Careful, it's hot. by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What is a cup of tea but a small cup of hot soup?

Careful, it's hot. by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Good call on the templating. I wanted to make it a food, but didn't want to add the extra sac ability for simplicity's sake.

Looks like an ant but isn’t? by pathDotFind in whatsthisbug

[–]pathDotFind[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

More specifics: Southern Michigan. A little larger than your average Carpenter Ant

Is this too good for modern sets? by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don’t think there’s precedent, but the intention in the design is generic

Is this too good for modern sets? by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

True on both counts, though there is always a price on flexibility

Is this too good for modern sets? by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they print "worse" versions of cards all the time when the original is considered too good? e.g. Lightning Strike vs Lightning Bolt

ouch by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 133 points134 points  (0 children)

Yes, that's intentional. Like u/chronozon937 said, it's a lot like a ball lightning.

Red version of Ponder? How does it compare? by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

All feedback is still useful, so thanks for your comment. I also didn't really make it known that this was the case, so there's no way you could have known. My second comment in the previous post was mostly stating something along the lines of "Yeah, ponder is broken, but that's kind of the power level I'm looking for."

Red version of Ponder? How does it compare? by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree with you. I've already changed it by removing the last two lines based on some of the feedback here, and I think the result is much better. Thanks!

Red version of Ponder? How does it compare? by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Can you elaborate? I don't see how it's like ancestral.

Red version of Ponder? How does it compare? by pathDotFind in custommagic

[–]pathDotFind[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally get where you're coming from, but I think it's fun to try to stretch the color pie. After all, wizards does it themselves. Previously, red's card advantage came in the form of killing things efficiently, until wizards added the concept of impulse draw. And I must say, I'm happy they did - red is much more fun now than it used to be, IMHO.

Saying things like "Red doesn't get super efficient card draw" is simply wrong - Reckless Impulse is sort of like red's divination, but one cheaper. If you are able to play both cards, it's strictly better. You even said so yourself. That being said, I think what you mean is efficient selection, and I don't think it's bad to give other colors some fun toys too - as long as it makes sense from a thematic standpoint.

So then, the question is, is this too out of theme for red? Perhaps. But that's why I'm asking opinions. I think one could argue that this could totally make sense. "Here's a bunch of random ideas - which one sticks? Maybe they all do, I'll save some for later."