|
SpencerForHire
|
 |
« on: November 30, 2005, 03:55:41 pm » |
|
This card idea came to me from the show Full Metal Alchemist. It basically mocks the same principle of equivalent exchange because it is quite obvious that such an exchange although on the serface appears to be equal is quite obviously not when investigated. Equivalent Exchange  {W}{W}{W} Instant Sacrifice any number of permanents: Each opponent sacrifices a number of permanents equal to the number of permanents you sacrificed to Equivalent Exchange. Equivalent Exchange, what a joke that is.Current Wording: Equivalent Exchange
 {W}{W}
Sorcery
As an additional cost to play Equivalent Exchange, you may sacrifice up to five permanents. If you do, each opponent sacrifices a number of permanents equal to the number of permanents you sacrificed this way.
Equivalent Exchange, what a joke that is. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 03, 2005, 08:51:12 pm by Gimbles »
|
Logged
|
Team Technology - Strictly better than our previous name.
|
|
|
|
asmoranomardicodais
|
|
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2005, 04:43:55 pm » |
|
Firstly, I think it should be a sorcery, since mst mass destruction (plus all balance effects) are sorceries.
Secondly, what's to stop you from getting one more permanent than the opponent, than saccing everything but your serra angel? seems like cataclysm gone very, very wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SpencerForHire
|
|
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2005, 05:08:53 pm » |
|
First and foremost, I agree with Sorcery speed but then I would like to adjust the cost to {W}{W}. Second, that is the point of equivalent exchange, the serra angel setup would be very rough and hard to pull off with any sort of smoothness but this is ment to be ironic in a sense that when you use it it will never be equal exchange with your opponent.. If this card is still too powerful then I suppose it could be sacrifice of permanents of the same type. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Team Technology - Strictly better than our previous name.
|
|
|
Jacob Orlove
Official Time Traveller of TMD
Administrator
Basic User
Posts: 8074
When am I?
|
|
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2005, 06:22:22 pm » |
|
This is ridiculously broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Team Meandeck: O Lord,
Guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile.
To those who slander me, let me give no heed.
May my soul be humble and forgiving to all.
|
|
|
Slack
Basic User
Posts: 40
誰が居ますか。
|
|
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2005, 06:36:37 pm » |
|
It's slightly less broken if the sacrifice is indeed the cost of playing the spell. That makes it worse against the decks it would hurt more, like control.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"The past is a ghost that haunts you from the moment it exists until the moment you don't"
-Gerrard
RIT Magic
|
|
|
|
Charlie
|
|
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2005, 10:18:38 pm » |
|
This is too good, a lot more powerful than Armageddon. Also, this is not Equivalent Exchange in Full Metal Alchemist. Equivalent Exchange says you sacrifice something to get something in the same value, not destruction of others.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
SpencerForHire
|
|
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2005, 10:38:24 pm » |
|
That is the irony of equivalent exchange if you have ever seen the later episodes.. Perhaps an "up to" clause should be added in. Equivalent Exchange {W}{W} Sorcery Sacrifice any number of permanents up to five: Each opponent sacrifices a number of permanents equal to the number of permanents you sacrificed to Equivalent Exchange.
Equivalent Exchange, what a joke that is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Team Technology - Strictly better than our previous name.
|
|
|
|
Godder
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2005, 04:32:02 am » |
|
A more likely wording:
As an additional cost to play Equivalent Exchange, you may sacrifice any number of (up to five) permanents. If you do, each opponent sacrifices a number of permanents equal to the number of permanents you sacrificed this way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
That's what I like about you, Laura - you're always willing to put my neck on the line. |
|
|
|
Sanity_XIV
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2005, 03:29:33 pm » |
|
Why is it any number(up to five)? Is the correct wording not merely: "Sacrifice up to five permanents"?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Grumf.
|
|
|
|
asmoranomardicodais
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2005, 06:53:16 pm » |
|
I like the five permanent thing, although I am still a bit wary about it. To me, that just makes this an early game wildfires for white weenie, strengthening the deck quite a lot. I'm not sure if it would strengthen it to the point of brokeness, but it is something to think of.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Godder
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2005, 08:19:09 pm » |
|
Why is it any number(up to five)? Is the correct wording not merely: "Sacrifice up to five permanents"? Either you'd put "any number of" or "up to five". I put the brackets around (up to five) to show that you wouldn't use both in the same line i.e. pick one and put it there. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
That's what I like about you, Laura - you're always willing to put my neck on the line. |
|
|
|
SpencerForHire
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2005, 08:51:35 pm » |
|
Fixed. I think this could be quite lethal.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Team Technology - Strictly better than our previous name.
|
|
|
|
Godder
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2005, 05:11:56 am » |
|
Incidentally, do we want to sacrifice as a cost or on resolution? If it's as a cost, having it countered could be very painful...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
That's what I like about you, Laura - you're always willing to put my neck on the line. |
|
|
Jacob Orlove
Official Time Traveller of TMD
Administrator
Basic User
Posts: 8074
When am I?
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2005, 03:05:06 pm » |
|
That flavor text makes no sense.
Also, this is like a really good Armageddon. Control gets wrecked, but the aggro deck will totally keep several guys on the board.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Team Meandeck: O Lord,
Guard my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile.
To those who slander me, let me give no heed.
May my soul be humble and forgiving to all.
|
|
|
Matt
Post like a butterfly, Mod like a bee.
Moderator
Basic User
Posts: 2297
King of the Jews!
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2005, 03:43:25 pm » |
|
This reminds me of a huge Smokestack.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
http://www.goodgamery.com/pmo/c025.GIF---------------------- SpenceForHire2k7: Its unessisary SpenceForHire2k7: only spelled right SpenceForHire2k7: <= world english teach evar ---------------------- noitcelfeRmaeT {Team Hindsight}
|
|
|
|
The Atog Lord
|
|
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2005, 04:29:47 pm » |
|
This reminds me of a huge Smokestack. This reminds me of opposition, except that: -Its white not blue (as Opposition should be, given the new color pie) -They can't "break out" of it with a disenchant -- once their cards are gone, they're gone. -The "exchange" is permanent -- unlike opposition where their cards and your cards both "return" with an untap step -You don't need to lose creatures for this card to work. Limiting the card to five goes a long way towards making it not quite as absurd as it is without that limit. Consider, though, that against a control-based permanent-light deck, this card will function much like armageddon. You lose all of your lands, they lose theirs -- and your small men beat them to death. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Academy: If I'm not dead, I have a Dragonlord Dromoka coming in 4 turns
|
|
|
|
Godder
|
|
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2005, 05:39:35 pm » |
|
This card is the ultimate gamble against counter-control decks: if it resolves, you probably win (like Armageddon), but if it's countered, you'll probably lose, unless the sacrifice is changed to resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
That's what I like about you, Laura - you're always willing to put my neck on the line. |
|
|
|
andrewpate
|
|
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2005, 12:50:40 pm » |
|
I'm not sure it's really that broken. I mean, how different is it from Balancing Act in a Balancing Tings deck? The fact that you maybe get to keep a couple of permanents isn't that different from just floating 1GG and dropping Terravore after it resolves. This would give a slight boost to those sorts of decks, but wouldn't do anything earth-shattering, I don't think. You still lose to a counterspell. And with the new "up to 5" clause," Balancing Act is probably better, since it works against aggro.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
