Priest of Quiacatl

[Ephraim]

Well, Bram's got me all fired up with his Quiacatl idea. We're discussing a revival of the poison counter mechanic, which is super cool. We're not done with Quiacatl yet, but we're going to rally for the idea of all of his supporters having something to do with poison counters. One of the interesting consequences of the Aztec themed set would be that all of the colours could have abilities that require creature sacrifice, rather than just black.

Priest of Quiacatl
Creature -- Shaman
1{G}{G}
1/1

, Sacrifice two creatures: Target player gets a poison counter.

[Ephraim]

Current Wording:

Priest of Quiacatl
Creature -- Shaman
1{G}{G}
1/1

{T}, Sacrifice a creature: Target player gets a poison counter.

[Alfred]

This is very weak. Think about swamp mosquito, which essentially adds a poison counter by tapping. I would make this sacrifice one creature, or even just a mana cost.

[Bram]

The fact that it's on the weak side doesn't have to be a problem. I have no problem with slightly overcosted cards personally. Though yeah, maybe saccing one creature would be enough.

[Ephraim]

One creature it is, then.

[Necrologia]

I still think this is rather weak. Compare this card to Bram's Poison equipment. Maybe if this didn't have the tap symbol, then it's still rather poor but at least it gives you some sort of weak combo kill. I don't think poisoning someone with a creature that's about to die is worth 1GG.

I do like the card's flavor though.

[Ephraim]

Eh, I suppose this is as good a place to discuss this as any. I think that we'll need to engage in some playtesting before we determine whether this is weak or whether Bram's artifacts are too strong. Nobody really has a lot of experience with poison, let alone trying to design a set in which it is prevalent. I'm of the opinion that thus far, we've underestimated how strong it's going to be when there's a lot of support for it. Therefore, when I propose a card that will have a poison counter ability, I'm going to tone it down, since I think that time is going to reveal that higher-powered poison cards are too strong (particularly in Block and limited formats.)

[Laurie Cheers]

I agree, it's going to be very difficult to judge. If the set also contains a lot of "anti-poison" cards, then poison might actually be less strong in limited (where everyone's prepared for it) than in extended formats (where you have to worry about other threats too).

[brianb]

As far as checking the power level of poison cards, just think to yourself: poison counter = 2 damage to the dome.  A poison counter is actually a little weaker than 2 damage because poison and damage don't accumulate together.  So consider:

Priest of Quiacatl
Creature -- Shaman
1{G}{G}
1/1

, Sacrifice a creature: Deal 2 damage to target player.

That still looks a little weak to me.  Make the card good enough that the 2 damage version would look fairly decent, and then pause for testing.

[Ephraim]

It is true that poison and damage don't accumulate together but then again, it's harder to prevent/get rid of poison. Further, given that the comparison you've suggested is essentially green direct damage, I'm mighty impressed by the power. If, in fact, we're going to treat poison like 2 damage, then the fact that green has it is important.

[Ephraim]

I just wanted to bump this back above the slew of cards that just got closed. I'm going to leave it as-is for the time being. It's certainly not going to push poison counters above damage. Nor do I think it will be unplayable if we find other reasons to make poison counters useful (as I'm currently trying to do.)

[Sheera]

Sacrificing other creatures to harm someone/somebody else seems very black and really ungreen to me. Wheras sacrificing a critter in order to help or protect some other creature or player would be fine, I would strongly advice to either change that aspect of the card or to start looking for another kind of activation cost.

[Bram]

Well, back in Fallen Empires, we had Thelonite Druid who had you sac critters, too.

But yeah, I can see what you mean. That was a long time ago. Even though it fits the flavor of the overall theme, it doesn't fit the current color wheel. Now I'm all for spinnin' the wheel a little, but maybe sacrife is taking it too far. Poison can definitely be very green though, so maybe a BG casting cost would be the answer.

[Jebus]

I'd have to say that giving poison counters can be either a black or green mechanic.  It's all about how they give the counters.

I'd agree that this seems very black.

You may be on to something with the BG cost.  I think 1BG would be too expensive, so just BG would suffice for me.

[Ephraim]

I'd be open to that change, but before I make it, it may require some discussion in the Aztec Flavour thread (or here). Part of my original vision for the theme, to which nobody had previously objected, was that generally green would be the colour of generating poison counters while black would be the colour of using poison counters. Part of the motivation is to increase the occurence of multi-coloured decks. If green can generate the counters, but slowly/expensively and black can perform powerful effects with them, then there's reason to use both colours. If both colours generate/utilize, then there's less incentive to play G/B although it probably wouldn't remove the incentive altogether.

[Bram]

Well, yeah. But Jebus is right on the money, though. It's all about HOW you give the counters. Sacrificing creatures should probably remain in black. It's unlike my Champion card which odes the poison boogie with +1/+1 counters, a very green mechanic IMO.

[Jacob Orlove]

Green and black are the colors of life and death, but green is also the color of the entire cycle of life, while black is more about unnatural death AND unnatural life. I could see the arguments for making this green.

[Sheera]

I'd be open to that change, but before I make it, it may require some discussion in the Aztec Flavour thread (or here). Part of my original vision for the theme, to which nobody had previously objected, was that generally green would be the colour of generating poison counters while black would be the colour of using poison counters. Part of the motivation is to increase the occurence of multi-coloured decks. If green can generate the counters, but slowly/expensively and black can perform powerful effects with them, then there's reason to use both colours. If both colours generate/utilize, then there's less incentive to play G/B although it probably wouldn't remove the incentive altogether.

If you limit the overall black poisoners to a very small number (maybe one or two cards), you should still have enough arguments for players to go poisonous by building BG. However, as the poison theme was traditionally tied to black as closely as it was tied to green, it is just logical to put your kind of mechanic into black. Here you can easily go poisonous on an intrigue or assassination route (as you chose). Think [card]Cabal Archon[/card] or [card]Stronghold Assassin[/card].

For green on the other hand, I would suggest any kind of mechanic that lends its flavor to 'directly coming into touch with a player (or creature).' When doing green poison critters it is important to make that creature a 'logical' part of the circle of life, mostly rendering the role of poison to one of two possible tools: a) a hunting tool, i.e. for the purpose of weakenig that creature's prey; or b) a defensive measure. Killing other beings for another purpose than defense or eating them is not natural and thus belongs into black. (q.e.d. :lol: )

A green poison mechanic for protective measures that I could imagine would be the following: "Whenever ~this~ is the target of a spell or ability, that spell or ability's controller gets a poison counter."

(I won't start threads here since I cannot promise to visit TMD regularly, and therefore wouldn't be able to guide discussions I started, but: You can use that ability, if you like to. )

[Shock Wave]

Is it just me or is this card still ridiculously weak? What about making the ability solely a mana cost?

Ie.

Priest of Quiacatl
Creature -- Shaman
BG1
1/1

BG<tap>: Target player gets a poison counter.

That's still weak at a 10 turn clock, but at least it is somewhat playable. Sacrificing a creature makes this card a coaster.

[Jacob Orlove]

That gets back to my whole criticism of poison. If you start making cards like that, then you get decks that just stop caring about damage. That's not healthy for the game.

[Bram]

THAT I agree with. There is no reason to make poison approach the power level of damage. Keep in mind that in Shockwave's wording, this WILL end the game in 10 turns. Basically it gives you:

Something
Creature
1BG
1/1
BG,T: This deals 2 damage to target player.

...except that it's better because there are infinite ways to reduce/control damage whereas for Poison, there's just Leeches. (in some ways, thoughm it's a bit worse, too, because you won't be using poison counters yuou have as a reasource, unike your life total. We are looking in to changing that however).

I believe we should maintain the sacrifice cost (especially seeing as how this is hugely flavorfor, storyline-wise) to balance the mechanic. Let's not be too frivilous with this. I agree with lowering the cost to BG, though.