Ask the Idea Guru

[furballdn]

I'm asking because the topic of MtG came up on another forum and I tried to see it with an EtG point of view. Can you analyze and correct the response I had with a friend below if it isn't too much trouble? (Topic was gemhide sliver)

I have no idea how MtG works so I will try and think with the best of my EtG knowledge.

It's the ability that's scary.  In Magic, you get summoning power from Mana.  Creatures that ramp up this speed are generally popular. 

A popular "Rare" creature is Birds of Paradise. It's a 0/1 Flying for 1 Green Mana with the ability of "Tap: Add one of any colour".  It's highly sought after in multicolour green decks because it can help with ANY colour.  Old Sliver decks often ran them heavily since their best cards are separated between different colours (but were deadly when used)

Ah. I had first assumed it was a vanilla creature. I see now that it is a mana accelerating creature.


comes to mind, but so does

What makes Gemhide Sliver terrifying is that it gives this to all creatures of the "Sliver" type.  In a Sliver deck, every Sliver card gives bonuses to every Sliver.  So you can see how this works: Gemhide comes out.  Next turn, it and the two land required to summon it, in addition to the land you just played, gives you 4 mana to the opponent's 3 (you can only play 1 land a turn).  So let's say you play two 2 CMC Slivers (Muscle Sliver, which strengthens them, and Heart Sliver, which gives everything Haste so it can move he turn of summoning).  Next turn, you have 7 available mana to work with in opposition to your opponent's 4.  And if you get enough Slivers out, your creatures will be stronger (Generally, if you can't kill a few off early, you'll have groupings of 5-6 of 5/5 to 6/6 strength creatures with multiple abilities mobbing you).  And if you take a look at all their legendaries (such as the aforementioned Sliver Legion), you can see they also require 1 of each colour to cast.  Imagine how broken it is and how much of a threat it is if you can pull out an end game powered creature on turn 3.  That makes everything else you own stronger.  And survives a lot of basic removal cards.

Elements lacks any exponential attack creatures. The closest I can think of are scarab and eclipse.

In my own deck, I run cards specifically BECAUSE of Gemhide Sliver.  I have cards that I have no ability to effectively utilize unless one of 12 cards (8 special lands) is out.  Gemhide are four of them and are the ones any opponent decides WILL die if they see it on the field because it effectively turns every creature on my side (which can spring into the 4-6 creature range quick) into a creature of immense popularity and power.  In addition to kicking your ass in combat.  So again, it's not exactly what Gemhide Sliver will do to you...it's what Gemhide Sliver does to my side that makes them a major threat.

So specific counters? This is probably a big part where MtG and EtG are different. WHile specific counters do exist in EtG, there isn't a lot of "elemental hate" besides one specific card that counters the above mentioned devourer. This is because EtG has a relatively small cardbase (less than 200 I think) and MtG has what, thousands?

The two biggest concerns with Slivers have always been: 1) They are multicoloured and are restricted by your land and 2) They're slow to start.  Gemhide Sliver fixes both since it's "any colour", not a specifically predefined one.  A set Sliver army can't get stopped very easily.  Not unless you use mass removal.

So the biggest problem with them are their mana acceleration and flexibility?

[Rutarete]

OldTrees Greetings once again I need to know if a card has already been created previously. It would be a spell, would give a bonification for weapon, for example: the target weapon gets + 4  attack.

I do not recall it being suggested before. However, is it versatile enough?

Moomoose did a fire card for it. I'll find the link.
http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,36534.0.html

[OldTrees]

There are a few details to understand.

1)
When a card costs X mana it really means requires and unreadies X lands that turn (expends them for the turn). This means a card that costs 2 mana is more mana expensive than 2 cards that cost 1 mana.
since players are limited to 1 land per turn, early mana acceleration is trading a weaker turn for a stronger turn. (Imagine playing Purple Dragons for 5 rather than playing Abominations)

2)
A card that costs 2 mana can range (less expensive to more expensive) from costing:
  (2 Lands)
  (1 Life Land and 1 additional Land)
  (2 Life Lands)
  (1 Life Land and 1 Light Land)

So generating colorless mana is powerful enough. Generating colored mana is more powerful. Generating rainbow mana (mana of any color) is even more powerful. A card that gives all your creatures the option to generate rainbow mana is extremely powerful.

So yes it is the mana generation that is the strength of Gemhide Sliver and how it complements the expensive and exponential (actually logistic) rush of slivers.

PS: Specific counters in his post referred to is similar to including CC to deal with SoFo and other decks with extremely dangerous creatures.

[ZephyrPhantom]

Can you explain to me the rules and gameplay of MtG in a brief paragraph using only EtG terms?

@furball : Here's a detailed breakdown, if you need more info on it.
Has this idea been done before?
"Scramble the top 3 cards of target stack into 3 random pillars."
Regarding Glass Knight:

At lower costs,  and  are closer. What if it were cheaper and weaker?

Glass Knight is intended to be a midhitter closer to role of GoTP, Puffer Fish, and Phoenix - I feel bringing it down to the scale of a 'small' creature might make step more into the area of creatures such as Giant Frog, Abyss Crawler, and Graviton Mercenary, which I'm trying to avoid because I don't want this card to suddenly replace them in a low-cost speedbow or mono-element rush.

Regarding Legendaries:

A card being legendary does not affect its balance. It merely limits the amount used per deck.

But doesn't the amount of cards used per deck play a role in it's balance, too? The less copies of a card you can use, the less of a chance you'll actually see this card used during the game (admittedly, this is somewhat luck-based, but since the luck revolves around the deck it's possible to manipulate the deck to some degree with cards that allow you to draw. ETG lacks 'search' cards but I would expect them to also play a role.)

In addition, some effects might be much stronger if used multiple times on one turn. (especially an effect that relies on previous triggers of the same effect) Limiting the amount of 'triggers' per turn could slow it down considerably to the point of balance. [On that note : how would the concept of 'this ability can only be triggered once per turn on your side of the field' work? It allows additional copies of a creature/permanent to be played but prevents a stronger ability from being spammed too much.]

If Zanz decided to introduce Legendary-esque cards into the game,  but made a few versatile 'Common' Legendaries available to newbies as well, how would the meta be affected?
If you had to 'card'-ify the following:
Half Bloods
False Gods
The Oracle
What do you feel their 'power level' would be in relation to other cards?

[Zaealix]

Half Bloods- cards that synergize between two elements, like  might be a card that capitalizes on  's and  's specialties.
False Gods- powerful cards that relate to the general strategy of the False God in question- Lionheart for example, might be a premanent that gives a bonus for playing powerful creatures, or something like that.
The Oracle-I'm tempted to say it'd be a random card generator fitting with what the in-game function of the Oracle is...But IDK.

I feel like Half-Bloods might be more powerful but risky-or safer to play, they are 'half-bloods' so while thematically they can be stronger they should still have traits that 'commoners' have as well.
False God cards would and should thematically be very powerful, but this in turn necessitates rarity, which would widen the newcomer/veteran gap further.
Oracle?-It's unknown wheather he is some sort of 'entity' alongside the False Gods, or more akin to an elemental who simply retired from fighting and just aids others now...

[OldTrees]

@ZBlader
I do not believe scrambling pillars has been done before. However it does resemble Earthquake in effect.


There is a reason I caution against attempting Dragons and Nymphs that cost  . This is related to the reason Shield was moved from  to Other. It is hard to make a midhitter that costs  and is not restricted to rainbow decks.
(The more I think about it the more I am convinced that the effective cost of  is logarithmic rather than linear. Maybe even logistic)


Imagine we have a card pool that contained enough legendary cards that a legendary only deck could be created without negative synergy. I could build a deck using legendary cards or a similar deck using commons. If legendary is an excuse for better cards then the legendary only deck would be better than the similar common deck. Therefore legendary is not an excuse for better cards.

Effects that have synergy with themselves (get better each time) should be balanced by the cost to use the ability. Legendary is unneeded.

The meta would not be greatly affected after the new card rush unless Zanz made the mistake to make the Legendary cards OP. In that case we would see a smaller impact than SoSac initially had due to the rarity of the usage but the impact per usage would be the same.


I try not to cardify Elementals. It is hard to put an entire deck into a single card. This is ignoring the possible recursion of putting a deck that contains an Elemental into a card symbolizing another Elemental.

Instead I would put metamorphosis spells/permanents that improved you mark. Even giving it an activated ability in the case of oracle.

[artimies7]

Morning, Idea Guru. So I made some Mycelium (fancy mushroom) art:

Spoiler for Hidden:

and I needed your insight into what would be thematically correct while also proper for the metagame as it is.

I was first going to have it heal 0 | 1 || 1 | 1 every turn, but the chat thought that was situational, similar to Guardian Angel.
Then I thought of simply draining the target creature of 1 hp every turn, but that's just poison all over again.
Life needs permanent control, right? So the latest idea I've been toying with is that it takes so many turns to destroy a targeted permanent. Yet toppling pillars isn't exactly what mushrooms do.

Any thoughts, good sir?

[OldTrees]

Morning, Idea Guru. So I made some Mycelium (fancy mushroom) art:

Spoiler for Hidden:

and I needed your insight into what would be thematically correct while also proper for the metagame as it is.

I was first going to have it heal 0 | 1 || 1 | 1 every turn, but the chat thought that was situational, similar to Guardian Angel.
Then I thought of simply draining the target creature of 1 hp every turn, but that's just poison all over again.
Life needs permanent control, right? So the latest idea I've been toying with is that it takes so many turns to destroy a targeted permanent. Yet toppling pillars isn't exactly what mushrooms do.

Any thoughts, good sir?

Creature healing is situational because few attempts to kill a creature give you a turn inbetween to respond with healing.
I do not think Mushrooms are known for being parasitic or destructive.

I would suggest making a list of what mushrooms do:
They have spores (Myconids)
They are food
They can form large Mycelium mats

[furballdn]

Do you agree with my analyses for weapons?

HP stats of weapons are ignored

Dirk = 2atk - X weaponbonus = 0
Sword = 3atk - X weaponbonus = 1
Bow = 4atk - X weaponbonus = 2
Hammer = 4atk - X weaponbonus = 2

X=2. Weapon bonus is 2.

Morning star = 7atk - 2 weapon bonus + immortal = 5
Immortality for weapons is worth +0

Vampire stiletto = 4atk - 2 weapon bonus + vampire = 1
Vampire for weapons is a -1 cost. Vampire Stiletto is probably OP. I suggest changing it to 2 at the least.

Owls Eye = 5atk - 2 weapon bonus + snipe = 5
Snipe is worth +2

Pulvy = 5atk - 2 weapon bonus + destroy = 4
Destroy is worth +1

Titan = 7atk - 2 weapon bonus + momentum = 5
Momentum for weapons is worth +0

Discord = 4atk - 2 weapon bonus + scramble = 3
Scramble is worth +1 cost.

Fahrenheit = 4atk - 2weapon bonus + fiery = 3
Fiery is worth +1

Trident =  4atk - 2 weapon bonus + EQ = 3
EQ is worth +1

Druidic staff = 2atk - 2 weapon bonus + regenerate = 2
Regenerate is worth +2

Arsenic = 2atk - 2 weapon bonus + poison = 2
Poison is worth +2

Lobotomizer = 5atk - 2 weapon bonus + lobotomize = 3
lobotomize is worth +0

Eternity = 4atk - 2 weapon bonus + RT = 6
Repeatable RT is worth +4

Conclusions:
Vampire stiletto is OP. (Vampire ability costs -1 cost lol)
Immortality, momentum, and lobotomize are worth +0
Fiery, scramble, EQ, and destroy are worth +1 (And trident is still UP)
Regenerate, Poison, and Snipe are +2
Repeatable RT is worth +4

[OldTrees]

@furballdn
My initial examination of weapons resulted in an estimate of X=3

However it is good to double check once in awhile.

The first thing to note is 2 =/= 2
The second thing to note is the Elemental Weapons are considered more balanced than the Other weapons. (especially unupped where the math is simple)
The third thing to note is that more of the mark other weapons were not intended to have both mark and non mark usages balanced with each other.

Sword[UP?] = 3 atk - X weapon slot <= 1 + 1 card
Dirk[UP?] = 3 atk - X weapon slot - X mark <= 0 + 1 card
Hammer[UP?] = 4 atk - X weapon slot - X mark <= 2 + 1 card
So the mark cost is 1 and atk is 2 (assuming balance and linear which is probably erroneous)
5 - slot <= 0 + 1 card
Based on Photon it seems the first card is worth 1 attack
3 - slot <= 0
3 <= Weapon slot

However I do not expect the slot to be so cheap.
MindFlayer 2 atk + Psionic Wave - 1 duo = 2 + 1 card
MindFlayer* 5 atk + Psionic Wave - 1 duo = 5 + 1 card
MindFlayer* 5 atk + Psionic Wave - 1 higher activation = 5 + 1 card
MindFlayer* 5 atk + Psionic Wave - 1 higher activation + permanent - weapon slot
= 5 + 1 card + permanent - weapon slot = Lobotomizer = 3 + 1 card
2 + permanent - weapon slot = 0
2 < weapon slot

Your conclusion about Vampire Stiletto is probably accurate despite not being supported. The rest of your conclusions need a ">" symbol rather than "is worth"

[furballdn]

While =/= I counted the other weapons like that for now since most would see use in mono decks. (You don't often see rainbow decks using them).

I am confused on why > is needed instead of =. Doesn't > mean greater than?

For example,
5 + 1 card + permanent - weapon bonus = 3 ,
why do you say 2 < 0 instead of 2 = 0?

[OldTrees]

While =/= I counted the other weapons like that for now since most would see use in mono decks. (You don't often see rainbow decks using them).

I am confused on why > is needed instead of =. Doesn't > mean greater than?

For example,
5 + 1 card + permanent - weapon bonus = 3 ,
why do you say 2 < 0 instead of 2 = 0?

Other weapons are usually used begrudgingly in mono decks when unupped. However this is a good point that might explain why they are considered UP. (cost being higher than it appears)

5 + 1 card + permanent - weapon bonus = 3 + 1 card
2 + permanent - weapon bonus = 0
2 + permanent = weapon bonus
2 < 2 + permanent = weapon bonus
2 < weapon bonus
So the weapon slot is worth more than a 2 elemental quanta discount.