.  And I can't read the artist's signature, so I'm not sure who is responsible for creating it.  But it is visually pleasing.      
Pull from Eternity, Snapcaster Mage.

Broke your Singularity without even going off-color.



Singularity (This spell can’t be copied by spells or abilities, including triggered abilities, and can’t be the target of spells or abilities while in exile.  When this spell is cast, each player searches his or her opponent’s hand, library, and graveyard for all other cards with the same name as this spell and exiles them.  Then each player shuffles his or her library.) 






Well I'll be jivvered.

Yeah, I had to add that provision to Singularity specifically because of the Pull from Eternity problem.  My original draft of the card had neglected to consider that possibility.    
Only one subgame may be played per match(game?).
Pull from Eternity, Snapcaster Mage.

Broke your Singularity without even going off-color.

If people wanna abuse it, they will find a way. It looks like you're trying too hard to keep them from it.


"If people wanna abuse it, they will find a way."  

Not on my watch.  :-)      

And yes, coming up with a viable Shahrazad-type card that is immune from abuse potential is something that has required significant thought, no doubt (especially with the thousands of cards in the Magic universe that will be interacting with it).  But, as I think my solution demonstrates, it is obtainable.

Just because significant thought is necessary to prevent abuse of a concept, that hardly makes the concept unworthy of serious consideration--assuming that there is, in fact, a workable solution.      
Split Second [no further spells or abilities may me added to the stack]

THAT'S NOT TRUE

STOP IT

I notice you edited your example, which was originally Voidmage Apprentice.  (UPDATE: I see...you linked one card to each word: Voidmage Apprentice, Norin the Wary, and Decree of Silence.)  

As for Norin the Wary's ability resolving, sure, that's fine.  I'm okay with that.  It doesn't really present any kind of problem for my card.

There were a couple of other cards with triggered abilities that were noted, that could counter the spell.  I have two thoughts on this:

1.  The "Sure, why not?" approach: If countering it (i.e., it goes to the graveyard) doesn't present potential for eventual subgame abuse, then sure, let those few cards accomplish this.  If the card is eventually cast (no matter whether from the hand (in the form of another copy of the card) or the graveyard), Singularity will still cause the exile all of the other copies remaining in all non-exile zones anyway.

2.  The "Uh oh, there's still a vulnerability out there" approach: If, however, any of these cards having triggered abilities that would successfully counter it (because triggered abilities are not prevented by Split Second) could lead to a realistic possibility of "subgame abuse," then the addition of "cannot be countered by spells or abilities" language would seem to definitively solve that problem.  (It would certainly prevent countering through Decree of Silence and Voidmage Apprentice.)  But it should be noted that my concern was never really with the thought of the spell being countered (particularly if only a small number of cards could accomplish such a thing through triggered abilities); rather, it is the potentialities of what might happen if the spell then goes to the graveyard instead of into exile (along with all of the other copies of it via Singularity).
Split Second [no further spells or abilities may me added to the stack]

THAT'S NOT TRUE

STOP IT

I notice you edited your example, which was originally Voidmage Apprentice.

As I suspect you discovered, Voidmage Apprentice might not work because of the rules relating to Morph:

"502.26d Any time you could play an instant, you may turn a face-down permanent you control face up [for its morph cost]." 

As for Norin the Wary's ability resolving, sure, that's fine.  I'm okay with that.  It doesn't really present any kind of problem for my card.

There were a couple of other cards with triggered abilities that were discussed, that could counter the spell.  I have two thoughts on this:

1.  The "Sure, why not?" approach: If countering it (i.e., it goes to the graveyard) doesn't present potential for eventual subgame abuse, then sure, let those few cards accomplish this.  If the card is eventually cast (no matter whether from the hand (in the form of another copy of the card) or the graveyard), Singularity will still cause the exile all of the other copies remaining in all non-exile zones anyway.

2.  The "Uh oh, there's still a vulnerability out there" approach: If, however, any of these cards having triggered abilities that would successfully counter it (because triggered abilities are not prevented by Split Second), then the addition of "cannot be countered by spells or abilities" language would definitively solve that problem.  My concern was never really with the idea of the spell being countered (particularly if only a small number of cards could accomplish such a thing through triggered abilities); rather, it is the potentialities of what might happen if the spell then goes to the graveyard instead of into exile (along with all of the other copies of it via Singularity).          


no, voidmage is still there, and voidmage still works in response to split second. for various rules-related reasons, Morph isn't an activated ability, but a special game action.

 

why are you here when NGA exists and is just better

 

Sets I Made: Fleets of Ossia (complete) | Wavebreak (in progress)

Split Second [no further spells or abilities may me added to the stack]

THAT'S NOT TRUE

STOP IT

I notice you edited your example, which was originally Voidmage Apprentice.

As I suspect you discovered, Voidmage Apprentice might not work because of the rules relating to Morph:

"502.26d Any time you could play an instant, you may turn a face-down permanent you control face up [for its morph cost]." 

As for Norin the Wary's ability resolving, sure, that's fine.  I'm okay with that.  It doesn't really present any kind of problem for my card.

There were a couple of other cards with triggered abilities that were discussed, that could counter the spell.  I have two thoughts on this:

1.  The "Sure, why not?" approach: If countering it (i.e., it goes to the graveyard) doesn't present potential for eventual subgame abuse, then sure, let those few cards accomplish this.  If the card is eventually cast (no matter whether from the hand (in the form of another copy of the card) or the graveyard), Singularity will still cause the exile all of the other copies remaining in all non-exile zones anyway.

2.  The "Uh oh, there's still a vulnerability out there" approach: If, however, any of these cards having triggered abilities that would successfully counter it (because triggered abilities are not prevented by Split Second), then the addition of "cannot be countered by spells or abilities" language would definitively solve that problem.  My concern was never really with the idea of the spell being countered (particularly if only a small number of cards could accomplish such a thing through triggered abilities); rather, it is the potentialities of what might happen if the spell then goes to the graveyard instead of into exile (along with all of the other copies of it via Singularity).          


no, voidmage is still there, and voidmage still works in response to split second. for various rules-related reasons, Morph isn't an activated ability, but a special game action.

 

Upon further consideration (and my figuring out that you didn't edit your post, but rather, linked one card to each of the three words), you're technically right about Voidmage Apprentice.

That said, it leaves only one question (because Norin the Wary wouldn't seem to be of real concern for our purposes here), which is this: does the card require insulation from effects/abilities that would counter it?  If we wanted to be absolutely certain that no one can use those two cards to subsequently cause the subgame abuse issues that all of this effort is trying to eliminate, then adding the standard "can't be countered by spells or abilities" language would take care of that entirely.  If there's no such abuse potential if it would be successfully countered, then I suppose we could just let it be counterable with those two cards.  Not a big deal.  I'd lean towards taking the safe approach, though, and simply add the "cannot be countered by spells or abilities" language.  Thoughts?           
While the voidmage can unmorph . its ability should not be added to the stack

This is an excellent, excellent example of why exercises in rules perfection make simply awful, awful cards.

Josh you clearly have a reasonable understanding of the rules. This card is pure horror.


Rush is exactly correct. The reason for cards to exist is to enjoy playing with them, and anything that gets in the way of that is poor design. And this is the worst example I think I've seen of a card getting in the way of the game.


Singularity, for the same reason is an awful ability. By ladening it with so much rules baggage, it reduces the interaction of the game to a point where if you've constructed your deck properly, you play this card and win.


And while I'm not the biggest caller on aesthetics, your card is too small for me to read as a render - and a render is larger than a normal Magic card. There is a point where you've got to think whether it's worth the effort.

I think you're missing the fact that Shahrazad was too much without copy effects. This wasn't the biggest issue in Vintage where overall game time is shorter, but even there it was a strenuous process to get through. This card is more tasking, way more confusing, inelegant, a headache to read and therefore likely to be misplayed, ugly, imbalanced, obtuse, arduous, poorly conceived, and probably miscolored by the modern color pie. 

It's a mess.

Your views on Shahrazad are clearly personal to you.  That was never the view of the Magic community or the game's developers--which is why the card was restored to legal status and remained legal for nearly a decade before it was again banned.  That eventual banning came about because of the recognition that, in its present form, Shahrazad simply was too prone to abuse with the hundred or so other spells and effects that could replicate it, recast it, pull it from the graveyard/exile, etc.  More than one subgame is most definitely strenuous (and all of the other characteristics you mention).  By stark contrast, one (and only one) subgame, assuming there is no way around such a limit, is simply none of those things, and indeed, restores the concept to viability quite nicely.

I agree with you that it was banned from Vintage for that reason. I also stated that Vintage was about the only format that it isn't strictly an annoying card since the games have on average a swifter pace than any other format. But the fact remains that while Shahrazad is a beloved card by some, it is also the source of much hatred.

Nobody can reasonably believe that playing a subgame with one's remaining library is "strenuous," "arduous," "confusing," "inelegant," "a headache," "likely to be misplayed," "ugly," "imbalanced" (seriously?), "obtuse" (whatever that means in this context), or "poorly conceived" (go ahead--find a loophole; I dare you).  As for your "miscolored" claim, Shahrazad was white.  This is a white/blue hybrid.  What other colors would represent this kind of effect?  Maybe black, but that's it.

It's more strenuous because it can't be countered. It's more arduous because of the search feature. It's confusing because (a) it uses split second, (b) it adds an entire step of all players searching out additional copies of this card, and for some reason dose this as a keyword, (c) adds conditional play clauses to the subgame, (d) plays a subgame at all, which are traditionally misunderstood, (e) requires a number of moving parts, and (f) just does more things than you'd expect a card to do. It's inelegant for all of those stated reasons; it's trying to be a game unto itself rather than a part of the Magic make-up. It's a headache because it requires so many processes, some of them seemingly unrelated, which is also why it will find itself being misplayed often. It's ugly because because all the text doesn't end up being worth it. Comparing it to the previous Warp World example, that card works toward one effect. The whole process leads you there. The theme is bright and understandable: we're replacing everything on the battlefield with something else. Your card adds additional side-clauses not directly relevant to the central idea. That makes it ugly. It's imbalanced because it focuses all its efforts on not being abused but removes all the opponent's ability to interact with it. It's obtuse because it doesn't get the concept across in a relatable way. To be fair, this is a feature of many complicated cards, but yours suffers from the aformentioned side products. It's poorly conceived because you're trying to fix a card that, by modern design philosophies, wouldn't be printed to begin with.

Your comments are subjective and unspecific to the point that they are borderline trolling.  (For example, how is this card "more tasking" than Shahrazad?  That's an absurd claim on its face.)  If this rather benign card manages to essentially cause you to have a brain aneurysm, maybe Magic isn't the best game for you.

It's more tasking than Shahrazad because you can't counter it, it requires a search and shuffle by all players, it nullifies a number of interactions that need to be checked and rechecked due to the sheer number of them, requires extraneous reading and rereading, and simply lacks the elegance of idea that allows a card to resonate with players.

I'm curious: what are your feelings on Karn Liberated?

"Restarting the game" has its complexities, but the conecpt is easy to grasp. People restart games of Magic all the time.

This forum has plenty of threads with attempts to revive the subgame concept (as well as the "restart" concept).  The notion that mine is "poorly conceived" (by eliminating all of the problems that people like you would complain about) would be offensive to me if it wasn't so obviously ridiculous.

I'll admit that I was harsh with my response. I'd designed subgame cards and so have many others in YMTC. It's a fun concept to toy around with. My response was based in tone on the responses you were giving earlier in the thread, which were stern and defensive. You seem to think that this card is a good concept for an actual card; thus, I'm elaborating on why I think it in fact would be detrimental to the game. If these assumptions are incorrect, then I'm reading your posting style incorrectly and I apologize for doing so.

The only thing that is a "mess" here is your comment.  With all that vagueness and bald subjectivity, one might wonder if you're actually annoyed by my card because of its wording, or because you dislike the subgame concept.  If the latter, well, no one cares what you think in that regard--there will always be players who dislike certain concepts in the game, and a corresponding group of players who enjoy those same concepts.  The relevant question here is this: if we were going to see a revival of the subgame concept, would this be a plausible form in which it could appear?  If not, why not?  And be specific, please.

It would not be a highly plausible form for it to return in, based mostly on the responses I've formed above. The most solid idea in the jumble was the "can't be copied" clause, but even that is rather heavy-handed. Design is more than just making a card work. It's also making it work fluidly and understandably for as many players as possible. It's about trimming pieces that are extraneous. It's about making a product that's playable.

This card isn't playable.

This is an excellent, excellent example of why exercises in rules perfection make simply awful, awful cards.

Josh you clearly have a reasonable understanding of the rules. This card is pure horror.


Rush is exactly correct. The reason for cards to exist is to enjoy playing with them, and anything that gets in the way of that is poor design. And this is the worst example I think I've seen of a card getting in the way of the game.


Singularity, for the same reason is an awful ability. By ladening it with so much rules baggage, it reduces the interaction of the game to a point where if you've constructed your deck properly, you play this card and win.


And while I'm not the biggest caller on aesthetics, your card is too small for me to read as a render - and a render is larger than a normal Magic card. There is a point where you've got to think whether it's worth the effort.


"Pure horror?"  Sorry, but that is such a gross overreaction to this effect that, in my opinion, it calls your credibility into question.  

I don't even think you know what you mean by a card "getting in the way of the game."  

For those who are not somehow dumbfounded by four lines of text that is easily cognizable and understandable from similar language on other cards, Singularity is eminently simple: 

1.  You can't copy the spell with anything.  
2.  The spell is completely "off-limits" once in the exile zone.
3.  When the spell is cast, all other copies from all players' hands, libraries, and graveyards are exiled.  (We do "sweeps" like this all the time.  In Standard, for instance, see, e.g.Shimian Specter.)

I don't mean to sound rude, but what on Earth is so difficult to understand about that?  

You've got your analysis of Singularity backwards.  It is not at all "laden[   ] with...rules baggage"; to the contrary, in an incredibly straightforward way, it avoids all of the rules baggage that would otherwise be possible.  Perhaps it would be more simplistic to say "don't even try to pull any shenanigans with this card, guys--we've got it all covered," but that isn't really Oracle-standard phraseology, so we have to word the card in the manner that you see to be technically correct.  

You then say something that I find completely baffling: "...to a point where if you've constructed your deck properly, you play this card and win." (Emphasis added.)


Unlike a restart with Karn Liberated, in which one player will likely begin that restart with a distinct advantage over the other(s), the subgame called for by this card provides absolutely no guarantees or readily precalculable advantages to any player, including the spell's caster.  Now, if a player's deck happens to be diluted going into the subgame because much of its stronger content has been left behind in the main game, well, that is the nature of the beast, I suppose.  (But this is not much different conceptually than what occurs when one player happens to "mill" an opponent in order to dilute the power of the opponent's library.)  (Interestingly, because of the sweep procedure called for by Singularity, all players go into the subgame with some idea of what threats happen to remain in their opponent's deck, so in that regard, there is some element of transparency, but that transparency occurs only after one casts the spell, not before that point.)  

(NOTE: I don't think I mentioned this yet, but another of my primary intentions behind this card was to incentivize the use of decks having more than the minimum 60 cards.  (This is also reflected in the card's explicit deviation from the normal post-subgame procedure of returning all of the subgame's cards to the main game's library, by instead having only the remaining subgame library become the library in the main game, and returning all other cards from the subgame (i.e., those in all other subgame zones besides the library) to the main game in exile.)

In short, this is not a card that anyone can play with any expectations about how things will turn out.  That takes away the "antagonistic" tenor that surrounds cards which radically alter a game's momentum (in terms of who might be winning at a given time) while also shidting that momentum noticeably in favor of the caster of the spell (or, as with Karn, the user of the effect).  That is something which none of us generally take too well.  But a player who plays this spell isn't really in "control" of anything that follows thereafter.  So it could, for instance, save you from defeat, or it could (for those willing to risk it) help break an otherwise impenetrable stalemate (between substantially identical control decks, for instance).  But it is most definitely not a spell that one would seek to cast as part of an affirmative, "for the win" kind of strategy--unless, I suppose, that strategy is mill-related (which is why I added the provision that you can't avoid playing the subgame by simply conceding it outright (at least not without also losing the main game, that is)).  
You should take off your crazy (in)ability words and just add something like "If there are no subgames, ..." or "If no subgames have been started this [round/match/whatever], ..."

Also, the effects based on the result of the subgame are swingy enough that it might as well just be whoever wins the subgame wins the main game... 
I think you're missing the fact that Shahrazad was too much without copy effects. This wasn't the biggest issue in Vintage where overall game time is shorter, but even there it was a strenuous process to get through. This card is more tasking, way more confusing, inelegant, a headache to read and therefore likely to be misplayed, ugly, imbalanced, obtuse, arduous, poorly conceived, and probably miscolored by the modern color pie. 

It's a mess.

Your views on Shahrazad are clearly personal to you.  That was never the view of the Magic community or the game's developers--which is why the card was restored to legal status and remained legal for nearly a decade before it was again banned.  That eventual banning came about because of the recognition that, in its present form, Shahrazad simply was too prone to abuse with the hundred or so other spells and effects that could replicate it, recast it, pull it from the graveyard/exile, etc.  More than one subgame is most definitely strenuous (and all of the other characteristics you mention).  By stark contrast, one (and only one) subgame, assuming there is no way around such a limit, is simply none of those things, and indeed, restores the concept to viability quite nicely.

I agree with you that it was banned from Vintage for that reason. I also stated that Vintage was about the only format that it isn't strictly an annoying card since the games have on average a swifter pace than any other format. But the fact remains that while Shahrazad is a beloved card by some, it is also the source of much hatred.

Nobody can reasonably believe that playing a subgame with one's remaining library is "strenuous," "arduous," "confusing," "inelegant," "a headache," "likely to be misplayed," "ugly," "imbalanced" (seriously?), "obtuse" (whatever that means in this context), or "poorly conceived" (go ahead--find a loophole; I dare you).  As for your "miscolored" claim, Shahrazad was white.  This is a white/blue hybrid.  What other colors would represent this kind of effect?  Maybe black, but that's it.

It's more strenuous because it can't be countered. It's more arduous because of the search feature. It's confusing because (a) it uses split second, (b) it adds an entire step of all players searching out additional copies of this card, and for some reason dose this as a keyword, (c) adds conditional play clauses to the subgame, (d) plays a subgame at all, which are traditionally misunderstood, (e) requires a number of moving parts, and (f) just does more things than you'd expect a card to do. It's inelegant for all of those stated reasons; it's trying to be a game unto itself rather than a part of the Magic make-up. It's a headache because it requires so many processes, some of them seemingly unrelated, which is also why it will find itself being misplayed often. It's ugly because because all the text doesn't end up being worth it. Comparing it to the previous Warp World example, that card works toward one effect. The whole process leads you there. The theme is bright and understandable: we're replacing everything on the battlefield with something else. Your card adds additional side-clauses not directly relevant to the central idea. That makes it ugly. It's imbalanced because it focuses all its efforts on not being abused but removes all the opponent's ability to interact with it. It's obtuse because it doesn't get the concept across in a relatable way. To be fair, this is a feature of many complicated cards, but yours suffers from the aformentioned side products. It's poorly conceived because you're trying to fix a card that, by modern design philosophies, wouldn't be printed to begin with.

Your comments are subjective and unspecific to the point that they are borderline trolling.  (For example, how is this card "more tasking" than Shahrazad?  That's an absurd claim on its face.)  If this rather benign card manages to essentially cause you to have a brain aneurysm, maybe Magic isn't the best game for you.

It's more tasking than Shahrazad because you can't counter it, it requires a search and shuffle by all players, it nullifies a number of interactions that need to be checked and rechecked due to the sheer number of them, requires extraneous reading and rereading, and simply lacks the elegance of idea that allows a card to resonate with players.

I'm curious: what are your feelings on Karn Liberated?

"Restarting the game" has its complexities, but the conecpt is easy to grasp. People restart games of Magic all the time.

This forum has plenty of threads with attempts to revive the subgame concept (as well as the "restart" concept).  The notion that mine is "poorly conceived" (by eliminating all of the problems that people like you would complain about) would be offensive to me if it wasn't so obviously ridiculous.

I'll admit that I was harsh with my response. I'd designed subgame cards and so have many others in YMTC. It's a fun concept to toy around with. My response was based in tone on the responses you were giving earlier in the thread, which were stern and defensive. You seem to think that this card is a good concept for an actual card; thus, I'm elaborating on why I think it in fact would be detrimental to the game. If these assumptions are incorrect, then I'm reading your posting style incorrectly and I apologize for doing so.

The only thing that is a "mess" here is your comment.  With all that vagueness and bald subjectivity, one might wonder if you're actually annoyed by my card because of its wording, or because you dislike the subgame concept.  If the latter, well, no one cares what you think in that regard--there will always be players who dislike certain concepts in the game, and a corresponding group of players who enjoy those same concepts.  The relevant question here is this: if we were going to see a revival of the subgame concept, would this be a plausible form in which it could appear?  If not, why not?  And be specific, please.

It would not be a highly plausible form for it to return in, based mostly on the responses I've formed above. The most solid idea in the jumble was the "can't be copied" clause, but even that is rather heavy-handed. Design is more than just making a card work. It's also making it work fluidly and understandably for as many players as possible. It's about trimming pieces that are extraneous. It's about making a product that's playable.

This card isn't playable.

Rush, thank you for your substantive response.  I definitely would like to reply to your feedback, but because of that pesky career thing (which is far less interesting, to be sure), I don't anticipate that I'll be able to do so until this evening at the earliest.  But you bring up quite a few excellent issues that are worthy of further discussion, so I don't want you to think I'm not interested in continuing the dialogue.  It's just that if I don't keep myself "in check" in terms of when/how much time I spend on activities such as this, then I'm prone to letting the day get away from me rather easily.  So it's definitely on my radar, and I'll make every effort to get to it tonight if possible.  
You have an amazingly insulting manner for someone who isn't trying to sound rude. But hey, I reacted strongly.

What I mean by 'getting in the way of the game' is that the while point of this card is to do something that already exists (in Shaharazad) and needlessly and in an extremely wordy way tries to 'fix it'. The whole point becomes to resolve this card.

I probably did overreact about the power etc, but the point of keywords to is condense the effect to a reasonable placeholder. But the effect is so all encompassing that a keyword is meaningless. It's also meaningless to keyword an effect that is too complex to exist (and not complex from an understanding point of view, complex from a just plain flat out doing too much) at anything less than rare / mythic. While rare only keywords have been used before, they generally suck.

So I don't at all believe that my analysis is backwards. I believe that you have just made a bad card with a bad ability set. That in and of itself isn't a terrible thing. While I like to think that I've cut down my bad designs to a minimum, they happen, same as everyone else.

But hey, all we're doing is providing you with critical (if strongly worded) feedback, which is the whole point of this forum. Can I ask why you posted this card if not to hear what the community thought if it.

But hey, thanks for calling my credibility into question. That'll keep me up at night.
You should take off your crazy (in)ability words and just add something like "If there are no subgames, ..." or "If no subgames have been started this [round/match/whatever], ..."

Also, the effects based on the result of the subgame are swingy enough that it might as well just be whoever wins the subgame wins the main game... 

Cards don't generally contain wordings that make reference to other events that may have occurred at an earlier point in a game (except with regard to that same turn or in the previous turn), or that may be relevant at a future point in a game (except the next turn).  (They definitely don't do this with regard to a multi-game match).  The only "exception" (sort of) that readily comes to my mind is Praetor's Counsel (giving you no maximum hand size "for the rest of the game" despite not being conferred through a permanent or as an emblem).  That's why I didn't go for the approach you describe--while it might legitimately seem simpler, it deviates too much from the stylistic conventions and precedent we see in modern-day Oracle text.  Indeed, the wording I've employed shows that the effect does not need to be viewed as so unique as to be inconsistent or incompatible with the current environment; rather, it fits just fine with wordings and concepts that we could reasonably anticipate seeing these days.  

Also:

1.  Split Second isn't my creation--you do know that, right?  (It's been around for years.)

2.  What the heck is so crazy about prohibiting a spell from being copied by spells or abilities?  After all, we already have plenty of examples of spells that cannot be countered by spells or abilities.  Your position is tantamount to saying that players ought to have an entitlement to copy whatever they want, without restriction.  If there's one thing that makes Magic interesting (and gives us an element of surprise), it's that there are occasionally cards that come along which say to us, "...oh yeah, and by the way, you can't do that normally permissible action (countering, copying, etc.) to me."   

3.  In a similar vein, what is crazy about prohibiting an exiled spell from being targeted?  that is actually the expectation we have about cards in the exile zone; if anything, it is the incredibly rare exception(s) to this usual expectation (e.g., Pull from Eternity) that ought to be viewed as "crazy" (if we're going to use an adjective like that).  In fact, the only reason that this provision was added (after my first version, actually, which didn't contain such language) was because of one card only: Pull from Eternity.  That is the one card that could "spoil" Mictocosm Games in the sense that it would make multiple subgames possible.  And since cards don't generally contain wording that would prohibit interactions with other cards explicitly by actual name, the more general wording I used is what Oracle stylistic conventions would require.  But make no mistake about it: what that sentence is saying is, for all intents and purposes, "oh, and by the way, you won't be able to Pull this spell from Eternity, either."

4.  There is nothing unusual about "sweeping" decks for copies of a card.  This instance is slightly unique, in that all copies from all decks are exiled, but that is simply to ensure that there will only be a maximum of one subgame per main game possible.  Not to mention, it dovetails rather elegantly, I think, with the nature of Singularity, in that there will only be one instance of this spell each game, anywhere.  It is singular vis-a-vis everyone, not just for each player (which it wouldn't really be anyway if it didn't work like this--as a player could, for instance, cast it, then later on in the main game use Knowledge Exploitation to cast a copy from an opponent's deck).  You can't make a card anymore on the premise that it would have to be placed on a restricted list, because any new card has to be available in Standard first, and Standard Format has no restricted list component to it.  So 4 copies in every player's deck are fine, but once somebody casts it first, that's it for everyone's copies.  They all get exiled.  That's the epitome of what we mean by the word "singularity," and it's thus quite fitting that it is exactly how it functions as a mechanic.  

5.  Finally, you noted that the consequences of the outcome of the subgame "are swingy enough that it might as well just be whoever wins the subgame wins the main game.

YES!  THANK YOU!  You hit the nail right on the head, man.  

That is what this card does best.  Everyone has this idea (unwarranted assumption?) that a subgame should somehow be of only minor consequence to the main game.  Those people have perhaps been conditioned to think this way because of Shahrazad, where the loss of half one's life (which, back in that day, would have most likely been in the neighborhood of 10 life, give or take) is, by today's standard, frequently going to be not that big of a deal (in that it could plausibly have little to no real impact on the state of the main game.  What, of course,  makes this problematic for the subgame concept is that the subgame has to take place AND players might know before it even starts that its result won't be terribly important.  That prospect certainly makes the subgame concept seem unappealing.

What this card does is to essentially make the subgame the new "main event," in that whoever wins this "restart" (of sorts--it's not precisely the same thing as a restart, of course) receives benefits in the main game that are of a decisive character--most of the time, that is.  What I mean is that the outcome of the subgame is so important because it will bring about a timely end to the main game in most circumstances.  (All you people that hate the subgame concept because of the potentially oppressive lengthening of the overall duel it would seem to entail, take note--I've actually been looking out for your preferences, too!)  Again, the idea here is that, the vast majority of the time, the end of the subgame will bring about the end of the main game within another turn or two.  

But at the same time, I wouldn't want there to be any 100% assurance of victory for the subgame winner or a 100% guarantee of loss for the subgame loser.  After all, in a set of circumstances where one player is so far ahead in the main game that it turns out that none of the subgame's rewards would be sufficient to save the other player from the jaws of defeat even if the latter were to win the subgame, perhaps the former deserves to win regardless of the subgame's outcome.  (No card, no matter how powerful, should be able to singlehandedly accomplish a turnaround of that magnitude, I would think.)  

So, in the end analysis, maybe 90% of the time or so, the subgame victor will end up as the main game victor.  In those instances, the excitement comes mainly from the subgame itself.  But those remaining 10% of cases are going to be interesting indeed, in that (1) a player who was seriously imperiled in the main game (part one) wins the subgame, but just can't leverage its rewards so as to avoid eventual defeat in the main game (part two), or (2) a player who was seriously imperiled in the main game (part one) wins the subgame, which evens things out, and the players continue to battle in the main game (part two) with both players now being on the brink of death.  (The subgame rewards were designed to remedy different deficiencies a player might be facing--if the problem was that you only had 2 life left, for example, and your opponent had 5 creatures to your zero creatures hammering away at you, you could choose the 20 life+extra turn reward, but that isn't going to stop his creatures if you otherwise have nothing useful in your hand.  On the other hand, you could choose to exile all of those creatures, but you're still at 2 life, so if your opponent's next draw is a lightning bolt or the like, you're still dead.  Those kinds of "edge of your seat," back-and-forth games...aren't they the kinds of close contests that we MTGers live for?

These are just some of the reasons why this card is eminently playable.  It is balanced.  It is perhaps exactly what the subgame concept should have been all along.  But of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and we've now had two decades (!) of experience with the game (during which time it has been continuously evolving, presenting an additional challenge) to figure out what we would need to do in order to make the subgame concept into something truly workable, all of the time, without exception.  But we can do it--it just has to look something like this.  But I think it would be worth giving it serious consideration.  One of the aspects of Magic's richness that I value (and have always valued) is unpredictability and the element of surprises (including "Hail-Mary" type surprises), and I believe that, in recent years, those aspects of the game have, unfortunately, been somewhat neglected, almost in favor of rigid, systematic deckbuilding and play style expectations that tend to reduce the game in many ways to more of an exercise in mathematics/statistics/probability than it should be.  
Don't grow too attached to an idea. It's okay to let go sometimes.

Okay, so, here are my thoughts on this card. Spoiler: I won't like it.

The text is insanely long. You know this already, so I won't go into detail about it, but it's not a good sign. Warp World has a long text because it can't be expressed in a shorter manner, this card certainly can.

It doesn't fit the modern color pie. Surprisingly enough, I find this to be somewhat minor. However, white doesn't get to draw their deck or take a time walk, and blue doesn't get to erase the world from existance or reset their life total.

It focuses too much on what you can't do. Interactions are what makes magic fun, and your attempt at trying to stop all of them isn't going to bring you anywhere constructive. Yes, you can bring it back with Pull from Eternity. Does it actually matter? Is it that important that you can do these things with that card? You need to play this thing, exile it, pull it back and then play it again. And really, who cares? The winner will be declared shortly afterwards regardless, nobody is going to spend effort trying to play it multiple times. If they do, just concede, you're going to lose anyways.
Not only that, but it doesn't acheive what it wants to. Magic is a game of breaking rules. Here, have a Burning Wish. Now I can play four of them during a game.

It trivializes the gamestate. Absolutely everything your opponent has done up until now is completely devoid of any meaning. If he wins the subgame, he wins this game. If you win, you just won. All the time he invested in the game before the subgame started is irrelevant. Yes, there's this minimal chance that the loser can pull out a win. But really, is there? Draw 10, Boros Charm you. The moment this thing lands, you're essentially telling your opponent "Okay, I was just warming up. Ready for the real game?", except you have probably manipulated your way into making it way easier for yourself to win.

Also, it has split second. Why does it have split second? Is it really that bad for blue to have the ability to counter it? Is it necessary for this thing to completely alienate the gamestate, and blue randomly doesn't have the ability to do anything with it? Black can still make you discard it, but suddenly you topdeck it and hey, all those funny things that were going on are now without purpose.

Artist Credits. Pretty sure you didn't make that picture.

Microcosm Games ()()()()
Sorcery
Split second
Players play a Magic subgame using their libraries as their decks. Players who win the subgame wins the game.

There's what your card is in all but miracle scenarios, so don't try to stop it from doing anything it won't do anyway.

Yxoque wrote:
This forum can't even ****ing self-destruct properly.

IMAGE(http://img.pokemondb.net/sprites/black-white/anim/normal/plusle.gif)

Don't grow too attached to an idea. It's okay to let go sometimes.

Okay, so, here are my thoughts on this card. Spoiler: I won't like it.

The text is insanely long. You know this already, so I won't go into detail about it, but it's not a good sign. Warp World has a long text because it can't be expressed in a shorter manner, this card certainly can.

It doesn't fit the modern color pie. Surprisingly enough, I find this to be somewhat minor. However, white doesn't get to draw their deck or take a time walk, and blue doesn't get to erase the world from existance or reset their life total.

It focuses too much on what you can't do. Interactions are what makes magic fun, and your attempt at trying to stop all of them isn't going to bring you anywhere constructive. Yes, you can bring it back with Pull from Eternity. Does it actually matter? Is it that important that you can do these things with that card? You need to play this thing, exile it, pull it back and then play it again. And really, who cares? The winner will be declared shortly afterwards regardless, nobody is going to spend effort trying to play it multiple times. If they do, just concede, you're going to lose anyways.
Not only that, but it doesn't acheive what it wants to. Magic is a game of breaking rules. Here, have a Burning Wish. Now I can play four of them during a game.

It trivializes the gamestate. Absolutely everything your opponent has done up until now is completely devoid of any meaning. If he wins the subgame, he wins this game. If you win, you just won. All the time he invested in the game before the subgame started is irrelevant. Yes, there's this minimal chance that the loser can pull out a win. But really, is there? Draw 10, Boros Charm you. The moment this thing lands, you're essentially telling your opponent "Okay, I was just warming up. Ready for the real game?", except you have probably manipulated your way into making it way easier for yourself to win.

Also, it has split second. Why does it have split second? Is it really that bad for blue to have the ability to counter it? Is it necessary for this thing to completely alienate the gamestate, and blue randomly doesn't have the ability to do anything with it? Black can still make you discard it, but suddenly you topdeck it and hey, all those funny things that were going on are now without purpose.

Artist Credits. Pretty sure you didn't make that picture.

Microcosm Games ()()()()
Sorcery
Split second
Players play a Magic subgame using their libraries as their decks. Players who win the subgame wins the game.

There's what your card is in all but miracle scenarios, so don't try to stop it from doing anything it won't do anyway.

Mown, 

Interesting points...like I said to Rush, I'm going to try and draft up a reply tonight (because they are indeed well-said and organized, and thus worthy of a considered reply.  But I'm busy with work at the moment, so I'm going to shoot to get you that reply sometime tonight.  
Players play a Magic subgame, using their libraries as their decks.  A player who concedes the subgame loses both the subgame and the main game.  When the subgame ends, players use only their remaining library from the subgame as their main game library; all other cards from the subgame are returned to the main game in exile.  Each player who doesn’t win the subgame discards his or her hand, and his or her life total becomes 4.  Each player who wins the subgame may choose one of the following — Draw ten cards; or exile up to seven permanents you don’t control; or your life total becomes 20 and you take an additional turn after this one.



Players play a Magic subgame, using their libraries as their decks. When the subgame ends, exile all permanents, and exile all cards from hands and graveyards from the subgame. Each player shuffles his or her library. The winner of the subgame gains 5 life and draws 3 cards.
Exile NAME.

==xx==

That is all you 'really' need with a card like this. The winner's prize is too good, and as Mown stated is basically, If you win the subgame, you win the game. I think an interesting subgame card would be that you continue to use your libraries main game but with the reduced cards. That could sometimes make it that winning the subgame could be less beneficial to certain decks. I'd say make a simple prize for winning, like Gains life and draws cards. Something simple. Something a :WUM: card could do.

That gets rid of more than half the lines from teh original card, while keeping the majority of the original card intact. I would recommend removing the split second, and singularity because, as mentioned, interaction is fun. That said, I like the exile part, it doesn't need to be 'easy' to interact with; just not impossible.

The biggest barrier to this card ever seeing the light of day is teh amount of words on the card. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Trim the word count by any means necessary and your card will be more appealing. More often than not cards don't get played when they have text like this for the reason of not having to explain everything to everyone of such length.
That said, I do wish we'd get some type of subgame shenanigans soon. I would love to play with one, Karn Liberated aside.

Official archnemesis of magicpablo666 Host of Reactionary

Proud owner of "The Terrible Cube" The Altimis Archive I'm baking lands!!! Beginner of GROMA
Notable Quotables:
58060728 wrote:
I carefully examine the walls of the room in a determined effort to not follow the GMs plot.
Sign In to post comments