Surveillance

[Ephraim]

Surveillance

Enchantment

Whenever a creature you control attacks and isn't blocked, you may put an espionage counter on ~this~. If you do, that creature deals no combat damage this turn.

Remove two espionage counters from ~this~: Target creature is unblockable this turn. Sacrifice ~this~.

***

The idea is simple. With Surveillance in play, you can store up the times when your creatures have not been blocked and use them later. It has the potential to be powerful, so I am certainly open to weakening it, somehow. (The idea to sacrifice it, ala Goblin Cannon, just struck me. It's a good way to ensure this card requires planning. It's also flavourful, since once the big attack commences, the surveillance network is more-or-less exposed.)

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Surveillance
{1}{U}
Enchantment

Whenever a creature you control deals combat damage to an opponent, you may put an espionage counter on Surveillance.

Remove an espionage counter from Surveillance: Target creature is unblockable this turn. Sacrifice Surveillance.

[Matt]

This is horribly overcosted., even if you don't sacrifice it.

[Ephraim]

Which do you think is too high: the mana cost, the cost of acquiring espionage counters, and/or the number of espionage counters required to make a creature unblockable?

[Matt]

You're giving up two (successful, and therefore guaranteed!) attacks for one guaranteed attack later (presumably with something else). That's downright AWFUL, and at that exchange rate this should cost U, maximum.

[brendan]

It should not prevent damage from the creatures that get through, and also not sacrifice itself to provide the effect. That would be decent.

As it stands at the moment it is in the running for worst card ever. There are cards that provide the same (or better) effects and even cantrip, for less mana.

So what I'm saying is:

Surveillance

Enchantment
Whenever a creature you control attacks and isn't blocked, you may put an espionage counter on ~this~.
Remove two espionage counters from ~this~: Target creature is unblockable this turn.

[Matt]

Brendan's version would be okay, but nothing great. But I liked the flavor of "doing damage = not spying". So my take would be:

Surveillance

Enchantment
Whenever a creature you control attacks and isn't blocked, you may put an espionage counter on Surveillance. If you do, that creature deals no combat damage this turn.
Remove one espionage counter from Surveillance: Target creature is unblockable this turn. Sacrifice Surveillance.

That would be nice. You could poke through with some little flyer (which is great because blue has a lot of those!) and store up for an alpha strike. I would WANT to play this in limited. Probably a 2nd-5th pick, depending on how many flyers you expect to draft/have drafted already.

Also, when you have a name for a card, don't use "~this~". Just write out the name (as in my version above).

[Ephraim]

The reason why this is better than said cantrips is that, like Goblin Cannon, you can stack multiple uses of it before you sacrifice it.

However, as the general opinion is that this is a weak card (and I can see why, when I think about it), I'll gladly remove the sacrifice. In that case, what would be a fair exchange rate for the espionage counters? 1:1 seems like it may be too good. Losing the damage from a lower power evasive creature to push through a high power, non-evasive creature later doesn't necessarily seem fair to me. Granted, the delay may be costly, but the non-evasive creature only has to have twice the power of the evasive creature for it to be a 6/half dozen situation (if I go with the 1:1 exchange rate).

Matt, I want some clarification. Are you suggesting that if I want the 2:1 exchange rate, I drop the sacrifice and lower the mana cost to ? That seems like it may be a little bit too strong, to me.

[Matt]

I liked the sacrifice. :<<<<

If you're going to keep it at 2:1 and sacrifice, then it's worth less than one mana to play this thing. At 2:1 and no sacrifice, it's worth about .

[Ephraim]

How about a 1:1 exchange rate, with the sacrifice (Since it makes sense that exploiting one's espionage network would expose it. That's good flavour.) What would you say is the appropriate cost for it then?

[Matt]

Well, since that's exactly the version I posted above, .

[Ephraim]

Ah. So it is. I'd forgotten that you offered a full alternative to the card I'd posted. I'll go with that idea, then.

There's one last issue I'd like to discuss before I dust off my hands. Recently, WotC implemented a unification of the counters used by artifacts. More or less, if an artifact uses counters now, they're charge counters. Would it be appropriate for TMD to spearhead a movement to unify the counters used in the design of enchantments? I certainly like how the unification for artifacts has led to cards that interact with the counters. Could we consiser something like æther counters or perhaps something else?

[Matt]

No, I don't think so, because many enchantments aren't magical in nature. Think of Kyren Negotiations, or Black Market. These are not made of mana and rainbows, they're real things. Same with Surviellance.

[brendan]

This card is still absolutely awful power-wise. Check out infiltrate:



Lower mana cost, doesn't prevent one of your own creatures from dealing damage, doesn't warn the opponant it's going to happen by sitting in play waiting to be used.

If you want it to sacrifice, then it should do a hell of a lot more than getting one creature through.

[Ephraim]

This gets as many creatures as you want. You just have to respond to the first activation with a second activation, etc. Note that the sacrifice is part of the effect of the ability.

[brendan]

It's still terrible. :/ How many creatures are you expecting to have in play at any one time?

Deluge, or any number of other similar cards gets through all of your attackers without warning or preventing combat damage.

[Ephraim]

Even if it's weak in constructed play, because of stuff like Deluge, it would be useful in limited. I know we're not opposed to creating cards just for the benefit of limited. Even at that, Deluge isn't perfect. If your opponent has flying creatures, they can still perform blocks. Although I think that Deluge is probably more useful more often, it's certainly not strictly better than this.

[Alfred]

Maybe instead of unblockability, it should instead draw you cards. This would stay in flavour, because they would be spying, and you would be getting their "information". If you made it "remove 2 counters: draw three cards then discard one." this would be pretty cool.

[Ephraim]

Interesting idea, Alfred. The card advantage is the same as that generated by Curiosity -- essentially one card per attack. On the downside, this then prevents combat damage from contributing creatures. On the upside, this allows all of your creatures to contribute, for a single enchantment. Nonetheless, this seems like it would be really powerful, then. Fish has already demonstrated how small, evasive creatures combined with Curiosity can yield some sick card advantage. Granted, in this case, you lose the combat damage, but the net card advantage is going to be huge. Plus, by dig 3/discard 1, you run through the deck at an absurd rate. I think the fact that this affects all of your creatures makes that idea a little too strong at any reasonable price.

[Alfred]

Invested card drawers are usually bad, especially when it takes 2 turns to get it to work ex. Coastal piracy? 2 mana more than your enchantment, but it allows you to deal damage. Perhaps make it a simpler "draw 2 cards."

[Ephraim]

If I were to increase the mana cost, that idea would probably be much fairer. The difference between this idea and Coastal Piracy is that this can be cast right alongside one or more Cloud of Faeries. I can start generating card advantage almost right away. Plus, this digs (in the current 3/discard 1 incarnation). Now that you mention it, though, I'm wary to go with your idea, just because it is so much like Coastal Piracy. I'd rather keep the idea I have, which is pretty much original.

[Alfred]

Most people would agree that the current ability is quite weak, perhaps changing the ability to "Remove two counters: Return target permanent to it's owners hand." would be a good idea. Obviously it would need a flavour change, perhaps to espionage, as it would involve spying, but also sabotage. This would also be quite powerful when combined with multiple evasion creatures.

[Ephraim]

I'm going to call for the 24 Hour Clock on this right now. It's kind of weak, but it'd be interesting in limited and may find a home in multiplayer politics.dec.

[brendan]

This would never get played in limited, it's far too weak.

[Ephraim]

Okay, Brendan and Alfred think that this is too weak, even for limited play. Would anybody object if I keep the current cost, but allow creatures to both deal combat damage and put an espionage counter on this?

[brendan]

I think that's an excellent solution. It's like a wave of indifference that costs less mana but takes several turns of hitting them with your evasive creatures to set up.

[Ephraim]

All right, the creature now gets to deal its combat damage. In fact, it must deal combat damage to generate an espionage counter. In that sense, by dealing damage to the opponent, the creature has discerned a little bit of knwowledge concerning that opponent's weakness. It's almost as flavourful as it was before and is now much more playable.

[Pizzatog]

This is playable now, definately.

[Ephraim]

24 Hour Clock

[Matt]

All right, the creature now gets to deal its combat damage. In fact, it must deal combat damage to generate an espionage counter. In that sense, by dealing damage to the opponent, the creature has discerned a little bit of knwowledge concerning that opponent's weakness. It's almost as flavourful as it was before and is now much more playable.

I also like that you can't spy in a Fog.