|
3 years ago ::
Feb 12, 2010 - 10:35AM
#1
|
|
|
This thread is for discussion of this week's Making Magic, which goes live Monday morning (after the holiday break) on magicthegathering.com.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 9:14PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2010
|
What about mill?
Contest Winners
Show
Random Words
Show
Round 1: Maraxas-of-Keld, Cryos_Icy_Manipulator
Round 2: Dr_Demento, UltraMaximum
Round 3: Dr_Demento, Keino
Round 4: KunouNoHana
Round 5: Maraxas-of-Keld, Stigma_Lasher
Round 6: royinator
Round 7: forty2j
Round 8: Qazior
Round 9: Qazior
Round 10: Could be you link Split Cards
Show
Winner: dberry02 Pac-Man
Show
Round 1: Fallingman WorldprismQuotes
Show
I just love how focused the YMtC community is.
That's what I love about posting on these forums. Everyone's an expert(except for me).
really no need to be so bitchy.
@Edacade: Awright kid you go on ahead and do your thing and don't let anyone tell you different y'hear
City of Asymmetrical Beings
Land
 , sacrifice a creature: Destroy target creature with the same converted mana cost as the sacrificed creature.
Might I just interject that making this a meme is the worst idea in magic in my opinion. It is too overpowered. It encourages cheating it in play. Essentially 99/100 times it is cheated in play instead of hardcast. Not only that, but you essentially win when it comes into play.
Make five-color hybrid tribal instant with buyback, kicker, cycling, card draw, token production, a steal effect, alternate casting cost and landfall that embodies the love that your mom and I share.
I think you just killed all chances of my card being elegant.
Ardency :1mana::symwu::symbr:
Tribal Instant - Soldier
You may have target opponent gain control of 3 permanents you control rather than pay ~'s mana cost.
As an additional cost to cast ~, choose two creatures you control, and sacrifice the rest. If you control a soldier, you can't sacrifice permanents this turn.
Landfall - If you had a land enter the battlefield under your control this turn, instead choose 4 creatures.
Kicker  
You get an emblem with "As long as you control both chosen creatures, they have protection from everything."
If ~ was kicked, creatures you control get +1/+1 for each creature card in your graveyard until end of turn.
Cycling :2mana:
When you cycle ~, put two 2/2 Soldier creatures onto the battlefield.
Would this EVER fit on a card?~
Aside from a few wording mishaps (should say "each chosen creature" because it's not necessarily two) this is nice. Very simple and elegant. I like the alternate cost a lot, and the kicker goes nicely with the sacrifice. However, the cycling seems a bit powerful (4 power and a card for 3? Cycling is supposed be ba  d  . 8/10
EDIT: Just looked up "ardency". Lol.
I'm immortalized too as long as no one deletes this post!
But in the shadow of the great one lurked many who sought to partake of his eternal glory.
Since when am I "many"?
You're a whole damn city.
Ahem.
Vivisect  
Sorcery
As an additional cost to cast Vivisect, sacrifice a creature.
Draw three cards.
"For the sake of humanity," the surgeon whispered. The knife had never felt heavier in his hand.
I don't think a world that sacrifices so much would want to stop the making of children  .
Vivisect =/= vasectomy
Now I just feel silly.
I read over two hundred webcomics on a regular basis. "Terrible" doesn't even begin to describe me.
I think that this is the first wizards-community thread that actually made me laugh out loud. Maraxas, I love you.
batman is a jerk in all of my dreams
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 9:21PM
#3
|
- YMtC Champion
- Ceci n'est pas une porte
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2004
|
Well I thought this article was interesting. But I'm me. \:>
I assume higher rarities have exponentially less skeletal structure than Common does.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 9:24PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Aug 20, 2008
|
I found the article very interesting, and how a set needs to be balanced overall is a subject I happen to be quite interested in at the moment.
Coming up with weird ideas to make everyone happy since 2008! I have now started a blog as an appropriate place to put my crazy ideas.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 9:41PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Oct 24, 2005
|
Yeah this sort of thing is amazing for amateur designers such as myself (Card Maker of the Year 2009 on MTGSalvation!). Once a year seems awfully low, I had been hoping for another of these for a while. I do get that you have to understand the audience, though, and a lot of people aren't going to care about this.
While enlightening, common was definitely the easiest part to take there, and I'm mostly interested in how to seed block mechanics, and how to choose how many cycles you want.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 10:01PM
#6
|
|
|
this is why Magic is not going to run out of ideas for a long time. Maro and co. have an organized method for efficiently designing sets, and they know what they are doing.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing these more like 3-4 times a year. They give me incredible faith in Wizards.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 10:06PM
#7
|
|
|
I definitely enjoyed this article, but I wanted to nitpick something:
"Green gets the following at common: ... regeneration, and sometimes ... reach..."
Not recently. Unless I made a mistake, the current standard environment has the following for green common creatures:
Reach:
M10 - 2
ALA - 2
CON - 2
ARB - 1 (although it's G/W gold)
ZEN - 1
WWK - 1
Regenerate:
M10 - 0
ALA - 0
CON - 0
ARB - 0
ZEN - 0
WWK - 0
Now, there are two (2) green common spells that give regeneration, but we were talking about creatures. Anyway, just sayin' that perhaps the "regenerate at common" should be moved to the "and sometimes" section at the very least.
EDIT: Going back to Lorwyn Block gives three more for reach and only one for regenerate, and that one is G/B hybrid.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 10:28PM
#8
|
|
|
Once a year is "not too common"? That sounds more like Mythic Rare!
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 11:36PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2004
|
This article proves how depressingly rigid the "usual" color pie is. We see the exact same effects over and over, particularly on commons; heaven forfend that the Pauper players should ever get any of the goodies that can be used to make a rare splashy and marketable.
A few notes: MaRo lists +N/+0 effects in black, and there are very few of these any more; Howl from Beyond was moved to red as Enrage some time back. (IMO this was a mistake because it only heightened red's status as the mindless aggro color which either ends games early or burns out; this is why red is far and away my least favorite color to play these days, which is sad because it is my most favorite from a flavor perspective. [PS, yes "most favorite" is grammatically dubious but i'm doing it for the sake of contrast with the sentence's previous clause, so shut your face.])
Also, in having decided that white should get the most creatures, I wonder if Design realizes that in Alpha, white had *fewer creatures even than blue*. For most of the game's first few sets, white was the "enchantments color"; one of those enchantments was Crusade, which did recommend that you scrounge up all the Benalish Heroes and White Knights you could find, but the color also devoted five common slots to the Circles of Protection, and since commons are a lot more defining than rares, this made white look like the ultimate sit-back-and-do-nothing color back when I started. IMO white weenie is terribly boring, and having a color whose win condition is usually passive is interesting; I'd like to have Alpha white back, minus the stupidly broken rares, and see a color which can efficiently win the game by outlasting its opponent and dropping some wincon enchantment which accrues "victory points" in some fashion without ever requiring you to attack.
I'd like to see green have the most creatures, since it's the color of natural diversity, and *lose* its status as the "biggest creature" color. IMO black and red both make better arguments for why they should have the biggest and fewest creatures, since they are both devoted to selfishness, individualism, and power at a cost (the main difference being that black knowingly pays its very blood for the ultimate power, while red just isn't paying attention to the fact it has accidentally set itself on fire). I'm tired of white and red always playing weenie aggro, green always playing fatty aggro, and blue and black always playing controllishly; the vampires of Zendikar were a nice shift to black aggro, but nobody shifted *away*, so between this and Landfall Zendikar is just stupidly aggressive and unforgiving. I hope next year's block will reverse this pendulum.
Overall verdict: One or maybe two N&B columns per year is about right, Mark. They are useful information, but not very entertaining; given your propensity for wacky hijinks, they serve as a good balance, but definitely try to space them out so that there isn't more than a week or two where your column becomes boring and lecturey (or, for that matter, more than a week or two of off-the-wall craziness; moderation in all things, small grasshopper).
My New Phyrexia Writing CreditsMy M12 Writing CreditsAs far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing.
--Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi 
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 14, 2010 - 11:43PM
#10
|
|
|
My favorite design article in a long time. A lot of insight into a part of the process we've never seen before.
A+
|
|
|
