You Make the Card TMD #1 - The Ability Vote Finale

[SpencerForHire]

Welcome to the final part of the vote for the card ability of "You make the card TMD."

So far we have decided:
The card is Red.
The card is a/an Sorcery/Instant.
The card's ability is ______________.

Now is your time to make your mark and vote!

After 7 days this poll will close.  At that point we will decide whether the card in mention is best an instant or a sorcery, than we will have a card name vote, a flavor text submission, and then we may even have a "you make the art".

[Jacob Orlove]

3 and 4 are the best options. I voted 4.

[Scoops666]

Voted #2. Go Mindslaver!!!

[Buttons]

If #2 wins, there is NO CONTEST for the name:

MIND FORTUNE

FINAL SLAVER wouldn't be that bad either, though.  But it'd have to be between those two.

The card would have to be costed single R for it to be even close to playable.

EDIT:  Wait.  Actually, I think I just understood what the card meant.  The card means that you're trying to make your opponent kill you.  Yeah.  That definitely wouldn't be an R casting cost.  More like 3RR, or RRRR.

#4 is probably the most unique of the abilities, and I predict that it will win.

If #4 wins, if it's costed RR and is an instant, it'd be good.

If it's costed at RR and is a sorcery, the card wouldn't be bad, but probably wouldn't see play (in type 1, at least).

I think the best thing to do with it, would be to make it 1R, sorcery.  That way, people would actually use this in type 1, and red would get a big kick.  I mean, we're type 1 players, aren't we supposed to be making cards that would be good in type 1?

If it's costed R and is a sorcery, the card would be insane.  I'm all for some insane red cards though.

[Nibble]

I honestly don't see what's so enticing about 4, mainly because there seems to be no way to cost it interestingly. I can't see it costing any less than three, since more often than not it will be just as good as Stone Rain. So, say it's - when would you rather have this than Stone Rain? Would you really cast this as a terrible Crop Rotation often enough? If you want to argue that it's a lot less useful against red decks and so could be more aggressively costed, okay, but at {R} it might be too strong - Sinkhole didn't last long for a reason. Besides that, you'd be pretty much losing the mana-fixing side of things entirely if you require double red to cast it in the first place. Perhaps alternate costs could be involved somehow, but I don't know.

I definitely like 3, there are a bunch of interesting equipment cards that just don't see play because of cost issues, things like Fireshrieker and Spellbinder, and maybe you could even do fun stuff with Worldslayer. It's very strong and very versatile, and would probably come at a pretty high cost itself,  but it'd be a very interesting card to develop.

Number 2 is very interesting as well, but as was mentioned before, would need to cost a lot. I kind of don't like how it's a single card that lets you totally diregard board position - as in, you cast this and it can change 'I'm going to lose the game next turn' into 'I win the game next turn', no matter what's in play - but it still might be interesting enough.

The first choice, well, I'm a bit biased, obviously. But I do like it.

[Machinus]

I voted 4 (it better cost 2 mana though).

[Matt]

I voted 3, because 4 is too annoying to cost.

[Nazdakka]

I voted for 1. It's an interesting card which can do quite a few cool things. I didn't vote for 2 because it would be so incredibly annoying to play against, and would have to cost a LOT of mana to be printable. 3 is quite cool, but limited by the card disadvantage and neccessity of a creature. Certainly we could make it, it just seems a little too prescriptive in its function. 4 has the problem that it could either cost 2 and make everybody run 1-2 random mountains in their decks to avoid it, or cost 3 and suck.

[Ephraim]

4 is easy to cost, guys. It's an instant that costs . I voted for 4, by the way. Partly because it's mine. I definitely don't like 1 or 2. I think the mass mana generation of 1 is ridiculous and 2 seems way too swingy and rude. You let your opponent get to within a turn of killing you and then totally turn the game around by putting all of your opponent's work to your advantage. It's worse than the Shared Fate deck for not needing a win condition. 3 isn't bad, but it doesn't seem all that interesting.

[Buttons]

4 is easy to cost, guys. It's an instant that costs . I voted for 4, by the way. Partly because it's mine. I definitely don't like 1 or 2. I think the mass mana generation of 1 is ridiculous and 2 seems way too swingy and rude. You let your opponent get to within a turn of killing you and then totally turn the game around by putting all of your opponent's work to your advantage. It's worse than the Shared Fate deck for not needing a win condition. 3 isn't bad, but it doesn't seem all that interesting.

I actually don't believe there has EVER been an instant land destruction spell.

Being costed at 2R makes the card a horrible stone rain.  SERIOUSLY.

[Jacob Orlove]

Rain of Rust is instant-speed land destruction, as is Rith's Charm.

Boil is too, technically, although it hits only islands.

[Buttons]

I did not know that.  I bow to your superior knowledge.

[Jacob Orlove]

Actually, I didn't know that either, until I looked it up.

[Marco]

And the original instant-speed land desctruction card: Fissure

I voted for number 2.

[dandan]

I voted for 4. 1 seems to go against Red's natural tendencies, it also only affects one effect so you cast it and a Bolt to get BBB, that sucks. I could almost go for it if it where all damage this turn. Attack for 6, do no damage but get RRRRRR might be fun although it is hard to understand why you would want to do that. 2 would cost too much and is basically a Red Mirror Universe as it turns the game state around. Chaotic sure but not something that would inspire love. 3 rather depends on if you like equipment or not. Instantly adding a Warhammer to a Double striker could be a problem, ditto Cranial Plating and I'm sure a quick Jittle might be worth it if the CC is low enough to make the card playable. 4 is an interesting effect although I really can't see a good casting cost - even 2R sucks. I think we've missed an opportunity to give Red an interesting combat effect as Matt continuously reminds us that Red is a combat colour. (no surprise to see him go for 3)

[Nibble]

I could almost go for it if it where all damage this turn.

It... already is?

As for instant on #4, it has potential. Notice though, that all examples of instant LD are definitely costed higher - Rain of Rust gets added onto Pillage, Rith's Charm is three colors and even then can only hit nonbasics, and so on. I really don't understand what would be so broken about instant-speed LD, but it seems like R&D has definitely shied away from it, and I imagine they have some reason for it.

That being said, what about making this instant would make it more desirable over Stone Rain? Often you want to cast your land destruction as soon as possible anyhow, as waiting until their eot lets them drop another land and play a higher cost spell than if you had just gotten rid of it on your turn. So, I'm not seeing what would make this so appealing...

Ugh, 2 is winning. I don't even want to begin to think of how to cost that thing.

[SpencerForHire]

Four colored?  The cost to activate mindslaver plus the devotion to red...  :lol:

[Nazdakka]

Ugh, 2 is winning. I don't even want to begin to think of how to cost that thing.

Yeah, I don't like 2 at all. Even if you made it cost 10 mana it would still be an extremely annoying card to have in a format, and even if it didn't turn out to be a tournament-quality card there would always be people who'd play the thing, win as you and then smugly think they've 'outplayed' you, when all they've done is played a card against which very few decks can defend. The real problem is that the only ways to play round the thing are to counter it or kill the player before they get enough mana - if it goes active against a nonblue deck there are very few ways to for the opponent to emerge victorious.

[dandan]

I could almost go for it if it where all damage this turn.

It... already is?

Until end of turn, if a spell or ability you control would deal damage to a player, instead add  to your mana pool for each damage it would deal.

It is currently all damage from spells or abilities. I was under the impression that that didn't include combat damage (the main damage source in most games)

[Nibble]

It is currently all damage from spells or abilities. I was under the impression that that didn't include combat damage (the main damage source in most games)

Ah, sorry, in the line before that you had mentioned "only affects one affect" so I thought you were thinking it did that and not all spells/abilities until eot. Yeah, I didn't include combat damage, mainly because it seemed silly for you to produce all that mana and then have your pool empty right away. There might be a trick or two it could've been useful for, though, who knows.

[vartemis]

Ugh, 2 is winning. I don't even want to begin to think of how to cost that thing.

Yeah, I don't like 2 at all. Even if you made it cost 10 mana it would still be an extremely annoying card to have in a format, and even if it didn't turn out to be a tournament-quality card there would always be people who'd play the thing, win as you and then smugly think they've 'outplayed' you, when all they've done is played a card against which very few decks can defend. The real problem is that the only ways to play round the thing are to counter it or kill the player before they get enough mana - if it goes active against a nonblue deck there are very few ways to for the opponent to emerge victorious.

It is a risky card though.  If you play it and your opponent cannot kill you the next turn, you lose.  It's sort of a combination of mindslaver/mirror universe.  Playing against it, you would have to be careful about going for the kill.  If you set up your hand to kill your opponent, and they cast this, thats game.  On the other hand, if they cast it and you've got nothing, you win.

j

[SpencerForHire]

If that was the card to run it would almost certainly have to be a Sorcery to prevent reactionary procedures to them setting up on an EOT and then you stealing the win.

[Liam-K]

Three is the reddest card.  Elegant simplicity is good.

[Nibble]

It is a risky card though.  If you play it and your opponent cannot kill you the next turn, you lose.

If your opponent is playing a deck that is not combo, you almost certainly are aware of when he can and can not kill you.

[Limbo]

How is being able to win with one card with a decent mana cost bad? It is not like it prevented wizards from printing Tooth and Nail, which was hardly broken in type 2, only very good.

[Nazdakka]

How is being able to win with one card with a decent mana cost bad? It is not like it prevented wizards from printing Tooth and Nail, which was hardly broken in type 2, only very good.

A resolved Tooth doesn't always end the game though. Usually it does, but not always. #2 is probably even more final, and when it does do its thing it wins the game in a particularly obnoxious way. Yes, there's some guesswork, but not really very much in most situations against most decks.

[SpencerForHire]

You can build a deck around tooth and nail, you really can't build a deck out of number 2 unless it is a deck that makes you suicide.

[Nibble]

You can build a deck around tooth and nail, you really can't build a deck out of number 2 unless it is a deck that makes you suicide.

On the same note, you can argue that while you can't build a deck specificially around it, it can easily be useful in any deck that can manage to cast it. After all, it's a card that turns losing into winning, and the goal of any deck you're going to face will be to make you lose, no?

[SpencerForHire]

There may just have to be an additional clause or cast added into the card to balance it.  Mindlslaver would have been an I WIN if you could be mana burned.  Something similar might have to be added here in order to make this card harder to win with.

[Bardo]

Is Mindslaver really in red's section of the color-pie? Seems more suited to black (ex. [card]Word of Command[/card]), or even blue.