Is this a viable format?
General forum
Posted on Nov. 20, 2012, 3:50 p.m. by MagicalHacker
So I made a new format that seems like a lot of fun! Check out the rules at this link.
If you don't read rules books for entertainment, then allow me to write all the differences between this and Commander/EDH:
- Instead of choosing a legendary creature as the "Commander", a planeswalker is chosen as the "Archmage".
- Although other legendary creatures can be in the remaining 99 cards of a Commander deck, no other planeswalkers can be in an Archmage deck other than the Archmage.
- Your Archmage's number of loyalty counters is the same as your life total, and your life total is the same as your Archmage's number of loyalty counters.
- To be able to play the first ability of an Archmage, it has to have one experience counter. To play the second ability of an Archmage, it has to have two experience counters. Etc.
- To put an experience counter on your Archmage, you have to pay a mana cost: If there are no experience counters, you have to pay one mana of each of its colors (if it is colorless, pay one colorless mana). If there is exactly one experience counter, you have to pay all the colored mana in its mana cost (if it is colorless, pay two colorless mana). If there are two or more experience counters, you have to pay its mana cost.
- Ignore the planeswalker uniqueness rule.
- Archmages are not permanents or planeswalkers, and if for some reason a planeswalker would leave the battlefield when it has 1 or more loyalty counters on it, instead it doesn't.
- You still get poison counters (not your Archmage), but you can't die from them. Instead you lose one life every time you get a poison counter.
- There can never be a different number of players and Archmages.
Rhadamanthus says... #3
If you don't want the Archmage to count as a permanent (I have some pretty good guesses for your reasons, and they're all very good reasons), then just put it in the Command zone instead of the battlefield. Then, add a rule allowing players to activate the loyalty abilities of their Archmages from the Command zone.
November 20, 2012 4:12 p.m.
Bigburlybill says... #4
I like the style of this. I can see Karn Liberated being a beast in this format. Plus wizard prints planeswalkers so often that the style is bound to change as it progresses.
I've always wanted to have a edh type format focus on planeswalkers as a general. You have my vote for this at least. =)
November 20, 2012 6:12 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #5
Um, Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Karn Liberated just ruined your format.
Honestly, I don't really care for the idea of having a planeswalker always available and with such an enormous number of loyalty counters. It seems very hard to balance, and the format will devolve quickly.
November 20, 2012 6:33 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #6
Rhadamanthus, that is an amazing idea! I like the simplicity of the idea. Would putting the Archmage in the command zone do anything else other than make it indestructible and un-targetable?
Bigburlybill, Karn Liberated is pretty good, but I don't think he would be ridiculously OP. :) If bouncing ideas against other people checks out OK, I'm gonna post a challenge on here about building Archmage decks. The site I have right now for this is here.
Epochalyptik, how exactly? To be able to play Jace's ultimate you have to pay U then UU then 2UU then 2UU. To be able to play Karn's ultimate, you have to pay 1 then 2 then 7. Without ramp, Jace ultimates at turn 5 playing a total of 4UUUUUUU and Karn ultimates at turn 7 playing a total of 10. The planeswalker isn't "always available" because he becomes available slowly, through leveling up by "experience counters". It's on the fourth and fifth bullet points above.
November 20, 2012 6:55 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #7
Have you ever played an EDH-like format? There is obscene ramp power for any color identity, especially once you start talking about green and black. Hell, I'd play High Tide just to wreck house with Jace. You're underestimating the tempo of EDH and its derivatives.
The "without ramp" argument doesn't really hold water because ramp is a very large part of EDH, and it will be used and abused. You need to take into account everything your rules allow to happen; a failure to do so will lead you to misjudge the nature of the format and thus implement inappropriate rules.
November 20, 2012 7 p.m.
Bigburlybill says... #8
The that the rules are worded, "You can only have a basic land in the deck that shares a color with the archmage" seems to suggest that if you run Karn Liberated , or any other colorless planeswalker, then you cannot run any basic lands. I'd suggest replacing it with, "All basic lands must tap for a color in the archmage's cost or they will tap for a colorless instead." Or you could keep it the way it is to offset Karn.
Since this is your format creation, I'd suggest just banning Jace, the Mind Sculptor instead. You could do or create a different ruling for him. The latter is not a very good idea though.
November 20, 2012 7:13 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #9
@Bigburlybill: You can't play basic lands in a colorless EDH deck, so the parallelism is consistent if nothing else.
November 20, 2012 7:15 p.m.
Bigburlybill says... #10
Lol I know we were saying Karn and Jace would be bad, but Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker would be terrible. B/R/U to unlock his plus ability "Destroy target noncreature permanent". Doing this each turn would ensure that the opponent could not play anymore lands.
November 20, 2012 7:18 p.m.
Bigburlybill says... #11
I never knew that Epoch. To think that I was contemplating on making a Karn, Silver Golem deck too. I'm glad you told me this. =)
November 20, 2012 7:19 p.m.
jan2692wal says... #12
I like this, but i agree with Epochalyptik, it will devolve into players not doing much other than ulting off the archmage. My favorite planeswalker is Venser, the Sojourner , so i'd use him obviously. and if all i had to do was pay 8 mana a turn to play his emblem, i'd play a ton of white weenies and just exile the entire battlefield. Not only would everyone hate me, but the game would get stale quickly. and then you have Jace, the Mind Sculptor and Jace, Memory Adept who have abilities that cost 0 to play, or Nissa Revane , who in this format can ult off for potentially fifty elves and, depending on the board state at the time, can just plow through eveything with a card:Nath's Elite or a Taunting Elf . Nissa might not seem like an issue, but if you can do it every turn all you need is an Elixir of Immortality and some mana and you can do it all over again. there need to be restrictions.
I think a good way to handle the archmage is something like this:
1) archmages cannot be countered, targeted, or effected by spells or abilities in anyway (so like a universal shroud effect))
2) They'd use their own loyalty counters, and they'd still die when they ran out. this would effectively regulate the usage of abilities as well as maintain the format.
3) after an archmage dies, pay an additional 2 mana for each time it died when you recast it, similar to when your general dies in EDH
November 20, 2012 7:20 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
@jan2692wal: Your first suggestion is not very beneficial to the format. There need to be ways to deal with archmages. Giving them immunity from everything will make the format unplayably broken. There won't be any responding to anything.
November 20, 2012 8:06 p.m.
jan2692wal says... #14
Maybe i misunderstood what he wanted, but didnt he want the archmage to not be targeted? if that was not the original poster's intent then i agree and nix that first comment
November 20, 2012 8:25 p.m.
jan2692wal says... #15
actually, nix that comment anyway. they should be targetable
November 20, 2012 8:26 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #16
Epochalyptik, that does make sense. What is the fastest you could ultimate that Jace taking into account ramp? With just High Tide , it would speed it up by a turn if you do it on turn three to get the third ability.
Bigburlybill, I don't want to ban any planeswalker, because right now there are only 33 (34 including domri rade) planeswalkers, and I want all of the planeswalkers to be usable since there are so few.
Keep in mind, that you would have to pay three different colored mana just to start using that. So with ramp, possibly turn two (though I'm not sure what would do the ramping). Not to mention, that really screws you over in multiplayer.
jan2692wal, why do you say it will devolve into people ulting their Archmages? If ulting Venser is what you want to do and then cast a bunch of small guys to exile lots of stuff, then you will have to get *9 mana, not die while you are getting 9 mana, and hope that your opponent(s) only play 7 non-land permanents while you are getting 9 mana. (Nissa Revane would be just as strong in an elf EDH deck.)
That would make the format really just a variant of Commander, where the commander is a planeswalker. :/ Imho, not very flavorful.
The idea that I had was a conversation I had with some friends where we were talking about the fact that we are technically all planeswalkers, and then another said that she is definitely Chandra Nalaar and another said he was definitely Tezzeret the Seeker and another said she was Liliana Vess , etc... Basically, you ARE the Archmage.
Target-able is a big no-no because of cards like Dreadbore . They are also not permanents or planeswalkers because of cards like AEther Snap .
November 20, 2012 9:41 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #17
@mstancea: Targeting can't be a big no-no because it breaks your format. If nobody can respond to archmages, what are they supposed to do to counter the threat? You have immediately damned the game to be a ramp-off match to see who can ult first. That makes for extremely bland games and results in there being little overall strategy or synergy in regards to the other 99 cards.
If you really want to consider godhand ramp, you could do some stupid things right off the bat:
T1 - Island , Sol Ring , Mana Crypt , Thran Dynamo
T2 - Island , Gilded Lotus , cast JTMS, put two XP counters on JTMS
T3 - Wreck face
Even without godhanding, you just pack your deck full of rocks and race everyone else at the table. Considering you'll usually start with one such rock in-hand, you're looking at a T3 Jace pretty consistently, which means gg for the table since your rules would mean it can't be dealt with.
November 20, 2012 9:53 p.m.
jan2692wal says... #18
mstancea venser exiles any permanent, including lands, and in a format like edh getting 9+mana is not all that hard to have by like turn seven, even earlier in some cases. and i think it will devolve into people ulting their archmages because that is the best option. for Ajani Vengeant blowing up their lands is a game winner, Venser, the Sojourner 's emblem stacks so having multiple instances of it just increases the utility. In three turns or so Jace, TMS can potentially destroy four people's decks.
the point is that in a format with no way to deal with them , a planeswalker that can ult off each turn without any drawback (please dont tell me paying nine mana to be able to exile everything is a drawback in a format like edh, cuz its not) is devastating. the format will be stale, be dominated by a few different walkers, and degenerate into have a few teir one decks with the rest falling to the wayside.
you need to have a better way off handling planewalkers while keeping the loyalty counters there. its why wizards put them there in the first place.
November 20, 2012 10:30 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #19
You guys make some very good points. Any ideas how to keep the planeswalker as a representation of the player, all the while encouraging making the deck have synergy with the planeswalker rather than making it a race to everyone's ultimate?
I am open to suggestions on what to change, but I want to keep a couple of things:
- I want planeswalkers to be on the board for everyone, and the loyalty counters to be a representation of their life total, even if they can't use their abilities right away.
- I don't want any one planeswalker to be extremely over powered (before I added the experience counter rule, all abilities were immediately playable, and Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker made me have to think about how to fix it).
November 20, 2012 10:44 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #20
What about to put the first experience counter, I have to pay the mana cost.
Then to put the second experience counter, I have to play a spell with all the colors of the Archmage.
Then to put the last experience counter, I have to play a spell with the exact same mana cost as the Archmage.
Would this limit it enough?
November 20, 2012 10:47 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #21
First of all, planeswalkers NEED to be targetable and destructible.
Next, I don't necessarily think the planeswalker as a representation of the player is as complete an illusion as you believe it to be. Would it be possible to cast yourself? No. (That's not a hint to make all planeswalkers begin in play.) Therefore, you shouldn't focus as much on preserving that idea as you should focus on preserving balance.
Suggestions:
1) Only one experience counter may be added per archmage per turn, and only at sorcery speed.
2) To somewhat balance #1 with removal, archmages retain all but one of their experience counters as they move between the command zone and battlefield. Each time an archmage is destroyed, it loses an experience counter.
3) The cost to add an experience counter might need to be amended. If you wanted to rework the system more heavily, you might change that cost to the printed starting loyalty of the planeswalker card being used as archmage.
November 20, 2012 10:54 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #22
In regards to the system you proposed as I was posting, that makes it extremely difficult to level the archmages up.
November 20, 2012 10:55 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #23
(To lessen any complication, I will call the system where the Planeswalker is a representation of the player "Self-Archmage" and the system where the Planeswalker is castable "Other-Archmage")
If we are talking about Other-Archmage system, yes, there are no downsides to targetting and destroying. If we are talking about Self-Archmage, you can target me (which indirectly targets the Archmage) and you can kill me (which destroys the Archmage).
What do you mean by that? I know it is not necessary to have it set up in Self-Archmage system, but that would make it stand out, and I believe would make it flavorful and fun. If it is possible to balance it out (however difficult it may be to discover the balance while remaining relatively simple), I want to keep it Self-Archmage.
1) I had it set up where the adding experience counters was an ability that triggered at the upkeep of that player, but thought it was a bit too word. It would also slow down how much mana could be used to pay for exp counters.
2) (Other-Archmage) This makes it feel much more complicated than Commander. :(
3) How so? :o
November 20, 2012 11:53 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #24
(To lessen any complication, I will call the system where the Planeswalker is a representation of the player "Self-Archmage" and the system where the Planeswalker is castable "Other-Archmage")
If we are talking about Other-Archmage system, yes, there are no downsides to targetting and destroying. If we are talking about Self-Archmage, you can target me (which indirectly targets the Archmage) and you can kill me (which destroys the Archmage).
What do you mean by that? I know it is not necessary to have it set up in Self-Archmage system, but that would make it stand out, and I believe would make it flavorful and fun. If it is possible to balance it out (however difficult it may be to discover the balance while remaining relatively simple), I want to keep it Self-Archmage.
1) I had it set up where the adding experience counters was an ability that triggered at the upkeep of that player, but thought it was a bit too word. It would also slow down how much mana could be used to pay for exp counters. Is that what you're going for?
2) (Other-Archmage) This makes it feel much more complicated than Commander. :(
3) How so? :o
November 20, 2012 11:55 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #25
What do I mean by what?
1) Not exactly. You need to curtail the rate at which archmages can gain experience counters. You also need to fix some other aspects of the format's pacing.
2) Your format is naturally more complicated than Commander.
3) For example, the cost to add an experience counter to Jace Beleren could be 3. However, this would introduce balance issues with some walkers (specifically, the ones that have improperly matched mana costs and starting loyalties).
November 21, 2012 12:02 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #26
You say that having the Archmage as a depiction of the player would be bad. Why is that? I really want to keep it that way, but is there something staring me in the face that I am not seeing? :o
1) So having it trigger at the upkeep will definitely slow it down by a turn, plus it lessens the amount of tricks that can be done with it.
2) Sorry, I meant the emphasis to be on "version" rather than "complicated". I want this to be similar to commander so that people will be comfortable trying it, but different so that people won't be bored with it.
3) I thought about using initial loyalty counters to calculate the starting life total (something like 5 times the initial or something like that.), but it ended up making more of a discrepancy between the more format-breaking planeswalkers and the more balanced planeswalkers. :(
If I gradually curtail the way experience counters are added more and more until I get to a point where each planeswalker is balanced, could I keep it in the Self-Archmage system?
November 21, 2012 12:16 a.m.
Epochalyptik says... #27
The inherent problems with the self-archmage system:
1) High loyalty counts make it extremely easy to ult and end the game, and they take away all incentive to use any of the archmages' other abilities.
2) Archmages can't be targeted or otherwise dealt with. They're ticking time bombs that can't be responded to. Nobody really wants to race a clock he or she can never beat.
I'm not saying the self-archmage format can't be done; rather, I'm saying it needs to be approached very carefully. 1 and 2 above are glaring problems for balance.
November 21, 2012 12:27 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #28
1) So the answer here would be to highly restrict the use of the ultimate compared to the other abilities.
2) Archmages lose loyalty counters as the player loses life. Hitting them with a Lightning Bolt could mean that now they can't do what they wanted to do next turn. If they could be targeted or dealt with, then everyone would want to make sure they can Dreadbore or Hex Parasite planeswalkers. Also, proliferating cards would basically say gain an extra life too, so they would be given more power if this were the case.
I will try to find a way to fix 1, but I disagree with you about 2. This is an example of "the better of two evils" kind of thing. On one hand, planeswalkers can't be targeted, destroyed, exiled, or countered. On the other hand, Dreadbore says "Target player loses the game."
November 21, 2012 5:25 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #29
Starting off with baby steps, to me it seems OK to have each planeswalker to be able to use their first and second abilities as soon as you pay the mana cost of the planeswalker (this is allowed in every format, so it should be balanced). Any problems?
Also, discrepancies in initial loyalty counters made me look at any changes that may be needed to fix that: Sarkhan the Mad (no + abilities?!) vs. Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded (can't use second ability for a few turns?!) So, the ILT [initial life total] = 5 x (ILC [initial loyalty counters] + 2). Any problems?
To fix the ultimate issue (play on words not intended?), I have a few options:
- All abilities other than the first two cost 5 times as much, but ultimates are immediately available. This would leave Elspeth Tirel , Gideon Jura , Tezzeret the Seeker , Garruk Wildspeaker , and Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas to ultimate as soon as you get the first experience counter, but none of them say that you win the game or someone loses the game quite like Karn Liberated or Jace, the Mind Sculptor .
- To be able to play the ultimate, you have to play a spell with the exact same mana cost as the planeswalker. This is more complicated than the first option with respect to experience counters, but simpler in terms of actual costs of abilities. Also, this leaves the multi-colored planeswalkers and Sorin Markov at a loss compared to the other planeswalkers.
- You cannot use the ability until turn X, where "-X" is the cost of the ultimate. The earliest you could use an ultimate would be turn 4 for Garruk Wildspeaker , Tezzeret, Agent of Bolas , and Sarkhan the Mad . All of which require there to be lots of creatures/artifacts on your side of the field. This one is more complicated than the above two because most people would have to start counting the turns.
November 21, 2012 6:56 a.m.
You guy mull over the idea of having mana cost for the abilitys and treat them as casting a spell so it can be responded to. I know this does not fix op ultimates but that's my suggestion.
November 21, 2012 9:31 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #31
So you're saying that the abilities on a planeswalker should have a mana cost in addition to the loyalty cost? Just want to make sure I understand your suggestion completely. :)
November 21, 2012 9:36 a.m.
Forget the loyalty cost just give it a mana cost using the loyalty cost as a guideline of sorts. Like a + ability could cost 1 or 2 mana while a say for example -2 would cost 3 or 4 mana or the loyalty cost plus whatever a +1 ability would cost. This system could possibly be adapted ultimates as well.
November 21, 2012 10:52 a.m.
The only thing a walker would really be doing is dictating what abilitys you have as well as saying what colors you can use. You could still have it be in the command zone and players would be able to respond to what it does without having to get rid of it or kill it.
November 21, 2012 10:56 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #34
The loyalty counter cost is tried and tested and is decently balanced. Changing the cost to mana would change the idea that I had, and would push it into an area that would really require a lot of thought. The most balanced thing to do would be to find out what ratio of mana costs would be on each planeswalker, but that would be extremely inconvenient for players, unless it was written on the card.
To be honest, I feel like that unnecessarily makes it more complicated...
Looking it from a game-building point of view, that would drive people to have to sacrifice playing cards from their hand to be able to play the abilities of the planeswalker, and right now I want to drive it in that direction, not away from it.
If it was treated as casting a spell, a lot of cards would become overpowered. Curse of Exhaustion , Venser, the Sojourner , Contemplation , Leyline of Lightning , Mindmoil , Tidespout Tyrant , and Veilstone Amulet are a few examples.
Basically, I feel like that would make the problem worse, not better...
Also keep in mind, with the "self-archmage system", Bind and Squelch can still be used against planeswalkers. (Normally, these cards wouldn't be that great since they would be "hit and miss" depending on if they have activated abilities worth countering. Obviously, these are useful when there will always be a planeswalker on the board, but there's nothing I could do that would fix this without creating a bigger problem.)
November 21, 2012 11:39 a.m.
Is it just me or does this make Vraska the Unseen kinda crazy? Basically, gain 1 life, if a creature deals combat damage to you, destroy it. The you have additional spot removal and an instant win with any card that makes a creature unblockable.
November 21, 2012 1:06 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #36
I wouldn't say it makes her crazy. The part you wrote after "Basically" only starts happening after you play her mana cost, and depending on which of the three fixes I would be implementing, you would either have to pay an additional 28 life to use the ultimate, or play one of 7 magic cards in existence with her mana cost to be able to use the ultimate, or you couldn't use the ultimate until turn 7. All that keeping in mind that your opponent has a planeswalker as well and is playing a deck too. (A deck that could have indestructible, hexproof, or returning creatures...) Even after you ultimate her, your opponent can still have spells that kill them. AND all of that is assuming you have ONE opponent. She's not crazy, she's just fun. ;)
November 21, 2012 2:29 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #37
To everyone who has helped out here in this thread (Rhadamanthus, Bigburlybill, Epochalyptik, jan2692wal, ninjaking92, and Cirdan13), which of the following three options to fix the OP ultimates problem do you think is the best? What are the pros and cons of each?
- Loyalty Restriction - Every other ability except for the first two cost 5 times as much. One experience counter is enough to "unlock" all of the abilities. (One exp counter costs the same as the Archmage's mana cost.)
- Spell Restriction - To put an experience counter on the Archmage after the first, you have to play a spell with the same exact mana cost as the Archmage. (Second exp counter unlocks the third ability and the third unlocks the fourth.)
- Turn Restriction - All of the Archmage's abilities that subtract loyalty counters cannot be used on a turn less than the number of loyalty counters being subtracted. (For example, a -5 ability couldn't be used until turn 5.)
- Pros: encourages deck synergy, allows ultimates to still be used every once in a while, and has lots of flavor. Cons: people will have to remember that the ultimate costs 5 times as much. LIKE.
- Pros: encourages deck synergy more than 1. Cons: pushes people to use particular cards that might not fit the theme of the Archmage, is more cumbersome to remember the exp counter vs. ability use, and unnecessarily makes some Archmages more feasible than others. DON'T LIKE.
- Pros: same flavor as 1, encourages deck synergy, might allow ultimates to still be used, can't be sped up at all. Cons: definitely very inconvenient for a player to have to remember yet another thing. MEH...
November 21, 2012 5:17 p.m.
Bigburlybill says... #38
1 or 3 has my vote.
- Seems good, but the "multiply finisher by five for the ult cost" seems a bit meh to me. It will hamper the idea of everyone playing the same archmages and having to remember that rule.
- I actually like this one more. It prevents some crazy abilities from going off fast, you could still use the loyalty counters as life, and it's pretty easy to remember compared to option 1. The weaker planeswalkers, Garruk Wildspeaker to name one, could still be playable. He's potentially weak, but could be good if you get him out early for his +1 ability. Things such as Karn Liberated , Jace, the Mind Sculptor , and Elspeth, Knight-Errant would be hinder. I can still see Jace being used with a bunch of "take an extra turn" cards, but nothing as hindering before.
November 21, 2012 6:45 p.m.
Out of these options I think 3 is best but I also think something's missing. I am not sure what though.
November 21, 2012 10:26 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #40
Ok I feel that option two differentiates between certain planeswalkers, and it's pointless.
Option three has a downside I forgot to mention. As soon as you hit that turn, every turn you could ultimate and kill your opponents. Basically, who ever can ultimate first wins.
Any suggestions on why 2 & 3 are still viable? :(
November 21, 2012 11:06 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #41
(For example, If I have Garruk Wildspeaker , once I hit turn 4, I can overrun for four life. And I can do that turn 5, turn 6, turn 7... you get the idea.)
November 22, 2012 9:19 a.m.
Well a while back I had this idea but didn't suggest it because I then thought I saw the same thing posted by another but I guess there was a subtle difference. I had thought of the ready period that makes you wait until so many turns had passed equal to the cost of the ultimate but included using that readying period repeatedly. So what this means is that if you were using, for example, Nicol Bolas, Planeswalker you can't use his ultimate until turn 9 and whenever you do use it you then have to wait another 9 turns to use it again. That might be the what everyone says is missing from that option.
November 22, 2012 3:47 p.m.
MagicalHacker says... #43
Ok that would balance it out somewhat, but it is more wordy when it comes to rules and it feels very unflavorful relative to the first option. However the first option does in a way change the abilities of a planeswalker.
So repeating timer option OR multiplied loyalty cost option? Actually, to be honest, I very much favor the first option, but some of u guys like the third option a lot more. If u don't like the first option, let me know why so that I can try to adjust it to be better. If you do like the first option, tell me what not to adjust. (Multiplication factor, ability restriction, and initial life total would be what I would be tweaking.)
November 22, 2012 5 p.m.
As it reads out to me the first option still seems like it would be a race to ultimate. At the same time though we wanna be careful how we limit ultimates. Gideon Jura s can happen as soon as it comes out. We need to think about that and take into consideration other planeswalkers that could be made in the future.
November 23, 2012 10:38 a.m.
MagicalHacker says... #45
Well, I had wanted the Archmage's first two abilities to be options as soon as they are "turned on", but limit the racing to the ultimate. In option one, it would limit the "smartness" of racing to the finish: you lose A LOT of life, it takes A WHILE to get there (for all the planeswalkers that have game ending ultimates), and the ratio is very near the actual printed ratio. Therefore racing to the ultimate is probably not the smartest decision.
Well, Gideon Jura was printed so that he could use his ultimate the same turn he came out (granted, he would have summoning sickness). I actually want to keep that the same. (There weren't balance issues with it then, so we can assume that since the format would keep it almost exactly the same, there won't be balance issues with it now.) Compare this to Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded who normally can't use his second ability until two turns after he arrives, plus that would be popping him. Gideon Jura (and Jace, the Mind Sculptor ) normally had three options right away, whereas Tibalt, the Fiend-Blooded normally had one.
With respect to your last statement, turn restriction is NOT what Wizards will be designing around. They will be designing around the ratio of the ultimate compared to the starting loyalty and the loyalty cost(s) of the plus ability(ies). The only time a discrepancy can occur in option one is when the ultimate costs exactly one more than the starting loyalty. The only time a discrepancy can occur in option three is when the ultimate is a game winner and it costs -4 or less, being offset by starting loyalty, plus abilities, or the fact that having an additional copy in the library would make it less powered. So from the standpoint of wanting to maintain balance without knowing what planeswalkers will be printed in the future, option one is the safe bet, and option three is not.
Also, yesterday I went through each planeswalker and compared the game option one vs. option three, and option one kept every planeswalker playable and unbroken, while option three favored some planeswalkers as extremely beneficial and others as simply unplayable. After analyzing all these facets, I conclude that option 1 is the most balanced and fun.
Alright, just updated the site with the new rules, and I made a new forum to talk about the new rules.
MagicalHacker says... #2
Does everything seem to be balanced? Does everything make sense? Is something too complicated? Thanks!
November 20, 2012 3:50 p.m.