What if it just disabled bonuses? You still get 3 per swap, but that's it. Or what if it just said your planeswalker cannot get loyalty points? Then the mana is fine but abilities are useless
That is exactly what I intended for the card. You'd still get
3 mana from matches, but a planeswalker like Koth wouldn't get 10+ mana from
matching red gems.
Mickleberry said:So the idea here is that by disabling your opponent, that opponent doesn't apply mana bonuses from gem swaps and can't use planeswalker abilities.
it's played on you, you could still match gems (but only get 3 mana per match),
you could still play cards (such as support removal) and attack with your
creatures (because your creatures aren't disabled), but you couldn't use your
More than simply being overpowered, this card idea is also the exact opposite of FUN. You know, fun? The thing that people are supposed to derive from playing a game?
I agree that games are meant to be fun. But I think that's why cards like this need to exist.
"Hate" is important to Magic: the Gathering, because it keeps specific strategies in check and thus preventing them from becoming format-warping and parasitic. If "Hate" doesn't exist, or exists but doesn't work, the game becomes less fun on the account of every deck being the same. This is why hate cards are printed, and if hate isn't effective, this is why cards gets banned/restricted.
This particular card would put put a serious damper on Koth, a planeswalker who is the subject of many discussions on this forum as a planeswalker that is overpowered for his self-cascading abilities and ridiculous mana bonuses. If it were to hurt Koth enough but not too much, it would make for a game where playing with Koth is more risky. This in turn may persuade players to chose to take that risk and play with Koth or play with another red walker that has lower reward but lower risk.
The reason that we are seeing cycling deck after cycling deck after cycling deck right is because there is no effective hate that keeps it in check, and therefore no reason to use it over and over to maximize wins for maximum rewards. And while Solemnity was an attempt to do that, it failed miserably. As a result, many matches now feature a functional cycling deck run by an actual player mowing over a nonfunctional cycling deck run by an AI that doesn't know how to cycle cards, without any hate to dissuade this from happening time and time again.
We need effective hate to keep the game interesting and diverse, and in turn, fun.
Why not make it more like the printed card? A support with "When this support comes into play, exile target creature your opponent controls; while this support is in play, your opponent cannot cast copies of the exiled creature".
This is good idea, too. Disabling a creature and not letting it reinforce could be very interesting as it would prevent your opponent from building up the creature while they dig for an answer to the support.
The reason I chose to target the player instead of a creature was three-fold:
1. I wanted the design of the card to mimic the effects of puzzle quest cards like Cast Out, Hixus and Suppression Bonds. Since these cards disable creatures, it made sense to me to design a card that had the same relationship to its paper counterpart as these other cards with similar effects, both on paper and in puzzle quest.
2. I wanted something that, like Ixalan's Binding, can affect planeswalkers. The main reason I wanted to do that is because Jace is in the artwork, and I felt it matched the flavor of the artwork and the storyline of Ixalan.
3. I wanted to try something different. I felt another creature removal spell/support wouldn't be good for the game, but something that could affect the planeswalker would be interesting and open a new window in design space for the game.
Of course it'd be nice if you could target supports with it too, but there I have to just stop at "It'd be nice if you could target supports" as for this game that is a complete sentence on its own, and a massive understatement as well. I'd really love if the new devs could at least manage to swing us something like "the support your opponent controls with the highest shield rating is destroyed" or "the support your opponent controls that has been in play the longest is destroyed" if actual targeted support destruction is destined to remain forever out of reach.
Couldn't agree more: if we can't have a choice, we should at least be informed as to exactly how how the game is making that choice for us.