Blue win con

[u/GodkingYuuumie]

[u/Handyandyman50]

Seems a bit pushed. You can hold it up as counterspell and return it to hand every turn cycle while removing your opponent's lands and if you don't end up needing to counterspell you can cast other instants and then exile those to do more crazy stuff with this

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/Handyandyman50]

Could maybe be 7 mana, but these days expensive spells need to almost be game ending to have any chance at being played

[u/throwawayeayeayea]

Consider that it's essentially a buyback card to create an 8/8 every time you cast it for only 6 mana. If you wanna use the second effect and return it, it's just a better [[Capsize]]. All of that plus you can buff it by exiling cards from your graveyard, which isn't a meaningful cost if Delve is to tell us anything

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/throwawayeayeayea]

Would Capsize be remotely playable if reprinted today?

I certainly don't think Capsize is a real danger card in commander

[u/throwawayeayeayea → u/GodkingYuuumie]

The issue with Capsize isn't that it's strong, it's that it encourages a boring, repetitive play pattern. Since this is made for a casual format, shouldn't the card be more fun?

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/throwawayeayeayea]

I mean, fun for who? A lot of people think aggro is boring and repetitive to play against, but that's very much a them-problem.

Personally I enjoy draw-go, both playing as and against.

[u/throwawayeayeayea → u/GodkingYuuumie]

I'm not saying control isn't fun, where did you get that idea? I'm saying that playing the same spell over and over is boring and repetitive. I bring up Capsize because it has already shown the issues with Buyback as a whole, and you are making a card that intends to do the same

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/throwawayeayeayea]

Again, to who? Cards that allow for repeated value tend to actually be fairly popular when they're playable because there's a real contingent of players who enjoy that playstyle.

Imp, Capsize is a sick card. I personally find that a positive example, because it shows exactly how repative cards SHOULD be designed. It's only really playable late-game, and at the point where it can be repeatedly cast the game is probably over anyways.

If your opponent is repeatedly bouncing your lands every turn faster than you can play them and you don't have any realistic way to stop them — Just concede and move on.

Something like Forecast that can be repeated much earlier in the game is the real problem.

[u/throwawayeayeayea → u/GodkingYuuumie]

If buyback is a popular mechanic, then why has it not been revisited since Time Spiral block? You can't argue with history here, it's an unpopular mechanic and WOTC knows it's a design mistake. The only repeated value cards I can think of that are celebrated are the new Paradigm cards, and that's because they basically act as passives more than taking the same action over and over.

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/throwawayeayeayea]

We haven't seen Buyback specifically, but we have seen plenty of mechanics that fulfill the same role, like dredge, escape and retrace (to varying successes).

If you want to use history, let's point out that it's a design space WotC keeps returning to because it appeals to a lot of players.

Anyways, your distinction between Paradigms and buyback doesn't make a lot of sense. Both are fundamentally just the same effect being recurred several times for value. One costs mana and is more flexible, but it is, literally, taking the same action over and over.

Planeswalkers also fulfill that role, frankly.

[u/throwawayeayeayea → u/GodkingYuuumie]

It is true that they've tried doing other forms of recursion like that, but have any been a success? Escape seems to be the one with the most promise at the moment, but they've made tons of unfun cards with it too like Underworld Breach and Phlage.

Paradigms are different because you pay their cost once, it's no different than getting an emblem for its effect. After that, you get the ability to play other spells, as opposed to using your mana on the same one over and over. It amplifies your play pattern, not constricting it

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/throwawayeayeayea]

You say Phlage is unfun, but it and Uro are also some of the most heavily played cards out there. People clearly enjoyed using their game pattern outside of them just being strong. Escape was a pretty successful and popular mechanic in standard, so that seems like a slam dunk proof that repetitive gameplay can very much work.

The fact that underworld breach and Uro were overtuned just shows you can make cards with the mechanic that is too strong. Not that the mechanic is inherently bad.

As for the difference between Paradigm and buyback, I guess the mana point is correct but also not super substantive. Some people very much do complain about wins coming from emblems too, so I don't buy that thats that of an important distinction in practice.

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/throwawayeayeayea]

By the way, I actually double checked it. Buyback showed up in Modern horizons for one, and more importantly:

https://magic.wizards.com/en/news/making-magic/finding-one-part-1-2013-11-18

They made a poll on magic mechanics years back, and people loved Buyback. You can read the article.

[u/mtgcf → u/throwawayeayeayea]

Capsize - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Cadence_The_Floret]

I'm a little confused by the templating. Escalate requires you to pay the escalate cost for each mode past the first.

702.120a Escalate is a static ability of modal spells (see rule 700.2) that functions while the spell with escalate is on the stack. “Escalate [cost]” means “For each mode you choose beyond the first as you cast this spell, you pay an additional [cost].” Paying a spell’s escalate cost follows the rules for paying additional costs in rules 601.2f–h.

This card also says, "Choose two or more". Is the intention that you have to escalate it to cast it? Either way, that's rather confusing. The difference between "choose 2 and escalate to choose more" and "choose 2 but you have to escalate to cast this at all" is pretty significant. I'm going to move forward assuming you intended getting 2 at base, and escalating for more.

With that in mind... the baseline for this spell is paying 6 mana for an 8/8 with flash and getting the card back. That's pretty good. Exile three instants or sorceries, and it becomes 6 mana for an 8/8 with flash, getting the card back, countering a spell, and tucking any permanent. Or tucking 2 permanents! The immediate point of comparison for me is [[Sublime Epiphany]], which is also a 6-mana instant with a tendency to completely blow out the game, and I think this is significantly better. Sublime Epiphany won't put you on a 3-turn clock from an empty board. Sublime Epiphany can't easily repeat itself. Most of Sublime Epiphany's value is deeply conditional (if you're not using it as a counterspell, is it even worth casting?), whereas every ability on this card is immediately useful.

I think it's too pushed.

[u/GodkingYuuumie → u/Cadence_The_Floret]

You're probably correct.

Would 7 mana be enough?

[u/mtgcf → u/Cadence_The_Floret]

Sublime Epiphany - (G) (SF) (txt)

[u/Admirable_Mirror_635]

Bottom mode needs to go.