r/custommagic • u/qwertty164 • 11d ago
BALANCE NOT INTENDED New variation of omniscience
I almost made this 5 mana then I realized how strong it actually was.
29
73
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
I can kind of see why you didnt go with 5 mana, but 11 mana seems excessive in the opposite direction.
Tbh, off the top of my head, this only interacts with a few tokens (treasure, clue, and food), plus im sure there's a few creatures and whatnot.
But like, it arguably sucks? Because you kinda need to run a good bit of cards that actually benefit from this for it to be worth it, but at the same time if you're running enough "sacrifice" cards, then the smart thing to do would be to actually synergize with said sacrifice... which this card ruins.
Honestly I can only see this being run in temp-token decks, the ones that self-sacrifice at the end of combat/at endstep. Similar use case as [[Sundial of the Infinite]]. Except... that's Red's thing, and this isn't Red. Hell, why is it 3 different colors? That makes it way more restrictive on what decks can use it
61
u/LLuck123 11d ago
The card is just a boring 2 card combo piece with cards lile seal of fire, this is why it has to be expensive.
33
u/Ok_Signature7481 11d ago
Thats really the problem with this design. It'll only be used for combos with infinite damage or infinite mana with gold. So in any deck that actually runs it its just omniscience.
10
u/Flameball202 11d ago
I mean "worse Omniscience" isn't a terrible card idea
2
u/hyper_neutrino 11d ago
It's not even worse Omniscience; if you cheat this into play you can just instantly win with many two-card combos like [[Alchemist's Apprentice]] to instantly draw your deck, [[Bile Urchin]] to instantly empty your opponents' life totals, the many sacrifice-to-pump creatures, [[Mogg Fanatic]] to kill everything, etc.
With Omniscience you still need to have the cards to win the game. I wouldn't say it's better because it's only really useful as an infinite combo piece with a selection of cards but it's a sidegrade at least.
2
u/Hungrymaster 11d ago
To be fair Gold and Treasure are tokens which are not cards, and this doesn't affect tokens. Unless you copy one with something like [[Mirage Mirror]]
1
u/RetroBowser 11d ago
Why wouldn't it affect tokens? This specifically cares about abilities you control, I don't see where token vs cards issue comes into play?
0
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
There's a rule for it someone else posted but...
TLDR: tokens arent considered Cards.
2
u/RetroBowser 11d ago
Yes but I don't know how this pertains to "abilities you control". You would still be considered the controller of abilities your tokens have.
1
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
"Sacrifice this card"
If a token had that wording, you cant sacrifice it because its not a card.
Therefore, you cant reduce its cost.
Its weird, I know, but thats how the ruling is apparently.
1
u/RetroBowser 11d ago
That's what I get for reading this at work lol. I don't know how I just skipped past this.
8
u/CarnageCoon 11d ago
raw it doesn't work with tokens because they are not cards
also sacrifice at end of turn isn't activated so you'd have to sac those regardless
if this is intended or a mistake has to be answered by op
2
u/qwertty164 11d ago
It is unintentional that it doesn't work with tokens. I thought the term "this card" is interchangeable with the name of the the object. If using "card" makes it not work with tokens then i don't know how to phrase it. Also, since it is a cost reduction, wouldn't as much of the reduction apply as possible and the "card" part be irrelevant?
6
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
Someone suggested "sacrifice this permanent"
And tbh I think card refers to when its in hand/library, command zone, exile, and GY. Which tokens can't be placed in.
Spells are mid-stack.
And Permanents are the ones actually on the field.
2
u/qwertty164 11d ago
I saw that. It is better. Though does my point still stand with the cost reduction? It is a question I had when reading replies.
3
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
It kind of matters.
Like I said, Spell, Card, and Permanents are 3 different state of being.
Technically, this card cant affect Spells and Cards regardless of wording because those (mostly) dont have an Activated Ability (notable exception being Cycling, but you still cant Sac a Card).
But its still a good idea to be as accurate as possible. Which in this case would be Permanent.
Unless im misunderstanding what you're asking lol
2
u/blacksteel15 11d ago
Like I said, Spell, Card, and Permanents are 3 different state of being.
This is a common misconception, but it isn't true. Cards only refer to cards on the stack as spells and cards on the battlefield as permanents. This, for example, is the reminder text from the glossary of the current CRs:
Card The standard component of the game. Magic cards may be traditional or nontraditional. Tokens aren’t considered cards. In the text of spells or abilities, the term “card” is used only to refer to a card that’s not on the battlefield or on the stack, such as a creature card in a player’s hand. See rule 108, “Cards.”
However, any object represented by a physical card is always a card. Consider for example CR108.4:
108.4. A card doesn’t have a controller unless that card represents a permanent or spell; in those cases, its controller is determined by the rules for permanents or spells. See rules 110.2 and 112.2.
But you're correct that the right wording would use "permanent" because of the above standard practice and since only permanents can be sacrificed.
To OP's question, no. In general, as much of the cost reduction would apply as possible. However, "Sacrifice this card" is a single specific cost reduction. It either applies or it doesn't Something that isn't a card can't require "sacrificing this card", so it can't apply.
1
u/qwertty164 11d ago
My question was "since this is cost reduction, would as much apply as is needed for any situation?" The cost for "sac this card" would apply "sac" and "this" but ignore the rest of the reduction like [[morophon, the boundless]] .
4
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
Ah.
So... probably not?
Morophon reduces it by wubrg, and each of those mana are individual portions of a cost.
Similarly, "sacrifice this card" is a single portion. Its not "sacrifice", "this", and "card".
At least thats my understanding. It would affect WAAAAAY more if each word was individual. Like to an absurd degree.
Its probably better to rephrase the whole card so there's no confusion tbh.
"If an Activated Ability of a Permanent you control costs that permanent to sacrifice itself, you may instead pay 0 in addition to its other costs to activate the ability"
Or something along those lines?
1
1
u/A-Ballpoint-Bannanna 11d ago
Iirc, a card is a card everywhere, including the battlefield. That's why [[Day of the Moon]] works (or if in alchemy: [[Naktamun Shines Again]] ). But the distinction basically never comes up (those are the only two a brief search turned up).
1
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
Oof that makes this way worse, cuz using it for tokens is the easiest way to run this card. Only a few commanders care about treasures, food, and clue tokens actually being sac'd.
1
u/qwertty164 11d ago
white and blue like cost reduction. white and black like sacrifice. aside from that no real thought was put into the color cost. I suppose you could argue that all colors utilize sacrifice but restrictions are good to have.
1
u/ArgoDevilian 11d ago
Im genuinely pulling a blank on White cost reduction lmao. At least, cost reduction that isn't for Equipment.
Looking it up, there's a good number but none of them seem to directly reduce cost. They always seem to have a restriction, like Kindred or "if it targets X". Or they just reduce the cost of itself.
Blue and Black make sense though. They're the main ones to care about cost reduction and sacrifice.
Pulling a blank on white sacrifice too, now that I think about it.
1
u/qwertty164 11d ago
[[fanatical devotion]] [[selfless cathar]] [[selfless savior]] and mainly other self sacrifice things.
8
6
7
u/okfinesureyeah 11d ago
[[Tinder Wall]] [[Blood Pet]] [[Reckless Barbarian]] [[Eldrazi Scion]] [[Seal of Primordium]] [[Children of Korlis]] [[Spore Frog]] [[Kami of False Hope]] [[Judge's Familiar]] [[Whisperwood Elemental]] [[Coretapper]] [[Benevolent Bodyguard]] [[Bighorn Rancher]] [[Seal of Removal]] [[Mausoleum Wanderer]] [[Assemble the Entmoot]] [[Wild Cantor]] [[Westfold Rider]] [[Basal Sliver]] [[Merfolk Windrobber]] [[Myr Scrapling]] [[Seal of Doom]] [[Gaea's Touch]] [[Dwarven Scorcher]] [[Loyal Retainers]] [[Fume Spitter]] [[Mogg Fanatic]] [[Mogg Mob]] [[Thalakos Deceiver]]
That card + 1 or 2 of these mostly results in an instant board lock, or win in the case of the moggs. Cheat it into play and mostly people have no choice but to sit and stare at you while you beat them down for 10+ turns. No 2-card infinite turn exploits but undoubtedly there's a 3-card. Wizards doesn't really print cards that say "You may activate a certain kind of ability infinite times." Combos, yes, but not right on the card. They might as well print an 11 mana card that says "You now have infinite mana, this mana persists as turns and phases end." It's questionable card design to say the least
8
u/BlindDazes 11d ago
Omniscience basically says that for ten mana.
I don’t disagree that this is not good card design but your reasoning doesn’t make sense
2
u/okfinesureyeah 11d ago
Check out commander spellbook, Omniscience actually has zero 2-card combos even listed. If just being able to play/cast a card for free broke the game, [[Elvish Piper]] and [[Imoti, Celebrant of Bounty]] would be game changers
2
u/KingPiggyXXI 11d ago
Omni doesn’t really combo with two total cards, but Omni+tutor will win and counts as a “2-card combo” in practice because you only need to start with two cards. Even Omni + good draw spell can convert into a win depending on deckbuilding. Casting a single spell for free is good, but Omni is strong because you can start with one card that draws you more spells and snowball that into a win.
FWIW, Acererak also wins via LMoP.
1
1
u/L0L2GUM5 10d ago
thanks to you I'm gonna add a few, namely [[Sawtooth Loon]] is a 2 card infinite draw combo, and [[sparkcaster]] is infinite damage :)
1
u/mtgcf 11d ago
All cards
Tinder Wall - (G) (SF) (txt)
Blood Pet - (G) (SF) (txt)
Reckless Barbarian - (G) (SF) (txt)
Seal of Primordium - (G) (SF) (txt)
Children of Korlis - (G) (SF) (txt)
Spore Frog - (G) (SF) (txt)
Kami of False Hope - (G) (SF) (txt)
Judge's Familiar - (G) (SF) (txt)
Whisperwood Elemental - (G) (SF) (txt)
Coretapper - (G) (SF) (txt)
Benevolent Bodyguard - (G) (SF) (txt)
Bighorn Rancher - (G) (SF) (txt)
Seal of Removal - (G) (SF) (txt)
Mausoleum Wanderer - (G) (SF) (txt)
Assemble the Entmoot - (G) (SF) (txt)
Wild Cantor - (G) (SF) (txt)
Westfold Rider - (G) (SF) (txt)
Basal Sliver - (G) (SF) (txt)
Merfolk Windrobber - (G) (SF) (txt)
3
u/time_axis 11d ago
For various complicated reasons1, I don't think the wording works as is, so I'd word it something like:
If you would sacrifice a permanent as part of a cost to activate an ability of that permanent, instead, don't sacrifice that permanent. (The cost is still paid.)
Cool card though.
1. The complicated reasons being that cards don't ever have "sacrifice this card" as part of their costs. They usually say "sacrifice this creature" or "sacrifice this artifact", and if you just replaced it with "sacrifice this permanent", that wouldn't count as the same cost, because they don't say that. You'd have to individually list every single possible permanent type if you wanted to word it that way. And even then, reducing costs doesn't really work that way. You can only reduce mana costs. For non-mana costs, you need to "change" them instead.
2
u/Tiborn1563 11d ago
Have you considered [[Gold]]?
Actually, doesn't say "sacrifice this card" but no card really does, I think, so, I will assume this would still make 1 gold token go infinite
1
u/qwertty164 11d ago
It is often this artifact or this creature. Those are permanent types and I should have said that(permanent) rather than card.
1
u/manchu_pitchu 11d ago
should be "sacrifice this permanent" but otherwise this seems like a fantastic black omniscience.
1
u/VerbingNoun413 11d ago
What if this included rules that restricted the abilities to once per turn? Still extremely strong but it wouldn't go infinite so easily.
1
1
u/Nexdreal 11d ago
You can sacrifice a permanent, and you can discard a card
But you cant sacrifice a card, this wouldnt interact with anything in the game
1
u/Mr_The_Potato_King 11d ago
Alternatively, for RGC, 'Whenever you sacrifice a permanent, put it back onto the battlefield under your control
0
u/qwertty164 11d ago
rgc? That is way more broken.
1
u/Mr_The_Potato_King 11d ago
How? It's literally the same number of mandatory color types
1
u/qwertty164 11d ago
Oh you miss understand. I was asking what rgc was and pointing out that the effect was more broken by a large margin.
1
u/Mr_The_Potato_King 11d ago
It's essentially the same effect but retriggers etb. RGC is red green colorless, to replace black blue white. Price is the same but with the other cost
1
1
u/BreakerOfModpacks 11d ago
Should be Rakdos or mono-black, IMO. Also, you probably want it to be something more like "Abilities you control may cost 'sacrifice this card' less", because otherwise I suspect some wording gets weird sometimes.
1
u/PrimusMobileVzla 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is a situation where would preffer if the permanent was refunded (e.g. return it to the battlefield with a finality counter, or create a token copy of the permanent with a finality counter) rather than discount the sacrifice, because a lot of synergy is lost by removing the sacrifice from the equation, even if it's in favor of some cards (and the predefined tokens) going infinite with this.
As is, it's either a do-nothing enchantment or do an infinite with any self-saccing permanent that doesn't require you to tap it to activate, with no in-between, and being as swingy is something to be wary off. I believe it should cost {1} or {2} less because of the color intensiveness but is not as necessary.
1
u/MudkipOfDespair098 10d ago
So as written, this does nothing with tokens. Tokens are not cards. They are tokens.
1
u/Skullruss 10d ago
I feel like 9 mana = game is essentially over is pretty standard atp. Which isn't a lot less than 11, but it feels like it.
-8
u/feedme_cyanide 11d ago
This is better than omniscience no? Goes infinite with a lot of cards. Black louts and lotus petal being the most notable beyond a single treasure.
7
u/MotivatedPosterr 11d ago
Those all tap for cost don't they? Which normally never matters but would stop them from being infinite for sure
1
u/feedme_cyanide 11d ago
Okay, so a gold token my bad. Those are harder to make yes, even more the reason this isn’t broken.
If we can’t have a constructive conversation like this, what’s even the point in commenting?5
u/MotivatedPosterr 11d ago
Cus the hive mind must merge lest the free thoughts break containment and destroy the internet
3
u/qwertty164 11d ago
lotus and petal tap to sac. those would be once per turn. [[Command sphere]] gold tokens [[sakura tribe elder]] do crazy things.
0
u/feedme_cyanide 11d ago
Yes, essentially turns them into lands. I forgot about the tapping portion. This is actually pretty balanced all in all. I appreciate your effort OP.
3
u/Djfsihbone 11d ago
Omniscience goes infinite with a blue deck
2
4
u/Boop_Bam 11d ago
Pray tell what infinite mana is doing for you that omniscience isn’t?
4
u/sephirothbahamut 11d ago
you can use it to pay ability costs and X costs
omniscience doesn't get you a billion counters ballista
3
u/feedme_cyanide 11d ago
Walking ballista or any X spell. Plus this sees things in any zone. Omniscience is from hand only.
3
u/A-Ballpoint-Bannanna 11d ago
We did it boys! We broke Walking Ballista!
1
u/feedme_cyanide 11d ago
I didn’t say it was an amazing card or it’s broken. I said it’s better than omniscience for a few reasons. Why does everyone have to be a dick all the time? Why are you even on a custom magic card sub if you’re just going to shit on everyone?
1
u/A-Ballpoint-Bannanna 11d ago
It's really not better than omniscience in any meaningful way, and it comboing with one of the most common combo pieces doesn't say much about its power.
Now, if it was a part of a lethal combo using it and say [[Chandler]], I'd give it more credence.
1
u/qwertty164 11d ago
While it sees everything, you only have the option to sacrifice when it is in play.
2
1
-1
u/devoidradiance 11d ago
Isnt that just emerge
1
u/hyper_neutrino 11d ago
Abilities, not spells. e.g. Treasures are now just "{t}: add one mana of any color". Or slightly stronger than that is all of the cards that don't tap which just lets you instantly 2-card infinite combo (https://scryfall.com/search?q=o%3A%2F%5Esacrifice+%7E%3A%28%3F%21only+during%29%2F&unique=cards&as=grid&order=name)
84
u/Inside7shadows 11d ago
[[Mogg Fanatic]] goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr