Strike Down (previously Little Balance)

[Ephraim]

Little Balance

Sorcery

The player with the fewest lands may choose a land. The player with the fewest creatures may choose a creature. The player with the fewest artifacts may choose an artifact. Remove all permanents chosen this way from the game.

***

Like Balance, this is going to reward careful setup. Unlike Balance it isn't ever going to reward careful setup with grotesque rape of your opponent's board position and hand. It can, however, operate as spot removal, since it allows the player who is behind to choose the most threatening of the various lands, creatures, and artifacts, which could have a bigger effect on the game than a mass sweep, anyhow. Little Balance is obviously a working title. We'll need to come up with something better.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Strike Down
{2}{W}
Instant

Remove target creature from the game if you control fewer creatures than that creature's controller.


So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him...
--I Samuel 17:50

[Jacob Orlove]

This is way too undercosted. If you're going second in limited, you can nail a land and a creature on turn 3, then drop your own land, for a huge mana + tempo + card advantage.

It might be fair as something like "The player with the fewest permanents may choose a permanent. Remove that permanent from the game." It'd still probably have to cost at least 2W, though.

[Ephraim]

Would it be okay if I just had it affect creatures and cost 2W? I probably got a little bit carried away with the Balance-like mechanic here, but my initial goal was to create something that could be used as reliable, white removal, that didn't require the subject creature to be attacking. I wanted to approach the problem from white's love of equity, rather than its military reciprocation. Of course, if it's just creatures, I'd word it differently -- just have it be "Remove target creature from the game if you control fewer creatures than that creature's controller." It's worded as it is now so that there may be a penalty to using this as spot removal. You might get an opponent's creature, but your opponent may get an artifact you control in the process.

[Jacob Orlove]

Hitting a creature for 2W sounds good.

[Ephraim]

Changes made. I also changed the name to "Strike Down." It isn't tremendously descriptive of the effect, but I think it's a terrific, solid name for a kill spell.

[Anusien]

I like it, although with a nondescript name like Strike Down, you either need a better name or some interesting flavor text.  I just keep thinking of the the Obi-Wan quote, which is slightly out of flavor.  Maybe something along the lines of:
"The commander wanted a fair fight.  And he was going to get it."
That even suggests a name along the lines of, "Even the Odds", although that sounds too much like gambling rather than warfare.

[Jacob Orlove]

I actually like "strike down".

[Ephraim]

How's this for flavour text:

So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him...
--The Bible, I Samuel 17:50

***

I know they haven't used the Bible as a source of flavour texts for quite a while, but it is a fantastic source of literary material and we've been clamoring for some more real-world attributions for flavour text lately.

[Jacob Orlove]

I'm fine with biblical quotes, but I'd rather we just use "I Samuel 17:50" style attributions for old testament quotes.

[Anusien]

It's a good quote although it doesn't actually match the card; that's 1 beating 1, not 1 beating 2.

[Ephraim]

It is weaker beating stronger.

As far as the flavour texts to, do you have any examples of old testament attributions that don't use "The Bible" on them? Knight Errant, at least, which cites Proverbs, says "The Bible."

[Jacob Orlove]

I just checked, and it looks like Durkwood Boars (mark) and Segovian Leviathan (job) both got updated to include "the bible" in the attribution. It looks like I'm going to have to write Wizards a letter.

I feel it's at best disingenuous, and at worst malicious, to obscure the Jewish aspect of those texts (obviously not the new testament, just the rest).

[Ephraim]

I certainly wouldn't call it malicious. I'd ask you to consider that Magic may have some significant percentage of players who are pretty much ignorant of literature. Seeing flavour text attributed to "Proverbs," would mean little to such a person. It could be a book like Bartlett's Familiar Quotations for all they know. Not that I am typically one to cater to the lowest common denominator, but in this case, I think it may be appropriate. Citing the Jewish name for the unified document would be approximately as misleading as merely citing The Bible and giving no additional citation at all can and will leave some players confused regarding the origin of the quotation.

[rvs]

Can't this be an instant?

[Machinus]

I just checked, and it looks like Durkwood Boars (mark) and Segovian Leviathan (job) both got updated to include "the bible" in the attribution. It looks like I'm going to have to write Wizards a letter.

I feel it's at best disingenuous, and at worst malicious, to obscure the Jewish aspect of those texts (obviously not the new testament, just the rest).

I'm pretty sure they aren't going to have quotations from real life as flavor text anymore, so this isn't going to be an issue in the future. As for the cards that do exist, I personally thing referencing "the bible" is stupid on its own, just for literary accuracy. I doubt there are are very many players who pay attention to this kind of flavor text, and very few who would even understand what was wrong with the card.

[Anusien]

Can't this be an instant?

I like it better as a sorcery, for some reason.  It might have to go up to 1WW or 3W as an instant, and I don't think there's any appreciable gain from going to an instant

[Matt]

Including "the Bible" isn't exactly incorrect, though. Are the common books even the same between judaism and christianity? It's also plausbile that they include "the Bible" because that's the translastion they used (isn't the talmud + other jewish books normally kept in Hebrew?)

[Machinus]

Including "the Bible" isn't exactly incorrect, though. Are the common books even the same between judaism and christianity? It's also plausbile that they include "the Bible" because that's the translastion they used (isn't the talmud + other jewish books normally kept in Hebrew?)

Referencing "the bible" is actually incorrect because it isn't really a book. The Bible is just an arbitraty collection of other books that the catholic church grouped together. I am sure the english translation of the torah is very similar to the corresponding books in the OT; but still it's not correct to say "the torah" either. Jacob's objection is correct, and my response is just that it won't be a problem in the future since they stopped the real life quoting, and also I don't think people pay much attention to the flavor quotes on cards.

[Matt]

Wait, how is the bible not a book again? I think if this is a book then the bible is too. Just because you can find the contents seperately doesn't make the collection not a book.

[rvs]

On wether the bible is a book or not, I agree with Matt. To the issue at hand (omg, did I just try to keep the thread on-topic?!), why can't this be an instant? Would that make it superior to something like Chastice?
I doubt a 2W insant removal spell is really dangerous in any format, since there are a ton of cards (even in white!) that do it just as well.

[Ephraim]

I'm okay with making it an instant. Removal, in general, is pretty bad when it isn't an instant. Look at Terashi's Grasp -- it's Disenchant with a bonus, for just more. That's pretty good, except it's a sorcery, which makes it pretty much unplayable.

[Jacob Orlove]

Wait, how is the bible not a book again? I think if this is a book then the bible is too. Just because you can find the contents seperately doesn't make the collection not a book.

Yeah, but when you cite a passage from that, you'd still say "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, 134", not "The More Than Complete Hitchhiker's Guide, 682". That's the real issue here, not whether The Bible is a book.

[Ephraim]

In the interests of peace and because were are more enlightened than Wizards of the Coast, I will omit "The Bible" from this card's atrribution.

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[Matt]

I actually agree with omitting "the Bible", I just think that it counts as a book.

[Matt]

Closed and added.[/color]