Btw: In the "normal" tho-headed giant rules, both players in one team share 1 turn, but act simulaniously. So I doubt there will be a benefit for Luminarch Ascension . I believe it's just ONE turn, not TWO.
He was speaking of MTGO's version of 2HG, which is the one that rigidly enforces the card text of Luminarch Ascension anyway. In paper you can always house-rule it for casual games, but MODO's version of 2HG doesn't have the simultaneous turn, presumably because it'd be too hard to program. So your Ascension will indeed get a counter on each turn of the opponent who's only able to attack your partner, not you. (Until your partner dies, but by then you're likely to have a bunch of 4/4 angels.)
First: Milling is statistically nearly irrelevant, unless you've milled the last card. The biggest advantage is the knowledge of the cards milled. If you see 3 early disenchants in the graveyard, you can assume a smaller percentage for the last one. But overall, it's nearly useless and random.
That's - by the way - one reason, why I want mill effects to become a RED ability.
Damage is also irrelevant until the last point is dealt. Milling is more likely to make a difference in the short term than damage, albeit that the term as a whole is longer. Even the small chance of milling away an opponent's last wincon and leaving him with a dead deck is worth more than dealing 19 points of damage and then running out of gas. That said, they have openly admitted that they make milling not with the intention of it being a good mechanic, because it appeals to the sensibilities of griefers and creative Johnnies. And it's the exact opposite of a red mechanic; attaching the word "random" to something does not = red.
Bad example - Feldon's Cane is one-use. On the other hand, even if you can't afford mythic Eldrazi, a Quest for Ancient Secrets is enough to make your mill opponent cry.
As 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
Damage is also irrelevant until the last point is dealt. Milling is more likely to make a difference in the short term than damage, albeit that the term as a whole is longer. Even the small chance of milling away an opponent's last wincon and leaving him with a dead deck is worth more than dealing 19 points of damage and then running out of gas. That said, they have openly admitted that they make milling not with the intention of it being a good mechanic, because it appeals to the sensibilities of griefers and creative Johnnies. And it's the exact opposite of a red mechanic; attaching the word "random" to something does not = red.
First: Damage isn't the same as mill effects. Of course, damage is irrelevant unless you kill your opponent, but first of all, damage is the 'usual' way to win. Therefore every color has cards to support this strategy. Likewise, most cards fulfill this concept... MUCH more than mill effects. This means that damage allways matters, cause typically one creature is enough to kill you. Therefore any spell that deals damage and has no other effect still is much more valuable than any card with a mill effect.
Second: Milling away he last win-con means that you milled nearly anything away but lands. And this requires that your opponent has way to win on the battlefield in his hand, on the battlefield or has ways to regain the lost cards. In a game where about 50% of the cards are damage-dealing creatures, it seems VERY unlikely. Likewise it is very unlikely that a deck does contain not enough cards to get your opponent down to 0 life.
Mill effects exclude interactions. This means that cards with mill effects can't alter the way how you play your deck. Any damage and likewise any creature interacts with your opponent... this is called combat.
Third: Your statement about griefers and Johnnies is a "made" descision. This isn't a fact. So if my opponent adds some sort of mill effect, it doesn't change my game. If the card order of my deck stays random, the effect is random. Therefore even if you were lucky to mill away a baneslayer angel, there is no way to prevent the option, that the next card will be another baneslayer angel too. And even if you had a "successful" mill result, you've automatically decreased your chance for another one.
That said, they have openly admitted that they make milling not with the intention of it being a good mechanic, because it appeals to the sensibilities of griefers and creative Johnnies. And it's the exact opposite of a red mechanic; attaching the word "random" to something does not = red.
I didn't meant a pure equation, but a "most likely" relation. No other color is connected to randomness in a more intense way. Therefore, cards with random effects are most likely red cards.
But what I skipped in my first post, but mentioned often on other occasions, is the fact that mill effects DO interact with another effect: knowing the card order of your deck or changing the randomness of your deck. So the next step would be, which color is most likely to use reorder effects or - to make it really obvious - uses scry effects to foretell the next cards? - In my opinion it's blue. Of course, not a pure equation, because there are some rarely used effect in every color, where you can put some sort of cards on top or on buttom of your library. BTW: Isn't it funny, that every color has a cmc1 tutor (worldly, enlightened, vampiric, mysticl) except for red?
In my opinion, opposite colors should have opposite effects. This means that red or green should have opposite effects to the blue scry or library reorder focus. So for me, it would be great, if red could counter the effect of a blue sage owl by milling the reordered cards away.
The result would be that mill effects would have become much more than just random effects and quite useless even if your deck doesn't real focus on this type of effect.
Overall, found this article to be a bit lacking in understanding of multiplayer.
Card #1, for example, well, not exactly a multiplayer card to begin with. And if you did want to make it more multiplayer friendly, you'd have to change sorcery to instant as well. For multiplayer, the ability to respond to the unexpected, which will most likely happen on a turn that isn't yours (since most turns aren't), is huge. Things will look fine, then suddenly a buff gets played and a huge attack on a player will happen and that guy needs a card so he can fog or something. Or the guy that goes before me is the one with Wraths in his deck.
Day of Judgement, you'd actually want to change. You'd want to raise the mana cost. Multiplayer sees too many board sweepers as is. Massive card advantage, they have far more of an impact than Congregate ever had. Almost every white deck will run some board sweeper. Most will not have congregate. So, greater power in multiplayer than duals, should have higher mana cost.
Card #5, Congregate, his proposed change doesn't change much. The decks that play congregate and gain big life with it tend to be the ones that get a lot of critters, usually tokens, into play. Like most anything, cards work better when you can be assured that the situation where they are best used is more likely to occur. And that means congregate goes in the same deck as the swarm. For the other decks? Wrath of God.
If you did want to reduce the impact of Congregate for multiplayer, making just a single change, you'd just change it from instant to sorcery. Being unable to play it in response to a board sweeper would have a far bigger impact.
Card #7, you'd play Naturalize over either for the vast majority of cases. 2 mana isn't much for multiplayer and far better not to give any opponent life. Also, given that the life loss/gain is supposed to offset the card's reduced mana cost, the card wouldn't be printed with target opponent anyway, but rather, the target enchantment/artifact's controller would get the life. That or with a higher mana cost and target player, not target opponent.
Card #9, the 6/6 creature is better. The 12/12 will just get you or it killed, either by you not being able to play it due to the 10 mana cost or by making you the threat. Darksteel Colossus didn't decide many games in my multiplayer group and it is a better creature than this green 12/12 shrouded thing.
Card #10, I'd sooner play lava axe over the tweaked version, actually. The tweaked version annoys all opponents. Lava Axe just the one I want to kill. Likewise, I wouldn't play the soothing balm either. 5 points of life isn't enough. Now, an X spell that hit opponents, that might be nice. But hitting everyone for 5? Not going to see much use. Well, not unless I gain life equal to the damage dealt.
If I were to tweak Lava Axe for multiplayer, I'd play up the interaction aspect. Allow it to be cast as an instant if the target is currently attacking you with creatures. Doesn't make too much of a difference for a dual but allows you to punish people in multiplayer.
BTW: Isn't it funny, that every color has a cmc1 tutor (worldly, enlightened, vampiric, mysticl) except for red?
Yeah, if only they'd printed a card like Gamble , but in Red.
If you would have read my whole reply, you should have noticed that I was talking about cmc1 tutors that put cards on top of the library. My post was about mill effects. And red lacks a tutor effect that can be milled away.
BTW: Isn't it funny, that every color has a cmc1 tutor (worldly, enlightened, vampiric, mysticl) except for red?
Yeah, if only they'd printed a card like Gamble , but in Red.
If you would have read my whole reply, you should have noticed that I was talking about cmc1 tutors that put cards on top of the library. My post was about mill effects. And red lacks a tutor effect that can be milled away.
Yes, that particular asymmetry has bugged me in the past too (not for the mill reason), but I think Gamble was intended to complete the cycle of CMC 1, card-disadvantage tutors. In the past, I figured a tutor for either a land or a non-basic land would be a good choice, since those were neglected in the original cycle as well. It's not exactly in Red's portion of the color pie, but Red did have Mana Flare , and did care about non-basic lands (admittedly mostly to blow them up).
On a similar note, Red was really the odd color out for the Urza's Saga cycle of Legendary lands. Each of the other colors got a land that could produce multiple mana of the chosen color (Tolarian Academy , Gaea's Cradle , Serra's Sanctum , and kind of Phyrexian Tower ), but Red got Shivan Gorge . More recent cards like Cabal Coffers and Crypt of Agadeem have cemented Red in being the only color left out of fancy land mana production. In my design for how Red could have filled in these gaps with a focus on non-basic lands, I pictured a Legendary land that tapped to add to your mana pool for each other non-basic land you controlled, for a Mana Flare -like effect; this would also fix the problem of lands being the only permanent type left out of being counted. It would be incredibly good now, but at the time I don't think it would have rivaled the explosive power of Tolarian Academy or Gaea's Cradle , since you only get one new land per turn (unless you're using Exploration or Mana Bond ). If I were to design the card now, though, I would make it add for each non-basic land your opponents control. Even with this wording, however, it's still more in Green's piece of the color pie.
Funny; I don't care for multiplayer but I've seen "each opponent" on so many cards it doesn't bother me. I immediately read, say, "Each opponent discards two cards." as "Target opponent discards two cards. This effect isn't affected by shroud, protection, or any related effects on your opponent." >_>
I actually think "target opponent" looks weirder on cards. Just say "target player" unless the card would break otherwise. For instance, I think Duress would look a lot more elegant if it referred to "target player". It's too late to change it now, of course.
I actually think "target opponent" looks weirder on cards. Just say "target player" unless the card would break otherwise. For instance, I think Duress would look a lot more elegant if it referred to "target player". It's too late to change it now, of course.
Swerve would certainly have been more effective against Cruel Ultimatum in Shards block limited that way.
Overall, found this article to be a bit lacking in understanding of multiplayer.
Card #1, for example, well, not exactly a multiplayer card to begin with. And if you did want to make it more multiplayer friendly, you'd have to change sorcery to instant as well. For multiplayer, the ability to respond to the unexpected, which will most likely happen on a turn that isn't yours (since most turns aren't), is huge. Things will look fine, then suddenly a buff gets played and a huge attack on a player will happen and that guy needs a card so he can fog or something. Or the guy that goes before me is the one with Wraths in his deck.
Day of Judgement, you'd actually want to change. You'd want to raise the mana cost. Multiplayer sees too many board sweepers as is. Massive card advantage, they have far more of an impact than Congregate ever had. Almost every white deck will run some board sweeper. Most will not have congregate. So, greater power in multiplayer than duals, should have higher mana cost.
Card #5, Congregate, his proposed change doesn't change much. The decks that play congregate and gain big life with it tend to be the ones that get a lot of critters, usually tokens, into play. Like most anything, cards work better when you can be assured that the situation where they are best used is more likely to occur. And that means congregate goes in the same deck as the swarm. For the other decks? Wrath of God.
If you did want to reduce the impact of Congregate for multiplayer, making just a single change, you'd just change it from instant to sorcery. Being unable to play it in response to a board sweeper would have a far bigger impact.
Card #7, you'd play Naturalize over either for the vast majority of cases. 2 mana isn't much for multiplayer and far better not to give any opponent life. Also, given that the life loss/gain is supposed to offset the card's reduced mana cost, the card wouldn't be printed with target opponent anyway, but rather, the target enchantment/artifact's controller would get the life. That or with a higher mana cost and target player, not target opponent.
Card #9, the 6/6 creature is better. The 12/12 will just get you or it killed, either by you not being able to play it due to the 10 mana cost or by making you the threat. Darksteel Colossus didn't decide many games in my multiplayer group and it is a better creature than this green 12/12 shrouded thing.
Card #10, I'd sooner play lava axe over the tweaked version, actually. The tweaked version annoys all opponents. Lava Axe just the one I want to kill. Likewise, I wouldn't play the soothing balm either. 5 points of life isn't enough. Now, an X spell that hit opponents, that might be nice. But hitting everyone for 5? Not going to see much use. Well, not unless I gain life equal to the damage dealt.
If I were to tweak Lava Axe for multiplayer, I'd play up the interaction aspect. Allow it to be cast as an instant if the target is currently attacking you with creatures. Doesn't make too much of a difference for a dual but allows you to punish people in multiplayer.
You're mostly talking about development stuff, not design stuff. Design isn't concerned about mana costs or whether Naturalize is better or whether Soothing Balm isn't playable.
Card #1 is tweaked enough for 2HG, the fixed Congregate doesn't work on your own deck.
About the Lava Axe you're right as they're both still interesting cards because you wouldn't want to piss off players unnecessarily
In short, it's about the principle highlighted by the examples, not the examples themselves.
@ fractal Interesting post. The legendary lands from the urza block were weird and two effects have doomed them. Artifacts can have casting cost of and there are cards that can untap lands . Personally, I missed the additional phrase "if you control no , sacrifice ~". With all the focus on artifacts, WotC must have been very distracted to overlook the potential of the blue version.
In general, I'm not a fan of * or +X effects. They are often either underwhelming or overwhelming, but nearly never really balanced. To put these effects on lands can create the worst effects. So I wouldn't make a red land, but just mark the old lands with a "lessons learnt" label.
The cabal coffers for example is a weak card. You need at least 4 swamps and this card to generate more mana than a basic land would have produced. So it's rather a drawback card than an actual bonus. However, since Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth transfers the coffers into a swamp, you reduced the requirements. Than ... with 6 lands in play, you could produce 9 black mana... still not very "threatening", unless you really need black mana instead of colorless.
It starts getting interesting when you have 7 lands (4 lands + 1 urborg's tomb + 2 coffers). Than you could produce 14 mana out of 7 lands. You have produced a Mana Flare effect with lands.
I use this combo in the mentioned black/white deck I use. With all sorts of mass destruction, I needed a win condition that can't be stopped easily. Lands and Sorceries are perfect, because in multiplayer games, there are no counterspells and lands tend to stay unnoticed. So the combination fits perfectly with Drain Life . Dealing 14 damage and getting 14 lifes out of one card keeps me alive and can kill an opponent. I've added a few Genju of the Fens which survive a wrath and can attack at the same turn.
Even with this wording, however, it's still more in Green's piece of the color pie.
Uuuhh. You shouldn't have said this. Color pie and I are some sort of archenemies.
Mana Flare wasn't a red card. Although static mana is red, the card often produced a situation, where noone wants to play a card other than a disenchant. So it's the opposite to the red way of Impatience .
Additional mana per turn supports non-red colors even better. Blue could cast an desastrous sorceries, like Worldpurge , Time Stretch or Blatant Thievery . Black could cast Death Cloud , Consume Spirit or a Degree of Pain . Green could cast fatties, which deal the most damage per mana spent (in a long term view). So white decks lose overall.
If I were to design cards, I would stop printing cycles. A cycle is a disregard to color individuality. F.e. the basic landcycling cycle f.e. shows that basic landcycling isn't color specific... it has no color home. Other cycles often show a lack of creativity at R&D because they often use the same old keywords or mechanics over and over. Not quite unique.
White Land - (Plain) = : Add . When enchanted: ,: draw a card. Blue Land - Vesuva or a City of Brass with a different drawback than damage. Black Land - Mirrodin's Core with black mana only, but with "remove X counters" instead. Red Land - does not count towards the 1 land limit. : Add and ~ deals 2 damage to you Green Land - Jungle (forest) = When it comes into play, return a forest to hand. :add 2. Option - : untap target land (or basic land // or forest) you control.
Kicker Aggro (Invasion Block)
