Certainty
Custom Cards forum
Posted on July 15, 2019, 12:33 p.m. by cmsrDPM
A twist on Curiosity and Keen Sense .
Certainty
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Whenever enchanted creature deals combat damage to one or more creatures, you may draw a card.
You do not have to search far for the answers. Your training is all you truly need.
Big thanks to PlaysWithFire, Funkydiscogod, and Boza for your input and ideas: you have made this a better card.
Please tell me what you think.
... Well a time-out log-out erased my entire comment... back at it again.
I think it could work fine by changing it to "Whenever enchanted creature blocks or becomes blocked, draw a card." You avoid some of the issue that Boza mentions about encouraging only defensive actions, and by having it trigger on declare blockers step, you can better utilize white's affinity for combat tricks. Additionally you turn on creatures without power - as some Defender creatures are - and blocking creatures with protection or other prevention effects.
I don't agree with Boza on the need to restrict the aura to low power creatures. In all other formats than limited, it will likely not be used, but there is a chance. In limited, if you slap it on a big creature and keep it back, you just dissuade your opponent from attacking into you. However that would likely still be the case, regardless of the aura. If you don't attack, the opponent is just "wasting" a large creature and the aura grants no benefit. If you try to push through regardless to start closing out the game, you take a calculated risk. Whether if that's because you know you cannot live up to the opponent's card quality or because you have additional damage that can help close the game before they can realize much of that card advantage, doesn't matter.
Additionally, if you restrict it to low power creatures, you may just make it even worse in limited, due to the lower deck sizes. Either you slap it on a weak creature and it mostly is just replacing itself under certain conditions or it may prove to dissuade you from blocking with a low power creature with a high toughness.
Now if you slap the Aura on a large creature with Vigilance, you get a potent mix. However that just emphasizes my concerns about Vigilance on large bodies; it kills the dynamics of combat.
I would much rather if White would get a replacement for Vigilance. Even something like "Weak-sauce Vigilance"; This creature may block, even when tapped. If it blocks while tapped, it deals no combat damage.
It still works to grant a defensive option while being aggressive but it doesn't hinder your opponent as much as Vigilance as they cannot lose creatures to it.
Additionally it functions as a pseudo-counter to blue and white's tap abilities.
July 18, 2019 10:19 a.m.
Tzefick I struggled long and hard whether to have the card draw on the blocks or damage step. If I may I would like to go into why I would rather it be the damage (or first strike damage) step.
1 I pretend WOTC will see this one day and care.
2 Wizards is very particular about white getting card advantage and why. If a Sanctuary Cat with Certainty (with the words draw when blocked) blocks a Curio Vendor : the defending player will have a chance to find an answer before damage. I don't think Wizards likes the idea of the defending player in this scenario getting such a potential advantage. As several voices have said before 'it promotes passive gameplay.'
3 As I mentioned in the original there are some creatures that can block many things : Knight of Sorrows , Luminous Guardian , Hundred-Handed One , or even Guardian of the Gateless . This is what worries me most about the idea (again still my idea). Certainty plus any of those creatures needs to be limited. I block 7 creatures, draw 7 cards: this is not what I want. By choosing damage instead: the power of the creature is the limiting factor not the number of creatures my opponent sends.
4 I wanted to mirror Curiosity .
Don't get me wrong you made good points. "Whenever enchanted creature blocks, you may draw a card," is beautiful. It is simple, self-explanatory, and clear. When it came to complex situations then I found reasons to (in my opinion) make a weaker but printable card.
July 25, 2019 7:48 p.m.
PIayswithFlRE says... #5
What about:
Whenever enchanted creature deals combat damage to one or more creatures, you may draw a card unless the defending player pays .
- The one or more creatures makes it so that blocking multiples still only makes it trigger once
- You can always get the draw when you're defending, but now have the option to use it on attack, particularly on a vigilance creature
July 27, 2019 6:49 a.m.
PlaysWithFire I actually love your suggestions because they are that simply perfect. It honestly makes me feel foolish not thinking of any of them earlier.
That being said I don't want the Rhystic Study for THIS card. I want more white card draw and I feel Smothering Tithe is an excellent design opener for this effect. Maybe starting simple with ETB for creatures with power 2 or less (a reverse Mentor of the Meek if you will).
Anyway on the subject of Certainty. I do feel more confident with the text: Whenever enchanted creature deals combat damage to one of more creatures, you may draw a card.
Removing the word "attacking" is a good way to not bog down the game as previous voices had mentioned. It also helps remove some of the downsides of white attacking into blockers. It REALLY likes double strike; and that is perfectly fine.
This still feels fair but funny enough becomes a different mirroring of Curiosity . Before one was for attackers the other blockers. Now the original (and Keen Sense ) want no blocks. Certainty wants to get tangled into combat: White is certain it fights for the right reasons.
You have balanced and rounded out my card. Thank you
July 27, 2019 11:04 p.m.
PIayswithFlRE says... #7
Happy to help. Yeah, wasn't sure about the "unless a defending player pays 2 part" but it was what I could think of to keep it defense-focused. But I'm glad the "one or more creatures" instead of "attacking creature" was useful.
July 28, 2019 7:35 a.m.
cmsrDPM To answer each of your points:
"1 I pretend WOTC will see this one day and care."
Why is that a parameter for the card creation? I mean, most card creation is based on a probability that the card might see print. At least that's what I think is the foundation for the Custom Cards subforum. I guess I just mean; isn't that a given?
"2 Wizards is very particular about white getting card advantage and why."
They are particular in not granting white straight card advantage, such as play spell; draw multiple cards or activate ability; draw card.
But it's not like white haven't gotten card advantage before (you mention Mentor of the Meek yourself and I can boot with Dawn of Hope .) It just mostly happens on a condition. This aura is pretty conditional, which is why I believe it could be printed stronger than what you suggested.
First of all it is an aura for creatures. You're already lining yourself up to get 2-for-1'ed, as is the pinnacle of weaknesses of auras.
Second of all it only triggers on declare blockers. Your opponent is in control of the accessibility of that card draw (unless you can provoke the condition or something else forces the opponent's hand). If you get to draw a card, that's because your opponent allowed you to. It is similar in nature to red's punisher-mechanic like Browbeat . Whenever you put the choice into your opponent's hands, it is always a worse effect.
"As I mentioned in the original there are some creatures that can block many things"
The wording on my suggestion is a singular trigger. "Whenever enchanted creature blocks or becomes blocked, draw a card." No matter how many creatures you block, there's only one trigger. If I had put "Whenever enchanted creature blocks a creature or becomes blocked by a creature", it would count multiple times.
See ruling on a card like Alley Grifters .
And as said previously; my wording enables creatures without power.
"4 I wanted to mirror Curiosity ."
But Curiosity has that ever-so-crucial lack of combat damage. Anyway, it's fair enough. You wanted to create something that was more safe. But that's where I personally deviate from your viewpoint. If I were to look at cards, I would rather that they be interesting; either in design/mechanic, power or flavor.
Not to be a naysayer, but I think this would be a bin-card, at least the original printing - the revised version by PlayswithFIRE is remarkably better but IMO still on the weaker side. Not that there's anything wrong with bin-cards, but I think R&D can cook up plenty of bin-cards all by themselves.
I'm more interested (personally) in chasing the challenge of a fair but powerful card design. I would rather create something that I think would be used if printed, rather than making sure it has a higher chance of being printed.
Boza says... #2
This is so conditional as to not be worth it. Giving blockers something extra has been a staple in white and this is acceptable, but it is incredibly weak and encourages the wrong gameplay.
This incentives blocking and keeping back, works well with vigilance and first strike creatures and creatures with large toughness. But it is annoying to play against. In limited, this card would be a nightmare and will warp combat extensively. In constructed, it will not do enough to be impactful as such weak enchantments are basically not worth the slot in the 60 cards.
I would feel that white can get this but with a limitation, for example:
Excel
Aura
~ can only enchant a creature with power 2 or less.
When ~ deals combat to a player, draw a card.
July 16, 2019 4:08 a.m.