Glistening Mists
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Oct. 16, 2019, 10:01 a.m. by Mortlocke
As an avid fan of infect...yes yes let the "boos" come - i've been desiring a card that puts infect counters on players in a fashion similar to that of Ichor Rats but not on a creature body. After a bit of thought I designed this monstrosity. I think it's far from perfect, and is probably bit too far on the powerful side. Maybe someone can come along and redesign it to make it something close to playable?
TypicalTimmy - Yes. Worst case scenario this will only put 2 counters on players, but when combined with the Proliferate mechanic, this thing is an absolute nightmare on the field. Especially if you have passive proliferation on the board like an Atraxa, Praetors' Voice or a Evolution Sage - or both. Those 3 fading counters could hypothetically become 6 (if you play a fetch land) after casting it on the same turn. So you go from 2 at the worst, to 5 at the best if it's allowed to stay on the field for 1 turn. The longer it stays, the worse it gets.
October 16, 2019 10:15 a.m. Edited.
Falcoshin, yes - having it come onto the field tapped is to give the opponent(s) a chance to respond - e.g. tutor up an answer to get rid of that card quick. Ideally, it's meant to serve as a straight up wincon. I was thinking of this card showing up in a Modern Horizons set, as it would likely find more success in EDH.
October 16, 2019 10:19 a.m.
This should be a coloured Artifact, not an Enchantment, for one fairly simple reason-- Enchantments do not tap.
Currently, there are only two non-artifact, non-creature enchantments in the entire game that tap as a cost to activate an ability-- Second Wind and Witch's Mist --and they are both from Future Sight, which is a set where Wizards was purposefully doing strange things that had never been done before and might never be done again.
I don't think those set a strong enough precedent to justify the inclusion of a tap-based activated ability on future Enchantments. In fact, I would suggest the key distinction between coloured Artifacts and Enchantments is that the former has the ability to tap, and it would be bad for the game to further blur the line between those two permanent types.
October 16, 2019 10:38 a.m. Edited.
Caerwyn Don't be so sure. While everything you said would be absolutely right if we were talking about something intended for standard according to the storm scale, the OP explicitly said they were meant for modern or commander which are not formats that are covered by the storm scale.
That said, commander really needs better rules concerning poison counters before we start thinking up cards for the format that use it as a mechanic.
October 16, 2019 10:45 a.m.
So, I just realized I need to make a few changes here.
The ":Sacrifice Glistening mists: Each player gains poison counters equal to the number of fading counters on Glistening mists." needs to be:
":Exile Glistening mists from the game: Each player gains poison counters equal to the number of fading counters on Glistening mists." This card shouldn't be recurrable. I'm kind of also flirting with the idea of making it a Legendary Enchantment - but that's probably not necessary.
One more note is that maybe we should increase the CMC? To what, i'm not sure.
Caerwyn, you're right. This card should be a colored artifact. This makes it way more on flavor and easier to get rid of - which is what I think the card needs.
October 16, 2019 10:46 a.m. Edited.
Falcoshin - If this were a Storm Scale issue, you'd be correct, and the distinction between designed-for-Standard and designed-for-other-formats would matter. But it's not a Storm Scale issue--this speaks to the fundamental identity of the permanent type, a concern which transcends the format for which the card is designed.
October 16, 2019 10:54 a.m.
Caerwyn Not when you just said there are enchantments that exist which can be tapped. The distinction between them is really just a name and, consequently, which colors are better suited to dealing with them. Enchantments are better handled by white while artifacts are better handled by red.
October 16, 2019 11:05 a.m.
Falcoshin, don't forget that Green is better suited for handling Artifacts as well. I don't know the current meta for Modern - but I do want to make sure that in case that a card like this is introduced to the meta, it can easily be disposed of. White should still be more than capable of handling this new artifact. From modern horizons alone white has: Dismantling Blow and Nature's Chant .
October 16, 2019 11:16 a.m.
LVL_666 Green's suited to do both, but as a result the power of its ability to get rid of said permanents is lower (As in it generally doesn't have access to the ability to outright exile them).
October 16, 2019 11:19 a.m.
Falcoshin, also white does have one distinct advantage here - it has some of the best removal options for creatures as well. I'd imagine that this card would be played in a Sultai Modern (or Commander) deck with cards such as Evolution Sage , Flux Channeler , Sword of Truth and Justice , and Karn's Bastion . Of the 4 listed - white can outright exile two of them.
October 16, 2019 11:26 a.m.
Caerwyn, outside of making this card an artifact - what other suggestions would you make for this card?
October 16, 2019 12:02 p.m.
I have two main issues with the card as designed - first, that it gets weaker as time goes on. I understand the flavour is that the mist is dissipating, but I think you could make the case that more of the mist has been inhaled the longer it is on the battlefield.
I also am not a fan of the ETB tapped and ETB lose life, alongside a keyword ability and another ability. It starts to make the card feel a bit cluttered. Properly, the ETB tapped ability is a replacement effect so should be on a separate line from the triggered life-loss ability, further cluttering the card.
I would go with something like the below, which has not benefit the turn it is dropped, but gets stronger the longer it remains on the battlefield (also puts you back in enchantment territory):
Vanishing 3 (Vanishing replaced the very similar Fading)
When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is three minus the number of time counters on ~.
(if artifact, can add to cost): Destroy ~. It can't be regenerated.
October 16, 2019 12:38 p.m.
Caerwyn I'm not sure if I'm reading it right, but the way you worded it makes it so you need more than 3 counters on the card to make it work which means the card is more or less useless without something to proliferate it. At least give any updated version the chance to be useful on its own.
October 16, 2019 12:52 p.m.
It’s similar language to The Rack . If there are 3 time counters on it when it LTB, 0 poison counters will be applied (3 - 3 = 0); if there are 0 time counters on it, it would be 3 poison counters (3 - 0 = 3). The “3” in that ability is a static number.
October 16, 2019 12:58 p.m.
Caerwyn, I love it. If the player chooses to just let the enchantment just sit on the field, 3 turns later everyone breathes in poison. However, if need be you can tap it and destroy target...what? What should it destroy? A creature? A Non-creature permanent CMC 3 or less? A non-land permanent CMC 3 or less?
Falcoshin, the way it's worded is that the longer the card remains on the field - the more deadly it becomes. In 3 turns it becomes "Sacrifice this card, all players gain 3 poison counters." However, if need be you could use the card to destroy...something. I'm deciding on what though.
October 16, 2019 1:05 p.m.
~ is just shortform for the card’s own name. It would read “Destroy Glistening Mists.”
October 16, 2019 1:19 p.m.
Caerwyn, now I understand your design. It's interesting - but doesn't seem all that potent - having to pay 3 and wait 3 turns is a fairly steep cost for poison counters.
what if I add in some elements from my design? :
CMC:?
Vanishing 2
"When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is the number of time counters on ~."
: Exile ~.
October 16, 2019 2:07 p.m. Edited.
The main problem I have with that is there is really no reason to crack it on any turn other than the one it is dropped. It basically becomes a sorcery, albeit a sorcery that takes two rounds of priority to function.
Realistically, there is only one situation where you would want to wait around for fewer poison counters--a match where at least one other opponent is playing infect and proliferate. Otherwise, there's really no harm in having more poison counters (no risk of opponents giving you the 8 additional needed to lose), and lots to be gained through giving your opponents more of the things.
Now, you could add some sort of effect to make it more punishing to activate the ability early: Something like:
When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is the number of time counters on ~. For each poison counter you put on a player this way, you lose 2 life.
This causes you to disproportionately suffer, and encourages the player to think about letting the artifact sit around for a while before firing it off. It also scales nicely in commander - giving 4 players 3 poison counters each is nice; taking 24 damage as a result.. Ouch.
October 16, 2019 2:18 p.m.
Now you're talking my language. That's the kind of card I want - it functions well in modern - but scales up in commander. I propose one minor change here though:
"When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is the number of time counters on ~. For each poison counter you put on an opponent this way, you lose 2 life."
My rationale here is that if you're playing this, then your infect source shouldn't harm you as much. You're taking 3 poison counters - 18 damage is enough. 24 is a bit on the ridiculous side in EDH. What are your thoughts there?
October 16, 2019 2:54 p.m.
Caerwyn, alternatively this could read:
"When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is the number of time counters on ~. For each poison counter you put on a player this way, you lose 1 life."
For a "gentler" version of this card. 12 damage (3 time counters, 4 players) seems far more of an equitable deal...but then if you choose to wait it out and try and proliferate a few times then it would feel more like a reliable wincon - as long as you can take the damage. 9 time counters would only be 36 damage with a full 4 players.
October 16, 2019 3:09 p.m.
That's probably more reasonable, giving this some thought--twice was probably a bit too aggressive.
October 16, 2019 3:15 p.m.
Caerwyn, I absolutely adore your concept though - and this does balance out the strict awful that this card brings (to opponents). In modern this card will rarely get up to 9 time counters - tops it'll be 4 or 5, but at that point you should have Blighted Agent or Glistener Elf swing with a Might of Oaks or whatever for the win. Just for my own clarification - the CMC is still , and this card is still an Enchantment? Or has it crossed over into Mono-black Artifact territory? Seems like magic has been moving in that direction anyway.
October 16, 2019 3:37 p.m. Edited.
Caerwyn I just gotta express this nagging thought - should the cost be softened even further:
"When ~ leaves the battlefield, each player gets X poison counters, where X is the number of time counters on ~. For each poison counter you put on an opponent this way, you lose 1 life."
- 3 counters, 4 players = 9 life
- 9 counters, 4 players = 27 life
- 3 counters, 2 players = 3 life
- 9 counters, 2 players = 9 life
would that instance make this card overpowered if it were to be a monoblack artifact?
October 16, 2019 4 p.m. Edited.
Hey Funkydiscogod, I appreciate your input! Between the two options you gave, I lean more toward Oil Bomb. It has tons of flavor, and can still scale up from modern to Commander. I want the card to be a valid wincon across both of the previously mentioned formats, but it does require a great deal of upkeep and takes a pretty decent amount of time to get going without a proliferation option on board. With this design, there's a chance the controller can mitigate some of the damage at the cost of having a more limited window of "detonation" (compared to what Caerwyn and I were coming up with). Plus it's susceptible to cards like Return to Dust . Nice. With a proliferation option on board this card could make some waves.
Oil Reservoir seems like it could result in some interesting wins if it were to be paired with a big mana combo (result in at some point) and Hex Parasite . Doesn't quite excite me as much as the Bomb though.
Falcoshin says... #2
I'm pretty sure it coming into play tapped is meant to give the opponent a turn for counterplay. That's my instinct at least.
October 16, 2019 10:12 a.m.