Fixing Skullclamp

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

With the Skullclamp ban, I thought I'd throw out a mental exercise.

What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
"not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?

My first interation is change it to -1/+1 instead of +1/-1, but
that still leaves the easy of feeding your equipped creatures to
some creature sacrificing engine.

Thoughts?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Sorcier wrote on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:02:38 -0400 in article
news:<_Wuwc.162$so1.63459@news.uswest.net>:

> What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
> "not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?

> Thoughts?

Don't bother.

OK, if you really want to try, remember that blue is the color that is
supposed to be best at card drawing. So make sure you put the fixed
skullclamp at or below the power level of the blue card drawing spells
currently in T2.

--
"Sometimes I stand by the door and look into the darkness. Then I
am reminded how dearly I cherish my boredom, and what a precious
commodity is so much misery." -- Jack Vance

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Rast wrote:

> Sorcier wrote on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:02:38 -0400 in article
> news:<_Wuwc.162$so1.63459@news.uswest.net>:
>
>>What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
>>"not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>
>>Thoughts?
>
> Don't bother.

Well, this is a just for fun type thing.

> OK, if you really want to try, remember that blue is the color that is
> supposed to be best at card drawing. So make sure you put the fixed
> skullclamp at or below the power level of the blue card drawing spells
> currently in T2.

Point.
So what would we do to make the card look unattractive to Blue?
Cost is the obvious, but how much?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:37:35 -0400, Sorcier <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net>
wrote:

>Rast wrote:
>
>> Sorcier wrote on Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:02:38 -0400 in article
>> news:<_Wuwc.162$so1.63459@news.uswest.net>:
>>
>>>What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
>>>"not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>
>> Don't bother.
>
>Well, this is a just for fun type thing.
>
>> OK, if you really want to try, remember that blue is the color that is
>> supposed to be best at card drawing. So make sure you put the fixed
>> skullclamp at or below the power level of the blue card drawing spells
>> currently in T2.
>
>Point.
>So what would we do to make the card look unattractive to Blue?
>Cost is the obvious, but how much?

IMHO, the first step should be to reduce it from "draw two cards" to
"draw one card" - an easily recurring (artifact) card drawing
mechanism should not draw more than one card at a time...

Then you could look at cost. The equip cost is obviously the more
important one, as that is the one you get to pay all the time. However
it might be worth considering to raise the play cost to at least 2,
just to pull it out of "cog" range - though this might not be
necessary if it became better balanced.


Hmm, I just thought of something else - one could perhaps rewrite the
card on a more basic level, and make it "When Skullclamp goes to the
graveyard from play, draw two cards". That however would make it a
completely different card, and not something you could easily compare
to the real clamp...

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Sorcier, Sorcier, ma che mi combini?

>What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
>"not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?

nice game, let's see... first i'd say, +1/-1 a la bloodlust...in this
way you prevent tha most broken t2 combo after the disciple/ravager, i
mean the skullclamped arcbound worker (or the new myr, i don't
remember the name)
for those who don't remember, blood lust gives +4/-4 but the
constitution of a creature can't go below 1
--
FRM
Fan di Adachi
"La verita' e' che non ho niente da fare dal mattino alla sera"
(Masato Wakamatsu, Miyuki)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

> What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
> "not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?

Skullclamp Junior
Artifact
1
Equipped creature gets +1/+0.
When equipped creature goes to the graveyard, draw a card.
Equip 2

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:03:39 GMT, "Chris Wiegert" <cwiegert@telus.net>
wrote:

>> What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
>> "not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>
>Skullclamp Junior
>Artifact
>1
>Equipped creature gets +1/+0.
>When equipped creature goes to the graveyard, draw a card.
>Equip 2

Heh, it's kinda strange that a card that gives +1/-1 can be stronger
than the same card giving +1/+0

But other than that, I would say that this looks much better, and
certainly not very ban-worthy.

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Simon Nejmann, volume 23:

> Heh, it's kinda strange that a card that gives +1/-1 can be stronger
> than the same card giving +1/+0

Scythe of the Wretched received an identical change during playesting for
that very reason.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

"Chris Wiegert" <cwiegert@telus.net> wrote in message
news:%%Iwc.54863$OI5.52690@edtnps84...
> > What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
> > "not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>
> Skullclamp Junior
> Artifact
> 1
> Equipped creature gets +1/+0.
> When equipped creature goes to the graveyard, draw a card.
> Equip 2
>

or,

Skullclamp Errata
Instead of draw 2, draw 1 card.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:13:01 +0200, FRM <controlla@in.firma> wrote:


>for those who don't remember, blood lust gives +4/-4 but the
>constitution of a creature can't go below 1

Toughness, not constitution.

Paying attention to the terminology can prevent a lot of
misunderstandings in the more complicated rules scenarios, plus it's a
good example for the newbies reading this post.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Mark Landin, volume 23:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 14:13:01 +0200, FRM <controlla@in.firma> wrote:
>
>
>> for those who don't remember, blood lust gives +4/-4 but the
>> constitution of a creature can't go below 1
>
> Toughness, not constitution.

FRM is writing from Italy, and the word Italian cards use for the stat
directly translates as "constitution".

> Paying attention to the terminology can prevent a lot of
> misunderstandings in the more complicated rules scenarios, plus it's a
> good example for the newbies reading this post.

Paying attention to the country of origin of posters can prevent you looking
like an ass when you correct them, plus it's a good example for the newbies.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:17:16 +0100, "David Chapman"
<jedit_ojanen8@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Paying attention to the country of origin of posters
How can you tell that? As an example, what gives FRM away as being
Italian?

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

"Simon Nejmann" <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote in message
news:uvb9c05bls6nl689scn603gk3idhpq6su8@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:17:16 +0100, "David Chapman"
> <jedit_ojanen8@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Paying attention to the country of origin of posters
> How can you tell that? As an example, what gives FRM away as being
> Italian?
>

The X-complaints to and reply to line in the headers are a dead give-away


--
Stephen Baird (MOTL) - my refs - http://refs.magictraders.com/kali64.html



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.693 / Virus Database: 454 - Release Date: 31/05/2004

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

From the Collected Witterings of Simon Nejmann, volume 23:
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:17:16 +0100, "David Chapman"
> <jedit_ojanen8@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paying attention to the country of origin of posters
> How can you tell that? As an example, what gives FRM away as being
> Italian?

His sig is written in Italian.

--
Twelve points to ... SLOVENIA!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Sorcier <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> wrote in message news:<_Wuwc.162$so1.63459@news.uswest.net>...
> With the Skullclamp ban, I thought I'd throw out a mental exercise.
>
> What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
> "not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>
> My first interation is change it to -1/+1 instead of +1/-1, but
> that still leaves the easy of feeding your equipped creatures to
> some creature sacrificing engine.
>
> Thoughts?


Well, since skullclamp is essentially: pay 1, draw two cards, what if
the equip cost was 3? Or even 4? This would make it about on par
with something like Jayemdae Tome, which I don't think anyone would
declare "broken". I think even in this form, it would be still better
than the tomb, as you would still be able to cast the clamp for 1,
instead of 4 (the cc of Jayemdae Tome.)

Scott

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Mr Bloody Minded sez:

<<
>"Simon Nejmann" <snejmann@worldonline.REMOVETHIS.dk> wrote in message
>news:uvb9c05bls6nl689scn603gk3idhpq6su8@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 18:17:16 +0100, "David Chapman"
>> <jedit_ojanen8@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Paying attention to the country of origin of posters
>> How can you tell that? As an example, what gives FRM away as being
>> Italian?
>>
>
>The X-complaints to and reply to line in the headers are a dead >give-away
>
>>

And the E-mail address was pretty Italian in itself...


----
"If President Bush is going to take credit for 'the invisble hand' [of
economics], then he's going to take the blame when 'the hand' gives him the
finger."
--From Fark.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

On 8 Jun 2004 06:02:50 -0700, sfvajdos@hotmail.com (Scott Vajdos)
wrote:

>Sorcier <sNoErMcOier@cavtel.net> wrote in message news:<_Wuwc.162$so1.63459@news.uswest.net>...

>> With the Skullclamp ban, I thought I'd throw out a mental exercise.
>>
>> What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
>> "not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>>
>> My first interation is change it to -1/+1 instead of +1/-1, but
>> that still leaves the easy of feeding your equipped creatures to
>> some creature sacrificing engine.

>Well, since skullclamp is essentially: pay 1, draw two cards, what if
>the equip cost was 3? Or even 4? This would make it about on par
>with something like Jayemdae Tome, which I don't think anyone would
>declare "broken". I think even in this form, it would be still better
>than the tomb, as you would still be able to cast the clamp for 1,
>instead of 4 (the cc of Jayemdae Tome.)

Jayemdae Tome is CC = 4, one card = 4 + T. Your clamp would be CC = 1,
two cards = 4 + one creature, that is approximately half price per
card (the creature can serve off its value before it dies, and
Jayemdae Tome taps).

Jayemdae Tome
{4}
Artifact
{4}, {T}: Draw a card.

I think that your clamp is still too good. It also has more uses than
Jayemdae Tome, eg. as a derettant (many blocks that would have been
1-1 trades becomes 1-3 for your opponent).

I still believe, that clamp should only allow you to draw one card.

--
Regards
Simon Nejmann

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Chris Wiegert wrote:

>>What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it
>>"not broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>
>
> Skullclamp Junior
> Artifact
> 1
> Equipped creature gets +1/+0.
> When equipped creature goes to the graveyard, draw a card.
> Equip 2

Conceptually, I'd say the Clamp should weaken its "victim" in some way.
That's why I proposed -1/+1.
Basically makes the creature "less aggressive yet more resistant
to pain".
I'm onboard with the only one card and increased equip cost though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Griffis wrote:

>
> Skullclamp Errata
> Instead of draw 2, draw 1 card.

As much as I dislike bans, I think I prefer them to errata.
I'd like to keep the card text on the card in as many cases as possible.
Errata can grow large enough to be a bear to remember.
I think that scares a lot of players off of Type I in addition to
not being able to get some of the better cards.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Andy Jakcsy, Andy Jakcsy, ma che mi combini?

>And the E-mail address was pretty Italian in itself...

and i forgot that constitution have 2+ meaning even in italian
anyway my rulebook with the shivan dragon on it says "costituzione",
now i just got to know how to handle those strange "interrupts"
--
FRM
Fan di Adachi
"La verita' e' che non ho niente da fare dal mattino alla sera"
(Masato Wakamatsu, Miyuki)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Sorcier wrote:

> With the Skullclamp ban, I thought I'd throw out a mental exercise.
>
> What changes, in your opinion, would Skullclamp need to make it "not
> broken" and yet keep a similar flavor?
>
> My first interation is change it to -1/+1 instead of +1/-1, but that
> still leaves the easy of feeding your equipped creatures to some
> creature sacrificing engine.
>
> Thoughts?

The equip cost should be at least 2 and the drawing ability should be
changed to remove syngergy with activated abilities that have "sacrifice
an artifact" or "sacrifice a creature" as part of their costs. Part of
the clamp's power is its ability to turn sacrificing creatures or artifact
creatures into a huge benefit. Players should have to choose between
growing their Ravager or getting more cards.

Neutered Skullclamp 1

Artifact -- Equipment

Equipped creature gets +1/-1 and has "T, sacrifice this creature: draw two
cards."

Equip 2

--
Exatron
"I don't break rules, I bend them -a lot." - Sideswipe

The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Exatron wrote:
>
> The equip cost should be at least 2 and the drawing ability should be
> changed to remove syngergy with activated abilities that have "sacrifice
> an artifact" or "sacrifice a creature" as part of their costs. Part of
> the clamp's power is its ability to turn sacrificing creatures or artifact
> creatures into a huge benefit. Players should have to choose between
> growing their Ravager or getting more cards.
>
> Neutered Skullclamp 1
>
> Artifact -- Equipment
>
> Equipped creature gets +1/-1 and has "T, sacrifice this creature: draw two
> cards."
>
> Equip 2

Ooh, solves the "kills when it equips" trick and the sac to something
else tricks.
Also takes out draws because of combat kills, destroy effects, etc.
Nice depowering.
I'm not sure raising the equip cost is as needed then.
OTOH, sac'ing a cheap creature to draw two cards for 2 mana might
still be too low.
The equip cost should likely be comparable to what a Blue instant
that draws two cards would be, PLUS sac'ing the creature.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Sorcier wrote:

> Exatron wrote:
>
>> Neutered Skullclamp 1
>>
>> Artifact -- Equipment
>>
>> Equipped creature gets +1/-1 and has "T, sacrifice this creature: draw
>> two cards."
>>
>> Equip 2
>
> Ooh, solves the "kills when it equips" trick and the sac to something
> else tricks.
> Also takes out draws because of combat kills, destroy effects, etc. Nice
> depowering.
> I'm not sure raising the equip cost is as needed then. OTOH, sac'ing a
> cheap creature to draw two cards for 2 mana might still be too low. The
> equip cost should likely be comparable to what a Blue instant that draws
> two cards would be, PLUS sac'ing the creature.

The other card to use for comparison is Skulltap since it's a sorcery that
costs 1B, makes you sacrifice a creature, and lets you draw two cards.

I figured that tapping the creature in addition to sacrificing it would
compensate for the ability to sac cheap creatures since players would have
to consider summoning sickness when trying to use it.

A few other choices for equip costs are: 3, B, or giving the player a
choice between the two (like the shards). I figured black would be a good
choice for an equip cost since the ability is so close to Skulltap and I
don't recall Wizards making anything with a black equip cost.

--
Exatron
"Clarity of thought before rashness of action." - Shockwave

The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein