Make your own Magic card!

Mana burn was removed from the rules recently. THIS is my problem, people making cards when they're not familiar with the most recent rules of the game, but they played some time ago and are still trying to make cards that fit into when THEY played but don't work NOW.

I still have no idea what you're saying.

edited 7th Apr '10 10:08:34 AM by StarkMaximum

WHO IS THIS LOSER

And fans have been outraged ever since it was. I personally also object to it. You DO realize that people have opinions on the rules changes, right?

And un-sets, y'know, Unglued and Unhinged?

edited 7th Apr '10 10:09:22 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

It still makes the ability absolutely pointless.

WHO IS THIS LOSER

What does?

The "it lets you avoid mana burn" ability. There now is no mana burn. Ability is therefore pointless.

And THAT'S what you mean! Jesus, Un-set design SHOULDN'T be affecting "normal" cards, that's why Un-sets EXIST. Half-mana costs will NEVER show up in "real" Magic.

WHO IS THIS LOSER

I REJECT YOUR CONTINUITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they reinstated mana burn, because I've heard that that decision wasn't particularly popular. Of course, I hang out on no MTG fora or blogs, including the official ones, so I don't know the lay of the land, but still.

And is it that big of a difference? The only difference is that you look at the same top card twice instead of once to flare off extra mana.

FWIW: I personally count the Un-sets as legal. In my head at least. Though they're the results of some sort of very strange universe-breaking forces that people rarely ever use.

edited 7th Apr '10 10:16:09 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

They're not going to. Wizards has done some silly things, but they know what they're doing. They didn't reverse it back when people were REALLY throwing a fit, and they're not going to reverse it now.

But there's no NEED to. If it was removed, the card would function no differently. All it does is clutter up the card and take up space for an ability that has no point. It's like making a card that says "1: Count the number of cards in your hand". No one will use it, because having too much mana isn't even a problem anymore, because it automatically vanishes with no repercussions for you, and if you NEEDED one more ability, you could replace it with something that might actually be interesting.

That's nice.

edited 7th Apr '10 10:17:51 AM by StarkMaximum

WHO IS THIS LOSER

We could always create a card to reimplement the Mana Burn effect. For example:

• Mana Burn (WUBRG)
• Legendary Enchantment
• At the end of each phase of a player's turn, if that player has any unspent mana in their mana pool, that player loses life equal to the amount of unspent mana. That mana is then emptied from their pool.
• Hold things in for too long, and you might feel a... strange... sensation. ~The Mage Manipulator

Edit: Playing silver-bordered in Casual is fine too, although you'll have to warn me before you pick out that Un-powered deck.

edited 7th Apr '10 10:26:05 AM by AceOfScarabs

The three finest things in life are to splat your enemies, drive them from their turf, and hear their lamentations as their rank falls!

We could probably make a card that brings playing for ante back too, but we shouldn't.

Playing with Un-cards is fine (they can make a game a million times more fun), but you shouldn't be assuming people will be. They shouldn't affect the design of black-bordered cards, mostly because Un-cards do things you should not be able to do in black-bordered Magic. You wouldn't make a card that said "This permanent can't be destroyed by sources from outside the game", either.

WHO IS THIS LOSER

Oh, the ability has a point. To see the next card you're getting.

And does it really make a difference what Wizards counts as legal or not? It's not like they have either authority or resources to patrol every game of Magic that people play anyway. The rules of play are those decided upon between the players involved; all Wizards can do is basically suggest things.

For tournaments, official rules might matter more, but unless it's Wizards-sponsored, the organizers might nevertheless instate various older rulesets.

To be honest, at this point, I know you're not going to agree with me on anything. I'm just arguing to get my point across and to figure out what first principles guide your thinking. For starters, you're a lot more of a Melvin than I am.

And now you're tempting me to make a card called "Scientific Calculator", which is an artifact that says that any time a calculation would be rounded, it is not.

Don't even pull that, I'm as Vorthos as all get out, the card is just SO clunky and unusable that even I can't get over it. I'll love a card that does strange things if the overall presentation makes sense, and this does NOT.

And stop trying to fix your cards by making other cards! That just adds onto the mess you've already made!

edited 7th Apr '10 10:42:31 AM by StarkMaximum

WHO IS THIS LOSER

No, I'm not fixing my cards by making other cards.

I just thought it was a funny idea.

And you're much more in favor of sticking to the rules. I'm much more in favor of pushing, twisting, and defying them.

edited 7th Apr '10 10:44:04 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

Fine then, make all the fun ideas you want. They'd be way more fun if they were actually theoretically usable, though.

There's "pushing/defying rules" and then there's "doing something different for the sake of being different". Stop trying to label me just because I'm against your card idea.

edited 7th Apr '10 10:44:53 AM by StarkMaximum

WHO IS THIS LOSER

Y'know, if you look at my card ideas, you'll notice that a lot of them have un-setty flavor to them. Such as Lame Duck, which is ineffective against cards from printings newer than itself, and a Hurricane of Puns on the word "counter".

That's great. Which is why Ridley's the only one I'm getting up in arms about, because it looks like the only one that's meant to be taken seriously, and yet can't be.

WHO IS THIS LOSER

Personally, I'd like to see un-cards that are themselves perfectly playable and balanced. Got any comments on That Ass, for example?

And FWIW, there's also Intimidating Glare, and a few more cards in another post.

This is about all I need to say about that particular card.

I have a message from another time...

I'm sorry, I have trouble seeing a card with "Ass" in the name that creates something without getting squicked out.

WHO IS THIS LOSER

Enlong: Perhaps if i'd seen that strip I wouldn't have made it.

Then again, perhaps I would anyway.

Despite his (in this instance) grating manner, Stark is making good points. Ridley is poorly designed. The card is:

• Overly complicated (and coming from me, this is saying a lot)
• Lacks synergy
• Breaks the design rules for the sake of breaking rules, rather than to make a superior card (see Form of the Dragon for rules-breaking done right  ^*
  ^{The second and third lines both screw over the color pie individually, but the card as a whole makes more sense because they chose to disregard the rules in this case—it's the "I turn into a 5/5 dragon with flying" card, which is quite easy to grok and makes sense in red even if two of the three pieces don't—remember what I said in the other thread about doing out-of-color things in in-color ways? Yes, this is a good example of that.}
  )

One principle that I keep in mind in card design (among other things) is that creativity comes from working within the boundaries, not by abolishing them. Like I mentioned above, the card seems to be breaking rules for the sake of doing so rather than because the card is better as a result. Right now, well, it's just one giant piece of WTF is going on here?

edited 7th Apr '10 11:35:52 AM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Gee thanks.

WHO IS THIS LOSER

Hey, you seem like a nice guy most of the time, but right now you're being an ass.

edited 7th Apr '10 11:37:42 AM by Ironeye

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Whatever, fine. If I get started with this I'll never get out of it, and I'm tired of fucking arguments today.

WHO IS THIS LOSER

@Ironye: Hmm.

Well, Flying is kinda a given. Color change is debatable. Also, color changed to is debatable; red might be another idea.

I might be inclined to remove the distributable damage ability.

Maybe I can change the first two activated abilities to "You may look at the top card in your library." and "You are immune to mana burn." Alternatively, I can get rid of both of these and the top-card-of-target-player ability, on the basis of this card representing not you getting Ridley's powers, but merely Ridley granting you his services.

Lacking synergy seems to a lower-priority concern, unless you can convince me otherwise.

How does Form of the Dragon break design rules?

Edit: Hmm, maybe I can make a single line that says "You may look at the top card of any player." Possibly with cost.

edited 7th Apr '10 12:10:40 PM by GlennMagusHarvey