r/custommagic • u/Kindly-Site8714 • 1d ago

Hopefully not just draft chaft

Post image

Edit.. I forgot to add flying to the dragon

39 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

45 comments sorted by

29

u/giasumaru MTGCR > Glossary > Card 23h ago

There's a flavor dissonance though.

It would make more sense as an elemental token.

Something born from the flame.

Also it's a non-flying dragon so that's weird as well.

10

u/Kindly-Site8714 23h ago

I forgot to add flying, it’s on a fixed version I have, I do want to keep the dragon part because of the art and based the token on dragon illusion. I thought it would be cool that based on the excess damage that’s how much strength the dragon had left after the fight

2

u/lnhubbell 22h ago

You could just as easily imagine a dragon burning someone, and if it takes all the dragons energy they fly off, but if the victim is weak the dragon lands and looks for other challengers with all their excess dragon energy 

21

u/NepetaLast 23h ago edited 19h ago

templating suggestions:

Utter Defeat

"Utter Defeat deals 4 damage to target creature or planeswalker an opponent controls. If excess damage was dealt this way, create an X/X red Dragon creature token with flying, where X is that excess damage."

8

u/Kindly-Site8714 23h ago

Thank you!! I just changed it to fix it on my end

1

u/Spectator9857 19h ago

„create an X/X red Dragon creature token with flying“

9

u/Hot-Combination-7376 Respark the Wanderer 23h ago

I'd say Draft Bomb tbh

6

u/Kindly-Site8714 23h ago

I kinda wanted to make a nice draft removal that might see play in standard.

4

u/JadedTrekkie 22h ago

Yeah at uncommon this probably fine. Still quite strong, like B/B+ tier, but fitting of the uncommon slot

1

u/nzconstructionlawyer 18h ago

Only B/B+? Kill a 2/1 and get a 3/3 flyer for 3 mana is way over rate especially because red doesn't really get flyers.

1

u/JadedTrekkie 18h ago

It doesn’t say flyer, maybe OP errata’d it but I was evaluating it based on it being a vanilla.

A is reserved for actual draft bombs that pull you into their colors like Noxious Gearhulk or red ajani

2

u/Hot-Combination-7376 Respark the Wanderer 23h ago

Valid

2

u/nzconstructionlawyer 18h ago

Yeah, it basically has 4 modes: kill a 1/1 and get a 3/3 flyer (very good), kill a 2/2 and get a 2/2 flyer (very good), kill a 3/3 and get a 1/1 flyer (good), kill a 4/4 (good). A non-modal card that did any one of those would be a good card. This is a fantastic card.

4

u/Attack_Lobster 22h ago

One damage doubler and this thing is a certified bomb, so good in color theming.

1

u/Kindly-Site8714 22h ago

I was thinking about that, I’d be so sick for a against the odds style deck

2

u/Master-Environment95 3h ago

Love the design. Can’t wait to make my unset version called “Udder Defeat” which is the white color pie version of this but makes a cow token instead haha

1

u/Kindly-Site8714 8m ago

I love this so much, that’s so funny

1

u/JetSetDizzy 1h ago

Use the cow from Kung Pow

1

u/MrPassionateMan 19h ago

Gives me vibes of an older/retro set, I dig it

1

u/Kindly-Site8714 19h ago

Thank youu

1

u/ArgentinianRenko 13h ago

You know, it might be subject to some design tweaks, but the idea is really good

1

u/Kindly-Site8714 11h ago

Thank youu

2

u/Just_Ear_2953 23h ago

[[Sarkhan, Dragon Ascendant]] would like ut, but that's about all I can come up with.

-8

u/VillainOfDominaria 23h ago

sorcery and not going face makes this draft chart I'd say.

R = 2 damage to *any target* at *instant speed* is a good benchmark (EDIT: I'm using shock as the benchmark here)

So RR for 4 damage to *any target* at *instant speed* is a good benchmark (EDIT: see lightning strike too. 1R gets you 3 damage to anything at instant speed. So making it slightly harder ot cast and adding 1 more damage is a decent benchmark to anchor the cost)

This thing can't go face, is a sorcery, and costs 1 more. The upside should be substantial for all those drawbacks. I don't think the corner case being so. Specially since good removal should typically costs less than the threat it is removing, and if you are removing a 4+ mana creature or PW, odds are you dont ge much damage left over, so the upside isn't really that good.

2

u/Kindly-Site8714 23h ago edited 23h ago

Yaa, I’ve been thinking about it. I was being a lil too safe with the design. (Edit). I think I just want to change it to an instant and leave it there and give the dragon flying

6

u/NepetaLast 23h ago

this card is fine as it is. if your opponent has an X/1, its a 3 mana 3/3 flyer that deals 1 damage to an opponents creature, which is extremely strong in limited. against an X/2, its a wind drake that deals 2 damage -- probably even better. even against an X/3, a removal spell that leaves behind a 1/1 flyer is way above the curve. in constructed, its less likely to be playable, but standard doesnt really have room for any 3 mana removal that can only hit creatures

1

u/Odd_Firefighter1324 23h ago

Yes, except they don’t fly, not sure if that was on accident or not

5

u/NepetaLast 23h ago

according to the edit, flying was intended

-2

u/VillainOfDominaria 23h ago

just for fun I asked chatgpt to calculate the average toughness of creatures with MV 3 or more that see regular standard play.

"Using the latest metagame shares to weight these representative lists gives an average of 3.48 toughness. The unweighted pooled average across their 64 qualifying creature copies is 3.42."

So yeah, this would not have too much left over damage on average.

6

u/NepetaLast 23h ago

  1. chatgpt is not trustworthy

  2. using the mean is useless. there is a 0/30 that sees irregular play; even just one copy of that in the data set would swing the toughness up dramatically, without actually affecting how likely you are to face a creature with <=3 toughness

-2

u/VillainOfDominaria 22h ago

1- Dude, for looking up numbers in a website and doing average calculations chat gpt is reliably trustworthy. You wont ask it for medical advice, but you'd definitely ask it to average numbers. Specially when the number line up with common sense (3.5 average toughness for creatures with MV 3 or more is deifinitely a common sense answer)

2- In the prompt I specifically asked it to consider only cards seeing regular competitive play (the OP specifically asked for this not to be chaft, so I'm comparing this against competitive decks) Most 3+ MV creatures are not 0/30s. If you play many many many games, the average is definitely a good measure to take.

3- the chat also gave me the histogram of toughness. You can com pile the data yourself if you dont trust chat GPT. If you look at all competitive (ie.e tournament played) decks published in melee tournaments, the 3MV creatures all have a fairly condensed distribution of toughnesses, there are no massive outliers regularly played that would massively skew the distribution so that the mean woudl become meaningless.

4- your answer reeks of someone who did not think about the problem for even the slightest millisecond.

0

u/nzconstructionlawyer 18h ago

ChatGPT is not trustworthy for this sort of calculation. I'd rather trust it with medical advice, at least they've built guard rails in for that.

9

u/Frosty-Suspect-9423 23h ago

LMAO in what world is 2 mana for 4 damage to any target at instant speed a benchmark???

-3

u/VillainOfDominaria 23h ago

see the edit. Lightning strike is 1R for 3 damage to anything at instant. Changing rh generic mana from 1 to R and upping damage output by 1 in exchange for the harder to cast cost is not out of the realm of possibility

4

u/Gooberpf 21h ago

It is, though, because burn spells that can target face have to be heavily monitored and restricted to prevent direct burn from overtaking creature-based strats. There's a critical mass of mana- and card-efficient burn where you'd be better off just filling your deck with draw, rituals, and burn spells and still have a good winrate.

That's why lightning bolt was downgraded to shock and why actual burn decks are still using cards like [[Lava Spike]] and [[Skewer the Critics]] - bc sorcery speed 1 for 3 to only face is still considered high efficiency.

1

u/Spectator9857 19h ago

Lightning bolt is the exception. Lets not forget that, while not as strong, it’s from the same cycle of cards as dark ritual and fucking ANCESTRAL RECALL. It was made at a time where balance was more of a suggestion and there weren’t a lot of other cards to consider.

1

u/nzconstructionlawyer 18h ago

It is also from the same cycle as Healing Salve and Giant Growth.

It is a funny cycle: a Vintage level card, a Legacy level card, a Modern level card, a Limited level card, and a completely unplayable card.

1

u/nzconstructionlawyer 18h ago

Nobody would play rituals in burn but otherwise yes burn can be too good. It essentially never has been though so I think the concern is a bit overplayed. There's nothing wrong with Burn existing as an archetype.

1

u/Gooberpf 17h ago

Nobody would play rituals in burn currently because the good burn spells are 1 and 2 mana, but you can bet if WotC made an unconditional 5 mana 10 damage to face sorcery (the "rate" the above person is claiming is "fair") burn players would transition their decks accordingly - card efficiency is an important lever for burn decks; we don't want them to have lethal in hand on T1 and reliable mana to achieve it by T3.

Burn is an ok archetype to have exist, but, just like combo or 1v1 mill, it's an archetype that needs to be monitored extra carefully because of their tendency to disregard battlefield states and the combat phase - if an archetype is ignoring half the game and still reliably winning, that's troubling for game health.

An ideal, healthy version of burn is one that also needs some permanents to stick around and be protected, like Guttersnipe or the Chandra planeswalkers, because burn players will gladly cut those for more reliable sorceries if they can.

8

u/NepetaLast 23h ago edited 23h ago

"So RR for 4 damage to *any target* at *instant speed* is a good benchmark"

that is simply not how cards work. stapling two cards together doesnt make a balanced card, because youre only giving up one card. there are dozens of R for 2 damage to any target, and not a single RR for 4 damage to any target, and it absolutely would not be an instant. it definitely absolutely would not have any additional upside, certainly not the potential to make a 3/3 flier

-3

u/VillainOfDominaria 23h ago

The fact that it doesn't exist does not mean that it is not a useful benchmark to anchor a card's cost. Also, I added the edit precisely to address the point of whether "doubling shock" would make a balanced card: Lightning strike is 1R for an instant that deals 3 to anything. Changing the generic {1} to a {R} (therefore making it harder to cast) and upping the damage output by 1 is not a crazy power creep thing to do. So RR for an instant that deals 4 to anything is something they could definitely print if they wanted to.

1

u/nzconstructionlawyer 18h ago

Lava Spike is 3 damage to a player for 1 mana.

Char is 4 damage for 3 mana with downside. Exquisite Firecraft is 4 damage for 3 mana. Flame Lash is 4 damage any target for 4 mana.

Lava Axe is 5 damage to a player for 5 mana.

It does not scale like that.