I'm looking at effects, and this came to mind. If Sky Crier is a thing, why not the following?
Eschew Logic
Sorcery (C)
Discard up to three cards. Each opponent discards that many cards.
Inspired by Burning Inquiry. Meant for a ramp archetype (trade excess lands for opponent's value cards). No Madness in the set.
Is it too strong? What's the appropriate cost? Would it break Madness in older formats?
I don't think Delirium Skeins is a good reference in a vacuum.
@void_nothing?
Symmetric discard spell
In limited, this would bring the game to top deck mode very quickly. Seems problematic at common and in two colors specifically.
Maybe have this at Uncommon and in black only?
What is the thinking behind having this in white as well?
The fact that it would be powerful with madness doesn't seem like an issue. Madness cards are generally weak so powering them up a bit seems good.
You need to make up the card disadvantage somehow...
Prepare for some serious groans if you play this in a Tergrid, God of Fright deck at a commander night. Hehe
Hmm... Interesting design space
Maybe have this at Uncommon and in black only?
What is the thinking behind having this in white as well?
The fact that it would be powerful with madness doesn't seem like an issue. Madness cards are generally weak so powering them up a bit seems good.
You need to make up the card disadvantage somehow...
Prepare for some serious groans if you play this in a Tergrid, God of Fright deck at a commander night. Hehe
Hmm... Interesting design space
Are you sure? Would you be that eager to play something that is always card disadvantage? See, if you don't discard they don't either.
If white can get card draw in the form of "everybody gets cards", maybe it could also get discard, if it's always "fair"?
-
SecretInfiltrator
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Pronoun: they / them
- Location: The Shattered Realm
Madness, flashback, descent, unearth, hellbent etc.
Sometimes you are just flooded and want to force an opponent to cut down your opponent's options.
It depends on the Limited environment. The real issue with this spell is that in an environment that has synergy with it, it might do too much for too little investment.
If you avoid all the synergies and actually end up with card disadvantage it's just a spell you avoid.
Either way is bad design and by going for a one-mana card that has a lot of range you make both a weak card and a problematic card, because when it does what it is supposed to do, it is not often an engaging interaction.
Put One with Nothing at rare, not common.
Multiple things:
1. There are certain effects/abilities/game objects that are paired with opposites where one is constructive and one is destructive/disruptive and you inherently want the constructive side more than the destructive side, because the constructive side enables games and interaction, while the destructive side prevents gameplay to unfold - in result even if you balance the power of the cards you end up with "non-games" where players take less actions and have less options. A game with more actions and options lead to more choices and reward good choices.
Land ramp > Land destruction; +1/+1 counters > -1/-1 counters; card draw > discard; scry > fateseal etc.
Hence there is far less incentive to spread discard around.
2. Now let's pretend all that wasn't an issue. Would you do the same card with card draw? I don't think so. Inherently card disadvantage, but Secret Rendezvous is still a three mana uncommon.
Let's not forget that by giving white access to those new abilities you remove white's weakness in having no access to those abilities.
---
My suggested fix:
Do what Your Temple Is Under Attack does: Create a modal spell that pairs this (or a similar) effect with another effect and put them at a cost similar to Delirium Skeins, just to prevent the issues that come just from having it as a one-mana spell.
Remove the inherent modes. You can entertain "Each player discards N cards." or "You and target opponent discard N cards." or "Discard N cards. Target opponent discards a card for each card you discarded this way." But at common pre-defining N seems like the path to go.
---
I personally feel white getting Mesmeric Fiend-style hand disruption is closer to what white is about than symmetric card draw.
https://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/7 ... draw-as-in
MaRo says they wouldn't do it. It's fine, White's slice of the pie is questionably big as it is anyway. I'm still going to try it in my set though.
MaRo says they wouldn't do it. It's fine, White's slice of the pie is questionably big as it is anyway. I'm still going to try it in my set though.
