Saturday, December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas!
To celebrate Christmas, I have a special Christmas article and Preview Card for our upcoming fake magic set, Unknown 2! The preview card will be after the article.
Today I want to talk about mana costs for cards, specifically related to fake sets. It's always an issue when dealing with mana costs for cards; converted mana costs, amount of colored mana symbols, and so on. The costing of cards for a fake set is different than for a real set, because for a fake set, we will only be playing in limited (draft, seal) formats.
I sometimes find myself looking at a card I made, and I think to myself, "this card should cost BBB". It is so flavourful in black, and it's pretty awesome on turn 3 so you should play mono-black to use it. In constructed, that's usually not a problem - you can go monoblack and have a bunch of great cards including this one, and you'll be happy to play this card. However, this is not constructed. This is limited, so the playability of this card is different.
In our limited games, we often go two colours, maybe splash another. In Scars it's even worse - we might main artifacts, and then main another color and perhaps splash a second. So a card that costs BBB basically screams "don't draft me" or "don't play me". If you are playing multicolored, it is so unlikely that you could bring this out on turn 3.
So an alternative is to cost it at 1BB. What does this say about the card? Well, 1BB is a great cost for such a card. First, it says that if you are NOT playing black, don't bother - you can't splash this unless you plan to use it late game. If it's an awesome card, it might even force someone to change colors. You can change colors for 1BB, but BBB is too much. Also, if you are already playing black, this one is still a tough card to play. If you have this card and another card in the same booster that costs 2B, well... as for playability, 2B is much easier, but is the 1BB card much better that it might cause you to have an uneven mana base?
Costing it at 2B means it's still in black flavour, but the limitations are way less severe. You can easily main this card, or easily splash it in any other deck. As you see, 1BB causes a lot more controversy, but you have to make sure the card is worth it. So to summarize, BBB is too much of a commitment in limited for a card to be drafted, unless it's game-winning or something. 1BB is much more interesting, although it's not great to have a deck with a lot of 1CC cards. It's good to force tough decisions on the drafter to make interesting situations. You do want some of your cards to be limited to a person invested in that color, but costs like BBB are too much. (Note I'm just talking about BBB; 3BBB or 4BBBB are still acceptable mana costs... or what do you think?)
The bulk of your cards will probably be 2B, as it's easy to main but still provides good splashing options. Oh, and I forgot, there's also the casting cost of "3", which means it's playable in any deck. The decision making is pretty much gone; you just have to make sure it stacks well against the other cards in your booster.
2BB? 2BB is a great cost for a card. First of all, with 3B, if you're playing 4 colors, there's a neat chance you can cast this card on turn 4; if you're playing 3 or less, there's a great chance to pay 3B. 2BB is where it's at, though; this means you're playing a 2 color deck, perhaps equally for both colors, but depending on how awesome this one card is, it might sway you to put in more swamps to reliably play it on turn 4.
4BB? 4BB is pretty standard for a card. Like, 5B screams "I'm easily splashable", 4BB gives you a pretty good idea that you can splash this if you are splashing other black cards, or that if you're playing two colors then you should be able to handle this 99% of the time. 3BBB makes people think. It's very similar to 2BB but just looks a lot scarier... also, it means you definitely can't splash 3BBB, so I guess that's what it means.
So, that's my article on mana costs. On to the preview card!
In my other e-mail, I posted a few codenames for some of my cards, one of which was "Szrumming Bell." The other day, I had an exercise with Vinh where I gave him these codenames and he would make up cards for them.
Vinh decided that Sz is short for Seizan, Perverter of Truth; "rumming" was a remnant from Thrumming Bird; and "Bell" referred to Temple Bell.
Vinh thus came up with this card:
David came over a few days ago, and he was given the same exercise, although he doesn't know Magic card names by heart, so Vinh gave him a few choices of what cards could represent, and David ended up with something similar, except that it only causes 1 life loss and 1 card draw, and probably costs less overall.
Anyway, today's preview card is this card. This is one of the first cards I thought of, and after some tweaking, comes your preview card for today. As you all now, my portion of the set deals with counters and the new Proliferate mechanic. There's actually not thaaaat many counters nor that many cards with Proliferate, but it is still a good theme of my portion. This card is one of the potentially strongest cards I have, depending on how long you let it live, and what the battlefield looks like. If you have a Doom Blade or a Lightning Bolt, I suggest you use it.
Thrummingbird is correct. Temple Bell was also correct. However, Seizan was a little off. I was a little hesitant to put a seven-mana mechanic on a four-mana creature, so I hope you have something to deal with it... unless you like it on the battlefield?
How do you guys feel about the Gushing Wasp?
Powerful, eh? First, it's a 1/3, then a 2/4. After that, it's a 4/6, and you won't be able to deal with it through blockers or direct damage alone. If Vorosh or Szadek connected with you once, same problem; nothing could deal with them anymore, except removal. However, there are two "bad" things with Gushing Wasp. First drawback is that it's a monoblue creature, unlike Vorosh and Szadek, who are also black creatures, making them that much harder to kill.
The other drawback is that Gushing Wasp, unlike Vorosh or Szadek, doesn't do anything directly; It only gets stronger, but if nothing else is on the battlefield, it doesn't do anything (except of course, everyone gets to draw cards).
But once there are counters anywhere else, things get powerful. Your creatures get stronger and stronger, opponents' creatures get weaker and weaker, your creatures level up faster, and your opponents accumulate Poison Counters faster and faster. One poison counter and a few hits from the Gushing Wasp would be lethal.
So, what do you think?
Until next time, may you hope to draw 1 card, then 2 cards, then four cards, then eight.
Comments:
Post a Comment
To celebrate Christmas, I have a special Christmas article and Preview Card for our upcoming fake magic set, Unknown 2! The preview card will be after the article.
Today I want to talk about mana costs for cards, specifically related to fake sets. It's always an issue when dealing with mana costs for cards; converted mana costs, amount of colored mana symbols, and so on. The costing of cards for a fake set is different than for a real set, because for a fake set, we will only be playing in limited (draft, seal) formats.
I sometimes find myself looking at a card I made, and I think to myself, "this card should cost BBB". It is so flavourful in black, and it's pretty awesome on turn 3 so you should play mono-black to use it. In constructed, that's usually not a problem - you can go monoblack and have a bunch of great cards including this one, and you'll be happy to play this card. However, this is not constructed. This is limited, so the playability of this card is different.
In our limited games, we often go two colours, maybe splash another. In Scars it's even worse - we might main artifacts, and then main another color and perhaps splash a second. So a card that costs BBB basically screams "don't draft me" or "don't play me". If you are playing multicolored, it is so unlikely that you could bring this out on turn 3.
So an alternative is to cost it at 1BB. What does this say about the card? Well, 1BB is a great cost for such a card. First, it says that if you are NOT playing black, don't bother - you can't splash this unless you plan to use it late game. If it's an awesome card, it might even force someone to change colors. You can change colors for 1BB, but BBB is too much. Also, if you are already playing black, this one is still a tough card to play. If you have this card and another card in the same booster that costs 2B, well... as for playability, 2B is much easier, but is the 1BB card much better that it might cause you to have an uneven mana base?
Costing it at 2B means it's still in black flavour, but the limitations are way less severe. You can easily main this card, or easily splash it in any other deck. As you see, 1BB causes a lot more controversy, but you have to make sure the card is worth it. So to summarize, BBB is too much of a commitment in limited for a card to be drafted, unless it's game-winning or something. 1BB is much more interesting, although it's not great to have a deck with a lot of 1CC cards. It's good to force tough decisions on the drafter to make interesting situations. You do want some of your cards to be limited to a person invested in that color, but costs like BBB are too much. (Note I'm just talking about BBB; 3BBB or 4BBBB are still acceptable mana costs... or what do you think?)
The bulk of your cards will probably be 2B, as it's easy to main but still provides good splashing options. Oh, and I forgot, there's also the casting cost of "3", which means it's playable in any deck. The decision making is pretty much gone; you just have to make sure it stacks well against the other cards in your booster.
2BB? 2BB is a great cost for a card. First of all, with 3B, if you're playing 4 colors, there's a neat chance you can cast this card on turn 4; if you're playing 3 or less, there's a great chance to pay 3B. 2BB is where it's at, though; this means you're playing a 2 color deck, perhaps equally for both colors, but depending on how awesome this one card is, it might sway you to put in more swamps to reliably play it on turn 4.
4BB? 4BB is pretty standard for a card. Like, 5B screams "I'm easily splashable", 4BB gives you a pretty good idea that you can splash this if you are splashing other black cards, or that if you're playing two colors then you should be able to handle this 99% of the time. 3BBB makes people think. It's very similar to 2BB but just looks a lot scarier... also, it means you definitely can't splash 3BBB, so I guess that's what it means.
So, that's my article on mana costs. On to the preview card!
In my other e-mail, I posted a few codenames for some of my cards, one of which was "Szrumming Bell." The other day, I had an exercise with Vinh where I gave him these codenames and he would make up cards for them.
Vinh decided that Sz is short for Seizan, Perverter of Truth; "rumming" was a remnant from Thrumming Bird; and "Bell" referred to Temple Bell.
Vinh thus came up with this card:
David came over a few days ago, and he was given the same exercise, although he doesn't know Magic card names by heart, so Vinh gave him a few choices of what cards could represent, and David ended up with something similar, except that it only causes 1 life loss and 1 card draw, and probably costs less overall.
Anyway, today's preview card is this card. This is one of the first cards I thought of, and after some tweaking, comes your preview card for today. As you all now, my portion of the set deals with counters and the new Proliferate mechanic. There's actually not thaaaat many counters nor that many cards with Proliferate, but it is still a good theme of my portion. This card is one of the potentially strongest cards I have, depending on how long you let it live, and what the battlefield looks like. If you have a Doom Blade or a Lightning Bolt, I suggest you use it.
Thrummingbird is correct. Temple Bell was also correct. However, Seizan was a little off. I was a little hesitant to put a seven-mana mechanic on a four-mana creature, so I hope you have something to deal with it... unless you like it on the battlefield?
How do you guys feel about the Gushing Wasp?
Powerful, eh? First, it's a 1/3, then a 2/4. After that, it's a 4/6, and you won't be able to deal with it through blockers or direct damage alone. If Vorosh or Szadek connected with you once, same problem; nothing could deal with them anymore, except removal. However, there are two "bad" things with Gushing Wasp. First drawback is that it's a monoblue creature, unlike Vorosh and Szadek, who are also black creatures, making them that much harder to kill.
The other drawback is that Gushing Wasp, unlike Vorosh or Szadek, doesn't do anything directly; It only gets stronger, but if nothing else is on the battlefield, it doesn't do anything (except of course, everyone gets to draw cards).
But once there are counters anywhere else, things get powerful. Your creatures get stronger and stronger, opponents' creatures get weaker and weaker, your creatures level up faster, and your opponents accumulate Poison Counters faster and faster. One poison counter and a few hits from the Gushing Wasp would be lethal.
So, what do you think?
Until next time, may you hope to draw 1 card, then 2 cards, then four cards, then eight.