Morton's Fork

[Cyberpunker]

Ok clearly I have to clear things up a bit. I don't mean to offend you guys by disagreeing with you.

And really Matt the truth is none of us know exactly what Wizards is thinking. I say that it is still possible and would not be surprising while you disagree. Wizards has a history of reviving the past or surprising the players after all (Mirrodin Block/Planar Chaos/Coldsnap). And so it is a bit presumptuous of you to say that life loss will only be  in future sets when it has been  .

And Yare please stop with your apparantly negative opinions on my character, I am not looking for your approval and I don't think you speak for everyone. I am just creating my card.

Harlequin: That is a pretty nice suggestion. And it still keeps in the flavor of the card. Version 2 added. The thing is that I think it should be "Reveal" rather than RFG to clear up the wording. What do you think about 5 cards instead? That way it would be: Give him 3 cards; or let him dig 5 and maybe get 2 cards only?

Darkenslight: Nice man. The thing is I want to keep the card at    so I think the effects are going to be less. What do you think about this:

Target opponent chooses 1
You draw four cards and lose 3 life
or
Reveal the top 6 cards of your library and separate them into two piles. That player puts one pile into your graveyard, and put the other pile into your hand.

Mike:
That still kinda fits with it. But the thing is that the burn component is just not as good as the draw component. So its not really a Morton's Fork anymore but rather a stronger Browbeat. IMHO I think that the only thing that is equally hard for your opponent to decide as card draw is another card draw.

[Anusien]

Are there any non-black cards designed in the modern Magic era that involve trading life for resources?

Also, it's not inconsequential that card draw this good isn't instant speed.  This card is straight up better than Covenant of Minds or Tidings, and both of those cost more than this does.

[Matt]

And really Matt the truth is none of us know exactly what Wizards is thinking. I say that it is still possible and would not be surprising while you disagree. Wizards has a history of reviving the past or surprising the players after all (Mirrodin Block/Planar Chaos/Coldsnap). And so it is a bit presumptuous of you to say that life loss will only be  in future sets when it has been  .

Ooh, the Monty Python Black Knight defense!

kooaznboi1088: I will make an assertion with no facts to back it up.
Matt: Here are data that refute your claim.
kooaznboi1088: All right, we'll call it a draw.

Are there any non-black cards designed in the modern Magic era that involve trading life for resources?

No. I checked. Last non-land* time this happened in any significant way was the cycle from Torment that included Deep Analysis, eight years ago. OP doesn't seem to care, though.


*Fetches obviously, but also Boseiju and the other Boseiju-ish land from Kamigawa that gave haste.

[Cyberpunker]

And really Matt the truth is none of us know exactly what Wizards is thinking. I say that it is still possible and would not be surprising while you disagree. Wizards has a history of reviving the past or surprising the players after all (Mirrodin Block/Planar Chaos/Coldsnap). And so it is a bit presumptuous of you to say that life loss will only be  in future sets when it has been  .

Ooh, the Monty Python Black Knight defense!

kooaznboi1088: I will make an assertion with no facts to back it up.
Matt: Here are data that refute your claim.
kooaznboi1088: All right, we'll call it a draw.

Are there any non-black cards designed in the modern Magic era that involve trading life for resources?

No. I checked. Last non-land* time this happened in any significant way was the cycle from Torment that included Deep Analysis, eight years ago. OP doesn't seem to care, though.


*Fetches obviously, but also Boseiju and the other Boseiju-ish land from Kamigawa that gave haste.

Honestly, what is your problem? I just gave you evidence that your data is not valid in this context. Straw-man arguments are the first thing you learn not to do in Debate class.

Plus "Modern Magic Era" never has anything to indicate that life loss is impossible for cards outside of black. You are arguing that it will not happen. I'm arguing that there is nothing to indicate that it will not happen. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.

[Mantis]

Wizards is trying to give each of the 5 colors it's unique flavor.
Matt clearly showed that lifeloss is one that belongs to black.
Therefore, it seems that having a blue card give lifeloss is somewhat out of place.

I'm also not really sure what the point of losing those 3 points of life is here, I mean it isn't going to drastically shift the cards power level by any means. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

[Matt]

Honestly, what is your problem? I just gave you evidence that your data is not valid in this context.

Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you think you gave? Where did you show me a card printed anytime recently, or a statement by a WotC employee contradicting me?

Oh that's right, you didn't, you just pulled assertions like

I say that it is still possible

out of your hat.

For that matter, calling my argument a strawman doesn't make it one. Nowhere did I misrepresent your views. You feel that Wizards might make a nonblack card using life payments as a cost. I tore down that argument, which is your actual position, with cited evidence. I know it's fun to toss around words you heard in class, but perhaps you're not actually familiar with what a strawman fallacy is?

Plus "Modern Magic Era" never has anything to indicate that life loss is impossible for cards outside of black. I'm arguing that there is nothing to indicate that it will not happen. Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.

They've never made a black disenchant either, does that mean they're gonna do that any day now? Of course not, you're being ridiculous.

I'm curious as to what you think they could print that WOULD indicate it's impossible, since the seven-year 100% failure streak hasn't. Do they need to print this card?

Bläck Öyster Cült
3B
Creature -- Oyster Leviathan
3/3
Swampwalk
When he saw it, Urza screamed, "We're not going to put life payments on nonblack cards!"

[Cyberpunker]

Wizards is trying to give each of the 5 colors it's unique flavor.
Matt clearly showed that lifeloss is one that belongs to black.
Therefore, it seems that having a blue card give lifeloss is somewhat out of place.

I'm also not really sure what the point of losing those 3 points of life is here, I mean it isn't going to drastically shift the cards power level by any means. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

Its the same logic as loss of life on Deep Analysis. Drawing 2 cards for 1U seems a bit too broken. So the card makes you lose 3 life.

Wizards do have a consistent theme for each color. But with each set, they have shown to diverge from that theme whenever they want. Stingscourger for instance. And cards like Deep Analysis can be reprinted and other cards with life loss can also be printed.

They've never made a black disenchant either, does that mean they're gonna do that any day now? Of course not, you're being ridiculous.

I'm curious as to what you think they could print that WOULD indicate it's impossible, since the seven-year 100% failure streak hasn't. Do they need to print this card?

Yes Matt, we know Wizards would never print a  draw card, a  damage card, a  bounce card, a  removal card (StP was just a fluke right?), a  creature pump card, a  draw card. 

For that matter, calling my argument a strawman doesn't make it one. Nowhere did I misrepresent your views. You feel that Wizards might make a nonblack card using life payments as a cost. I tore down that argument, which is your actual position, with cited evidence. I know it's fun to toss around words you heard in class, but perhaps you're not actually familiar with what a strawman fallacy is?

Your little tirade on Monty Python was very much a strawman version of everything I said. I said that it is still possible because Wizards has made random cards that do not fit within each of the established themes. If you study the card creation history, there is no way you can possibly say that no card will be created. Because Wizards has created a bunch of cards that do not fit within the respective themes. So by saying that it will never happen, you are just as guilty of making stuff up "out of your hat" as I am.

[Darkenslight]

Wizards is trying to give each of the 5 colors it's unique flavor.
Matt clearly showed that lifeloss is one that belongs to black.
Therefore, it seems that having a blue card give lifeloss is somewhat out of place.

I'm also not really sure what the point of losing those 3 points of life is here, I mean it isn't going to drastically shift the cards power level by any means. Perhaps you could elaborate on that.

Its the same logic as loss of life on Deep Analysis. Drawing 2 cards for 1U seems a bit too broken. So the card makes you lose 3 life.

Wizards do have a consistent theme for each color. But with each set, they have shown to diverge from that theme whenever they want. Stingscourger for instance. And cards like Deep Analysis can be reprinted and other cards with life loss can also be printed.

Sorry, but I have to disagree; with the almost sole exception of additional costs and occasional cycles (that are NOT optional,)  black is the province of life loss.  If this card was, say,  in its initial design, it would be quite the home run.  As a blue card, this would be on a par with Memory Jar (the only card emergency banned before printing, IIRC).

[Matt]

Your little tirade on Monty Python was very much a strawman version of everything I said.

You clearly still don't understand what a strawman fallacy is. Nowhere did I misrepresent your position. You DID make an assertion, and you DID fail to cite any facts to back it up, and I DID present a factual argument disproving your assertion, and you DID try to weasel out of it with an ego-saving logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).

Because Wizards has created a bunch of cards that do not fit within the respective themes. So by saying that it will never happen, you are just as guilty of making stuff up "out of your hat" as I am.

It's amazing the kind of conclusions you can come to when you ignore all precedent and facts, isn't it? It takes something special to say that the argument with years of evidence backing it up has about as much weight as the one that rests on a giant pile of "maybe"s. This is why your position is so ripe for mockery.

[Darkenslight]

Alternate design:

Morton's Fork 
Instant
Target opponent chooses one or both - That player removes the top 5 cards of his or her library from the game, or you draw three cards.
"Make a choice; your child or your wife."

[Wagner]

Alternate design:

Morton's Fork 
Instant
Target opponent chooses one or both - That player removes the top 5 cards of his or her library from the game, or you draw three cards.
"Make a choice; your child or your wife."

Why would anyone choose to remove his top 5 cards?

[Darkenslight]

Why would anyone choose to remove his top 5 cards?

To not let you draw cards? I mean, the card I designed makes for a difficult choice, especially if you're playing combo, and even if you're playing control, you wouldn't like to mlose your control element, especially using CounterTop in Legacy.

[Mantis]

Everyone would in fact remove the top 5 cards of his library from the game, WHO CARES?!? Man this is even worse than Glimpse the Unthinkable.

[Darkenslight]

Everyone would in fact remove the top 5 cards of his library from the game, WHO CARES?!? Man this is even worse than Glimpse the Unthinkable.

What number would you use then if the card was an RFG or draw choice?

[Matt]

Everyone would in fact remove the top 5 cards of his library from the game, WHO CARES?!? Man this is even worse than Glimpse the Unthinkable.

What number would you use then if the card was an RFG or draw choice?

I dunno, like...twenty? Milling yourself is just irrelevant to 95% of decks.

[Darkenslight]

Morton's Fork 
Instant
Target opponent chooses one - That player removes the top 15 cards of his or her library from the game, or you draw three cards.
"Make a choice; your child or your wife."

That more difficult, then?

[Matt]

Unless we're playing Limited, you're never going to draw three cards when you play this against me. Really, the vast majority of decks simply do not care if they get milled.

A better choice would be between Ancestral and Jester's Cap, but that should probably be a U/B card (and not instant).

[Cyberpunker]

Your little tirade on Monty Python was very much a strawman version of everything I said.

You clearly still don't understand what a strawman fallacy is. Nowhere did I misrepresent your position. You DID make an assertion, and you DID fail to cite any facts to back it up, and I DID present a factual argument disproving your assertion, and you DID try to weasel out of it with an ego-saving logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).

Because Wizards has created a bunch of cards that do not fit within the respective themes. So by saying that it will never happen, you are just as guilty of making stuff up "out of your hat" as I am.

It's amazing the kind of conclusions you can come to when you ignore all precedent and facts, isn't it? It takes something special to say that the argument with years of evidence backing it up has about as much weight as the one that rests on a giant pile of "maybe"s. This is why your position is so ripe for mockery.

I did cite facts. You are really an arrogant person to be actually talking to me this way. And yes you did misrepresent my position by telling me that I did not cite facts. You also conveniently ignore everything that I say. Especially when I point out the fact that Wizards has made cards like Stingscourger.

The fact that Wizards has a tendency to also go against the traditional color schema is a precedent in itself. Your arrogant and condescending attitude is probably the most laughable of this whole backandforth posting. Anyway I don't want to really talk about this card with you because it has really gotten nowhere. You don't even make good suggestions anyway.

Darkensight:

I think if you want to include milling, you should do a number that is potentially lethal. Maybe 25-30 if you really want to make a difference. That of course would mean an auto-restrict on Morton's Fork right away.

[jro]

Darkensight:
I think if you want to include milling, you should do a number that is potentially lethal. Maybe 25-30 if you really want to make a difference. That of course would mean an auto-restrict on Morton's Fork right away.

Suggesting wordings that would change a card from nearly unplayable to an auto-restrict doesn't do much to convince me you've learned anything from this thread.  Matt consistently has excellent suggestions.  There's a reason he's a moderator here.  Sense and decorum should tell you to take his critiques seriously.

I know you really want to make a card that costs 3U and somehow offers the opponent the choice of whether you get to play Facts or Gift.  In some ways it is a beautiful idea.  But one of the first and best bits of advice given to all creative types is this: kill your darlings.  Your original idea is untenable for reasons gone over to death.  Accept that, learn from it, and design better cards.

[Cyberpunker]

Not sure what makes you more qualified to create cards than I. I am also unsure how anyone here is more "right" than anyone else when it comes to fantasy cards. Sense and decorum should have us being more open to each others' ideas. I just wanted to create a good card by the way. Not an average mediocre card. I remain unconvinced about your reasons. Perhaps it is some people here that should learn from me (if you insist that we actually "learn" from each other about what are "proper cards at all)

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

All this seems to have started with the life loss. Matt is correct, paying life to draw cards is a black thing. Deep Analysis doesn't cost life to cast, only flashback. Which says more about the flavor of flashback than it does the color blue. As for the card itself why not just try this:

Morton's Fork
2UB - Instant
Each player removes the top 5 cards of his or her library from the game and target opponent choses one - you put 3 cards at random from your removed pile into your hand or your opponent reveals 3 cards at random from his/her pile and loses life equal to the total converted mana cost of the cards revealed. Put all cards still removed from your library with Morton's Fork into your graveyard.
This is going to hurt you a lot more than it's going to hurt you. (Not a typo more of a pun)

Very blue/black flavor in my opinion with milling+life loss+card draw all in one. The 3 card life loss would be fair for Standard/Extended but in Vintage it would probably have to be all 5 cards to make a big dent in your opponent's life total. In the end though you would get your 5 cards back either in your graveyard or hand while your opponent would still have his 5 cards RFGed so it wouldn't be terrible as it is maybe in a Storm deck. Messing up topdeck tutors+potentially cutting storm in half with a FoW or Tezz doesn't seem bad at instant speed. Seems like it should be refined from this at any case I don't think my suggestion is final draft worthy.

Edit:

Morton's Fork
2UB - Instant
Each player removes the top 5 cards of his or her library from the game and target opponent choses one - you put 3 cards at random from your removed pile into your hand or your opponent reveals all the cards from his/her pile and loses life equal to the total converted mana cost of the 3 highest casting cost cards revealed. Put all cards still removed from your library with Morton's Fork into your graveyard.
This is going to hurt you a lot more than it's going to hurt you. (Not a typo more of a pun)

Maybe that little tweak might make it better for Vintage but not busted in other formats.