Morton's Fork

[Cyberpunker]

Morton's Fork

Instant

Target opponent chooses 1:

You lose 3 life and may search your library for four cards with different names and reveal them. Your opponent chooses two of those cards. Put the chosen cards into your graveyard and the rest into your hand.
Or
Morton's Fork deals 1 damage to him/her and you reveal the top five cards of your library. You opponent separates those cards into two piles. Put one pile into your hand and the other into your graveyard.

Between a rock and a hard place.


EDIT: What is a Morton's Fork?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-mortons-fork.htm

Alternative Version:

Morton's Fork

Instant

Reveal the top 5 cards of your library. Target opponent chooses 1:

Put 3 of the revealed cards at random into your hand and the rest into your graveyard.
or
Your opponent seperates the cards into 2 piles, then you choose one of those piles and put those cards into your hand and the rest into your graveyard.

[Cyberpunker]

This card is in line with  's theme of card advantage while having the opponent choose what cards go into the hand. (Intuition, Fact or Fiction, Gifts Ungiven)

The added feature is that now the opponent has to choose not only between 2 piles but also between 2 different effects.

This card tries to combine the flavors of Gifts Ungiven and Fact or Fiction along with a new distinct Morton's Fork feel.

Yes I know this will be an auto restrict in Vintage.

Also, I added the life loss element in this card because I feel that it better fits into the theme of the card. By paying 1 life and denying you the ability to Gifts Ungiven, your opponent has in paradox ended up losing more life than you while potentially giving you 1 more card.
In short the ability to counter your Gifts is balanced out with him/her losing more life.

And before anyone starts, this is not going to simply be Gifts #2 nor Fact #2 in Mana Drain.dec. The element of choice for your opponent means that you cannot reliably Gifts nor can you reliably hope to Fact. Your opponent will choose Fact if you obviously need to Gifts. And vice versa. Morton's Fork is a card that is unique unto itself.

The interesting element comes in during situations of uncertainty. Your opponent needs to choose between 2 almost equally undesirable effects and is caught in a classical Morton's Fork dilemma. And putting your opponent in such a potentially error making situation is also another key theme of  . Mental duels are a central part of  Magic after all.

[Anusien]

This is really, really clumsily done.  The cards in exchange for life is very black, and it's both inelegant and very wordy.  Plus the life loss isn't big enough to be relevant.  It would be more elegant as "Opponent chooses one:".

Gifts already has a hard time fitting without going to micro-text.

[Cyberpunker]

This is really, really clumsily done.  The cards in exchange for life is very black, and it's both inelegant and very wordy.  Plus the life loss isn't big enough to be relevant.  It would be more elegant as "Opponent chooses one:".

Gifts already has a hard time fitting without going to micro-text.

I very much disagree. This is not really clumsily done as losing life is not only restricted to "very black" cards. Think Psionic Blast, Force of Will, etc.
Those are considered staple  cards. And this is not losing life to draw cards, which would be  . This is losing life for an effect. Again think FoW or Psionic Blast.

And whether the life loss is big enough to be relevant (a free Lightning Bolt for your opponent seems very relevant to me) does not mean that it should not be included to atleast not put your opponent too far behind (again think Force of Will or Psionic Blast or the like). 3 life can make a difference between life or death especially in late game scenarios. The card in fact becomes worthless when you are at 3 life, kind of like how late game Fetchlands/Thoughtseize suck.

You do have a point that it is very wordy, although you go too far in calling it "inelegant." "Opponent chooses 1" does make it easier to read though. Okay I will change that.

[Anusien]

Why does this deal 1 damage in Fact or Fiction mode?

[Cyberpunker]

Well I thought that it would be an ironic twist that if your opponent decides to negate your Gifts, your opponent ends up losing more life than you and having to let you Fact.

[jro]

This card is way too complicated, and beyond that it's just goofy.  The life loss component seems completely random.  Why that amount of life?  Why does Gifts hurt you but Fact hurt the opponent?  Why not the other way around? There's no way flavor text fits on this card.

I guess go ahead and make this an Un-card if you want it just to be silly, but this would require a complete overhaul to be anything close to printable.

[BruiZar]

@jro, atleast make a suggestion instead of just flaming him for creating a card

[Matt]

@jro, atleast make a suggestion instead of just flaming him for creating a card

What he wrote was not a flame, it was justified criticism. He asked valid questions that ought to be answered.

[Cyberpunker]

I guess I haven't been answering the questions because I didn't think the comments were serious and actually wanting an answer. But for you guys who do want the questions answered: 

Why that amount of life?  Why does Gifts hurt you but Fact hurt the opponent?  Why not the other way around? There's no way flavor text fits on this card.

The 3 life loss is an equalizer of a sort. Not too much to be too damaging but enough to impact the game balance.

Gifts hurts you but Fact hurts the opponent because this card is designed for you to cast it FOR the Gifts. If however your opponent wants to deny you the Gifts he will have to let you Fact and lose life. It's an tradeoff for your opponent negating your Gifts.

The idea behind the Morton's Fork is that you are caught in two equally undesirable outcomes. Choosing between death by hanging or death by firing squad is a Morton's Fork. Or choosing to let your opponent Lightning Bolt you or Chain Lightning you is another Morton's Fork.

The fact that your opponent loses life when he negates your Gifts makes his situation as follows:

Either I let him Gifts for 3 life and potentially lose the game or I take 1 damage and prevent him from Gifting but let him Fact instead hoping to not run into the cards that he needs.

As for Flavor Texts its just there for fun. If it won't fit then it won't be included. If it can be squeezed in there. Than by all means.

[BruiZar]

What happens when you play morton's fork on 2 life?

[Matt]

The problem is that you're not really justifying your decisions. Why is there a life cost AT ALL? If you just cleaned this card up to "opponent chooses one - let you Gifts, or let you FoF", it still counts as a M.Fork decision (see Library of Lat-Nam, which did this with Ancestral vs. Demonic Tutor, or Covenant of Minds for a different take).

It's completely random to introduce life loss on what is already a very complicated card (in fact, a mix of TWO complicated cards).

[Cyberpunker]

What happens when you play morton's fork on 2 life?

Then if your opponent lets you Gifts then you lose. That situation is when this card is really useless and Morton's Fork really loses its flavor.
But the life loss is needed to even the board out so as to not make this card too powerful. And if we take out the life loss, this would give you too far of an edge ahead of your opponent. Gifts and Fact both would have been a little bit less broken if you lost life.

Why is there a life cost AT ALL?

Like I said, there has to be a life loss in order to balance out the game state. Your opponent should not be allowed to lag too far behind after you cast this card. Think about the 4 Fact era. The problem was that Fact was just too nuts. The 3 life loss here is to not make the game state too inbalanced in favor of you once you resolve the spell. You would think twice about casting the second Morton's Fork (if unrestricted) and you would have to be really careful when casting the 3rd and 4th.

And the life loss is not completely random. I mean why would they make you lose 1 life when you FoW? 2 life when you Psionic Blast? 2 life when you Thoughtseize? Is there really any justification for those effects? It is just to give your opponent something for your broken effect.

Why 3 life? Why not 2 life? Why not 4 life? 2 life would not be as huge of an impact to you. 4 life would make this card really bad because it would be too damaging to you. 3 life is the happy median.

Shock-->Negligible
Lightning Bolt-->Fair
  for  life-->Too broken

[Yare]

Here's a suggestion:

Morton's Fork 3UU
Instant

Reveal the top six cards of your library. An opponent separates those cards into two piles. If the piles have an equal number of cards, put one pile into your hand and the other into your graveyard. Otherwise, put the pile with the most cards into your hand and the other pile into your graveyard.

I just don't think you can get Fact or Fiction and Gifts Ungiven on the same card. The life rebalancing addition just makes it worse.

[Anusien]

2UUU Sorcery that did either FoF or Gifts on an opponent's choice would probably be fine.

If you want that sort of effect; what about doing a Gifts Ungiven, then the opponent can choose to remove those from the game and let you Gifts for different cards instead?  Or FoF for 5, and either let you keep those or FoF the next 7 instead or something.  There are all kinds of possible variants that do new things instead of just glue two cards together.

[andrewpate]

I think that letting your opponent choose between two undercosted effects is an interesting, unexplored design space.  Mostly this has dealt with choosing brokenness or damage (Browbeat, Dash Hopes, Choice of Damnations).  I think that letting you choose between two search spells, possibly balancing between quality of search and card advantage, has some potential.  Fact or Fiction can generate as much as +3 CA, but it has only a 5/X chance of finding a certain card (X being the number of cards in your library, obv), whereas Gifts Ungiven will always find the card while always generating only +1 CA.  The opponent chooses whether to give you consistent, fixed brokenness (keep in mind that Gifts is not GG outside Vintage, it's just really good) or the potential for really explosive power alongside a chance to see 5 lands.  In theory, I like all that.

However, Anusien has a good point that taping two classics together, while it does sex the card up a bit, might be too constraining.  It just depends on what you want.

What about if it lets you Gifts, and then the opponent sees what you got and can either complete the Gifts or make you shuffle them back in and do something else?  Like, "Nope, that's a really good Gifts pile.  You can't have it."  And then you get to draw 4 cards, Fact or Fiction (wall of text danger), or some pseudo-search thing like "draw 6, discard 4."

[Matt]

And the life loss is not completely random. I mean why would they make you lose 1 life when you FoW? 2 life when you Psionic Blast? 2 life when you Thoughtseize? Is there really any justification for those effects? It is just to give your opponent something for your broken effect.

PBlast and FOW are not good cards to be drawing any conclusions from, as they were made in a time with very primitive card design (PBlast at least has a flavor reason behind the lifeloss; you're focusing so hard you zap your own brain cells. The real fix should have been to make it a blue/black spell, but they didn't have gold cards back then).

Thoughtseize can cost life because it's black and that's very appropriate for black; requiring life to fuel a spell is one of black's biggest themes. If you feel 3U is too cheap for your effect at instant speed, then just cost it appropriately instead of tacking on extra costs that are both random and complicated.

[Anusien]

I think that letting your opponent choose between two undercosted effects is an interesting, unexplored design space.

I'm very nervous of balancing known undercosted effects with the explanation "You might not always get the ridiculous effect you wanted, sometimes you get another ridiculous effect instead!"

[andrewpate]

I think that letting your opponent choose between two undercosted effects is an interesting, unexplored design space.

I'm very nervous of balancing known undercosted effects with the explanation "You might not always get the ridiculous effect you wanted, sometimes you get another ridiculous effect instead!"

Oh, I completely agree.  But we can see that Browbeat does this (2R for 5 damage and 2R to draw 3 are both quite overpowered), and Browbeat is not a problem.  It should be done carefully, but it can create some interesting cards.

[Anusien]

2R to do 5 damage isn't overpowered at all.  Compare with Flame Rift for example.

[Harlequin]

Aslo browbeat does two very different things.  So its actually a choice the opponent has to make "do I take 5 now, or do I think thw 3 random cards will hurt me less..." 

This is really choose - Put a some good cards in hand, and dump some in the yard.  Or dump some good cards in yard and put the rest in your hand.

Its too close to the same effect to be more interesting than complex

[andrewpate]

2R to do 5 damage isn't overpowered at all.  Compare with Flame Rift for example.

Flame Rift bears a substantial drawback in addition to its mana:damage ratio.  It's like saying that Inspiration at would not be overpowered because, after all, just look at Words of Wisdom.  A better comparison would be Flames of the Blood Hand, but I would still argue that 5 damage is better than 4 unpreventable damage that can occasionally counter Loxodon Hierarch's 187.  One of the main ways Wizards keeps burn decks in check is by restricting the amount of damage they can do with each individual card on the low end of the curve (Philosophy of Fire, anyone?), and dealing a fourth of the opponent's life total for 3 mana is pushing it, even if it does seem to jive, mana-wise, with Lava Spike +2.  I feel like they would have printed this by now if they were ok with it, and the repeated inclusion of Lava Axe in the core set would tend to agree with me.

@Harlequin
I agree with you and Anusien that Gifts + Fact, as stated, is not interesting.  I am just saying that some kind of tutor/manipulation/card draw spell with two strong effects balanced by letting your opponent choose which one you get could potentially produce a good card.

[Matt]

I feel like they would have printed this by now if they were ok with it, and the repeated inclusion of Lava Axe in the core set would tend to agree with me.

Well I for one would compare it to Shrapnel Blast, which is -1 mana, +instant +can hit creatures but -artifact. Also compare Char, which deals you 2 and only does 4, but is instant and also can hit creatures. 2R sorc for 5dam would not be grossly off that power curve, making it pretty strong but not totally broken.

[Yare]

I was thinking Browbeat would have to deal 7 damage or draw 4 cards (meaning, draw 3 or take 7 OR draw 4 or take 5) to be "broken."

Edit:

How about this...

Morton's Fork 
Instant

Search your library for two blue instant cards with different names and remove them from the game. An opponent chooses one of those cards. You may play the chosen card.

Eh maybe not. I'm not sure what kind of high CC blue instants are out there.

Edit 2:

No, I think it's ok. I don't see anything that amazing that's instant and blue that costs much more than .

[Cyberpunker]

@ Anusien: It is true that I am combining 2 existing cards albeit with additional add-ons. But the result is a totally different card in itself. I do think this is very interesting should it get played in response to, let's say an Ancestral Recall or EOT. The opponent is given 2 opportunities to make a misplay, which in Vintage could very well cost him the entire game.

@Yare: I really want to keep the idea of this card. Fact and Gifts on the same card is possible although the print will be pretty small. The life loss is there again to rebalance everything. The suggestions you are making would make this a completely different card that doesn't give your opponent the Morton's Fork dilemna. Rather it gives you a crappy Gifts Ungiven.

@Matt: Morton's Fork is very appropriate at  . Any more than that would make it crappy. It will become like a expensive Gifts that never gets played. Life loss in MTG is not just exclusive to . Modern day design can still include life loss in  . Again the life loss is the best way I believe to even it out a bit for your opponent.

@Andrewpate: I know that it may seem a bit uncreative to just mix 2 broken effects together into 1 card. But the reason for these effects is that it makes the opponent choose twice. First time is whether to let you Gifts or Fact. 2nd time is separating the 2 piles. And this opens up windows for misplays. I initally thought about letting your opponent see the cards that you search for first. But then it won't be as good of a Morton's Fork anymore because your opponent can have a clearer view on what is a better decision. I really think that the uncertainty factors in a lot in this card.

@Harlequin: This is actually a choice between-Giving the opponent 2 cards that they want for 3 life or Giving them the better half of the top 5 cards and losing 1 life. So it's actually 2 very different yet potentially game winning effects.

[Yare]

@ Anusien: It is true that I am combining 2 existing cards albeit with additional add-ons. But the result is a totally different card in itself. I do think this is very interesting should it get played in response to, let's say an Ancestral Recall or EOT. The opponent is given 2 opportunities to make a misplay, which in Vintage could very well cost him the entire game.

@Yare: I really want to keep the idea of this card. Fact and Gifts on the same card is possible although the print will be pretty small. The life loss is there again to rebalance everything. The suggestions you are making would make this a completely different card that doesn't give your opponent the Morton's Fork dilemna. Rather it gives you a crappy Gifts Ungiven.

@Matt: Morton's Fork is very appropriate at  . Any more than that would make it crappy. It will become like a expensive Gifts that never gets played. Life loss in MTG is not just exclusive to . Modern day design can still include life loss in  . Again the life loss is the best way I believe to even it out a bit for your opponent.

@Andrewpate: I know that it may seem a bit uncreative to just mix 2 broken effects together into 1 card. But the reason for these effects is that it makes the opponent choose twice. First time is whether to let you Gifts or Fact. 2nd time is separating the 2 piles. And this opens up windows for misplays. I initally thought about letting your opponent see the cards that you search for first. But then it won't be as good of a Morton's Fork anymore because your opponent can have a clearer view on what is a better decision. I really think that the uncertainty factors in a lot in this card.

@Harlequin: This is actually a choice between-Giving the opponent 2 cards that they want for 3 life or Giving them the better half of the top 5 cards and losing 1 life. So it's actually 2 very different yet potentially game winning effects.

I give up on this thread. We've given you a ton of suggestions and you don't want to take any of them. We're basically just fighting over your original design, which has been panned by everybody who has posted on this thread. You're just looking for approval for the original design, which you're not going to get.

The card is poorly designed and is unacceptable in its current form. It needs changed. You can keep the basic idea, but the wording you have now just doesn't cut it. I don't know how else the posters in this thread can say it.

[Matt]

@Matt: Morton's Fork is very appropriate at  . Any more than that would make it crappy. It will become like a expensive Gifts that never gets played. Life loss in MTG is not just exclusive to . Modern day design can still include life loss in  . Again the life loss is the best way I believe to even it out a bit for your opponent.

Do you care to back that up with anything besides, "I said so"? Because I looked; in the last seven years, there have been a grand total of one (1) mono-blue card and one (1) mono-red card that have anything at all to do with paying life: Krovikan Whispers and Menacing Ogre, and neither of those is really a clear-cut example of what you're trying to claim.

For that matter, looking at ALL nonblack cards in that time frame, there's only one card that asks for a life payment that isn't a land (fetches, shocks, and Boseiju-style lands showed up in my search): bizarrely, it's Crovax, Ascendant Hero.

Also, what Yare said.

[mike_bergeron]

@Matt: Morton's Fork is very appropriate at  . Any more than that would make it crappy. It will become like a expensive Gifts that never gets played. Life loss in MTG is not just exclusive to . Modern day design can still include life loss in  . Again the life loss is the best way I believe to even it out a bit for your opponent.

Do you care to back that up with anything besides, "I said so"? Because I looked; in the last seven years, there have been a grand total of one (1) mono-blue card and one (1) mono-red card that have anything at all to do with paying life: Krovikan Whispers and Menacing Ogre, and neither of those is really a clear-cut example of what you're trying to claim.

Also, what Yare said.

Instead of paying life, why not make the card a blue/red hybrid with a burn component and draw component that the opponent has to choose?

Maybe Morton's Fork 3 (R/U)
Deal 7 damage to an opponent, or draw 4 cards, then discard 2 from your hand.  Your opponent chooses.

my wording stinks, but does this fit the original idea? reprint gifts/facts would be silly, those cards already exist, and are too powerful as they are now. 

[Darkenslight]

Morton's Fork

Instant

Target opponent chooses 1:

You lose 3 life and may search your library for four cards with different names and reveal them. Your opponent chooses two of those cards. Put the chosen cards into your graveyard and the rest into your hand.
Or
Morton's Fork deals 1 damage to him/her and you reveal the top five cards of your library. You opponent separates those cards into two piles. Put one pile into your hand and the other into your graveyard.

Between a rock and a hard place.

As written, this card is clunky and poorly designed.  Given current costings, this card would cost something like , and be unplayable.

As a concept, Morton's fork is going to be closer to this:

Morton's Fork 
Instant

Choose an opponent.  That player chooses one - You draw four cards; or reveal the top six cards of your library and separate them into two piles. That player puts one pile into your graveyard, and put the other pile into your hamd.

"Pick a card.  Any card."

Clearly a very powerful card, and it forces your opponent to make a difficult choice.

[Harlequin]

Would it be more elegant if it was:
instant
Remove the top 4 cards of your library for the game. 
Target player may put 3 of those cards at random into your hand, or that player may separete the cards into 2 piles, then you choose one of those piles and put those cards into your hand.
Put any cards still removed from the game by Morton's Fork into thier owner's graveyard.


So they get to see the 4 cards, and for a vintage example, let's say one is Yawg.   Even if they split the piles into Yawg alone and 3 cards, you would likely choose the yawg pile (for this example).  But this way they have a 1 in 4 chance of giving you everything but Yawg.  Or they could look at the cards and make 2 piles of 2.