Logical Debate

[Imzakhor]

Logical Debate
4UUU
All spells are instants. All abilities are played as instants.
If an opponent mulligans, reveal this card. That opponent draws one less card than required, you draw two cards, then remove Logical Debate from the game.
"I think you just made my point." - Ertai

Logical Debate
4
Enchantment
All spells are instants. All non-mana abilities are played as instants.
If an opponent mulligans, reveal this card. That opponent draws one less card than required, you draw two cards, then remove Logical Debate from the game.
I think you just made my point. - Ertai

Every spell become a debate point... You can "respond" to every "argument" with any "evidence".

There is no better way to punish poor deck construction, than to punish them for mulligans... Please note, that in the end, if you play this card against a mulligan, they draw two LESS cards (mull + ability), and you draw two MORE. The flavor text refers to this ability.

What do you think?

[Anusien]

No.  This is Vedalken Orrery with some crappy extra text added on for no reason.  Your card doesn't have, for example, a spell type.
Also, not only does Wizards probably not want to print a card that mentions mulliganing, but they're already self-punishing.

[Imzakhor]

Yes. I forgot the word enchantment. I will fix that now. They already modify mulligans with serum powder, did that slip your mind?

Crappy extra text... Nice.

[Anusien]

Right, Serum Powder is the only card in the history of Magic that mentions the word mulligan, and even then it's as an interesting, skill testing sort of card.  The card you're proposing is something that can only benefit you.  You're punishing the opponent for something that in the best of conditions is beyond their control (the random allocation of the cards).  Is it fair to punish the opponent for that (any more than the extra card loss already does)?

Plus, the two functions of the card aren't related at all.  You're putting two incredibly swingy effects onto one card and it doesn't make sense.  I'd model it after Serum Powder; pick the one side you want to be significant and make the other side less significant (a weak mana ability is a good option here).

Anyway, the mulligan punisher seems to be the side you're focusing on, and it's fundamentally not the kind of card that Wizards wants to make.  Would you care to explain in more detail why you feel this ability/functionality is appropriate/a good idea?  Why make this card other than "punish poor deck construction" and "punish them for mulligans", both of which seem like poor reasons.

[Imzakhor]

You are correct, the two functions of the card are not linked at all, mechanically. They are linked by the title: both functions deal in the spirit of a card that might be named "Logical Debate".

Honestly, that is the only way to link the two together. The mulligan-ability is, by definition, "outside the game". There is no way to link that to "inside the game". So, the two abilities must be completely separate... But the "Inside" function must be OVERcosted, to account for the "Outside" ability.

This IS a skill based card, that punishes poor deck construction, and excessive searching-for-goldfish mulliganing. It's highly costed ingame effect is weak, and meant to be that way. In effect, it's only purpose in a vacuum is as FoW bait. Though I'm sure there are some broken sorceries if they were instants.

The card you're proposing is something that can only benefit you.  You're punishing the opponent for something that in the best of conditions is beyond their control (the random allocation of the cards).

This card would be wasted against anyone playing a consistent deck, but could see play as a great sideboard card against combo. Anyone who "mulligans aggressively" might see this card as real trouble. I think that's very cool. Wizards might too; speeding up games, by reducing mulligans, is something I believe they could champion.

BTW, most cards I play are used to only benefit me. I am trying to win, after all.

[Harlequin]

Serum powder is interesting because as Anusien pointed out, it can be double-edged.  Also it does almost nothing durring the course of the game.  So essentially, by running powder, your running 4 dead cards.  This is why you don't see any decks (until recent builds of ichorid) playing the card.

This card, also as Anusien pointed out, is in no way bad for you.  The "Draw 2 cards" thing is simply insane.  A good player should mulligan about 1 in 4 to 5 hands at the very LEAST.  Its not uncommon to mull 1 in 3 seven card hands.  This means that randomly 40% of the time when you mull - you straight loose.  Beucase not only do you go down an additional card but your opponent is up 1!  You might as well just scoop at that point.  Playing 5 cards vrs 8 is just not even a match.

Lastly, I think this card makes all mana abilites work like LED, was that intended?

[Imzakhor]

Serum powder is interesting because as Anusien pointed out, it can be double-edged.  Also it does almost nothing durring the course of the game.  So essentially, by running powder, your running 4 dead cards.  This is why you don't see any decks (until recent builds of ichorid) playing the card.

What you are saying is that Powder sucks, so nobody plays it, notable exception being Ichorid. NOBODY else plays it. Why the HECK should Logical Debate aspire to a power level where nobody would want to use it? That makes no sense to me.

Logical Debate, in my opinion, is a good sideboard card, and would see plenty of sideboard action, especially in second games where the opponent mulliganed aggressively in the first game. I think that's HOT. I really do.

This card, also as Anusien pointed out, is in no way bad for you.  The "Draw 2 cards" thing is simply insane.  A good player should mulligan about 1 in 4 to 5 hands at the very LEAST.  Its not uncommon to mull 1 in 3 seven card hands.  This means that randomly 40% of the time when you mull - you straight loose.  Beucase not only do you go down an additional card but your opponent is up 1!  You might as well just scoop at that point.  Playing 5 cards vrs 8 is just not even a match.

Lastly, I think this card makes all mana abilites work like LED, was that intended?

How is this card "in no way bad" for you? Its in game ability helps the opponent as well. Besides, there is no rule that states a card should ever be bad for its player, expect that poor choices should be dead in hand. That is Cardinal Law, and Logical Debate is no different. Granted, its in game ability is severely overcosted AND helps the opponent (to compensate for the before-game ability, as stated), so just like Powder, it does "almost nothing" during the game, except stay in flavor for the card name. Indeed, the only thing this card will usually do, is be FoW bait (intended). I would have chosen a different color, but a "Logical Debate" is in the realm of U.

Regarding the before-game ability:
If you keep it in your hand, and your opponent does NOT mulligan (which you say happens about 75-80 percent of the time), then it is YOU who have dead cards, and are a step down from your opponent. That is severely bad for you.

What this card does, is punish decks that are not consistent, or try to goldfish, every game. There is nothing wrong with that motive, and it IS the motive of this card.

You make a good point about the mana abilities, I will fix that now.

[Anusien]

Serum powder is interesting because as Anusien pointed out, it can be double-edged.  Also it does almost nothing durring the course of the game.  So essentially, by running powder, your running 4 dead cards.  This is why you don't see any decks (until recent builds of ichorid) playing the card.

What you are saying is that Powder sucks, so nobody plays it, notable exception being Ichorid. NOBODY else plays it. Why the HECK should Logical Debate aspire to a power level where nobody would want to use it? That makes no sense to me.

Because not every card has to be Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall powered.  Vedalken Orrery is a fun, interesting card on a low power level.  And that's fine.

You seem to forget that people occasionally mulligan for other reasons.  By costing this into oblivion, you make it so ONLY the mulligan hoser side will ever get used.  That sort of card is rather abstract and I feel like it's a fundamentally unfair/bad card.  Your arguments supporting it are about things outside the game

What this card does, is punish decks that are not consistent, or try to goldfish, every game. There is nothing wrong with that motive, and it IS the motive of this card.

I feel that this is a fundamentally bad motive since it's not in the least bit about playing a game of Magic.  It's not for the cards of Magic to try and change the rules of the game, which is what this is trying to do.

[Liam-K]

This card is ridiculous (and not in a "so many insane plays" way).  Absurdly costly non-game-ending permanent that randomly wins the game before it even starts sometimes because of pure luck?  No.

[Imzakhor]

Because not every card has to be Black Lotus or Ancestral Recall powered.  Vedalken Orrery is a fun, interesting card on a low power level.  And that's fine.

You are comparing this card to Black Lotus? Ancestral Recall? Absurd. This card nets you a 2 card advantage, about 20% of the time. The rest of the time, this card is a full 1-card disadvantage. The comparison casts the rest of your assertions in a poor, qualitative light. I figured I should introduce the card as one that might see play in a Vintage tournament, on a Vintage forum.

I feel that this is a fundamentally bad motive since it's not in the least bit about playing a game of Magic.  It's not for the cards of Magic to try and change the rules of the game, which is what this is trying to do.

There are numerous examples of cards changing the rules of Magic: Shahrazad, Relentless Rats, Serum Powder and Platinum Angel all come to mind quickly, and there are at least a few others I know by effect (but not by name). It is evident that I am not introducing a function that breaks the spirit of Magic.

How you build your deck is not "the least bit about playing a game of Magic". In fact, it is the CORE. Serum Powder already modifies this part of the game, I simply expanded upon it, with a better card. Logical Debate is not an AWESOME card. I might also point out it is not a "game-ender" before the "game" begins (I contest where the "game" begins with you, of course). Most Gifts players will tell you going to 5 or 4 cards can still be goldfished. The term "Pure Luck" should NOT be applied to Joe Combo-Player's use of the mulligan... Because those decks are built to use the Mulligan rule MUCH differently than say, Fish.

I had expected more templating changes and suggestions. I had also expected more of a fun, friendly dialogue regarding how to reword the card. I am disappointed. Yes.

[Harlequin]

My point was that Powder is -interesting- because it is a trade-off.  Also, having played Ichorid with Powder many times, you don't always use powder - even - if you intend to mull the hand.  (spesifically when what you would be RFGing will hurt your overall deck distribution). 

This card is un-interesting because there is essential never a time when you would not activate the mull ability.  Ontop of that, even after the game starts it has #1 a relavent ability, #2 can be used to pay the most common alternate casting costs in the game.

The other point about haveing a dead card, and being 1 card down is also not very relavent.  Firstly, because if your on the draw then you opponent chooses to mull first.  If they end up keeping, then you are free to mull it away and go to a potentially better hand with 6 active cards... or ofcourse you could keep that 7 card hand with 1 "dead" card that you're reserving for Force of will and Misdirrection.  Secondly, immagine playing 2 in one mull!  you start with 9 cards in your hand, and your opponent starts with 4.  Also if you go up to 8, then you get the option to free-mull back to 7? 

I really dislike this card, because I think that when to mull is an extremely important skill.  Often you hear tails of "I should have mulled" or "I should have kept my 6 hand" ... etc.  Mulling really has nothing much to do with consistancy at all.  If anything it just smooths over "outlier" hands based on probablity.  Consider this, even a deck of 25 swamps and 35 relentless rats will mull around 13.97% of the time (roughly 1 in 7 hands).  An inconsistant deck cannot mull its way to consistancy, no more than a consistant deck can completely avoid ever mulling.

So really what your doing, is printing a card that punishes a well developed magic skill - namely, the ability know when to "fold" and know when to "Hold'em" so to speak.


Lastly, as far as tone is concerned.  It looks to me like you were the first one to take an agressive tone. 

[The Atog Lord]

his card nets you a 2 card advantage, about 20% of the time

The same card advantage as Ancestral Recall. Except this can't be countered or misdirected in any way. If you have this card in hand and the opponent mulligans, the opponent loses the game. You're at nine and the opponent now has five cards.

I'm very glad this card does not exist.

[Imzakhor]

@Atog Lord
A. Recall nets a 2 card advantage, 100% of the time it's not countered. This is definitely not the same card advantage as A. Recall.

After using Logical Debate you are at eight cards, not nine.

The other point about haveing a dead card, and being 1 card down is also not very relavent.  Firstly, because if your on the draw then you opponent chooses to mull first.  If they end up keeping, then you are free to mull it away and go to a potentially better hand with 6 active cards... or ofcourse you could keep that 7 card hand with 1 "dead" card that you're reserving for Force of will and Misdirrection.  Secondly, immagine playing 2 in one mull!  you start with 9 cards in your hand, and your opponent starts with 4.  Also if you go up to 8, then you get the option to free-mull back to 7? 

I had hoped for more for posts like the above. Being on the draw is given a slight advantage, which I also like a lot. Maybe drawing two cards is too much. Perhaps, drawing ONE card to replace the one that just left the game would be enough? If that were the case, the cost/effect on the card should also change, as the real power of the card was just nerfed. Thus you would be at 7, opponent at 5.

Consider this, even a deck of 25 swamps and 35 relentless rats will mull around 13.97% of the time (roughly 1 in 7 hands).

Siding in Logical Debate against a deck that mulls 13.97% of the time is a recipe for failure. You will not get utility out of the card, and keeping it for FoW is still suboptimal, as nobody would trade 2 for 1 with a reasonable, in hand alternative.

So really what your doing, is printing a card that punishes a well developed magic skill - namely, the ability know when to "fold" and know when to "Hold'em" so to speak.

Actually, what it does is punish combo decks that use the mulligan rule to achieve a doable goldfish. Mulliganing a fish deck will generally not be so punished, because Logical Debate would still be firmly in the sideboard against that matchup.

Lastly, as far as tone is concerned.  It looks to me like you were the first one to take an agressive tone. 

Please see the first response on this thread.

[jro]

This may be the worst designed card I've seen posted on this forum.  The wording is wrong, the abilities have no synergy, the card has no effect most of the time but when it does it's broken, it pushes design limits on what cards do, it increases the randomness of games, etc.  On top of all that, the designer seems to have trouble accepting the fact that the card has any problems at all.

Imzakhor: You say that you designed this card for Vintage, and that therefore it is appropriate for TMD.  But TMD is more than just about Vintage.  It's also about demanding a certain amount of knowledge and understanding from its members.  This applies not only to discussion of the Vintage format, but to every forum here.  Many people perceive this as "elitism", and in this case it has manifested itself as people dismissing your card without giving you the full feedback you might want, and with language like "crappy".  The reason we're being so dismissive is because your card is so bad it doesn't really merit serious debate.

[Machinus]

If ~ is in your opening hand, you may remove this card from the game. Draw a card for each mulligan taken this game.

A strong ability for securing acceptable opening hands, but it can't be abused for card advantage, and doesn't really make the card any more worth playing.

[Imzakhor]

This may be the worst designed card I've seen posted on this forum.  The wording is wrong, the abilities have no synergy, the card has no effect most of the time but when it does it's broken, it pushes design limits on what cards do, it increases the randomness of games, etc.  On top of all that, the designer seems to have trouble accepting the fact that the card has any problems at all.

Imzakhor: You say that you designed this card for Vintage, and that therefore it is appropriate for TMD.  But TMD is more than just about Vintage.  It's also about demanding a certain amount of knowledge and understanding from its members.  This applies not only to discussion of the Vintage format, but to every forum here.  Many people perceive this as "elitism", and in this case it has manifested itself as people dismissing your card without giving you the full feedback you might want, and with language like "crappy".  The reason we're being so dismissive is because your card is so bad it doesn't really merit serious debate.

*snip the obvious* Whatever. It is obvious that most people don't like the card here. So, here is where it won't be.