It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 1:48 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Oct 10, 2015
Posts: 2799
Location: California
Identity: Male
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
4) There should be a united curve for most effects in most colors.

I disagree with this. Different curves are part of the color pie.

WHITE:
Flaw: White should have the weakest lategame. Yes, weaker than red. Card advantage should be restricted to mass destruction, token generation, enchantment reanimation and scry. Mono white cantrips shouldn't give card advantage, cards like "do the usual trick, but twice" (like destroy two target tapped creatures) should be exceedingly rare and/or ineffective or overly defensive or give no card advantage. Finishers should be defensively orientated, and not FOR FREE, but for being not that effective in attacking. (I mean, Gisela the Broken is awful ! Archangel Avacyn is awful ! Angel of Invention - aaaaawful !). NO Sram effects, NO, just NO !

For starters, no, white shouldn't have weaker late-game effects than red does. There's no philosophical reason why white should be weak late game.
I agree with MaRo that every color should get cantrips. I dissent from you and the other people who've said that white cantrips are inherently broken. A white spell that draws you a lot of cards is broken. A white spell that draws ONE card isn't broken.
However, I agree with YOU that Sram/Mesa Enchantress effects should not be included in white.

Strength 1: Early game domination. 2/1, Exile target creature - it's controller gains a cookie (but a big cookie), 3/1, 2/2 First Strike + All your creatures gain +1/+1 forever, and so on. White would be a master of first 4 turns of the game, rivaled by, but not really surpassed by Red.

White should be good at 1- and 2-drop creatures, but the only destruction white should get for CMC 1 or 2 are Demystify and Disenchant variants, or prison. It's been proven that Swords to Plowshares and Condemn are pretty broken.

Strength 2: Defense. The reason why you play white in control. (Aside from mass destruction.) Lifegain, walls, vigilant creatures, toughness bonuses, Multiblocking, prison, you name it. Should be more efficient right now, but NOT connected to card advantage.

Sure

BLUE:
Flaw: Blue should have slowest or most unreliable treats. Yes, no cheesy AND big sphinxes ! I would make most sphinxes, like, 2/4, 2/5, or 3/3. No Goliath Sphinx. Huge sea monsters would start at 8 mana, and STILL have attack 4-6. Illusory Dragon is OK, as is stuff like 7/7 This creature can't attack unless you've casted an instant spell this turn. Cheap aggressive flyers/unblockables are OK as long as their power is 3 or less. Aggressive small non-flyers are OK, even. But not big treats.

I agree with you (though I note that you somewhat contradict your "unified curve" above)
I think it's OK for blue to have a halfway decent creature at CMC 5+, but at CMC 4-, their creatures should suck. In particular, they shouldn't get creatures with particularly high power.

Strength 1: Counterspells. Should not be more cost/effective than any other category of answers, tho.
Strength 2: Card advantage. Not for nothing (Thassa's Bident, most iterations of Jace, Control Magic (cheap one).), but abundant. And not just card draw, but everything from card selection to stealing to forcing bad trades to doing 2-3 things with one spell to occasional tutors (a glaring hole in color pie - blue tutors.)

Largely agree, but explain "forcing bad trades". I'm not sure what that is, and what I think it is isn't just in blue

BLACK:
Flaw: General unreliability. Tricky one, but WotC generally do it well. Basically, nearly every black card should require some sort of resource or have some sort of drawback, except for 1) Ultimate removals and 2) Basic, non-bomb, non-utility creatures. Even spells specifically designed to fight unreliability (tutors) should be unreliable (take a full turn or have some typical black drawback.) NO to black things that are good just because, like Kaleitas or Obliterator or Dread Wanderer. Also, no to cheap, drawbackless black removal (Fatal Push or Disfigure or Dead Weight, but Ulcerate or Vendetta is OK.)
Strength 2: Ultimate removal. Should really start at 3, unless with a serious (more than "nonblack") drawback. MURDER IS COMMON, DANGIT !!! Still, red removal should rival it, and beat it in the early game.

Black should get creature destruction at a cost of only mana. Probably 3, 4, 5 mana for it to be any good, but they shouldn't have to pay life to get it.
Fatal Push is OP but not philosophically inconsistent. I am 100% OK with Disfigure/Last Gasp
I am OK with black getting spells with Destroy target creature IF they have a high mana cost or low power.
I threw in Strength #2 here to illustrate that I agree with it.

Strength 1: Easy transformation of resources. Not too efficient, but swift and/or massive. (Generally, you still should lose more than gain.)

Sure

RED:
Flaw: Weak defense. For both individual creatures, and, especially, the player. Walls should be rare. Removal and utility - aggressively minded. No Circle of Flame. No Fireblade Angel. WotC does it good.

Walls in red should be Bolts pretending to be Walls. Consider Cinder Wall and Wall of Torches.
To clarify, you dislike Circle of Flame because it's defensive-minded, but you're OK with recursive red damage on enchantments or creatures?
Also, Flaw #2: Win-now-don't-care-about-late-game.

Strength 1: Aggression. Again, not because more effective then others, but because there is more of it, synergy for it, and because other colors don't get straight burn often. No Swiftspears or Abbots of Keral Keep.
Strength 2: Cheap removal. Shock is love, Shock is life. Be better than black removal in the early game, and still good later because later you can cast cheap removal PLUS something else.

No real objection?
Where does ramp fit into all of this?

Green:
Flaw: Need to be strongest. Only forms or removal are FAIR fights (No to Rabid Bite), deathtouch, pump spells, and Flash - forms that rely on creature superiority. Okay, okay, there are also Plummets and killing artifact creatures/enchantment creatures with Naturalizes, but those are more like hate cards, and less like removal. Also, no evasion except Trample.

Eh, not how I'd describe it. I'd describe it as "can't win without creatures". Naturalize and Plummet are about the only non-creature-related instant/sorcery archetypes green is allowed. Anything else green has creates creatures, protects them, pumps them, fights them or turns them into other resources.

Strength 1: Bombs. Green should be the best color if you want to turn the game upside-down. I am talking not just about huge creatures, but also about Overrun/Collective Unconscious effects, create-a-BUNCH-of-tokens effects, and generally massive effects. I repeat, they should be costed appropriately, by the same measure as cards in other colors, but there should be more of them, and more support for them. Speaking of which -

One caveat: Green is the best color for CREATURE-RELATED bombs. Every example you've listed creates creatures, counts creatures or pumps creatures.
Green isn't necessarily the best color for a big effect when you're down. White is that.
Green's answer to being down is to drop a bunch of power on the battlefield (either 1-2 biggies or a bunch of little ones).
Occasionally, the answer is life gain, but I'm not sure I'm particularly OK with straight-up life gain in green. I more prefer Peach Garden Oath-effects in green.

Strength 2: Resource generation. Unlike Black quickly trading one resource for another, green gets them over time, but way more efficiently. I am FOR 1-drop mana dorks, but they should be very drawbackful, like 0/1 : add to your mana pool. Then there is life gain, graveyard filling, card drawing (I am for Harmonize, but with some tweak.), creature growing, and so on.

I solve the "one-mana dork problem" less with one-mana-dorks-with-drawbacks and more with...

...two-mana dorks.
Green is the growth color. Also, mono-green should get Assemble the Legion-type effects.

_________________
Is it just me, or does Bruse Tarl look like an 1890s Barnum circus strongman who'd hawk strength tonic patent medicines on the side?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 2:57 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 28, 2016
Posts: 2268
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
Rating of colors by lategame power:
It comes with being #1 card advantage color, duh.
Cashes in both of its main advantages: has enough mana to drop bombs and enough time to snowball resource production engines.
Is equally OK in early, mid, and late stages. Gets lots of problems with opponent having nothing to discard, having life deficit, and suffering consequences of fast but inefficient tradeoffs. However, gets ALOT from full graveyard, tutors, and big finishers.
Well, it gets more lategame mechanics then you might notice. Rummaging, impulsive draw and turning lands into effects are all great sources of card advantage, as are cantrip, creature-attached or multi-targeting removals. And for cashing in, red gets two good ways to spend that lategame mana: X burn spells and dragons/big monsters.
: SHOULD stay here. It is already champion of early game, and all-around ba..ss during mid game. White cantrips are OK, they just shouldn't give card advantage (in most cases).
I mean, Gain 5 life draw a card is OK, but Deal 3 damage to a tapped creature draw a card is NOT OK. (Not really UNPRINTABLE, but a thing to avoid.)

Also... Giving red two (actually three) flaws is what makes it underpowered.

As for blue flaw, I don't say those creatures should be below the curve, I say they should be good because of their indirect abilities rather then sheer power. (Or be VERY unreliable.) Drawback here (like with all colors in my model) is not that blue gets bad cards in cathegory A, it's that blue can't get cards from cathegory A1 at all.

_________________
nice quotes from this forum


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:08 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 9040
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
While Blue has the most lategame power because it has the strongest vectors of interaction in counterspells, Red is probably the second best because of how easily it's capable of going over your opponent. Green and Black are both average because they have a lot of potential sustainability, and then White is the worst because it tries to fight at parity.

Not that I understand the purpose of this abstract conversation, since most decks have at least two colors, and format-presence typically comes down to what cards exist. In Standard, White exists mostly in aggressive shells, while Red covers the whole spectrum. In AKH limited, each color can facilitate an aggressive and a defensive two-color deck.

_________________
In the custody of febb since 12.05.16
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project

you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:29 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Oct 10, 2015
Posts: 2799
Location: California
Identity: Male
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
I have a hard time rating White as the worst late-game color if for no other reason than that it can extend the early-game and late-game with lifegain and other effects.

_________________
Is it just me, or does Bruse Tarl look like an 1890s Barnum circus strongman who'd hawk strength tonic patent medicines on the side?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:46 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '11
YMtC Pro Tour Champion
YMtC Idol Winner
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 9040
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/my/mine/himself
Extending the game isn't going to help you win. White's best hopes at winning a late-game battle is either by grinding the opponent through recursion (Emeria), or establishing some kind of lock with prison pieces. Comparably, Red is going to cast something like Past in Flames or Dragonstorm and just kill you off. Like I said though, it's kind of an absurd comparison to make. Every color has the ability to form the core of any archetype, with perhaps Green Control requiring that the stars align in some fashion, and Blue Aggro appearing more unintentionally than not.

_________________
In the custody of febb since 12.05.16
[Warchief] Custom EDH Project

you're like the kind of person who would cast Necropotence irl


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:40 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Oct 10, 2015
Posts: 2799
Location: California
Identity: Male
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
Mown wrote:
Extending the game isn't going to help you win. White's best hopes at winning a late-game battle is either by grinding the opponent through recursion (Emeria), or establishing some kind of lock with prison pieces. Comparably, Red is going to cast something like Past in Flames or Dragonstorm and just kill you off. Like I said though, it's kind of an absurd comparison to make. Every color has the ability to form the core of any archetype, with perhaps Green Control requiring that the stars align in some fashion, and Blue Aggro appearing more unintentionally than not.

Perhaps I should amend my comment:
While white may not be great at winning late-game, it's great at not losing, even in the late game.

_________________
Is it just me, or does Bruse Tarl look like an 1890s Barnum circus strongman who'd hawk strength tonic patent medicines on the side?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 12:55 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 16, 2015
Posts: 1241
Color weaknesses:
:w:: Rigidity. Therefore, can't draw cards. Shouldn't (imo) play efficient turn one creatures. Shouldn't play glass cannons.
:u:: Over-reliance on magic. Not a problem in MtG, unless through aggro/midrange decks. Needs more flexibility but less power.
:b:: Unable to win if behind, unless through graveyard recursion. Very overpowered color due to its innate nature.
:r:: Stupid, burns itself out, and can't do anything for more than 5 seconds. Underpowered for having strictly worse :w: weakness.
:g:: Unable to remove creatures, unless through other creatures. Magic hate could be intensified, i.e. Negate.

White is overpowered and has the worst flavor in the OP group.
Blue is overspecialized and seems like the developers' self-insertion into the game.
Black is overpowered.
Red is underpowered and has the second-worst flavor in the UP group.
Green is underpowered and has the worst flavor in the UP group, and among all colors.

What do I do?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2017 5:16 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3337
Location: somewhere btwn Achilles and the tortoise
Preferred Pronoun Set:
razorborne wrote:
Phoenixes are white now, deal with it

:duel:

The fact that Razia, Boros Archangel isn't a Phoenix is one of my biggest pet peeves in Magic. If I had been designing Ravnica I would have made the religion and the army. (the ZOMBIE army!)

_________________






Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 28, 2016
Posts: 2268
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
RED SHOULD BE SECONDARY ON DISCARD (as opposed to blue)

1) Discard is a risky form of card advantage (very red).
2) Discard is good in early game, and either carp or, rarely, awesome in lategame (also very red).
3) Discard is, flavorfully, about violence, sadism, loss of knowledge, sabotage, and glee. (all very red).
4) Blue has a lot of different card advantage already. If blue needs an unusual way of getting card advantage, tutoring is a cooler option.
5) Red could get:
RANDOM DISCARD (!!!)
Untargeted discard.
Targeted discard for lands only.

_________________
nice quotes from this forum


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:06 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 25, 2013
Posts: 10956
Location: Kamloops, BC
Identity: Male
I intend to do the same with six.

But what are they six colors?

LilyStorm wrote:
Remove all colors, make it yugioh

Add 5 more colors, make it pokemon tcg

If I were in charge of Pokemon I'd remove a few types.
Flying should be an ability, not a type.
Ground can go too. Give those mons to Rock and normal primarily. What even is a ground pokemon? One that lives on the ground?
Dragon doesn't really need to be a type either. Pretty thematically restrictive.
I'm split on Poison. Makes more sense as an attack typing than a creature type. And with poison already a status condition, is there really any need for poison type moves?

LilyStorm wrote:
LilyStorm wrote:
Emotion gives insight so you draw cards. Either way the color pie should be more mechanical than flavor based like it is now. Which imo is part of why it feels unbalanced at times

You can balance the color pie using only effects that can be justified with flavor.
That is the only way you should balance it.


Anything can be justified with any flavor though. Make it balanced mechanically first then add flavor over it. Then if anythinv doesnt quite fit you can tweak things a bit.

I very much agree. Remember the bad days of blue=knowledge=magic=anything at all?

My big change would be to take flying out of red. It's the colour of bare earth and has the burn spells to cover air defense. Give green flying birdies and insects. Give red archery/fireball/ maybe gravity themed cards with reach for extra compensation. Phoenixes are white. Dragons are whatever color they want to be, but many have red activated abilities.

_________________
Cato wrote:
CotW is a method for ranking cards in increasing order of printability.

*"To YMTC it up" means to design cards that have value mostly from a design perspective. i.e. you would put them in a case under glass in your living room and visitors could remark upon the wonderful design principles, with nobody ever worring if the cards are annoying/pointless/confusing in actual play

TPrizesW
TPortfolioW


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:41 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2013
Posts: 3337
Location: somewhere btwn Achilles and the tortoise
Preferred Pronoun Set:
White has the biggest slice and Red has the smallest, so we should take Stensia Innkeeper a step further and put all Imposing Sovereign/Loxodon Gatekeeper effects into red. What is having a creature etbt but preventing it from blocking anyway. and tapping artifacts and lands is kind of like destroying them.

In fact, I'd go so far as to print:

Delectrify
Instant (C)
Tap target nonenchantment permanent.
Draw a card.

This also opens up an opposite-effect-in-allied-colors like blue and black has with draw and discard when you combine it with untap in green.

Bountiful Bedlam
Enchantment (R)
Whenever a creature or land enters the battlefield tapped under your control, untap it.
Whenever a creature or land enters the battlefield untapped under an opponent's control, tap it.

_________________






Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 11:17 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mar 09, 2015
Posts: 1238
Sometimes I look at what y'all suggest and find myself going "For what purpose?" For what purpose would lacking Flying entirely be good for red especially since that would mean shifting Dragons which are so ingrained it'd be boneheaded to even suggest such. For what purpose should anti-flying Green suddenly start getting small flyers? "Add more small flyers to Green and more archery shenanigans to Red"? For what purpose would that serve?

"This color needs no card draw/This color needs more liberal card draw!" For what purpose does that serve besides delineating what the different colors do?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:35 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: May 09, 2014
Posts: 2397
In practice i think it'd be good to keep the colour pie essentially the way it is just because change has an innate cost to it but given the idea to entirely redesign the pie as an experiment I might do this sort of thing.

White:
-Significantly reduce ability to remove creatures, especially on curve. Cards like pacifism and oblivion ring should go.
-loses flying emphasis

Blue
-Gets more efficient creature removal
-Gets stronger large creatures

Black
-gains and loses a lot of stuff probably black has too much going on
-gains flying emphasis
-weaker large creatures
-gains more direct and repeatable player damage

Red:
-Gets card draw and Card quality, ala divination,ponder,merfolk looter
-Loses the ability to destroy artifacts and lands

Green
-Loses flying hate except for reach

all the changes are basically for the purpose of making archetypes more interesting. I want each colour to have one "core" aggro strategy and one control strategy, with varying effectiveness and nature.

_________________
I used to view myself as a crow. A large, negative, angry bird who is portrayed as the sign of a bad omen. Feared by others and wanting to dominate, I was my own flock.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:36 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 14, 2013
Posts: 48
Ever since fighting showed up I've never liked how red has such a hard drawback of "no way to deal with enchantments ever" when three colours are flexible enough to deal with anything in some shape or form. And I don't like how red can just get shut down completely by some cards in a way that's a lot less true of the other colours. I would be tempted to make "destroy any permanent" red, so that it can blow up enchantments only when it's able to destroy anything else as well.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 24, 2013
Posts: 5385
Red does occasionally get "destroy absolutely everything" effects like Bearer of the Heavens


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 2:53 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Oct 10, 2015
Posts: 2799
Location: California
Identity: Male
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
Turnip wrote:
Ever since fighting showed up I've never liked how red has such a hard drawback of "no way to deal with enchantments ever" when three colours are flexible enough to deal with anything in some shape or form. And I don't like how red can just get shut down completely by some cards in a way that's a lot less true of the other colours. I would be tempted to make "destroy any permanent" red, so that it can blow up enchantments only when it's able to destroy anything else as well.

No single color should get unconditional "Destroy target permanent" effects.
Closest red should get is "Destroy a permanent at random"

_________________
Is it just me, or does Bruse Tarl look like an 1890s Barnum circus strongman who'd hawk strength tonic patent medicines on the side?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:53 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Nov 14, 2013
Posts: 48
No single color should get unconditional "Destroy target permanent" effects.


Why?

(I'm imagining red cards that did it would be more Desert Twister than Vindicate in terms of cost.)


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline
YMtC Champ '12
User avatar

Joined: Sep 23, 2013
Posts: 3660
Location: Orange County, California
We should just remake Alpha on the boards.

_________________
Dies to Removal | Karados


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:22 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Oct 10, 2015
Posts: 2799
Location: California
Identity: Male
Preferred Pronoun Set: he/him/his/his/himself
Turnip wrote:
No single color should get unconditional "Destroy target permanent" effects.


Why?

(I'm imagining red cards that did it would be more Desert Twister than Vindicate in terms of cost.)


Because no single color should have an answer to everything.

_________________
Is it just me, or does Bruse Tarl look like an 1890s Barnum circus strongman who'd hawk strength tonic patent medicines on the side?


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:30 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 16, 2015
Posts: 1241
Because no single color should have an answer to everything.



I honestly think that the MtG color pie is a very flawed system from the flavor-based origin of each color onwards. My reasoning was given in an earlier post, where :b: is explicitly able to do anything it wants while other colors can't do much in comparison. I have been working on something but it's far from complete, as making a balanced color pie is an exceptionally difficult process. Even the curve is something that should be considered in this kind of issue.

I came back in here to tell you guys that I've been thinking about this too.


Like this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group