Adversary is a new, custom format for Magic: The Gathering intended to be played over Cockatrice.
Update 3 is now live. 50 Adversaries and counting!
>How is it played?
In Adversary, players select an Adversary card from an existing archive, or create their own. These Adversaries enter play from turn one, and possess abilities that change the way the game is played. If you've ever tried out Vanguard, you'll feel right at home. Adversary uses 61-card decks (including the Adversary card).
The format is Modern Singleton, and the banlist can be found here: http://pastebin.com/4JUSJp01
>How are Adversaries balanced?
Each Adversary is assigned three values: a life total, a starting hand size, and a level. The life total and starting hand size are used to balance Adversaries based on the power of their abilities. In the event that they cannot be effectively balanced this way, Adversaries are also assigned a level, indicating that they are only suited for play against Adversaries of a similar level.
>How can I make my own Adversary?
Post your desired rules text, color identity, illustration and artist-to-credit in this thread and I might make it for you! Alternatively, make it yourself in Photoshop or an MTG card creation program. I will then add it to the .xml file and it will become available to everyone.
>What is Cockatrice and where do I download it?
http://www.woogerworks.com/
>Adversary Files and Installation Guide
http://pastebin.com/TCGtFAXF
>Player List
http://pastebin.com/m05wzSJF
>Level Guideline
http://pastebin.com/4fV7y17f
>Photoshop Template
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g9i30t9lxpmf0ni/5%20Shared%20Adversary%20Template.psd?dl=0
>Obligatory Playlist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTeRLM_ki84&list=PL1A0CA0B29E547F8A
>Previous Thread
>>44403956
>>44428369
Now then, it may be a little while before update 4 comes around. We have accumulated an insane number of Adversaries in a very short amount of time, and we can't afford to add anymore without first getting accustomed to the 50 we have available now. Adversary isn't just a custom card thread in disguise. It's a format, and in order for the format to grow, the existing cards must be playtested.
If you don't want to wait longer for the next batch of custom cards to be added - help out. Get on Cockatrice and play a few matches with us. It's fun, faggot.
But forget all that for a moment. We've hit a huge landmark! I mean, 50 cards--
Oh...? What's this?I guess you'll have to get on Cockatrice to find out.
>>44428440
You broke your own rule with that one, nigger. I have no idea how do I even
Third for smoke weed everyday.
>Preemptively increased Virgel's level before playtesting
B-but I didn't get to break her yet..Probably a good call
>>44428649
I'm calling dibs on Virgel.
>>44428440
You cocktease, doing this to me when you know I can't get online.
Does having a 9 in the lower right corner mean just a starting hand size of 9 or both starting and max hand size of 9
>>44429508
Just starting hand.
Quick question: How do we test adversaries before they are added to the master set or spike's? Would anyone here be interested in playing a game to test the latest iteration of Kalen?
>>44426022
>>44428484
They do not need hexproof. everything else is fine
>>44429827
I'd be down for a match as long as you don't mind facing against shabby, low powered decks.
My cockatrice name is heywhatscookin
>>44429827
>>44429508
>Does having a 9 in the lower right corner mean just a starting hand size of 9 or both starting and max hand size of 9
Originally, it was intended to mean both starting hand size and max hand size. However, I'm going to look at all the Adversaries we have and put some thought into whether that should change.
>Quick question: How do we test adversaries before they are added to the master set or spike's?
I'm afraid we don't, really. Adversaries get critiqued by other people in the thread until it seems apparent that they are comfortable in their current level. Then they get added to the .xml and undergo further changes after proper playtesting. I'm sure if you did get in contact with some of the players that they'd be willing to do a test match with an unreleased Adversary though, just use a token to represent it.
Kalen, Dimir Codemaster (3)
BU
Sorcery cards in your hand gain Cipher.
(t), Target Rogue you control gains Prowess until end of turn.
18/7
Prowess works perfectly mechanically while still not being overpowered, but at the same time it may be too jeskai for this fluffy dimir adversery. Thoughts? Also, is this good at level 3?
>>44429913
Sure, I'd be down. Use a powerful adversary if you think it would balance things out. My username is Meryn.
>>44428440
Alright, first of all I think its time we stop and look at what we've done so far. Its been five days and four threads only and we've already created 50 Adversary cards, all of them incredibly varied and with all sorts of mechanics that enable all sorts of strategies that were simply not possible before. This general oozes both creativity and passion and thats why you should congratulate yourselves.
Now, there's a very long way to go still. We are doing an excellent job, but these are just baby steps, so lets keep working as we have been doing so far so that we may have a shot at making the Adversary format a thing.
On that, I've decided to set up a physical Adversary exhibition tournament at my lgs to obtain some feedback from outside this general and gauge the reception obtained. The 'tournament' will be celebrated at Friday Night Magic this week or the one after that and will use preconstructed decks.
There will be 12 of these preconstructed decks, 4 using a lvl1 Adversary, 4 for lvl2 and yet anoter 4 for lvl3. The selected lvl1 Adversaries are:
>Nixien, Brineshaper
>Olag Nar, Master Plasmancer
>Runna, Knight of the Final Hour
>Fina, Dragon Rider
For lvl2 and lvl3 I've selected a series of Adversaries, and I want an input in which 4 should make it in, that's why I created two polls for you to vote.
http://strawpoll.me/6387629
http://strawpoll.me/6387782
I suggest you vote the cards you find the most fun, as casual play will be the spirit of the event
>>44428484
You may cast cards in your hand face down as 2/2 creatures for (3). Turn it face up any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.
Face down cards you control get +x/+x and have [abilities].
Whenever a permanent you control is turned face up, if it's a creature, it can't be blocked this turn.
>>44430229
It needs to be 'Sorcery spells you cast have cipher.' Otherwise they don't have it on the stack and don't do anything. You could also not use the keyword and spell out the ability.
>>44429905
They do need hexproof for lore reasons. Its an expression of the character's capabilities.
>>44430441
That's exactly what manifest does, you put a card face down and turn it up for its mana cost if its a creature (you can't turn face up a non-creature card, albeit you can still manifest it).
There's no need to change the wording.
>>44430410
I think Olag Nar noticeable more powerful than the other three. Just saiyan
>>44430691
It's a better wording and it stops you from doing it at instant speed.
It's also the correct wording for the second two abilities.
Manifest has never been used for cards in hand before, as well.
>>44431233
I disagree.
>>44431505
Why?
There is no existing wording for the first ability, but you can check for yourself that manifest has only been used on the top card of your library.
There's tons of examples of the second ability.
After looking again, the third ability should actually be "Whenever a permanent you control is turned face up, it can't be blocked until end of turn."
We're now up to about 7 active players who are online at roughly the same times. Check the players list and add everyone there if you want to join in.
>>44432936
Finally sorta figured out cockatrice. Gotta make a couple deck, then I'll be on to play a match
>>44433237
Hurrah. Get online even before your decks are ready and you can spectate a few matches. There's a 1v1v1 right now. Cockatrice name?
>>44433272
Crackling.Blue.Mage
mang
>>44431845
>Why?
Because.
But seriously:
>Manifest card (Put it onto the battlefield face down as a 2/2 creature. Turn it face up any time for its mana cost if it's a creature card.)
This is the reminder text for the Manifest mechanic. As you see nowhere does it specify that its limited to the top of your library. Potentially, you could manifest a card from your hand, the graveyard or even exile if the card said so. Sure, there are no examples of it being utilized in that particular way, but that does not mean its being misused.
We could do it your way or mine and the result would be identical, but my way is far less wordy, so its the better option. Plus, your way would potentially allow you to cast lands as 2/2 creatures too.
Regarding the second ability the difference is minimal, though I do guess that the word "All" is redundant and that yours is closest to form. I don't think the two wordings would have different effects in this case, so the point is moot.
I'll give you the third one though, its poorly worded since it doesn't note the ability only affects the cards you control. But again, yours isn't good either. The most correct wording would be.
>Whenever a permanent you control is turned face up it can't be blocked this turn.
Because again, due to the fact that manifest doesn't allow noncreature spells to be turned face up, there's no need to specify that only creatures can be affected.
>>44433272
I'd kill to spectate a match. Who's playing with what decks?
>>44433515
Bodhi is Pitterfang, heywhatscookin is Luxos, and Meryn is Kalen.
I-I feel a bit bad for you. It must be annoying to fancy something that you can't really participate in.
>>44430229
As I said, its perfect. Sure, Prowess IS a Jeskai thing and its nice to use the abilities that match the Adversary's lore but its not the end-all of everything. It's more important to fit the capabilities of the character you are making a card of.
For example, Ananta Seshou. Ananta is an Hydra from the Orochi clans of Kamigawa, yet it grants Convoke, a mechanic characteristic of the Selesnya Conclave in Ravnica. Why does he have it then?
Because it represents Ananta's capacity to tap into the mana locked in all living things and let it flow free, using it for spells rather than only gathering it from the environment. It symbolizes the Hydra's superior communion with nature and the cycle of life and death.
>>44433564Upload gameplay to youtube senpai.
>>44431065
Well, sure if its built around to really exploit it, but in my eyes I think those four are the most fun lvl1 adversaries we have, which is why I picked them.
I'm almost picked Luxos rather than Runna, but I realized that playing on the defensive isn't very fun for a lot of people. Above all I want the participants to have as much fun as possible. I also discarded Mihail due to his artwork. I don't want anyone to think that Adversary is some weeaboo thing made by people who can't into magic lore and just want to shove in their favorite Cambodian cartoons.
Not that I don't love me sum animu, mind you. But this will be an act of PR above all. I want to be taken seriously.
>>44433564
Glad to hear everyone gets to watch me get my ass reamed. Kalen card when?
>>44434044
Also:
>Bestel
Dude's plain bad imo.
>Kahn
I really like this dude and I was this close to getting him in instead of Runna, but playing him efficiently would probably require a deck full of vanilla creatures, which would make the deck dull to play. When a card needs to limit the deck in such a way to be good, it makes for questionable design. If only Khan had something like...
>(2)(t): Target creature looses all card text until the end of turn.
Now that'd give it the kind of depth I want to demonstrate Adversary has.
>>44434102When you manage to win a match.So never :^)
>>44434216
>Fixed the Adversary template
- No longer has large left bar from using the planeswalker frame
- Updated to the currently used fonts (Belren Bold + SmallCaps, MPlantin, Relay, 2012 Magic Symbols)
- Changed M12 to ADV
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qht78l5bjfunl7m/Adversary%20Template.psd?dl=0
>>44434102
... But seriously, I can't wait for a Kalen card. Dude's the best and most original Dimir guy we've had so far, and with him there's already three of them. Guess its /adv/s favorite guild.
Actually, maybe I'll make a bunch of Adversaries themed after each Ravnica guild. 2 for each - what we already have at the very least. Which reminds me.
>>44433564
This new guy you added in the last update, Jera, is he supposed to be from the Azorious senate?
>>44434375
But the left bar is the best part, gives the thing a bit of colour.
>>44434515
You're objectively wrong, as it is it mearly unbalanced the aesthetics of the card. There is the potential to turn that bar into the thing that defines the color identity of the Adversary instead of in the twins, but that idea is also meh.
And just like that, Zael became broken.
Coming to you this January.
>>44434178
The intent was for him to be around the level of Fina.
Not sure if I succeeded.
>>44434582
Mind posting a mockup of any Adversary with your new frame? Do whichever you like, >>44430229 if you will. You'd make some anon happy in the process.
>>44434611
Sorry, but he's really bad yo. In fact, I can't see him being anything other than an hindrance rather than any actual help. I mean, paying 5 lives to just prevent damage to a creature and have even more damage dealt to you on top of that?
He should be called Worstel. I do have a few ideas to fix him though.
>>44433272
Since I never asked before, what server/port is being used?
I got a Falgore deck together and got some timejust in time for Lamahk to be made.
>>44434653
>>44430229
Here you are.
>>44434737
m8 build a Fina deck and play me.
>>44434860
It was fate. I just won my first match!
>>44434853
The details listed on the woogerworks site should work for you.
If you get online, add one of the online players listed in the players list and click 'show this user's games'. There will be a big lobby with everyone in it.
I need to go to bed.
>>44434860
Not bad, I must admit. If we are gonna redo all cards so far how about you take the chance to reword this one >>44428484 for me?
>Whenever you would cast a spell from your hand you may pay (3) and manifest it.
>Face down cards you control gain +0/+2 , hexproof and vigilance.
>Whenever a permanent you control is turned face up it can't be blocked this turn.
>>44434874
But I'm a scrub.
>>44434860
Would you consider creating cards for an additional bonus set in the same way that Spike is doing it? You seem quite good with Photoshop.
I'll be using your altered template, but... Retroactively fixing all the old ones is going to kill me.
>>44435140
Yeah, I can do that. If you were around quite awhile ago in the EDH threads, I was one of the guys doing up digital proxies for people's generals.
If you have psd files and wanna hand them off I can go through and fix them.
>>44433453
Your wording implies that I could manifest something at instant speed if it's an instant card.
You can already manifest lands, how is that a problem?
They don't have different effects, but it's the same templating every official card uses. The purpose of standardizing the wording is for usability -being able to read understand things quickly.
Pinewalker says "Whenever Pine Walker or another creature you control is turned face up, untap that creature."
So it's 'another creature,' regardless of your point.
>>44434860
Thanks so much btw, this looks really nice.
>>44434940
Hawk told us not to post more Adversaries, but I'm seeing you so happy here that I thought I'd show you the hard counter I've devised for Kalen :^)
>Jorah, Chief of Magus Police
>Adversary – (W/B)
>Whenever an opponent casts a sorcery or instant spell you may detain target nonland permanent.
>{22/6}
Nah, I didn't create this just to fuck with you. Its one of those Ravnica-flavored Adversaries I mentioned before. Concretely the Azorious Senate one.
>>44435529
>Your wording implies that I could manifest something at instant speed
So?, Its a highly defensive Adversary after all.
Can't wait to proxy up some adversaries and play adversary commander planechase.
>>44435798
>Adversary Planechase
That could be cool. But raging autism makes me require that only Planeswalker Adversaries would be usable in such a format.
>>44435723
Oops, that should be (W/U), not (W/B).
>>44435723
Just realized a huge flavor faux pas with this. In Ravnica all police work is done by the Boros guild. It's what a good portion of the Ravnica books actually revolved around with Agrus Kos.
>>44436483
Oh yeah. I should have done my research better. I mean, Detain sounds so police-like.
>Tfw you got 5 finished Adversaries but Hawk isn't accepting new pitches anymore
>>44437053
I personally would like to see 3 for each Monocolor, Guild, Shard, Clan, Colorless, and something like 5 all colors.
Wanting to make something similar to a Jenera EDH deck, but the only Bant adversary is meh and worded very poorly to boot.
>>44437053
It's okay Anon, I know how you feel. I've made a couple different Adversaries in previous threads and they're both still nonexistent. One of them never even got any feedback, so I assume it was probably shit.
>>44434860
I think the wording here is clunky.
Why not just use the actual wording for Cipher instead of some made up shit?
Cipher (Then you may exile this spell card encoded on a creature you control. Whenever that creature deals combat damage to a player, its controller may cast a copy of the encoded card without paying its mana cost.)
The bracketed text is always an explanation of what Cipher does, not what the Adversary does.
Also, this is stupid broken because of Rain of Tears.
Also, just to be anal, it should be {T}:, not {T},
Also, I don't think it's worth the space to specify Rogues that you control. There's no advantage to limiting it to your rogues.
>>44438159
Err,
{T}:
not
{T},
The comma I used in my first example was to separate it but I realized that could be misconstrued. Sorry.
>>44434860
I think it should actually be "Sorcery cards in your hand gain cipher"
>>44438159
It isn't about advantage, the limiting was an intentional attempt at creating a tribal adversary. It also limits his power level slightly. I agree the cipher should use the actual text, though I'm not sure how the preamble should be worded.
>>44438179
Is also correct.
>>44438192
If they only have Cipher in your hand as soon as they're on the stack, or exiled then they no longer have it and the ability itself wouldn't do anything.
>>44438159
The reason for it is Cipher is always on a card after all of the effects, thus the reminder text that is used. When you have a card which gives other cards Cipher it isn't clear where in the ability text the additional ability would be placed in context of it's resolution. So in the reminder text it would have to reference this in some way. I've also always thought the way that Cipher reminder is worded is stupid. Almost as stupid as Obsidian Firehearts reminder text.
However you're correct on the : vs , my bad there.
>>44428369
Ok, now I have played a bunch of games, I know the levels need to be compressed to 3 and actually divided. Honestly I would just get rid of the mechanic and focus on balancing the existing cards around one point...
Right now the diffrence between 2 and three seems to be the actual split point. 3 and above is not seems much designed as randomly thrown together.
Rock paper scissors effect needs to be addressed. Magic has the standard control beats midrange, midrange beats agro, agro beats control. Most of the adversaries just change this from a general rule to a stated fact. This makes the only interesting match ups mirror matches, which is really dumb.
Take Khan for instance. Can you deal with a 4/x every turn from turn one? Good tempo can, but control just curls into a ball and cries.
I want to like this format. It is just that it is actually 5 formats stapled together, and then shuffled.
>>44431065
Anon who proposed Olag here (sorry I haven't been on yet to play guys, got sidetracked with the holidays and now too many good activities are competing for time), I'm also surprised to see him at level 1. It's repeatable counterspells and since this is basically "build around" the format you don't need to question whether or not people will try to exploit that. The goal was for about 2ish, maybe the health will have to go back up some to compensate for that but that could be preferable to having it make the level 1 division less fun by it's inclusion. Has anyone actually tested it yet? I've almost got a rough list together, hoping to find time to finish it and get some games in this week.
>>44440749
And actually while I'm here, are there strict rules for sideboards? Currently mine is full of cards that almost made the cut and that I might want to swap in later after testing but if that's problematic I can always note them somewhere and trim it to an actual sideboard. I didn't know how closely these matches resemble "actual" matches.
>>44440888
It's a casual format. You can be as casual as you want or as cutthroat as you want. Just know it'll affect who wants to play with you again.
Essentially... just ask your opponent if they're OK with you sideboarding, like you would in casual?
>>44440749
Yeah, I'm super surprised he made it in at level 1, too. I think that's an oversight or just a bad decision.
Good morning.
>>44439708
Fair points. I'm sorry that your first impression weren't very flattering, by the way, I was around long enough to notice the troubles with Ignis and such.
I'm going to consider trying to balance all Adversaries for a single baseline level. The only issue is that it would require certain Adversaries to be cut entirely, like Deus. Deus can never be balanced for anything below the top level, which is offset by the fact that multiple players are supposed to gang up on him with lower level Adversaries.
I would very much like to address the rock paper scissors effect, but I'm not sure how.
>>44441091
>>44440749
Olag was raised to level 2 in the OP update.
>>44437283
>>44437053
We've had an insane boom in new players since I mentioned that the next update is on hold for a bit, so I think it was the right call - but you can still pitch your ideas. If they catch my eye, I'll remember them when it comes time to start adding new ones, but besides that, you now have Spike and Photoshopanon occasionally making cards for their own bonus sets.
>>44441083
Ok, good. What I meant is that I'm currently using it as a convenient storage area for "maybe use this in a future version of the list" cards, not that I necessarily plan on sideboarding during the game (and certainly wouldn't if my opponent isn't, that's pretty tryhard stuff). I just didn't know if it would be an issue or not, I've never used Cockatrice before this and don't know how strictly the format is set up.
>>44441265
Yeah, I was on the side of getting curb stomped by Khan my first game. Yeah, I don't think anyone ever addressed the fact that theoretically, there will always be a 4/3 at the beginning of every game. Something has to happen to Khan. Maybe +1/+1 anthem. Something that isn't a turn four or less clock right off the bat.
Also Calico isn't quite level 4. She is pretty tough in 1v1, but she doesn't have the stuff to break easily
Also mulligan rule for adversaries. Calico, you will take any hand, but I'm trying to test Ananata, and it is literally impossible to mulligan down. Maybe if the rule was an absolute starting hand or in Adversaries you can't mulligan down below 3 or something.
At 3 cards in hand, the game is very awkward and luck based. maybe bump up to 4 cards. Believe me anything more and it's absolute terror, because when she gets going she might be a boss. Thought about splashing tron in her.. doesn't need tron even when I had all the pieces.
>>44428484
I'm not sure this works, don't you have to reveal the card to make sure it's castable? Since it says "would cast a spell", you can't manifest lands, or, say hypergenesis, right?
>>44441565
I was considering specifying that playing Adversary comes with 2 free mulligans, because I don't like playing dead games and if there's an opportunity to make a dead hand less likely, I'll take it.
>>44441559
Sideboarding is fine.
>>44441593
>I was considering specifying that playing Adversary comes with 2 free mulligans
that sounds right, going to try it a bit
>>44441603
Are you already on the player list?
>>44441623
Sorry, forgot my trip
I'm considering swapping the color identities of Renais and Khan. Khan really needs access to green to be viable.
Any objections?
>>44442023
Because 4/3s for 2 isn't enough?
What is the big difference between adversary and vanguard?
They seem almost the same.
>>44442275
Specifically it seems like you're just adding colour identifies and levels to vanguard.
Am I missing something?
Why not have them be additional vanguard cards?
>>44442275
They are essentially the same thing. Adversary is just a 'modern revival' (if you consider Vanguard dead) with custom cards.
>>44442234
It does sound strong, but it's a very straightforward ability and I think most other Adversaries of his level are equally powerful in more complex ways.
>>44442292
Any reason not to use vanguard cards alongside it?
>>44442292
>They are essentially the same thing.
Not really a *new* format them, is it?
Don't get me wrong, I love the shit out of Vanguard, and I'd love more vanguard cards.
But it seems a bad idea to release vanguard cards under a new name and not have it be compatible with vanguard.
>>44442374
We'd have to assign levels to all of the existing Wizards Vanguards, for starters, or at least decide on a level to assign to all Vanguards as a whole. It would also distract us from playtesting and balancing the existing Adversaries.
Beyond that - while it may not be an entirely original custom format, it is still a custom format, so it makes sense to keep it 'in the family', so to speak.
>>44442393
It's new. It's just not original. I will never claim that Adversary is original. However, speaking in terms of its balancing, card roster, presentation, infrastructure: it's new. Less than a week old, in fact.
I'm not trying to rip off Vanguard, for the record. I'm merely trying to combine two fun things which I never had a chance to actually play before now: Vanguard, and integrated custom cards. It's going well so far.
>>44442425
What's do you mean infrastructure?
I get that its entirely custom cards, which is nice, but I mean, vanguard is already a thing, and mtgo has a good collection of extra vanguard cards so well.
And yes , you're using custom layouts.
But they seem pretty clearly to be vanguard cards to me, so why not just have it be a new set of Vanguard cards?
No need to redo the existing cards, but you could still have them be compatible.
Side note: your level marker looks like a mana cost. It will confuse people.
(I play vanguard regularly, it's a great format)
>>44442468
>But they seem pretty clearly to be vanguard cards to me, so why not just have it be a new set of Vanguard cards?
That's essentially what they are, but with a different name to prevent confusion. Even if I called it 'Vanguard', I'd have to distinguish it from official Vanguard in some way. Vanguard 2.0, Vanguard Redux, Vanguard Custom... Might as well just use something like 'Adversary', which is both shorter and more distinctive. Also, much in the same way that new sets in MTG can be played exclusively with one another in Standard, Adversary is played exclusively with Adversary cards. Bringing in official Vanguards would be a lot like bringing Legacy cards to a Standard tournament. There's nothing wrong with the Legacy cards, and the Standard cards aren't necessarily better - but the Legacy cards are still going to turn things upside down.
>Side note: your level marker looks like a mana cost. It will confuse people.
That's why we have the big guide in the OP. Someone actually offered to create a more unique template for these cards earlier today, so it's possible that this will be avoided in the future anyway.
>>44442523
Ah; yeah I guess my views are coloured by my not seeing a point in standard. I only play eternal formats.
Nah, you don't need to reveal the card, as manifest allows you to potentially manifest any card regardless of the type, including lands. Plus, you do not reveal cards you cast for their morph cost.
That said, as its worded the Adversary doesn't allow you to manifest lands, as they are not spells.
I dom't know what hypergenesis is, sorry.
someone dish me out some fresh hot opinions
>>44441586
Forgot to tag >>44442548
>>44428369
Once you get the template worked out, can you make the images available in 300dpi? That way they're good for printing / proxy in, for use in home games (some of us don't use cockatrice)
>>44442776
Proxying* damn autocorrect
>>44442776
They're actually already at 300dpi. The .psd's are, anyway. I'm not sure how pixel density works when exporting as a .png.
>>44442595
>V1
Interesting. Destroying your own lands, provided that is the intended use here, is a pretty unique mechanic that I don't think anyone else would make an Adversary for.
>V2
Also interesting, although it's already looking a lot more powerful because the effects can feed off of enemy land destruction as well.
>V3
I suspect this would be very easily broken. Sacrificing your own lands is considered a huge cost for some cards, and not only negating that cost but turning it to your benefit is a big deal.
>V4
This might be the one I like the most, although it probably wouldn't be very fun to play against.
>V5
Far too cheap.
>6
0 lands on the battlefield until turn 4. Calico would automatically win the game.
>Tee M'uhr V1
Interesting. I like it, but I don't have much to say about it either.
>V2
This seems like a rather bloated effect. The card's identity comes off as blurred.
>>44443033
I wanted to make an LD themed adversary, and just slapped down a bunch of ideas i thought up. I personally like v2 the most.
Tee M'uhr was just something that came out of the blue for me, I personally like v1 better. The point of v2 was to just spit out small chunks of value. I tried to word it so that it would be as low-powered as it could, while still keeping the same abilities.
>>44443033
Mind if I post a few adversaries to get your opinion?
I wouldn't repost them until you opened submissions again.
>>44443172
If you like. There are other people in the Adversary threads who provide much better critique than me, though. Thugnificent comes to mind, so you could always wait until he pops on.
>>44443263
>Iorah Karas the Sophist
>Adversary – (W/U)
>Whenever an opponent casts a sorcery or instant spell you may detain target nonland permanent, if there are no eligible targets counter said spell.
>{22/6}
_________________________________
>"Rip and Tear" Igor, the Mad
>Hellbent – Creatures you control have deathtouch as long as you have no cards in hand.
>(R/B): Target player discards a card, then deals one damage to target creature or opponent.
>{26/3}
_________________________________
>Elsa, Selesnya Auramancer
>Adversary – (W/G)
>Whenever you'd cast an Aura spell, populate enchanted creature.
>{17/9}
_________________________________
>Forchak the Hateful
>Adversary – (R/G)
>Creatures you control have trample.
>Creatures in your hand have Bloodthirst X, where X is the combined ammount of damage dealt to all opponents this turn.
>{22/6}
_________________________________
>Salome of the Victory Cry
>Adversary – (W/R)
>Battalion – Whenever three or more creatures attack, they obtain protection from the color of your choice for this turn.
_________________________________
>Tav Morek, Master Artificer
>Adversary – (U/R)
>Artifact spells you cast have replicate (2)(X), where (X) is their converted mana cost.
>{10/10}
These are the Ravnica Adversaries I mentioned before, if you were wondering.
>>44443349
>iorah
you win if you fight dralnu
>igor
I like the starting with 3 cards and the ability, but maybe a little more than just deathtouch for hellbent. 3 cards is a lot more of a penalty than you may think
>elsa
not too shabby, using auras on tokens seems a little risky/fun, and 9 cards is a lot. You could probably flood the board pretty quick with birds though.
>forchak
only problem here is the wording, love it. could be pretty strong though
>salome
stomps mono-colored decks pretty well, i would watch where you put the hp/cards at
>tav morek
I feel like there is an infinite here, but I cannot put my finger on it. I think the 10/10 might be balanced nicely, would have to do some testing first.
If you want to test out these guys, I don't mind facing them. I'm heywhatscookin in the cockatrice lobby
>>44443578
>Iorah
Remove counterspell effect then?
>Igor
Deathtouch and menace then?
>Salome
I was thinking something along the lines of {14/7}
>Tav Morek
The infinite here would be 0 drops such as Menmite and the like, but the (2)(X) means you have to pay (2) at the very least, even for a 0 drop. Maybe I'll change it to (U)(R)(X) to make it clearer.
>>44443578
Also can't into Cockatrice, srry.
>>44443910
yes the counterspell effect is extremely strong, I wouldn't say remove it entirely, as if you face a no creature deck, the ability would be useless
deathtouch and menace work pretty well together, I like it
14/7 sounds like a good fit for salome
alright, sounds like tav could be pretty nasty if he gets the mana for it
>>44443935
ah, that sucks pal
if you ever can into cockatrice, you know where I am
>>44444088
Iorah Karas the Sophist
Adversary – (W/U)
Whenever an opponent casts a sorcery or instant spell you may choose one:
• Detain target nonland permanent.
• Counter said spell unless its controller pays (2).
Better now?
>>44444164
Looks good man. Not too sure what level you are placing these guys at, but iorah looks like it would probably be pushing four.
>>44443578
Iorah shits on a lot of spellslingers. Anyone who goes creature-less loses instantly. Its kind of like a reverse Ignis in that it utterly will hose some players regardless of their draws or play.
Igor is nice, I like it. Ditto for Rorchak.
I can see Elsa going bonkers really fast. Rancor?
Salome should be "until end of turn." I assume you would be running mass weenies. Another cool adversary.
Tav is just begging to be broken. How? No idea. 0 mana artifact creatures + krark-clan ironworks? (storm)
>>44441265
The issue is the advis are really overly specialized. Generally they directly support one kind of play, but support it really well. I would say move toward more generally useful powers with less specific appeal.
>>44442991
So long as you're not resizing the pngs to a smaller size to save space, the pixel density is the same.
I thought you might be making these in the mtg card editor, which gives wretchedly low quality images.
>>44445111
All done in photoshop at a high resolution, as you can see. I have no idea how to use the card editors.
>>44445794
Is Khan officially naya colors now
>>44444639
I already accounted for 0 mana artifact creatures by making Replicate cost (U)(R) at the very least. That means that you can't replicate even 0 drops until turn 2, 3 for anything else.
I'm hoping this damper alongside the low life total keeps him balanced even within his niche, affinity.
>>44439708
I think this is honestly the biggest challenge facing the format. Certain adversaries make certain types of play impossible, Ignis being a particularly heinous example. When approving adversaries we should consider how they will interact with certain play-styles and deck types. I also support a level compression:
1: Adversary-less can compete against these and still have a chance of winning. Low power level.
2: The default adversary level, encompassing current levels 2-3. These should hose adversary-less decks, though level 1 decks should have a chance at defeating them.
3: High power level. Current levels 4-5. Level 1 adversary decks have no hope, though level 2s have a chance with good draws. Multiple level 2s should be able to fairly fight most adversaries at this power level.
That said I would prefer doing away with levels on cards all together, and merely separate them into fair tiers.
>>44439708
>>44447030
This is probably more of an issue of not placing Adversaries well rather than one with there being five tiers instead of three, more categories should lead to more refined balance rather than less so if that isn't happening then something else has gone wrong. Very clear reference points would be great though, if difficult to determine. With enough playtesting the current crop of cards should eventually settle into a more or less accurate tiered ranking but at the rate new ones have been added we're basically never going to "catch up" unless people are able to create Adversaries that start out being very close to where they end up. The alternative is slowing the rate of additions but that honestly seems much less desirable, being able to show and play the exact character you want is very appealing and quite unique in a game compared to "here newbie, pick one of these 50-100 that people who are no longer even playing already made for you."
>>44447550
I think that if there are 50-100, something that you would like or something at least similar to what you would like would be included.
Coming from someone who is just getting into this I think that breaking Adv. into three grouping is ideal. Then consider the different color combinations.
>5 Mono Color
>10 Guilds
>5 Shards
>5 Clans
>All colors
If there are three group, lesser, normal, and greater I think an ideal would be to have 2 lessers Adversaries, 3 normal, and 1 greater for each of those color identities. Which would end up being 50 lesser, 75 normal, and 25 greater.
This would be a monumental task, but something that I think with a lot of care could be done. Thoughts?
>>44449522
you are forgetting neph colors
>>44449543
Forgetting is not the same as omitting. The design space isn't really worthwhile, as you end up falling into two frameworks.
>The card isn't representative of the properties of the colors that it encompasses.
This is what the Nehphalim had happen to them. None of their cards really relate to all of the colors that they belong to.
>The design becomes about what color ISN'T included.
This would lead to actively inhibiting something which the absent color is usually good at. It could be an interesting design space, such as an Adversary which lacks blue having no hand size, or one which lacks green give your opponents tokens every upkeep to signify the forests rising against the adversary. While these are ideas which we're free to look at I don't think that looking at the baseline of a new format as something that is necessary.
>>44449641
we already have a neph colored adversary though
I do agree that 4 colors is hard to cover and normally boils down to just "everything but blue", but I don't see a reason to not try and incorporate the different aspects of four of the colors into one card/adversary
>>44449807
It's a 4 color adversary that benefits most from playing none of those colors, except maybe black for the boardwipe. It's a really shoddy design. I think that some of the adversaries as designed will end up getting cut or drastically changed before the end of this. Just look at Entity. What even the fuck is purple mana?
>>44449867
I feel like entity was a joke
and yes, hez is ridiculous and doesn't even need the colors at all, I run 10 lands, 49 mana rocks and a blightsteel
I still think passing by the 4 color combos is missing a chance to make some original and fun adversaries
>>44449971
Like I said, it's not like it's off the table, I just don't see it as necessary to the final product.
I like the idea of color playing a role in vanguard type effects, but...I think with the rest of the rules, it kind of limits deck builds. It almost implies a single optimum build that once found for a given Adversary will be all that's ever played with it (even with the singleton aspect).
It would require redoing basically everything (which I do feel like a dick for suggesting), but why not put some level of actual "adversary" in it...like throw a single color that's what that card hates and gets a bonus to (like a flat +x to hand and to life) as well as a color that they do piss poor against that gives a penalty formatted like the bonus...
Or have the bonus/penalty be a part of the rules text like against green Bob gets +1+1 for all creatures with cmc of less than three or some such...
Four colour adversaries should be less about what those four colours are and more about what they are not imo. (RUBG being the utter absence of white, RUBW being the absence of green, etc.)
How's testing going?
>Which ones have you tried?
>Which ones are the most fun for you?
>Any broken Adversaries?
>How would you fix them?
>Any comments on the others or how they play?
>Which are you going to try next?
I've been noticing from the pastebin that you guys are building decks using the same Adversaries than the others. This is fine, but slower than if you diversified. Try to use Adversaries no one else has tried yet. It should add to your experience too.
>>44449867
Purple mana is generated by Rifts.
>>44450616
>>Which ones have you tried?
Khan (2) RWG
Runna (1) W
Calico (4) U
Mirka (3) RWU
Prince Zael (2) RW
>Which ones are the most fun for you?
Level 1 with Runna was simple and fulfilling
Level 3 Mirka is great
>Any broken Adversaries?
Not yet. Nothing seems busted, though I am getting boned and have boned peole with simple things
Things like one sword of War and Peace absolutely broke the game and my opponent just conceded there. There is still something to be done about not rock paper scissoring it out.
Although this is singleton, there's not a lot of room for flexibility in some decks.
>Any broken Adversaries?
I think it's a lot in design. I'm not sure. We just need to tune these guys out more
>Any comments on the others or how they play?
nup. Everything's cool
>Which are you going to try next?
I just want to try mirka more. She's top tier, but not broken
>>44450616
lvl 3 needs more work
Level 1 seems fine
Level 4, I had a calico dual.
Also, Annanata needs a hand size of 4-5.
>>44450616
>Which ones have you tried?
Bestel, Calico, Elania, Felith, Flekto, Mihails, Seraph, Shiva, Velan, Virgel
>Most fun
Seraph. Perfect information in esper control gives me a raging boner.
>Broken?
Most of the egregiously broken shit has been moved up (Calico from 2 to 4, Virgel from 3 to 4). There's a lot of adversaries to ought to be moved up or down a level, but that's going to be true until we find and stick to a true direction for the format.
>How to fix
Move to level 4, where broken may roam free.
>Comments on others
If you don't want to play against stupid stuff like combos and extra turns, just tell me. I have plenty of casually built lists, often tribal. I play to have fun, and I want you to have fun, too. But if you don't like a certain playstyle, please tell me and be explicit. I won't take offenseunless you're offensive. I promise.
>Which are you going to try next?
Makra looks exploitable.
As for diversity, that pastebin is hardly up to date. I think it'd be better if it were, say, a Google Docs spreadsheet that anybody could edit.
One question, what's the 51st Adversary?
If you guise don't tell me I may never know.
Post him/her/it pls.
Also I need more votes for this >>44430410
Pls
Pls
Pls
>>44452696
Maybe it's the purple mana guy they mentioned in >>44449867 and>>44450710, because I don't see any such Adversary in any of the threads. So presumably #51 is a joke. I still want to see it too, though.
>>44452746
Already did!
Update when?
>>44452830
Wow, people really like Zael. That's nice.
I have no idea how I'll make a Falgore deck if he gets in though. Delve and resurrection / regen spells come to mind though.
>>44449409
This is Magic we're talking about, 50-100 types of mechanical identities is barely scratching the surface.
>>44450438
People are already concerned about extreme rock paper scissors matches, building in an additional layer of hosing on top of that might not be so popular. It is a good balancing idea though, we can fine-tune power levels even further within the levels by giving more powerful adversaries weakness abilities.
>>44456776
The fuck?
>>44452830
>>44452696We officially jumped the shark.
>>44460201
>Basic land taps for two mana
>50 motherfuckin' lives
Burn it with fire.
>>44428484
How do you turn a card face up?
>>44460276
Paying its mana cost.
>>44460323
Oh, so, I can clear my hand for 3 per card, then have a blockade of 2/4 defender's that I can pop into full power by paying their full cost? Cool beans.
>>44460337
That's basically it, yeah.
You can also manifest Instants, Sorceries and Enchantments to use as defense and bluff the opponent, though you can't turn those face up.
It sounds pretty powerful, and it can certainly be, but believe me, its rather costly.
But the biggest advantage is that it allows you to manifest costly creatures for a reasonable price to cast them later on, which means that if you draw a bad hand with no cheap creatures (or no creatures at all) you can still resort to manifesting something.
>>44460201
So it just uses purple as super five color? That's pretty uninteresting compared to normal versions of purple. The exile interaction is cool but I don't much like anything else about this. If we were going to go purple I'd much rather we actually do it right, set out some concrete guidelines for what it does as a color and then make a huge pile of cards for a smaller pile of purple adversaries to use. Since there's already a shitload of playtesting to do that seems like a pretty bad idea itself.
It would be a funny way to answer the "how is this different from vanguard" questions though. "Well, you can make cards, have a color identity and sometimes that identity is purple."
>>44460201
A fan of Force of Will, aren't we?
>>44461029
The intent for purple is quite simple: they fuck with Adversaries. Deus is the only non-purple Adversary who currently has an ability that can target or alter Adversaries in any way, and he's an exception as a level 5. Purple Adversaries will invariably have abilities that target other Adversaries.
In terms of flavor, they need to be otherworldly, eldritch or possibly abstract, much like with Wizards' original design intent before they scrapped purple mana entirely.
It's impossible to make purple its own unique thing because there simply isn't enough unexplored design space. /ccg/ even has this noted in the OP. The only practical use for 'new' colors is to amalgamate the existing colors, or - in our case - specifically affect the custom elements of the format.
With all that said: Entity is the only purple, and will likely remain the only purple for some time. If I see someone posting a proposal for a purple Adversary, I'll most likely ignore it unless it's absolutely amazing. I could have made Entity a WURBG or even an X, but I made him purple primarily for the novelty factor (and secondarily to define the 'targeting adversaries' niche).
>>44461206
>isn't enough unexplored design space
That's not strictly true. Interacting with exile is usually a no-no so there's lots of room to play that up. Absolutely nothing other than walkers can create or interact with emblems, so giving them emblem stuff on par with white's tokens is completely fresh terrain. Planeswalkers themselves are often ignored as a thing to be interacted with, it may or may not be thematic depending on how its handled but planeswalker-specific interactions are also very open. That may not seem like a lot of space but it's actually about as much as red gets and for a small pool of cards would be more than enough to create a diverse set of options unique to the color.
I'm not saying we should do it, I'm just saying that a sixth color is completely doable as an addition to Magic. The primary reason it will never happen in reality is financial in nature, it would be a strain to support in the long term and as a short term thing is a tough sell since it makes the cards seem even more temporary in value than normal. The space is there though.
>>44461321
>Interacting with exile is usually a no-no so there's lots of room to play that up.
I forgot to mention - besides interacting with Adversaries, exile is the next most 'purpley' thing on the list.
I didn't consider emblems or Planeswalkers, admittedly, but I feel both of those would be more suited to being utilized by individual non-purple Adversaries.
Honestly, given the nature of the format, I think 'interacts with Adversaries' and 'greater degree of exile control' is enough to sustain purple, especially because purple cards are designed to be so exceedingly rare. I mean, I currently have no plans to expand purple past Entity. In the event that we do, though, I can already think of lots of Adversary-based or exile-based effects that we could use.Maybe Shiramon will end up being white/purple someday?
>>44461414
>White/Purple Shiramon
Hold your horses there pal, if Shiramon were to become white/purple it'd have to be an entirely new version and artwork to fit the theme. I can imagine him being something like:
>Shiramon the Warped
>Adversary – (W/P)
(P)(P): Target tapped Adversary doesn't untap during your opponent's next upkeep.
>{18/7}
And really, I'm not even convinced we should mix Purple with ANY of the other colors. If we do we DEFINITELY need to redo Rifts because its just not ok for them to be twice as good as any other basic land.
>Rift
>Basic Land
>Rift enters the battlefield tapped.
>(T): Add (P)(P) to mana pool.
But honestly I'd just scrap Purple entirely. Its silly to add a new colour to the game when only a bunch of Adversaries can make good use of it. You'd need Purple cards to make good use of it, creatures, sorceries, instants, enchantments and Planeswalkers, because, as it is, Rifts are only good to pay generic mana costs, which means you can only have artifacts and colorless Eldrazi in your deck whenever you use a monopurple Adversary other than Entity. And not even that, since from Oath of the Gaywatch onwards those are going to be using the new Colorless mana.
Honestly, the concept of Adversaries focused on affecting other Adversaries is cool, but I think its poorly executed. If you want to go through with it then, by all means, go ahead. But my advice is that you drop Purple entirely and use Colorless for thus new brand of Adversary, since, unlike Purple, it'll be actually receiving support from Wizards with a bunch of cards it can use.
>>44461678
>Shiramon the WarpedI was thinking 'The Returned'.
Also, as it stands, even other purple Adversaries wouldn't be able to use Rifts. They're Entity-exclusive. If they ever did exist, they'd likely have to use a different type of purple mana land.
To address your concerns: purple is not becoming its own thing, at least not for a long while. Purple = Entity. That's really all it is. At this point it's really more of an aesthetic thing than anything else, to emphasize the power and alienness of Entity.
did the lobby die or something
>>44463196
Sorry, the lobby disappears when I go offline.
It's up now. We really need another way to organize matches and such.
>>44450616
>Which ones have you tried?
Elania, Luxos, Thrash, Pitterfang, Khan, Reeve, Hev
>Which ones are the most fun for you?
Elania is the most fun I've had playing Magic in a long time.
>Any broken Adversaries?
None really stand out as broken to me, there are a few that are more powerful than others but I wouldn't consider them broken.
>How would you fix them?
Elania might need to be moved to a 3, that deck can hold its own easily against 3s and it stomps 2s like it is nothing.
>Any comments on the others or how they play?
Everyone has been cool cats, we just need more dudes in here.
>Which are you going to try next?
I'll probably hold off on making decks until a new release gets put out and just focus on mass producing Adversaries until I manage to make a good one.
>>44463240
IRC?
>>44464542
Well, I've got us a channel.
irc.rizon.net
#MTGAdversary
TO JOIN:
>I desire a web client
https://mibbit.com/
Launch the web client. Select the Rizon server, pick a username, and use MTGAdversary for the channel.
>I desire a downloaded client
https://hexchat.github.io/
If you connect to Rizon without joining the channel, simply
/join MTGAdversary
more versions and a fun bonus card that I feel has some sort of secret combo potential
>>44466437
fug v9 should say "if a spell would destroy a creature without dealing damage to the creature, that spell's controller may have it destroy target land instead"
>>44463536
Elania burn shits on so much.
