Puppeteer's Secrets

[Illissius]

Needs a Name

Sorcery
Put a 1/1 red Goblin token with haste, a 2/1 red Barbarian token with haste, and a 3/1 red Viashino token with haste into play. Remove them from the game at end of turn.
Choose one of them. Record your choice, but do not reveal it. If the chosen token deals combat damage to defending player this turn, draw three cards.

This would be the Magic equivalent of the guess-which-cup-the-coin-is-under game. (Does it have a name?)

p.s. if I type mana symbols without a space between them, only the first one shows up correctly. is this the same for everyone? (because it's the same way in e.g. the master list)

current version

Puppeteer's Secrets

Sorcery
Play Puppeteer's Secrets only before combat.
Put a 0/1 red Kobold token with haste, a 1/1 red Goblin token with haste, and a 2/1 red Viashino token with haste into play. Remove them from the game at end of turn.
Secretly choose one of them. At end of combat, if the chosen token is attacking and unblocked, you may reveal your choice and draw 3 cards.
Shall we play a little game?

[chrissss]

It is an interesting card I must say, I am just worried that it can be a bit overpowered.

it does have motential to do 6 damage and give you 3 cards for 4 mana.

[parallax]

This card is a really good bluffing card.  I like bluffing cards in Magic. I don't play them, but I think they make the game more interesting. Also, there is the whole Princess Bride dilemma: The 1/1 is least likely to be blocked, so it's best to choose the Goblin. But then, the opponent knows this, so he might decide to block the Goblin. Also, the 3/1 is most likely to be blocked, so it's best not to choose the Viashino, but if the opponent knows you wont choose the Viashino, he might not block it. Then, you should choose it.  However, the mechanic is clunky. I don't like the whole "Record your choice, then reveal it later." Bluffing should usually be done with Magic cards themselves. Also, three cards is a bit too powerful.

How about something like this:

Put a 1/1 red Goblin token with haste, a 2/1 red Barbarian token with haste, and a 3/1 red Viashino token with haste into play. Remove them from the game at end of turn.
Search your library for a card and remove it from the game face down.
Whenever the Goblin token deals combat damage to a player, reveal the removed card. If it has a converted mana cost of one, put it into your hand. Otherwise, put it in your graveyard.
Whenever the Barbarian token deals combat damage to a player, reveal the removed card. If it has a converted mana cost of two, put it into your hand. Otherwise, put it in your graveyard.
Whenever the Viashino token deals combat damage to a player, reveal the removed card. If it has a converted mana cost of three, put it into your hand. Otherwise, put it in your graveyard.

[Harlequin]

You could probably just make it simpiler by saying:

Put a 1/1 red Mise token with haste, a 2/1 red Mise token with haste, and a 3/1 red Mise token with haste into play. Remove them from the game at end of turn.
Search your library for a card and remove it from the game face down.
Until end of turn, Whenever a Mise token deals damage to a player reveal the face down card.  If the Converted mana cost of the card equals the power of that creature put the card in your hand.

That way this card doesn't make it onto the Book Club's Summer Reading List.

[netherspirit]

I love this card, I think Parallax's version is the best so far. My only concern is that it could be quite easy to cheat with this.
For instance, if you play one, and name the 1/1; then play one and name the 3/1; you will have 2 tokens of each type, but you won't be able to tell the tokens apart from others of their type. So if one goblin is blocked you can clame you named the other one, and the same with the viashino.
So I personally feel they need to be legendary, other than that though I love the card.

p.s. I hope all that made sense

[Matt]

This is far too cheap for four mana, even without the guessing game. This should probably be six or more mana; since this is a pretty luck-based card, we don't want prizes of thousands of dollars to hinge on luck (the Frenetic Efrreet problem). We need to cost luck effects such that the casual players like them and can play with them but that they never show up in tournaments.

[Illissius]

This is far too cheap for four mana, even without the guessing game. This should probably be six or more mana; since this is a pretty luck-based card, we don't want prizes of thousands of dollars to hinge on luck (the Frenetic Efrreet problem). We need to cost luck effects such that the casual players like them and can play with them but that they never show up in tournaments.

The closest extended legal cards I found are Research/Development, Blistering Firecat, and Feral Lightning. (The '[card]' thingie isn't wanting to work; meh?). Given that evidence, I agree it is undercosted at four. Six seems an awful lot, though; I think that could make it unplayable. How about five?
If necessary, the cards drawn could be reduced to two, as well, but I'd like as much of the emphasis as possible to be on the mind game and the cards, rather than the damage; the tokens are just a means to an end. (If I could reduce the total power of the tokens somehow, without taking away from the mind games, I'd do it; perhaps have them be 0/1, 1/1, and 2/1, and depend on attacking unblocked rather than dealing combat damage? But that would be a bit odd.)

I'm not sure about the luck thing, either. The Princess Bride dilemma mentioned by parallax is the entire point of the card; how much of that depends on skill, and how much on luck? (This is where a dedicated playtesting team like Wizards has would come in useful).
I would draw a comparison to poker, which on its surface is also based on luck; but the element of bluffing adds skill to it, and there are professional poker players who consistently do well at it. Thus, I am not convinced this is necessarily a "luck card".

This card is a really good bluffing card.  I like bluffing cards in Magic. I don't play them, but I think they make the game more interesting. Also, there is the whole Princess Bride dilemma: The 1/1 is least likely to be blocked, so it's best to choose the Goblin. But then, the opponent knows this, so he might decide to block the Goblin. Also, the 3/1 is most likely to be blocked, so it's best not to choose the Viashino, but if the opponent knows you wont choose the Viashino, he might not block it. Then, you should choose it.

Or you could be extra sneaky, and choose the Barbarian.

However, the mechanic is clunky. I don't like the whole "Record your choice, then reveal it later."

It may be a bit clunkier, but it's also simpler than the search-for-a-card-and-compare-the-cost-to-the-power version, and that's a tradeoff I'll take. Clunky isn't necessarily an obstacle, either; see Goblin Game.

My only concern is that it could be quite easy to cheat with this.
For instance, if you play one, and name the 1/1; then play one and name the 3/1; you will have 2 tokens of each type, but you won't be able to tell the tokens apart from others of their type. So if one goblin is blocked you can clame you named the other one, and the same with the viashino.
So I personally feel they need to be legendary, other than that though I love the card.

I don't think this is really a problem. In the rare case where you cast two or more on the same turn, you would have to take the necessary steps to avoid confusion, like grouping the tokens from each card together, writing the choices on folded pieces of paper, and putting them next to the group they belong to. (In a tournament, if the defending player felt the active player was cheating in this way, (s)he could always call a judge; and if the active player hadn't made it clear which choice belongs to which tokens, (s)he would probably be penalized. I think, anyways; I'm not a judge.)

Also. Anyone have an idea for a name?

[Bum_of_keld]

I have seen R and D pushing these zany UR "damage games" for forever, never even getting close to something that is relevant to anyone but the biggest fanatic of having a chance of doing something almost worth the mana cost if it did it every time. Now as this card stands it is somewhat like firecat with a benefit of randomly being much better then that. I like how this is a card that would punish your opponent when he decides that since your playing UR counter burn (where this obviously shines) and removes his removal only to get hosed by a big hit and a bunch of cards/tutor. And since your opponent is likely to know what it is that you really need right now it becomes a psychological game, not a random chance if you use the tutor version (which i prefer). This means that the card is eligible for some actually playable power, which is totally cool!

However at a measly 4 Mana this card may actually be too powerfull. On turn four after dealing with your opponents threat turn three and if they attack with their second turn threat all the sudden you play this tutor a card and you may be able to race them, especially in multiples (incidentally, the fact that it can't tutor for itself is very stylish). It may fit more in the power level of a 5cc sorcery. But without really having a bunch of cards to compare it to for block/ type two relative power levels, it is hard to say.

[asmoranomardicodais]

Its not exactly what your looking for, but I think this is simpler, and more fair:

Name
1UUR
Sorcery

Search your library for a card, and remove it from the game. Target opponent chooses for ~Name~ to deal up one, two, or three damage to him or her. If that opponent takes any damage from ~Name~, reveal the removed card and put it into your hand if it shares a converted mana cost equal to the damage ~Name~ dealt to that opponent. If not, remove it form the game.


So, kinda complicated, but it doesn't make a ball lightning fly at the opponent, and what you wanted the card to do is still mainly intact. All this, and I think its probably well costed at four this way too.

[Mr. Type 4]

asmoranomardicodais' card is probably underpowered.  at best it;s a 4 mana card that deals 3 damage and you got to tutor for a 3 mana card.  At worst it deals 1 damage and RFGs the card you picked.  Sounds pretty horrendous, especially since i could play Shock for R. 

[asmoranomardicodais]

Mine is probably underpowerd, but the point was to capture the flavor he wanted without making the card overpowered and still keeping it at a low mana cost.

[Illissius]

OK, so how about this.
I decided to go the 0/1 - 1/1 - 2/1 route (the main incentive was: I get to use a Kobold token this way), so I think it's balanced at 4 mana now.

For the name, the only idea I have is "Conjurer's Game", but it's not a very good one...

[zeus-online]

Record your choice, but do not reveal it. If the chosen token deals combat damage to defending player this turn, draw three cards.


How can a 0/1 deal combat damage? :/

[netherspirit]

If you want a 0/1 just change it from "deals combat damage" to "attacks and is unblocked".

[Illissius]

Record your choice, but do not reveal it. If the chosen token deals combat damage to defending player this turn, draw three cards.


How can a 0/1 deal combat damage? :/

Read the current version? It says combat damage nowhere on it.

[Illissius]

Bad name added, clock started.

[Harlequin]

Typically cards don't refer directly to "steps"  I would say, change the wording to "At the end of combat revel your choice, If the chosen token attacked and was not blocked..."

[Illissius]

Typically cards don't refer directly to "steps"  I would say, change the wording to "At the end of combat revel your choice, If the chosen token attacked and was not blocked..."

They do, see Trap Runner, Fog Patch, or more recently, Tears of Rage. I could word it like "at end of combat, if the chosen token attacked and wasn't blocked", but that's also true if it attacked and got Shocked, which we don't want.

[parallax]

"At end of combat, reveal your choice. If that creature is attacking and unblocked, draw three cards."

[Matt]

Wow, this really IS a bad name. Is there nothing better you can come up with?

[Illissius]

"At end of combat, reveal your choice. If that creature is attacking and unblocked, draw three cards."

Does it still count as attacking at end of combat? If so, that works.

Wow, this really IS a bad name. Is there nothing better you can come up with?

Thus far, apparently not. I could wait a bit longer to see if anything better comes to mind.

[netherspirit]

How about something like "Searing Dance"? For some reason this card makes me think of jesters dancing... 

[Matt]

First off, this needs to say "Play only before combat."

Choose one of them. Record your choice, but do not reveal it. During the declare blockers step, if the chosen token is attacking and unblocked, you may reveal your choice and draw 3 cards.

I think the better wording is:

Secretly choose one of them. At end of combat, reveal your choice. If the chosen creature wasn't blocked, draw 3 cards.

Much shorter and cleaner. This makes room for the "play only" line.

[parallax]

308.2g Each chosen creature becomes an attacking creature if all costs have been paid, but only if it’s still controlled by the active player. It remains an attacking creature until it’s removed from combat or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 306.2.

[Matt]

I REALLY hate this name. You need something better before I'll add this.

[netherspirit]

You could make them all the same type of creature and then have a name reflecting that. Hehe, I'd have jesters and call it Jester Race myself

[Toad]

Against Control, this reads "2UR: Deal 3 damage to target player and draw 3 cards". Sounds fairly overpowered to me.
See Ember Shot, for example. It is 6R for 3 damage and a single card. This should probably be costed 4UR or something to be a fine casual card.

[Illissius]

Matt: Why does it need the "play only before combat" clause? If you play it postcombat, there'll never be an 'end of combat' for you to reveal your choice, and then they'll get RFG at end of turn anyways. Which is fairly useless.

Toad:

Concentrate

Sorcery
Draw three cards.

Even if this were for "Draw three cards. Deal three damage to target player.", I'm not sure it would be overpowered, given how gold cards get to be more powerful than monocolored ones; though it would be pretty powerful, granted.
But in any case, it's not. You are not at all guaranteed the three cards, which is the most important bit. Four mana for a potential "do nothing" is pretty risky; I would say this is worse than Concentrate. (As for control decks, against them, Savannah Lions has "Savannah Lions is unblockable.". Not playing creatures is a choice they make, and they get to suffer the consequences. For that matter, they could use something like Fire/Ice to kill the tokens, rather than block them.)

[Matt]

It needs it to ensure that players won't throw it away trying to do tricks that don't work. It doesn't technically NEED that clause but it aids smooth gameplay, something that, with this specific card, is at risk.

[Anusien]

Even if this were for "Draw three cards. Deal three damage to target player.", I'm not sure it would be overpowered, given how gold cards get to be more powerful than monocolored ones; though it would be pretty powerful, granted.

Compare to Prophetic Bolt, which is 3UR to do 4 + Impulse.  I'm just not sure how to fix this.