#interaction satisfaction

[inventors-fair]

Interaction Satisfaction Winners!

Congratulations to our winners this week: @hanavesinauttija with Unified Resistence, @hypexion with Skemfar's Scorn, and @izzet-always-r-versus-u with Mistfire Trickery!

~

Unified Resilience

Well, you caught me, I had to check if that was an existing ability or not. First off, the first line is good. Three mana for the effect seems right (heroic intervention is an outlier IMO), but it still wants a bit more of a kick, and you have that here. Indestructible turns it into a more expensive heroic, but then the trample is really what puts it into overdrive. Playing this in response to a removal spell on attacks seems like it would feel incredible. It also feels like it feeds into what this type of deck wants to be doing. If you’re playing a bunch of different creature types in a green deck, they’re probably all going to be pretty big, so you really want some trample to push through. I appreciate the non-human clause to prevent it from counting changelings, and while that matches with the Ikoria non-human mutate text, it does feel like a strange exclusion otherwise. Are humans not allowed to form coalitions? Or maybe that’s the point. A specifically non-human deck might be what you were going for. Regardless, this is a solid piece of interaction as a slightly worse but sometimes better heroic intervention, which I think is exactly what we need.

-

Skemfar's Scorn

This is just the type of card I wanted to see this contest. Two color sorcery speed removal is a big ask in commander, but the payoff here seems great. Golgari elves is a very popular archetype, but it’s support is just limited enough to feel like it still needs some help, and this card would do it. The idea of a build-your-own casualties of war is great, and the scalability of it means you can fire it off when you need it, which means it isn’t just a more restrictive version. Tapping elves both plays into and against elf decks, since they often tap for mana, so this means they can’t tap for mana to escalate and tap to escalate itself, but it also means elf decks might be prepared to tap elves anyway. And let's not ignore the simplicity of the base mode. It’s interaction in its purest form: destroy target something. A great entry and exactly what I was looking for.

-

Mistfire Trickery

So it’s a break open or a cyber-conversion. I like it! While you could play this in any deck, and I think some people would, it’s clearly got a better home in a deck with a lot of face-down creatures. It’s even an instant, which allows you to do some sneaky morph effects like flipping something for cheap after blocks. I might have argued it was too easy before, but considering that we just got expose the culprit, a 3 mana version is probably fine, with that extra mana (and the higher power level of commander) warranting the removal-y mode. The templating and implied setting are also well-done. Altogether very impressive.

~

And there you go! Thank you everyone who entered. Runners-up will be out shortly, and commentary not too long after that. It's been a while since I've run one of these, but it seemed to go alright, so thank you everyone!

-Mod Mr. ShinyObject

[dollya-robinprotector]

It's pretty sad to me that I can't do a cool, action concept that involves many characters like this for DoL, unless if I were to VERY indulge my own headcanon. Those dancing pieces were the closest I got when I wanted to include a little dynamic into my DoL drawings. Still, making short comics is fun, and DoL fandom never stops giving me more ideas.

After I'm done with my deadline in the upcoming week for April's Fes, I'll try to be more active. I have so many things I want to draw for DoL. For now please excuse my silence and absence, I'm literally buried in work and deadlines TTOTT)

First I was drawing only four members based on the Arknights collab and four Minor Arcana: Marcille - the Wand, Laios - the Sword, Chilchuck - the Coin, Senshi - the Cup

But then I sorta want to see the whole gang, so I abandoned the of idea and improved the sketch. This sketch will definitely turn into a larger standee!!

[fisheito]

inspired by a comment from phaerlax (who i shall not @ out of consideration for the lack of awooo in this pic 😂):

[planetary-00]

What are some of the arcs you have headcanons for that Peridot didn’t explore in canon? If you don’t mind me asking. I really wanted to see her more in the series and I felt there was so much more for her to do.

Omgggg okay so I have a lot of things I wish were explored more

1. toxic doomed lapidot arc - I liked the one episode where Steven and amethyst try to cheer her up after lapis left her and took the barn but I wished there was more of that. also there wasn’t much talking between the two when lapis got back. She never apologized for leaving and taking her entire home and I wish I got to see more of the fallout and character beats from raising the barn. (I dont blame the crewniverse at all for any of these points tho I get they were just trying to finish the show with a real ending after writing a gay wedding they could only fit so much into the ending of the show) With the way peridot was talking about their relationship in raising the barn there were so many red flags and I just wish it could have been explored more like what happened in that barn how did they get to this codependent dynamic in the first place? Like it seemed fine on the surface but I also got the feeling that peridot was putting on a face for lapis bc her personality changed so much once she was separated from the crystal gems and only being around lapis. And then when peridot said she was always bending over backwards to make her happy it kinda confirmed that for me like a lot of what she did she did to keep lapis happy, or if not happy then just not breaking down. Lapis had been through so much trauma and it makes sense for her to act that way and for her to feel like she needs someone always keeping her together and making things right for her, not realizing that it comes at the other persons expense. I love both of them and I think they both have the best intentions but I think they are doomed idk I like them better apart honestly I want to see them independent from each other in the end but it is so satisfying to watch the angst play out. So yeah

2. Peridot backstory - I want to know more about her life before she got to earth, her manager, etc, I know she is a newer gem so it wouldn’t be a super long history of stuff but I want to see her learning she needs limb enhancers and seeing era 1 peridots (which I hc are tall) and what she’s “supposed” to look like and what abilities she is supposed to have and just feeling wrong and bad abt herself 😭 ok ill admit it sounds like I want her to suffer but honestly to me I see the signs of it already like how she views herself and I just want it to be explored.

3. AMEDOT ARC - ok I really like their dynamic and I feel like peridot acts the most like herself and the most authentic when she is around amethyst. I swear too far is one of the best eps. I want to see them fuse SOO BADDD I think they are so cute. It also seemed TO ME like amethyst was jealous of lapis in that one ep where she visits them but that could be my bias speaking. I think they would actually be good for each other and it would be really cute I love them and they def had a lot of potential. They both feel inferior for the way they were made(at least I hc that peridot does, we know amethyst does) and I feel like they could bond over that

4. I want to know how she got over not having her limb enhancers anymore. Cause not only does it make her shorter more importantly I think is that it makes her harmless. She doesn’t have the ability to summon a weapon (YET, I also hc that she will learn how to do it eventually) and she has no way of defending herself. She does have metal powers but I feel like the damage she could do is so limited compared to her limb enhancers. So why in SU future, when they have full access to the home world warp, does she not replace them? I think thematically it would be setting her back so it makes sense that she wouldn’t, but I want to see her thought process behind it and how she learns to like herself the way she is, even if she feels like she isn’t as strong as the rest of the gems. I really would like to see her learn to summon an actual weapon and learn that she actually can do it despite being told back on home world that she doesn’t have that ability as an era 2 (probs to control her, so her power can be taken away by removing her limb enhancers and making her feel less than)

I’m so normal 😁

[xostomachaches]

i heart u pinning rinne & painfully oblivious nazuna

[valtsv]

have you ever gotten into fear and hunger? it overlaps with a lot of pathologic fans :00

i want to but i'm so bad at being a gamer that i'm only aware of the general lore/themes and have no actual experience with the gameplay itself

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

Some sugar daddy bot tryin get me to fuck em for $2000/month on a post about my infusions lmfaoooooo

[inventors-fair]

Interaction Satisfaction

A while ago, I was listening to the EDHRec podcast, and they mentioned a very weird piece of data: for Silumgar, the Drifting Death, a blue-black dragon deck, the card silumgar's scorn was more commonly played (at the time) than the original Counterspell. The latter is a UU hard counterspell, and the former is UU but only counters the spell if they pay one mana or they control a dragon. So why are people playing a strictly worse card?

Because it says dragon on it.

People love playing cards that fit with their deck, even if strictly better versions exist. This can be a great way to encourage players to play cards that they might not play otherwise. The type of player who loves playing big, powerful dragons might not care about putting some random two mana counterspell in the deck, even if it might be strategically wise. But this one says dragon on it.

This week's challenge: Design a piece of interaction (removal, protection, etc.) that appeals to a certain kind of commander deck.

Interaction is a broad term, but usually means something that doesn't add to the board, but responds to actions of others. Basically, any card that would be useless if you had no opponents.

Fitting a certain deck means that the card is geared towards certain strategies. Any deck can play Swords to Plowshares, but only an artifact deck should play Dispatch.

This contest assumes the cards will be in some sort of commander deck.

The best kind of card for this contest would be one that specifically shores up weaknesses of the deck in question. A go-wide deck needs protection from things that kill multiple creatures at once, so Clever Concealment is perfect.

Make sure to be careful about going "all in" on the theme. Mutant's Prey may seem great in a counter-centric deck, but if you're deck is having trouble going off, then it's a dead card. Dire Tactics is rough if you don't have a human, but at least you can still cast it to get rid of an Elesh Norn so you can start playing humans again.

Good luck everyone!

-Mod Mr. ShinyObject

[cozmiccore]

Look at my rich kids! I love them a lot 😭💜 I actually have mcs for each ROs and with different courses because why not? New update was worth the wait! But I feel like strangling Zillah after seeing P >:(. Alright free ID template link's below if anyone wants it! As always pls credit me and support Golden and author @milaswriting 💜

PICREW | LEHSA U - ID

[snderist]

i just realized i haven’t been tzring my posts oops 💀

[osiiiris]

sorry but i have to disagree. from your post and tag it almost sounds like Tobias owe the people ''something'' . he honestly doesnt. you make it sound like he should be pleasing people all the time

*🧘🏼‍♀️🧘🏼‍♀️🧘🏼‍♀️🧘🏼‍♀️*

He knows some people have based their passion for the band on something he is going to take away from them, and he announced it in the quickest, clearest, and most “brutal” way.

Translated:

Tobias is not a people pleaser it seems = Tobias does whatever he wants without considering what others expect from him.

[thelastspeecher]

Being at work is a lot of trying desperately to beat back my rejection sensitive dysphoria with a stick

[inventors-fair]

Interaction Satisfaction Commentary

Hey everyone! It's been a while since I've run a contest, but this one has been lingering in my mind for a while.

There were two things I was really trying to pay attention to this contest: if the card fits in the deck, and if the card will always do something. I'll address the latter first: I wanted to make sure that the cards would always do something. The thing about interaction is you need it most when something is going wrong. Yes, sometimes you need a counterspell when you're winning to make sure you keep winning, but most of the time you need it because if you don't, you're sure to lose. Because of that, I really valued cards that always had some sort of effect, but also had some synergy tied in.

As for the deck concerns, that's a little more straightforward. Look at the deck you're putting the card in, then see if it wants these types of cards. There were only one or two entries that felt that far off, and removal is always going to do something, but it was important to me to think of the archetype as a whole, rather than just picking a random mechanic to tie the effect to.

But enough chatter. Here's the commentary:

@bergdg - Defend the Ramparts

A very narrow effect, but there are a few archer decks out there (I should know, I play Greatbow Doyen in my crossbow deck), and this is obviously built for them. There’s also quite a few cards that are incidentally archers or rangers that have deathtouch or a lot of power, so this is a removal spell in decks like that. This does feel very strange as an enchantment, though. I think I’d prefer this as an instant that puts counters on things, both because it already acts like that, and because I don’t like the idea of blinking this for repeatable removal. Speaking of which, I think you could probably cut the cost just a bit to three mana. It’s a narrow effect, and this is commander we’re talking about, so 3 mana removal with a little upside and a little restriction feels just right. I do really love how well it fits into what archer decks want to so; i.e. dealing direct damage to creatures.

@buzzardonic - Reboot

This is a very strange card. The most obvious use for this is to protect your artifact creatures from creature based removal. A lot of targeted removal these days aren’t specific to creatures, so it won’t protect from an anguished unmaking or the like, but it helps with a lot of the wraths in the format. It also keeps them in play, which means your artifact creatures with static abilities you want, like a lodestone golem, will still be in effect, which is an advantage over phasing out. There’s also in theory some combos you can pull of that require your artifact creature not being a creature, or even just to grant haste. The biggest detriment is just how incredibly narrow it is. Even in an artifact deck, in order for this to be worth the card slot, you have to have the mana up in just the right spot. I wish this did just a bit more, like untapping the creature or putting a counter on it. The other thing I worry about is weird situations like using this on Rusted Relic, vehicles, or with march of the machines. I think commander is complex enough that people might expect it, I just don’t know if it’s warranted on a card that could be achieved in other ways. Oh, and the flavor is great. When I read the text, I was wondering how you could flavor it, and it felt so perfect.

@coolcoolcooltighttightight - All-Out Assault

This is a really cool card, but it has a lot going on that I need to pick apart. First, it deals X+2, which is a big deal, as it means it’s never quite dead, but you definitely want to be leaning a certain way to have it do what you want to. Second, it says battle, which is really cool and fits the flavor, but awkwardly is a detriment because of that last line. If you want to defeat one of your own battles and you accidentally fulfill that last line, you’ll end up dealing damage to yourself. Oops! Lastly, and you might have seen this coming, but that middle part is very confusing to read. There’s a double negative in “control no untapped” which is awkward, and also the fact that you need to make sure they control a creature feels a little tacked on. In general, this card is very well designed as a removal spell with potential upside that fits very well into a certain archetype, but I think you needed to scale back a bit. Maybe just always deal damage to the controller? Or just always deal X damage to both? There are a few ways you could have gone to simplify the card a bit, and I think it would have been worth it to be able to cut some of the more awkward templating here.

@corporalotherbear - Temporal Inertia

While I see what you’re going for here, I think it’s just a little too weird. My biggest concern is just how complicated board states can get in commander. If you ask someone which creatures they’ve controlled since their last turn, I think most people would be able to remember, but not everyone, especially on turn six. I also think the phrasing could maybe be a bit better, though I don’t know how. It takes a second to understand what the card is asking for. There’s also some weirdness with the play pattern. While this is obviously best in a blink deck, due to how mana curves work, this is most likely to leave behind only the most threatening creatures, which makes this an odd wrath closer in line to something like the ones that leave a creature behind like single combat, which are widely considered to be pretty unplayable. I will say, though, that as weird as this card is, it isn’t bad or poorly designed. It just feels a little off in how it’s phrased and how it functions.

@fractured-infinity - Caleria's Unerring Accuracy

A four mana removal spell needs to have a pretty big upside especially a fight spell that can be so easily blanked, but this one has a lot of power. A fight deck could use this card to deal a ton of damage to players. A single Apex Altisaur could very likely kill the whole table. I think you could probably reduce this down to say “excess damage” similar to ram through to drop it down a little bit from win-con to value, but I understand that you’re playing a four mana enchantment, so it needs to be strong. The biggest strike against this card is I don’t think it can be mono-green. Dealing so much damage to an opponent’s face, even if it requires having creatures, feels like a color pie break. We’ve even seen cards that do something similar in red, like Toralf and Repercussion, and while I understand that the first half and the decks that want it are green, I think the card itself needs to be at least partially red.

@jestingmaniac - Behold the Beholder

Art desc: a beholder (dnd monster) fills the top 2/3 of the frame glaring down at a petrified group of four adventurers. Behind the beholder other petrified statues are dimly visible in the darkness.

While the concept here is pretty solid, there’s a few things that need to be addressed. First, the templating. You’d probably want to target creatures. There’s also some specific phrasing you might want to use: “For each player, turn target creature that player controls face-down.” But you might also want to specify non-token, or only face-up creatures, or say “up to” so that you can choose to skip a player (like yourself), though that last one might go against the theme of the contest. After all, you want to play this in a morph deck, right? Second, the reminder text. That’s not the default of what a face-down creature is (they are assumed to be 2/2 creatures with no name or ability), so you need to treat it like normal rules, not reminder. Look at a card like Tezzeret, Cruel Machinist, which turns cards face-down but then describes what they turn into. Lastly, I want to talk about the effect itself. Turning creatures into 1/1s that tap for colorless is odd, but not terribly out of place. I like how, in commander especially, it feels sort of like “fair” removal. It gives everyone something relevant. So yeah, even though there’s some weirdness with the card’s text, the actual effect I rather like.

@just--a--penguin - Triumphant Charge

I think this card is fine, but takes the risk of going all-in. The point of playing interaction in a deck is often to deal with something that your deck can’t handle. If your lifegain deck is being shut down by something, you need to be able to get rid of it. If your opponent has an Elesh Norn (either one) and you can’t play your soul wardens, you need to kill it. But this card can’t really do that. If your deck isn’t quite working, then it will continue to not work. If your deck is working, then this will help you out a little bit. However, even then, this card feels a little weak. Putting a few counters on a few creatures, or even all of your creatures, seems nice, but usually won’t make much of a difference, especially since most of your creatures are either 1/1 soul wardens or 20/20 ajani’s pridemates. Killing a big creature is always going to be nice, but I think with this much of a condition, you might have been okay just killing anything. White can do that every so often, especially in commander. Like I said, while the card effects are fine, I think as a whole it’s just going too all in for not that much of a reward.

@snugz - Dark Vengeance

This one feels a little out of place this week. I don’t quite know what deck archetype this is aimed towards. It just feels like a generically good card, maybe leaning a bit towards orzhov life drain decks, but not in a particular way. I guess it’s better in life gain decks? Well, anyway, the card seems fine. Like a lot of rattlesnake cards, I could see it causing frustration, what with turning a winning attack into a losing attack, but that’s just how it goes. There’s also some awkward timing with the spell, since it implies you lose the life right now, but I think you’d lose it when the damage is prevented. I thought it was actually incorrect templating, but there are plenty that say “You gain life equal to the damage prevented this way” so this wouldn’t be much different. While I think the card is alright, it feels a little off the mark for this week’s contest.

@sparkyyoungupstart - Forced Succession

Strictly better murder is acceptable in my book. No one plays murder anyway. I love the flavor here. While the effect feels narrow at first, the way monarch works is actually very well suited to interaction. It’s about the only mechanic where if you play with it, everyone is playing with it. The simplicity of this card and the way it understands the deck it would be in impress me. However, it being an instant kind of rubs me the wrong way. Someone attacking the monarch and gaining the monarchy, only to lose it and one of their creatures after combat but before they draw seems rather punishing. It’s effective and plays to the mechanics, but it plays against the type of experience I think a monarch player wants. If you’re playing a monarch deck, you probably expect it to move around a bunch. If you didn’t, then you’re probably not playing the deck right. Similarly, this allows a player to receive the monarchy without risk of either attacking or tapping out main phase for an effect that grants it. It feels like it’s playing against the themes of the deck even if it’s playing into the mechanics of the mechanic. I still think it’s great flavor and great simplicity.

@stupidstupidratcreatures - Nibble

There are two main decks I can think of for this: rat decks and one-damage decks (AKA Ob Nixilis Captive Kingpin decks). It’s a little awkward because rat decks, even though they play a lot of things that make 1/1 rats, also play a lot rats that get really big from other rats. Ping decks, on the other hand, probably don’t really need a way to grant -1/-1 all that often, since they’re playing red pingers that do something similar. Even so, maybe this is still enough. At worst it’s a more expensive rat out that makes a rat that can block, which isn’t awful. Fourth Bridge Prowler with flash isn’t half bad. And I have to admit, I just love ping-matters, so maybe this is just personal opinion, but I love this card. Four 1/1s and four -1/-1s for two mana is pretty high above curve, but even one extra copy is nice, and no extras can still kill an annoying creature some of the time. My one change I would make is say player, just so you could get an extra one from your phyrexian arena. One last thing I wanted to mention: I’m really glad that this checks when it’s cast rather than resolution, so players can’t ping themself with something in response so you get fewer copies. While it’s a little misplaced in the decks that want it, I still think it’s a sweet card.

@wildcardgamez - Fade into History

Wow, that’s some very powerful history. Removal in a saga deck is kind of odd, since a whole lot of sagas already are removal, but there aren’t really many that directly deal with artifacts or enchantments (since putting them in later chapters might be weird timed, and putting them in early chapters makes players not want to play them even if they should so they can get later chapters). I like the exile here for flavor and power reasons, since it’s a little narrow for what most people play nowadays. The weirdest thing here, though, is the sheer amount of lore. Anything more than two lore counters seems excessive. I don’t like the idea of skipping forward on a saga so explicitly. Something like proliferate is a little slower and has more nuance, but this feels like skipping to the end. It means you don’t get the fun, slow planning involved with a lot of sagas, and instead do everything at once. It feels like it’s removing a lot of what makes sagas unique. But that is probably a matter of taste. If you’re trying to power out sagas and do them all, then this card will do that. Plenty of people would play this card, and I wouldn’t say they’re wrong to do so, I just thing it makes playing sagas a little less quirky.

~

And there you have it, all my commentary for the week. Thanks again everyone who entered, it was fun giving this another spin. Next week is going to be great, if you're game for it.

-Mod Mr. ShinyObject

[glaseado-mountain-peak]

Does anybody want to join Team Eat Shit & Die.

The only requirement is I have to tolerate you

[stateofcharles]

therapy this, therapy that- real therapy is blocking those n*rris’ fans whenever they show up in my for you tl💆🏻

[condemnedtragedy]

you don't think i'm a bad person? / to Freya

@mikaels0n-elijah prompt.

      "we're  the  Mikaelsons,  brother.  we're  all  terrible." 

             if  you  asked  anyone  in  the  city  at  least,  or  beyond  it  to  any  of  Klaus'  enemies.  a  thousand  years  of  searching  for  her  family  had  given  her  plenty  of  time  to  wonder  about  who  they  are.  she  doesn't  think  he's  any  more  terrible  than  the  rest  of  them  but  she's  also  biased.