Spelljack meets Duress

[rvs]

Topic says it all

Spelljack + Duress = ?
1UB
Sorcery
Look at target players hand. Choose a non-land card and remove it from the game. You may play that card at any time until end of turn.

Pretty straightforward. Thoughts?

[rvs]

current wording:

Mind Theft
1UB
Sorcery
Target player reveals his or her hand. Choose a nonland card from it, and remove that card from the game. Until end of turn, as long as the card remains removed from the game, you may play it as though it were in your hand.

[The Grim Reaper]

Spelljack + Duress = JackDurAss

I think it's a great idea. I always thought spelljack was too expensive but this might be just right.

[rvs]

My thoughts exactly Grim. I'm glad you agree. It's such a cool effect I think.

[Matt]

Spelljack is expensive for a reason - because countering a spell and getting to play a spell for free is the same resource savings as Mana Drain. This is insanely strong, and should at minimum, five mana (if allied-gold) or six (if one color).

[Shock Wave]

Spelljack is expensive for a reason - because countering a spell and getting to play a spell for free is the same resource savings as Mana Drain. This is insanely strong, and should at minimum, five mana (if allied-gold) or six (if one color).

Well, with the current wording, you would still have to pay for the spell. It's not like you're casting this thing and then casting the spell for free, so there's no mana economy brokenness happening here. I think it's fine as is.

[rvs]

shock_wave said exactly what I wanted to say. At best, this is a lobotomy for 1 card in hand (and not copies everywhere). That's how I costed the card in the first place.

[Marco]

I like it, but it's way too much like Psychic Theft. For one black mana more you can play any (nonland) card in target player's hand.

[rvs]

it's similar to psychic theft indeed, only better. I think a gold card is usually prohibitive enough.

[mouth]

Here's the errata from Psychic Theft:

Target player reveals his or her hand. Choose an instant or sorcery card from it, and remove that card from the game. As long as the card remains removed from the game, you may play it as though it were in your hand. At end of turn, if you haven't played the card, return it to its owner's hand.

And from Lobotomy:

Target player reveals his or her hand, then you choose a card other than a basic land card from it. Search that player's graveyard, hand, and library for all cards with the same name as the chosen card and remove them from the game. Then that player shuffles his or her library.

Based on those two "precedents", the wording should be more like:

Target player reveals his or her hand. Choose a nonland card from it, and remove that card from the game. As long as the card remains removed from the game, you may play it anytime you could play an instant, as though it were in your hand and without paying it's mana cost. At end of turn, if you haven't played the card, return it to it's owners hand.

Still, that's far from perfect. The part that makes it awkward is the addition of the "anytime you could play an instant". Honestly, I think that's a run-on, but to get it work properly, it hasta be that clunky. :/

Is that part (the instant thing) necessary?

Also, it should probably be "Target opponent", because no one likes 1UB Mindslaver's.

[rvs]

Also, it should probably be "Target opponent", because no one likes 1UB Mindslaver's.

omg, you pickup up on my subtle wording difference for abusing this on your own deck! I hate you now  

[Jacob Orlove]

There's no real need to give them back the spell. I think this is fine at the current cost.

[rvs]

ok, name anyone?

[Marco]

I like the card, but since when do we take an existing card (Psychic Theft), and justify making it better simply because it's a gold card? (1U vs 1UB) If we make this card, it should be worded like the Oracle wording for Psychic Theft, because they are the same card:

Target player reveals his or her hand. Choose a nonland card from it, and remove that card from the game. As long as the card remains removed from the game, you may play it as though it were in your hand. At end of turn, if you haven't played the card, return it to its owner's hand.

Not returning the card to its owner's hand is sick. For 2B, Coercion discards a card in target opponent's hand. For 1UB, this discards a nonland card in target player's hand OR you can play it as though it were in your hand?! (And I may be dense, but I don't really see the benefit of using this on yourself...)

[Jacob Orlove]

If you play it early, it's the same as coercion, but for a worse casting cost (and you can't hit land, which is actually a big reason to play coercion). Later, it's better, but that's okay, because at that point discard gets terrible anyway.

Also, Coercion is terrible AND common. We can totally print this.

[rvs]

If you use this on yourself, you could remove your own bargain and play it for free. Essentially, a 1UB Bargain.

[Marco]

I thought we determined that, with the current wording, you would still have to pay for the spell?!? If you can play the spell for free, which the card does not indicate you can do, you can't tell me this isn't broken!

[rvs]

oh, you're right. I'm still thinking about how I originally made up the card. Either way, someone got a cool name so I can slap 24h on this?

[Marco]

You haven't changed the current wording.

[The Grim Reaper]

How about...

Psychic Adaptation
Boundless Desire
Mind Theft

[rvs]

You haven't changed the current wording.

Read what I said again.

Mind Theft is fine I guess, 24h clock.

[Marco]

Read what you said where? Which post? Since no one else seems to care that this is a templated wrong, too powerful, a rip off Psychic Theft (including the name!) I don't care either. Do what you want.

[Jacob Orlove]

Target player reveals his or her hand. Choose a nonland card from it, and remove that card from the game. Until end of turn, as long as the card remains removed from the game, you may play it as though it were in your hand.

[Marco]

Much better, but with that wording the card remains removed from the game if you don't play it that turn. Was that the intent?

[Jacob Orlove]

I just templated the current wording, so you'll have to ask morefling about function issues.

[rvs]

yes, that's the intent.