Fun crazy card me and a friend made for Shadows
Custom Cards forum
Posted on March 9, 2016, 5:01 p.m. by Valentine35
So we were talking about the new set and how avacyn becomes all evily as the purifier and we were thinking her followers probably went a little crazy too. We also like the idea of red cards having a bit more randomness to them and we think there should be more like that. So we came up with a flip card...
Avacyn's Jihadist 1R
Whenever a player casts an instant or sorcery spell, flip Avacyn's Jihadist. 1/1
(Flipped Side) In the Name of Avacyn!
When this card is flipped, roll a d20. This card deals that amount of damage to each creature and each player. 0/1
ninjaclevs13 says... #3
Not the best of names...on either side. Also 2 mana for a potential 20 damage doesn't really work
March 9, 2016 6:13 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #4
boo hoo political correctness. It fits somewhat flavorfully but it maybe could be better, but not because of "Muh Feelings"
March 9, 2016 6:31 p.m.
Valentine35 says... #5
OK well the names were just for fun. and it just seems like a funny card to use, and the stalemate of neither people wanting to cast instants or sorcery cards would be fun. As for it fitting the theme i thought it would fit perfectly, maybe not a jihadist but a martyr of sorts. We also thought of putting the legendary name on it so that no more than one could be out on the field. i also love the idea of no one wanting to kill him so that a draw doesnt happen, and draws would definitely happen, but thats fun too! probably not the most competitive card but certainly a fun one!
March 9, 2016 6:40 p.m.
This is probably a very offensive name to use...so re-work that. Avacyn's Martyr probably sounds better, but is still not great.
Also, rolling D20s is off flavor wise, and doesn't fit the theme at all.
March 9, 2016 10:04 p.m. Edited.
MagicalHacker says... #7
Only un set cards roll dice, real cards flip coins. I'd probably balance it out as 10 coin flips and one damage for each win.
March 9, 2016 11:34 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #8
Ugh people still blithering on about the name hurting their poor feelings.
If you wanted to deal a bunch of damage, you could try having each player sacrifice each non land and deal damage to them equal to the cmc, But maybe you didn't want a board wipe.
March 10, 2016 9:23 a.m.
InfiniteParadoX Really? Wow, you're such a grown-up. It has nothing to do with "poor feelings" but has everything to do with the connotation involved with the name. This is nothing new. It's a name of poor taste, and would probably offend people unnecessarily. Believe me, I'm not one who is usually defending this, but your attitude is exactly why we have the problems we do nowadays.
March 10, 2016 12:41 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #10
DrFunk27 offence is never given, offence is only taken.
March 10, 2016 12:48 p.m.
ninjaclevs13 says... #11
But stupid comments are regularly given. Plenty of examples here
March 10, 2016 12:51 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX I'm not even going to debate this with you because honestly, I don't think you would even understand. Best of luck with your life using that logic.
March 10, 2016 12:56 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #13
DrFunk27 So what you're saying is you have no reasonable counter argument and have resorted to condescension instead. If you prove me wrong, I'd be happy to admit that and agree with you, however personally I feel that I am correct in this situation.
March 10, 2016 1 p.m.
ninjaclevs13 says... #14
You are just using an offensive stereotype as a name and saying it is our fault. It's like calling an African-American an n-word and saying "it's your fault you took offense".
March 10, 2016 1:02 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX I absolutely have a reasonable counter argument but this is not the place to talk about it. But to satisfy your incessant need to feel correct, here it is.
As mentioned, the fact that I'm taking offense to the name, and you saying, Offense is not given, only taken is inherently wrong. There are many ways in which offense is given. Physically, verbally, etc. There are also ways in which offense is given based on context. The fact that the name Jihadist was used is already putting someone in the position to find it offensive. As ninjaclevs13 stated eloquently. I find the term, "Offense is not given, only taken" is just a way to get around being insensitive to human beings. With this line of thought, you can say whatever you want, do whatever you want, and if they take offense, it's their fault. This is wrong on so many levels.
The problem I have is with anyone asserting that because offense is 'taken and not given', bad behavior should not be called out, or should be suffered silently. Words and actions can betray sordid underlying attitudes. They can make people feel unwelcome. Saying that people should silently tolerate this emotional harm from offensive remarks because they control their own attitudes is like saying people should silently tolerate any harm or injustice, simply because they can (according to stoicism). Using the word Jihadist does this. That's all I'm saying. Use another word to portray the same idea, just not Jihadist.
Lastly, it is perfectly within my rights to call someone out on this, just as it is your right to defend against it. That's the beauty of free speech and civil discourse. I won't change your mind and you won't change mine.
March 10, 2016 1:14 p.m. Edited.
InfiniteParadoX says... #16
DrFunk27 Whoa there buddy, calm down. I haven't said enough to be "Incessant", and I have no need to feel correct, I just like truth, and I believe, until I am proven wrong that the beliefs I hold to be true.
Anything I say has only however much meaning you assign to it. If someone calls me shitlord, I can scream and shout and cry, but that doesn't do anything. This leads one to then be called a shitlord and disregard it in the future. This is an example of possibly the same thing being said to the same person, and them not taking offence, so clearly offence is taken in the first instance but not in the second I was called a shitlord both times, but how I perceived it changed, along with how I reacted. The person calling me a shitlord didn't do anything more or less offensive.
What I am saying is it is totally up to the individual to lose their mind because someone said a no-no word, or to not care in the slightest. Feelings are one of the least important things regarding why one should stop free speech or restrict language. Changing a card name because it doesn't fit? Sure. Changing it because "Yawgmoth's Rabbit" is offensive to someone whose pet rabbit died is ridiculous.
March 10, 2016 1:34 p.m.
PhotogenicParasympathetic says... #17
You know, there's a word for people who don't care about other people's feelings. It's "asshole."
March 10, 2016 1:39 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #18
PhotogenicParasympathetic I never said I don't care about feelings, I said using them as an excuse to stop other's words is simply terrible. Someone being rubbed the wrong way by some terrible, awful, no-good, words is not a real reason to change it. If people REALLY don't like something, then don't buy it. Companies that do what you like will get your business instead and outperform the mean words, running them out of business. Three cheers for free market.
March 10, 2016 1:43 p.m.
PhotogenicParasympathetic says... #19
The free market doesn't exist. If the free market did exist, it wouldn't work like that. If the free market did exist and did work like that, it would still not have any effect on a social contract.
March 10, 2016 5:06 p.m.
InfiniteParadoX says... #20
And how does it not exist? How exactly would it not work like that if it did exist?
March 10, 2016 7:49 p.m.
PhotogenicParasympathetic says... #21
Our government regulates the market. Our government bails out failing companies. That is not a free market. If it were, a political statement about speech usage would be unlikely to outweigh a need for a given product, so "just don't buy it" has no effect on the company. If it did, that would still not excuse your willfull disregard for other people.
I have no interest in continuing this argument. I'm sorry to those who came here to actually talk about a card idea, most especially to the OP.
March 11, 2016 4:55 a.m.
Valentine35 says... #22
well im glad the card idea we came up with had such an impact especially after the very little thought and time that was put into this fake cards name. It was only supposed to be a fun idea. We liked the rolling a d20 because its different and thought red cards need more of that random aspect that they used to have.
Would their have been as much of a debate about the card if it was a goblin who blows himself up cuz they do that all the time! But i dont think Avacyn has many goblin followers. thanks for all the...feedback, i guess? I just thought i would throw out a fun idea that made me and my friend laugh and thought i would share it with the community.
Glad to know the internet is still alive with people that will ruin the fun, and turn a thread about a fun silly card into a personal war against each other. No harm, no foul. This was simply here to give a laugh like me and my friend had about it. I never thought it would erupt any arguments. Sorry... if i knew how to take this post down i would, but i dont. so like Thumper said, "If you dont have something nice to say, dont say anything at all."
March 13, 2016 3:26 p.m.
Its great, but maybe add a we lay to return it, like Delerium- pay X life, transform
PhotogenicParasympathetic says... #2
Sounds like a great way to have a lot of games end in a draw.
Also, Jihadist may not be the most politically correct option, and is also a bit off flavor wise.
March 9, 2016 5:51 p.m.