You Make The Card 4 - Design A Magic Card For Vintage

[Twaun007]

I voted land as well... Hoping for something like this.

Trogg's Home
Lair
Spells cost 2 more to play.
T: Add 2 to your mana pool.
This mana may only be used to cast artifact spells.

 

[GrandpaBelcher]

Based on http://www.themanadrain.com/index.php?board=10.0, I'm pretty glad Vintage players can't actually affect the results too much.

[Tha Gunslinga]

I voted for Enchantment because Enchantments are cool, and because it hasn't been done yet.  Also, maaaaaaaaan did Vanish Into Memory suck.

[Smmenen]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll? 

[tribet]

Land because it's universal.

Anything else (excluding artos) will most likely create colours issues/arguments/disapointments/favouritism.

"Bloomland
Legendary Land
: Add to your mana pool.
: Return target nonland permanent to its owner's hand."

[Tha Gunslinga]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll? 

Who cares?  I like Enchantments.  How many people believed Obama would win when he first announced his candidacy?  I mean, other than me.

[shrewarmies]

A powerful enchantment may push more players toward BUG as opposed to Grixis for their combo-control lists if it sees enough play

[Smmenen]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll? 

Who cares?  I like Enchantments.  How many people believed Obama would win when he first announced his candidacy?  I mean, other than me.

Isn't it illogical? 

I mean, suppose your first preference is Enchantments, but your second preference is sorceries, and your 5th preference is creatures.   Assuming creatures will garner the most natural votes, a vote for enchantments functions to reduce the threshold for enchantments winning a plurality vote.  By voting for a higher preference with a higher probability of garnering a majority or plurality vote, you are increasing your chance of having your preferences met. 

This vote is different than a political election because electoral candidates represent principles and values.  The vote here is for the distribution of a particular kind of good. 

[Will]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll? 

Who cares?  I like Enchantments.  How many people believed Obama would win when he first announced his candidacy?  I mean, other than me.

Isn't it illogical? 

I mean, suppose your first preference is Enchantments, but your second preference is sorceries, and your 5th preference is creatures.   Assuming creatures will garner the most natural votes, a vote for enchantments functions to reduce the threshold for enchantments winning a plurality vote.  By voting for a higher preference with a higher probability of garnering a majority or plurality vote, you are increasing your chance of having your preferences met. 

This vote is different than a political election because electoral candidates represent principles and values.  The vote here is for the distribution of a particular kind of good. 

I don't think that "organizing" a minuscule part of the Magic community is going to honestly make a difference.  If Instant/Sorcery wins, it will be a coincidence that you campaigned for Instant/Sorcery.  In my opinion, the part of this where campaigning might be relevant is if there is an opportunity to pick the ability, especially if one of the options could potentially be of use in Vintage.  Regardless of the card type, if Wizards really wanted to make a viable card for Vintage they could whether it be a creature, enchantment, artifact, land, or instant/sorcery.  Rather than spending time trying to get people on TMD to vote for instant/sorcery you should probably be driving through neighborhoods trying to connect to WIFI so you can get extra votes in for it, though that too is not really a worthwhile cause. 

[0/2 Drop]

I vote for Land.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll?  

Who cares?  I like Enchantments.  How many people believed Obama would win when he first announced his candidacy?  I mean, other than me.

Isn't it illogical?  

I mean, suppose your first preference is Enchantments, but your second preference is sorceries, and your 5th preference is creatures.   Assuming creatures will garner the most natural votes, a vote for enchantments functions to reduce the threshold for enchantments winning a plurality vote.  By voting for a higher preference with a higher probability of garnering a majority or plurality vote, you are increasing your chance of having your preferences met.  

This vote is different than a political election because electoral candidates represent principles and values.  The vote here is for the distribution of a particular kind of good.  

Sorry, couldn't understand that.  I am voting for what kind of TOY I like best.  Magic cards are toys.  They keep me amused.  I don't feel the need to bring game theory or who-knows-what into this. 

I like Enchantments, and they haven't won yet.  Enchantments are much weaker, historically speaking, than anything else in Magic.  It's time they got something interesting.

[Wagner]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll?  

Who cares?  I like Enchantments.  How many people believed Obama would win when he first announced his candidacy?  I mean, other than me.

Isn't it illogical?  

I mean, suppose your first preference is Enchantments, but your second preference is sorceries, and your 5th preference is creatures.   Assuming creatures will garner the most natural votes, a vote for enchantments functions to reduce the threshold for enchantments winning a plurality vote.  By voting for a higher preference with a higher probability of garnering a majority or plurality vote, you are increasing your chance of having your preferences met.  

This vote is different than a political election because electoral candidates represent principles and values.  The vote here is for the distribution of a particular kind of good.  

Sorry, couldn't understand that.  I am voting for what kind of TOY I like best.  Magic cards are toys.  They keep me amused.  I don't feel the need to bring game theory or who-knows-what into this.  

Totally agree with this. It's a personal vote for what YOU want, no need to get all political about it, they'll be plenty of people voting "strategically" in all kinds of ways, feel free to use your vote in any way you want. Will it have a clear impact, most likely not, is is the "best" way to make sure non-creature wins. Sure, who cares.

To me this is like those people that try to "correct" ratings by giving everything a 10/10 to balance out others than gave it 1/10 and vice-versa. Just vote what you think it right.

I voted Enchantment.

If you REALLY want to make the card vintage playable Steve, you should focus your rallying efforts so the card doesn't get voted above 4 mana, which is more than plausible with the EDH community

[AmbivalentDuck]

A land has the most capacity to affect Vintage because the standard and EDH players can't cost it at 7 CMC. I voted land.

I think a Mishra's Workshop for a different spell type would be interesting. Ie. 5 Colorless towards an enchantment.

[Samoht]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll? 

Who cares?  I like Enchantments.  How many people believed Obama would win when he first announced his candidacy?  I mean, other than me.

Isn't it illogical? 

I mean, suppose your first preference is Enchantments, but your second preference is sorceries, and your 5th preference is creatures.   Assuming creatures will garner the most natural votes, a vote for enchantments functions to reduce the threshold for enchantments winning a plurality vote.  By voting for a higher preference with a higher probability of garnering a majority or plurality vote, you are increasing your chance of having your preferences met. 

This vote is different than a political election because electoral candidates represent principles and values.  The vote here is for the distribution of a particular kind of good. 

I don't think that "organizing" a minuscule part of the Magic community is going to honestly make a difference.  If Instant/Sorcery wins, it will be a coincidence that you campaigned for Instant/Sorcery.  In my opinion, the part of this where campaigning might be relevant is if there is an opportunity to pick the ability, especially if one of the options could potentially be of use in Vintage.  Regardless of the card type, if Wizards really wanted to make a viable card for Vintage they could whether it be a creature, enchantment, artifact, land, or instant/sorcery.  Rather than spending time trying to get people on TMD to vote for instant/sorcery you should probably be driving through neighborhoods trying to connect to WIFI so you can get extra votes in for it, though that too is not really a worthwhile cause. 

Will, I'm sure they are smart enough to just get IP proxies as opposed to driving through towns for new IP's.

Also, Instant/Sorcery will likely win because they are generally the best. Even though I voted for artifact out of spite.

[Wagner]

Also, Instant/Sorcery will likely win because they are generally the best. Even though I voted for artifact out of spite.

Out of the 3 You make the card so far, the Instant/Sorcery card is BY FAR the worst. Also, remember 60-80% of players are casual. That mass of voters is likely to go the for the most fun or flavorful card over the best one.

Also, I think casual players like to get them most enjoyment out of every card, which usually means it's a permanent that will do more than a 1 shot thing (like the other Instant that got created) so I'd say instant/sorceries are the least favorites here as they are one use only.

[Stormanimagus]

Also, Wizards won't print a POWERFUL enough instant/sorcery to make it playable. They simply have a bias against combo decks and they associate powerful instants/sorceries with combo decks. I voted creature because I think they are more likely to make a creature aggressively costed and powerful than they are to make an instant/sorcery.

-Storm

[Smmenen]

Also, Wizards won't print a POWERFUL enough instant/sorcery to make it playable. They simply have a bias against combo decks and they associate powerful instants/sorceries with combo decks. I voted creature because I think they are more likely to make a creature aggressively costed and powerful than they are to make an instant/sorcery.

-Storm

Wow, there are a lot of specious claims and assumptions embedded in so brief a post.  

It's simply untrue that Wizards won't print an instant or sorcery powerful enough to make it playable.   The assumption you are making is that if a card is good enough to see play in Vintage, it must be broken in other formats.  This is simply untrue.  

There are many cards that are very powerful in Vintage and only marginally playable or unplayable in smaller formats.  Trinisphere, Chalice of the Void and Tendrils of Agony are far more powerful in Vintage than they ever were in Standard.   Even less flashy cards, like Ingot Chewer or Ancient Grudge are far more important in Vintage, than, say Legacy.  

The idea that they can't print an instant or sorcery "powerful" enough for Vintage play is specious because it is not power that matters -- but utility.  Of course they can.  My 0 casting cost artifact counterspell would presumably not be that important in Standard on account of its narrowness, but incredible in Vintage.  

There are many, many ways they can make Vintage playable instants or sorceries that are actually unplayable or useless in Standard, let alone not very powerful or combo oriented.

Another incorrect assumption is that Sorceries/Instants are 'associated with combo.' That's utter nonsense.  How can you associate instants or sorceries more with combo than with control, for example?  All counterspells are instants.   All creature removal spells are instants or sorceries.  What bunk. 

[Smmenen]

Do you really believe enchantments have a chance to win this poll?  

Who cares?  I like Enchantments.  How many people believed Obama would win when he first announced his candidacy?  I mean, other than me.

Isn't it illogical?  

I mean, suppose your first preference is Enchantments, but your second preference is sorceries, and your 5th preference is creatures.   Assuming creatures will garner the most natural votes, a vote for enchantments functions to reduce the threshold for enchantments winning a plurality vote.  By voting for a higher preference with a higher probability of garnering a majority or plurality vote, you are increasing your chance of having your preferences met.  

This vote is different than a political election because electoral candidates represent principles and values.  The vote here is for the distribution of a particular kind of good.  

Sorry, couldn't understand that.  I am voting for what kind of TOY I like best.  Magic cards are toys.  They keep me amused.  I don't feel the need to bring game theory or who-knows-what into this.  

I like Enchantments, and they haven't won yet.  Enchantments are much weaker, historically speaking, than anything else in Magic.  It's time they got something interesting.

While I appreciate your point that it would be nice to have more useful enchantments, that point is utterly irrelevant.

While the point may be irrelevant to you, it is not irrelevant to him.  Personal opinion is personal opinion.  While his opinion may not match yours, it is impossible for him to be wrong, unless he's being untrue to himself.

Also, your point about voting for the "toy" you want best reinforces my point.  

Let me explain more carefully.

First, the winner of this poll does not need a majority of the vote -- just a plurality.   It is possible to win by getting 21% of the vote.   I understand you want Enchantments to win, but it is very unlikely that they will win a majority or even a plurality of the vote.  

My point is that among your preferences, however you rank them, voting for your highest preference is not necessarily rationale if you can have another higher order preference met by making your vote count.

Let me explain.

Suppose your preferences are as follows:

1) Enchantment
2) Artifact
3) Land
4) Instant/Sorcery
5) Creature

Suppose further that most Magic players are probably going to vote for creatures and the least amount will vote for enchantments.   These are reasonable assumptions.  Creatures are your least preferred possible selection.

Voting for enchantment becomes a de facto vote for creatures because you lower the threshold for which creature must meet a plurality threshold to win.  

It's really not that hard to understand.   Voting for something that can't/won't win "just because you prefer it most" is the definitely of irrational voting behavior.  

Voting for your favorite toy instead of your second or third favorite toy means you are certain to get your least favorite toy.  That's irrational.  If you know Enchantments won't win, then it is not only a wasted vote, but a harmful vote.  

Defending that vote on the grounds of "i just want to vote for my favorite toy" not only makes no sense, because you can get a "toy" you want over a toy you don't want, even though it's not your first choice. But your response, in general, is also the equivalent of "I don't know nuttin," intentional ignorance, and I know you are not.  

Steve, you have made your opinion known many times, already, in this thread about the worthiness of voting for enchantment, land, or anything other than Instant/Sorcery.  In reiterating your point, and declaring others to be wrong, you have ended any possibility of fruitful discussion.  

Your violations include:

III.  Inflammatory Posting

2.  Baiting.   (Posts intended to antagonize other users or instigate conflict.)

VII.  Major Infractions

Purpose:  Conduct that is intentionally or maliciously disruptive to the forums is dealt with severely, and can result in an immediate ban.  Specific examples of conduct covered by this rule are:  

5. Trolling.  

6. Any behavior that is obviously not accepted in civil company as a matter of common sense, e.g. ... protracted or egregious harassment, etc.

Participants in this thread were warned, yesterday, in order to better direct the thread, and to keep the tenor of conversation pleasant.  You have ignored this.

Full warning for baiting, trolling and harassment - Prospero

[Prospero]

Topic locked, pending moderation.

EDIT: Smmenen has received a full warning for his conduct in this thread, which is counter to the kind of productive, even handed discussion that we expect on TMD. 

This thread has been re-opened.  If you have an issue with moderation, please contact a staff member.  Do not take your issues here, as this will open you to moderation.

[serracollector]

I know from playing EDH that lots of people do play "Karn" decks, or they do play with Sphere's such as Trinisphere, Sphere, Thorn, Lodestone, and yes even Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, as not only a sphere effect, but also as a General for their EDH deck.  So why not make an "EDH" land that also works against MUD in Vintage?  Something like (mind you im bad at actual card wording):

Land of no Spheres
Tap:  Add 1 to your mana pool.  Spells cast with this mana cannot have their casting costs increased, reduced or affected in any way by other spells, abilities, or permanents.

Would this not work?

[Wagner]

I know from playing EDH that lots of people do play "Karn" decks, or they do play with Sphere's such as Trinisphere, Sphere, Thorn, Lodestone, and yes even Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, as not only a sphere effect, but also as a General for their EDH deck.  So why not make an "EDH" land that also works against MUD in Vintage?  Something like (mind you im bad at actual card wording):

Land of no Spheres
Tap:  Add 1 to your mana pool.  Spells cast with this mana cannot have their casting costs increased, reduced or affected in any way by other spells, abilities, or permanents.

Would this not work?

I'm sure it would need a whole rule section just for it, but that wouldn't be the first time (looking at you Mindslaver), so yes, it could work. But it doesn't sound flashy enough for a public-made card.

On related note, I do hope that if land gets chosen, the option for man-land is downplayed a lot.

[shrewarmies]

If you log in with a different browser you can vote again

[Tha Gunslinga]

I know from playing EDH that lots of people do play "Karn" decks, or they do play with Sphere's such as Trinisphere, Sphere, Thorn, Lodestone, and yes even Grand Arbiter Augustin IV, as not only a sphere effect, but also as a General for their EDH deck.  So why not make an "EDH" land that also works against MUD in Vintage?  Something like (mind you im bad at actual card wording):

Land of no Spheres
Tap:  Add 1 to your mana pool.  Spells cast with this mana cannot have their casting costs increased, reduced or affected in any way by other spells, abilities, or permanents.

Would this not work?

It's probably a doable concept, but as a "you make the card" it's not happening, because it's a narrow hate card, and the three cards that have been made already have been relatively open-ended, new-concept cards.  This isn't a "build a better REB/Pulverize" workshop, it's a "build something totally sweet" workshop.  I want an enchantment that costs multiple colors and does something sweet like make everyone's spells cost 3 less, or turns creatures into lands, or makes people randomly put cards into play, or only lets 3/3s attack, or who knows what.

[John Cox]

Something that I think would be great would be a card to make storm good in modern. I don't follow the format too closely but I think Modern storm players are having a hard time. Vintage storm diversifying would be great too.

[Will]

Something that I think would be great would be a card to make storm good in modern. I don't follow the format too closely but I think Modern storm players are having a hard time. Vintage storm diversifying would be great too.

The way to do that is to unban any of the 5 currently banned storm enablers which likely won't happen (Seething Song, Rite of Flame, Chrome Mox, Preordain, Ponder). 

[tribet]

How does it work exactly? Let say we have:
- Sorcery
- 0 mana cost
- Colourless

and the options they offer to us are:

Choice 1: Draw the last card from your library
or
Choice 2: Exchange a card from your hand with target card from target opponent's hand
or
Choice 3: Win the game after the 5th upkeep this card was successfully cast

Well, I don't see how all this influenced your MUD matchup.

Wizard will be writing & offering the options for us to vote so it is really up to them, isn't it?

[TheWhiteDragon]

I voted Land.

It seems that Land is overwhelmingly getting the majority of votes in this thread.  Also, I fully believe that Steve does not believe anything other than Sorcery/Instant is a wasted vote.  Quite the contrary, he HOPES sorcery instant will win, and by saying nothing else has a chance, he is drawing votes to his spell of choice.  It's a common political trick by a master politician.

To appease Smemmy as well as just make an awesome card, I propose a card as such...

Mage's Path

Land

Tap, pay 1 life: Add 1 to your mana pool.  If this mana is used to cast a spell, spells and abilities cannot alter the spell's casting cost.

Would be a great tool to fight through shops, while also allowing shops to play through its own spheres.  Fair to all archetypes, but will be a 4 of that negates all spheres.

[John Cox]

Land because it's universal.

Anything else (excluding artos) will most likely create colours issues/arguments/disapointments/favouritism.

"Bloomland
Legendary Land
: Add to your mana pool.
: Return target nonland permanent to its owner's hand."

I kinda like this idea in reverse.

" Reverse Bloomland"
Legendary Land
: Add to your mana pool.
, Sacrifice: Return target land to its owner's hand.
Would be good tempo in legacy and almost a waste/strip without being too good.

[tribet]

Maybe call yours "Boomland"!

Well I was more seeing my "Bloomland" as an uncounterable answer for many decks to lot of different things from all formats:
- EDH General
- Tinker Bot
- Chalice
- ...
- even bouncing opposing Leyline/Cage when on Dredge
- and, last but not least, boucing your own Necro when playing Ritual Oath decks!

So it is for everybody including Standstill but beware, you may get punished for running too many non-Basics. So it is helping Fish as well and other un-Power decks which is good for Vintage.

PS: "Bloomland <=> Boomerang you got it!

[Smmenen]

I voted Land.

It seems that Land is overwhelmingly getting the majority of votes in this thread.  Also, I fully believe that Steve does not believe anything other than Sorcery/Instant is a wasted vote.  Quite the contrary, he HOPES sorcery instant will win, and by saying nothing else has a chance, he is drawing votes to his spell of choice.  It's a common political trick by a master politician.

To appease Smemmy as well as just make an awesome card, I propose a card as such...

Mage's Path

Land

Tap, pay 1 life: Add 1 to your mana pool.  If this mana is used to cast a spell, spells and abilities cannot alter the spell's casting cost.

Would be a great tool to fight through shops, while also allowing shops to play through its own spheres.  Fair to all archetypes, but will be a 4 of that negates all spheres.

Hopefully, without treading on any impermissible ground here, let me just clarify that I would very much like Land to win.  I may have come accross as anti-land or even anti-enchantment.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

My goal is to make sure creature does not win.  I was trying to mobilize folks to vote for the card that I thought at the time had the best chance to defeat creature.  That's why I was pushing for instant/sorcery.

My fear is that creature will get the most votes, and my view is that the least likely Vintage playable is probably anything created under the creature card type.  As a community, therefore, I was trying to push for something that I thought could best beat Creature.  But if Land is the best shot to defeat creature, let's go for it!

Here's my suggested land:

Urza's Workshop
Legendary Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool for each artifact target opponent controls.

That would be an amazing answer to Workshop decks, no?