|
Post by murdermeatball on Dec 20, 2019 19:21:18 GMT
Lady Mapi Thanks, that's great! I'll have that in mind for my redesign.
|
|
|
Post by hydraheadhunter on Jan 2, 2020 15:57:44 GMT
I had a fun idea for a card, and now I need help balancing it because I've always been bad at that... Lorewise you'd have this pyromancer literally burning their lifeforce to get a hotter flame: mechanics-wise I worked it out that it could be a damage tripler that makes you lose life equal to the original damage in order to then triple the damage to whatever was going to get hurt. I just need help with what would be a fair P/T and cmc for the creature. I know damage doublers are typically in the 4-5 cmc range with the cheaper ones requiring set up and/or being until end of turn only, but I don't know where I'd put a damage tripler with a downside. I've got it costed as a 2/1 for 5 right now but I don't know if that's those are the right numbers. I also gave it Trample and a "You can't gain life." clause because those felt right, but I'm too not attached to either of those clauses. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Jan 2, 2020 17:06:19 GMT
I had a fun idea for a card, and now I need help balancing it because I've always been bad at that... Lorewise you'd have this pyromancer literally burning their lifeforce to get a hotter flame: mechanics-wise I worked it out that it could be a damage tripler that makes you lose life equal to the original damage in order to then triple the damage to whatever was going to get hurt. I just need help with what would be a fair P/T and cmc for the creature. I know damage doublers are typically in the 4-5 cmc range with the cheaper ones requiring set up and/or being until end of turn only, but I don't know where I'd put a damage tripler with a downside. I've got it costed as a 2/1 for 5 right now but I don't know if that's those are the right numbers. I also gave it Trample and a "You can't gain life." clause because those felt right, but I'm too not attached to either of those clauses. Keep the You can't gain life. but drop the Trample. Card seems fairly costed imo. Take a red deck you own and toss in four proxy copies of it to test it.
Oh, and there's a typo: it's lose and not loss.
|
|
inferno390
3/3 Beast
Posts: 197
Favorite Card: Kwende, Pride of Femeref
Favorite Set: Dominaria
Color Alignment: White, Red
|
Post by inferno390 on Jan 2, 2020 17:50:40 GMT
Firstly I would not give it trample. On 2/1 body it doesn’t feel particularly strong. Also would bump the mana cost to 4RR since it’s triple damage.
|
|
|
Post by arthurxiv on Jan 2, 2020 18:50:58 GMT
hydraheadhunter: This is strictly worse than Torbran in a Cavalcade deck for the mana cost and the self-damage. In a Gruul deck with Spellbreaker however it can be crazy. I think it's correctly costed and i also wouldn't put trample since you're supposed to kill just after this guy enters the battlefield, not after waiting a turn (or giving it haste) and boosting him. Try it and see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by hydraheadhunter on Jan 2, 2020 19:26:37 GMT
Firstly I would not give it trample. On 2/1 body it doesn’t feel particularly strong. Also would bump the mana cost to 4RR since it’s triple damage. Since y'all are all saying drop trample I'll do that, but I want to defend the strength of it on this card. Since the main clause triples damage, it effectively has six power: meaning if you block it with a 2/2, you'll trample 4 damage over, and if I understand the rule interactions correctly, that trample damage would get tripled again to 12 damage. The end result would be 6 loss of life for 12 damage and a dead 2/2. Actually, defending the strength of trample tells me that trample is probs too strong to be on this card natively. Thanks every one for your input. I'll give it a try in my Chandra fire of Kaledesh commander deck.
|
|
|
Post by arthurxiv on Jan 3, 2020 10:23:26 GMT
From what i understand about the rules, if this gets blocked by a 0/1, it tries to deal 1 damage to the 0/1 and 1 damage to the opponent, then the ability triggers and it deals 3 dmg to the 0/1 and 3 dmg to the opponent. If it gets blocked by a 0/X with X greater than 1, it tries to deal 2 dmg to it and eventually deals 6 dmg to it and 0 to the opponent, even if it has trample.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 3, 2020 16:47:55 GMT
Since y'all are all saying drop trample I'll do that, but I want to defend the strength of it on this card. Since the main clause triples damage, it effectively has six power: meaning if you block it with a 2/2, you'll trample 4 damage over, and if I understand the rule interactions correctly, that trample damage would get tripled again to 12 damage. The end result would be 6 loss of life for 12 damage and a dead 2/2. Nope.
The trebling happens after damage is assigned in combat. Block it with a 1/1 and three damage tramples (1*3). Block it with a 2/2 and the 2/2 eats 6 damage.
Trample changes how damage is assigned. You need to have lethal damage assigned to the target before you can start applying damage to a player/planeswalker. (702.19b) This ability, along with any other ability that multiplies damage (e.g. Furnace of Rath), triggers on the damage actually being dealt as they are replacement effects. (609.7 in its entirety, 614.2 in its entirety)
|
|
|
Post by Aarhg on Jan 22, 2020 1:48:25 GMT
I tried designing a hybrid planeswalker that could show up in a set with a Desert theme. It's a little color-bendy, but being a mythic, I don't think it's unrealistically so.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Jan 22, 2020 17:51:56 GMT
I tried designing a hybrid planeswalker that could show up in a set with a Desert theme. It's a little color-bendy, but being a mythic, I don't think it's unrealistically so.
Seems fine and not at all color-bendy.
|
|
thaneofglamis
8/8 Octopus
Thane's activated abilities can't be activated
Posts: 444
Favorite Card: Slimefoot, the Stowaway; Phyrexian Rager; Swarm Shambler
Favorite Set: Midnight Hunt
Color Alignment: Green
|
Post by thaneofglamis on Jan 22, 2020 17:57:43 GMT
Looks good, although the format for the sacrifice a land ability should say “Sacrifice a land. If you do, ...”
|
|
|
Post by Aarhg on Jan 22, 2020 22:47:43 GMT
ameisenmeister Well that's good to hear. I was thinking the +1 and -7 were a little outside the norm for a hybrid card, but I think they're both pretty acceptable.
thaneofglamis Yea, that sounds right. Might even make it say " You may sacrifice a land. If you do, blah blah" just so you can still +1 her if you don't have any Deserts left in your library.
Thanks, both!
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 23, 2020 11:06:01 GMT
I was thinking the +1 and -7 were a little outside the norm for a hybrid card, but I think they're both pretty acceptable.
The -7 is quite clearly in white. The +1 is more bendy, as red and white typically don't tutor for lands of any stripe, but given that it feeds her other abilities it's something that could be let slide given how restrictive the ability is plus the sac cost.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 30, 2020 0:42:08 GMT
Hello! I've been working on and off for a few years now on a project to make a Legendary Creature (or Planeswalker, for special instances) for every character in a game franchise that's rather dear to me, but along the way I've had a few I'm just not quite sure of the balance of. Just for right now, I wanted to get some input on the one that's vexed me the most in terms of the balancing of it- there's not a ton of knobs to tweak, and I'm struggling to find a place where it's neither excessive in effect nor undercosted. Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jan 30, 2020 3:18:49 GMT
Hello! I've been working on and off for a few years now on a project to make a Legendary Creature (or Planeswalker, for special instances) for every character in a game franchise that's rather dear to me, but along the way I've had a few I'm just not quite sure of the balance of. Just for right now, I wanted to get some input on the one that's vexed me the most in terms of the balancing of it- there's not a ton of knobs to tweak, and I'm struggling to find a place where it's neither excessive in effect nor undercosted. Any thoughts? My first thought is to compare to Ox of Agonas and Bedlam Reveler - simply put, ditching your hand and drawing three is such a massive impact on your hand (because to most decks that run this type of creature, it's effectively "draw 3") that A) competitive players in formats like Modern/Legacy would rather have the effect right away and B) regular designers would probably put a lot of knobs and limitations on this effect if it was repeatable, as you've done here. The result is that while I see what you're going for, the card is a bit on the slow side as it currently is, and won't really generate a lot of impact. I personally think that the best way to go about making this card more interesting is to remove the "Skip your draw step" and follow the same one-shot approach Bedlam Reveler and Ox of Agonas use. You could look to Past in Flames-type cards for further inspiration and instead do something like "When Ellen ETB, exile your hand and graveyard, you may play cards exiled this way this turn" and make her the start of a powerful storm-off type of finisher, or even just make the current effect a oneshot, remove "Skip your draw step", and bring her down to which could in theory let her set up for Crackling Drake. Hope this helps!
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 30, 2020 14:52:37 GMT
Hello! I've been working on and off for a few years now on a project to make a Legendary Creature (or Planeswalker, for special instances) for every character in a game franchise that's rather dear to me, but along the way I've had a few I'm just not quite sure of the balance of. Just for right now, I wanted to get some input on the one that's vexed me the most in terms of the balancing of it- there's not a ton of knobs to tweak, and I'm struggling to find a place where it's neither excessive in effect nor undercosted. Any thoughts? My first thought is to compare to Ox of Agonas and Bedlam Reveler - simply put, ditching your hand and drawing three is such a massive impact on your hand (because to most decks that run this type of creature, it's effectively "draw 3") that A) competitive players in formats like Modern/Legacy would rather have the effect right away and B) regular designers would probably put a lot of knobs and limitations on this effect if it was repeatable, as you've done here. The result is that while I see what you're going for, the card is a bit on the slow side as it currently is, and won't really generate a lot of impact. I personally think that the best way to go about making this card more interesting is to remove the "Skip your draw step" and follow the same one-shot approach Bedlam Reveler and Ox of Agonas use. You could look to Past in Flames-type cards for further inspiration and instead do something like "When Ellen ETB, exile your hand and graveyard, you may play cards exiled this way this turn" and make her the start of a powerful storm-off type of finisher, or even just make the current effect a oneshot, remove "Skip your draw step", and bring her down to which could in theory let her set up for Crackling Drake. Hope this helps! I'm fairly happy with the nature of the effect as it is now- the effect ties into the flavor of the character represented, for whom time has worn her memory to nothing. The effect brings that to the player, constantly erasing their past (exiling their hand and graveyard) and leaving them with nothing but the experiences of the moment (a fresh set three cards per turn to work with). It's not of particular concern to me that it be competitively interesting or efficient, I'm more trying to get the text box as it is to the lowest rate that doesn't make it oppressive. Just seems like it's far too low, for instance, though I'm uncertain if is the right place to be either, or if it's best to lower the cost but also reduce to two cards per turn. That said, if your concern is that it's not impactful enough, then I might be on the safe side already.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 30, 2020 20:39:28 GMT
I'm fairly happy with the nature of the effect as it is now- the effect ties into the flavor of the character represented, for whom time has worn her memory to nothing. The effect brings that to the player, constantly erasing their past (exiling their hand and graveyard) and leaving them with nothing but the experiences of the moment (a fresh set three cards per turn to work with). It's not of particular concern to me that it be competitively interesting or efficient, I'm more trying to get the text box as it is to the lowest rate that doesn't make it oppressive. Just seems like it's far too low, for instance, though I'm uncertain if is the right place to be either, or if it's best to lower the cost but also reduce to two cards per turn. That said, if your concern is that it's not impactful enough, then I might be on the safe side already. Crunch must always take precedence over fluff.
This is what ultimately sank Kamigawa and Classic Theros blocks, and would have sunk Time Spiral block if it weren't conceived as a "best-of".
What you have here is a Legendary creature that ultimately can't do anything of note and which pigeonholes you into a monored deck build (Every colour has some means of fetching things from the bin, but red relies on them the least). Red in and of itself generally doesn't have a strong mid-to-late game, and this card ensures that it won't have an early game either.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 30, 2020 22:08:50 GMT
That's fine, I got the answer I was looking for. Just one more I could use specifically wording/templating input on- the middle effect on this card is one I've turned upside down a few times, trying to structure the "lifegain is lifeloss, lifeloss is lifegain" ability in a way that wasn't self-negating; this is the best I've come up with thus far. I was curious to get any other insight on how one might cleanly word this effect.
|
|
|
Post by lanceverbatim on Jan 30, 2020 22:13:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 30, 2020 22:49:56 GMT
That's fine, I got the answer I was looking for. Just one more I could use specifically wording/templating input on- the middle effect on this card is one I've turned upside down a few times, trying to structure the "lifegain is lifeloss, lifeloss is lifegain" ability in a way that wasn't self-negating; this is the best I've come up with thus far. I was curious to get any other insight on how one might cleanly word this effect. (massive card image removed from quote for size - Bori)
The problem is that it's next to impossible to include both effects on one card because doing so will lock the game into a draw-inducing infinite loop that is unresolvable because the card will replace both lifegain and lifeloss from its own effect. (104.4b) You need to choose one or the other.
There also aren't any good things to replace it with, sorry to say. You might be better off making this card based more off of the Wheel of Fortune Tarot card (which Sagume draws heavily from, if her theme and overall abilities are any indication).
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 30, 2020 23:10:48 GMT
That's fine, I got the answer I was looking for. Just one more I could use specifically wording/templating input on- the middle effect on this card is one I've turned upside down a few times, trying to structure the "lifegain is lifeloss, lifeloss is lifegain" ability in a way that wasn't self-negating; this is the best I've come up with thus far. I was curious to get any other insight on how one might cleanly word this effect. (massive card image removed from quote for size - Bori)
The problem is that it's next to impossible to include both effects on one card because doing so will lock the game into a draw-inducing infinite loop that is unresolvable because the card will replace both lifegain and lifeloss from its own effect. (104.4b) You need to choose one or the other.
There also aren't any good things to replace it with, sorry to say. You might be better off making this card based more off of the Wheel of Fortune Tarot card (which Sagume draws heavily from, if her theme and overall abilities are any indication).
I leant more with Rain of GoreAnd that's why the best idea I could come up with was to have both in a single replacement effect- since a replacement effect can only apply itself to an event once (rule 614.5, i believe), then by putting both together into a single ability, then it would only have the opportunity to modify a lifegain/loss event once; if a player gains 3 life, then the effect will modify it to a loss of 3 life, but this will not in turn revert it back to 3 life because the single replacement effect has already modified the event... or at least, that's the theory- that a single cleanly-worded life modification inversion effect would do the trick without breaking the game logic along the way. "Cleanly-worded" is definitely the hard part, though, even if we supposed that the current effect actually does function as intended, it's visually ambiguous since it looks like it'd turn 3 life gained to 3 life lost, then back to 3 life gained again. Which might also just be what it's actually mechanically doing right now, this one's really in the weeds as effect templating goes. I can certainly take Sagume back to the drawing board, but I want to pursue this option as far as it can possibly go first.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 30, 2020 23:28:42 GMT
And that's why the best idea I could come up with was to have both in a single replacement effect- since a replacement effect can only apply itself to an event once (rule 614.5, i believe), then by putting both together into a single ability, then it would only have the opportunity to modify a lifegain/loss event once; if a player gains 3 life, then the effect will modify it to a loss of 3 life, but this will not in turn revert it back to 3 life because the single replacement effect has already modified the event... or at least, that's the theory- that a single cleanly-worded life modification inversion effect would do the trick without breaking the game logic along the way. "Cleanly-worded" is definitely the hard part, though, even if we supposed that the current effect actually does function as intended, it's visually ambiguous since it looks like it'd turn 3 life gained to 3 life lost, then back to 3 life gained again. Which might also just be what it's actually mechanically doing right now, this one's really in the weeds as effect templating goes. I can certainly take Sagume back to the drawing board, but I want to pursue this option as far as it can possibly go first. You actually have two separate replacement effects here; putting them on one line does not change that as they are modifying different events (lifegain and life loss, respectively). That rule is more in place for multiple cards which have identical replacement effects, and the example it gives is essentially two copies of Furnace of Rath.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 30, 2020 23:52:46 GMT
And that's why the best idea I could come up with was to have both in a single replacement effect- since a replacement effect can only apply itself to an event once (rule 614.5, i believe), then by putting both together into a single ability, then it would only have the opportunity to modify a lifegain/loss event once; if a player gains 3 life, then the effect will modify it to a loss of 3 life, but this will not in turn revert it back to 3 life because the single replacement effect has already modified the event... or at least, that's the theory- that a single cleanly-worded life modification inversion effect would do the trick without breaking the game logic along the way. "Cleanly-worded" is definitely the hard part, though, even if we supposed that the current effect actually does function as intended, it's visually ambiguous since it looks like it'd turn 3 life gained to 3 life lost, then back to 3 life gained again. Which might also just be what it's actually mechanically doing right now, this one's really in the weeds as effect templating goes. I can certainly take Sagume back to the drawing board, but I want to pursue this option as far as it can possibly go first. You actually have two separate replacement effects here; putting them on one line does not change that as they are modifying different events (lifegain and life loss, respectively). That rule is more in place for multiple cards which have identical replacement effects, and the example it gives is essentially two copies of Furnace of Rath.
Except that the Bond+Blood situation is two triggered effects volleying back and forth- a lifegain effect triggers Sanguine Bond, which creates a separate lifeloss incident that triggers Exquisite Blood, which creates a separate lifegain effect that triggers Sanguine Bond, ad nauseam. Those can go back and forth because they're creating new events- this, like Rain of Gore or Furnace of Rath, is a replacement effect modifying a single event. If this was a combination of Transcendence and False Cure's wording, then it would create a game-ending loop as you describe- but as written, I think regardless of whether it's written out as one effect or two, the worst-case scenario is that... nothing happens, as it turns life gain into life loss, then back into life gain. It won't go back and loop for the same reason no number of Furnace of Raths will cause 2 damage to become 4, then 4 to become 8, then 8 become 16, ad nauseam in a game-ending loop.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 31, 2020 0:29:10 GMT
Except that the Bond+Blood situation is two triggered effects volleying back and forth- a lifegain effect triggers Sanguine Bond, which creates a separate lifeloss incident that triggers Exquisite Blood, which creates a separate lifegain effect that triggers Sanguine Bond, ad nauseam. Those can go back and forth because they're creating new events- this, like Rain of Gore or Furnace of Rath, is a replacement effect modifying a single event. If this was a combination of Transcendence and False Cure's wording, then it would create a game-ending loop as you describe- but as written, I think regardless of whether it's written out as one effect or two, the worst-case scenario is that... nothing happens, as it turns life gain into life loss, then back into life gain. It won't go back and loop for the same reason no number of Furnace of Raths will cause 2 damage to become 4, then 4 to become 8, then 8 become 16, ad nauseam in a game-ending loop. ...Which in turn generates another event which causes it to loop again, ad nauseam. Replaced events never occur because they were replaced, and triggers will fire off the results of the replacement. (614.6)
What happens is life gain/loss happens. The relevant trigger fires, reversing it and overwriting the event, which immediately causes the other trigger to fire and overwrite that, which in turn causes the first trigger to overwrite that, ad nauseam, causing an infinite compulsory loop with no means of exit.
Both of the triggers are replacing different events - One is replacing any and all instances of lifegain, the other any and all instances of life loss. They are separate effects that fire on two separate events. No matter of formatting is going to change this.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 31, 2020 1:01:09 GMT
Except that the Bond+Blood situation is two triggered effects volleying back and forth- a lifegain effect triggers Sanguine Bond, which creates a separate lifeloss incident that triggers Exquisite Blood, which creates a separate lifegain effect that triggers Sanguine Bond, ad nauseam. Those can go back and forth because they're creating new events- this, like Rain of Gore or Furnace of Rath, is a replacement effect modifying a single event. If this was a combination of Transcendence and False Cure's wording, then it would create a game-ending loop as you describe- but as written, I think regardless of whether it's written out as one effect or two, the worst-case scenario is that... nothing happens, as it turns life gain into life loss, then back into life gain. It won't go back and loop for the same reason no number of Furnace of Raths will cause 2 damage to become 4, then 4 to become 8, then 8 become 16, ad nauseam in a game-ending loop. ...Which in turn generates another event which causes it to loop again, ad nauseam. Replaced events never occur because they were replaced, and triggers will fire off the results of the replacement. (614.6)
What happens is life gain/loss happens. The relevant trigger fires, reversing it and overwriting the event, which immediately causes the other trigger to fire and overwrite that, which in turn causes the first trigger to overwrite that, ad nauseam, causing an infinite compulsory loop with no means of exit.
That can't be how that functions, because of 614.5. Again, substitute in the Furnace of Rath- if it worked as you described, then a 2-damage event would be replaced and never happen, and instead a 4-damage event would happen, which would immediately trigger the effect and overwrite it with a new event, ad nauseam. Once the replacement effect touches the event, it's done, it won't touch it again even if something else alters it further. Crafty Cutpurse's rulings outline a comparable inversion effect- one effect in place on each side of the table won't cause a situation where a token one player would create triggers Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, triggering Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, triggering Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, ad nauseam. The card's sixth ruling outlines that in this situation, each Cutpurse gets to touch it only once, even though the end result means one of them Cutpurse functionally does nothing. So it would be here- the lifegain-to-lifeloss only gets to apply once, even if the other effect turns the lifeloss back into lifegain. This effect might indeed negate itself as-written, but it cannot loop with itself.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 31, 2020 1:05:54 GMT
That can't be how that functions, because of 614.5. Again, substitute in the Furnace of Rath- if it worked as you described, then a 2-damage event would be replaced and never happen, and instead a 4-damage event would happen, which would immediately trigger the effect and overwrite it with a new event, ad nauseam. Once the replacement effect touches the event, it's done, it won't touch it again even if something else alters it further. Crafty Cutpurse's rulings outline a comparable inversion effect- one effect in place on each side of the table won't cause a situation where a token one player would create triggers Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, triggering Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, triggering Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, ad nauseam. The card's sixth ruling outlines that in this situation, each Cutpurse gets to touch it only once, even though the end result means one of them Cutpurse functionally does nothing. So it would be here- the lifegain-to-lifeloss only gets to apply once, even if the other effect turns the lifeloss back into lifegain. This effect might indeed negate itself as-written, but it cannot loop with itself. The difference is that the two Furnaces are modifying the same instance of damage. That emphatically is not the case here because the triggers here cannot modify the same event due to being mutually-exclusive. They don't function like the furnaces because there is no way in the rules to simultaneously and atomically gain and lose life.
As such, what you have, no matter how you word it, is two separate triggered effects that feed into each other, causing them to fire off and produce their own events which get replaced. And these are not optional triggers, either, meaning the game will infinite loop into a draw.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 31, 2020 1:15:01 GMT
That can't be how that functions, because of 614.5. Again, substitute in the Furnace of Rath- if it worked as you described, then a 2-damage event would be replaced and never happen, and instead a 4-damage event would happen, which would immediately trigger the effect and overwrite it with a new event, ad nauseam. Once the replacement effect touches the event, it's done, it won't touch it again even if something else alters it further. Crafty Cutpurse's rulings outline a comparable inversion effect- one effect in place on each side of the table won't cause a situation where a token one player would create triggers Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, triggering Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, triggering Cutpurse, causing it to be created on the other side, ad nauseam. The card's sixth ruling outlines that in this situation, each Cutpurse gets to touch it only once, even though the end result means one of them Cutpurse functionally does nothing. So it would be here- the lifegain-to-lifeloss only gets to apply once, even if the other effect turns the lifeloss back into lifegain. This effect might indeed negate itself as-written, but it cannot loop with itself. The difference is that the two Furnaces are modifying the same instance of damage. That emphatically is not the case here because the triggers here cannot modify the same event due to being mutually-exclusive.
As such, what you have, no matter how you word it, is two separate triggered effects that feed into each other, causing them to fire off and produce their own events which get replaced. And these are not optional triggers, either, meaning the game will infinite loop into a draw.
I'm not talking about two Furnaces, as you've described it you only need one. If the replacement result is a completely disconnected new event, then the replacement effect can modify it again. If we both have a Cutpurse, then when you steal my token it's a new event that can be modified again. Both scenarios can vacillate, triggering off each other, into a game-winning draw. Except that 614.5 says otherwise- your cutpurse takes my token, my cutpurse takes it back, and yours can't take it again because it's not a completely separate token creation event disconnected from the original token creation event. The lifegain becomes lifeloss, then becomes lifegain again, but it can't be turned back to lifeloss because it's not a completely seperate life gaining event disconnected from the original life gaining event.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 31, 2020 1:21:35 GMT
I'm not talking about two Furnaces, as you've described it you only need one. If the replacement result is a completely disconnected new event, then the replacement effect can modify it again. If we both have a Cutpurse, then when you steal my token it's a new event that can be modified again. Both scenarios can vacillate, triggering off each other, into a game-winning draw. Except that 614.5 says otherwise- your cutpurse takes my token, my cutpurse takes it back, and yours can't take it again because it's not a completely separate token creation event disconnected from the original token creation event. The lifegain becomes lifeloss, then becomes lifegain again, but it can't be turned back to lifeloss because it's not a completely seperate life gaining event disconnected from the original life gaining event. That's due to APNAP order, actually. Both of the Crafty Cutpurses are still modifying the same event (The initial token generation) so the active player chooses in what order they resolve by dint of choosing first.
Once again, what you have cannot do that as both triggers are mutually exclusive, meaning that they both cannot apply to the same event unless you find a way to simultaneously and atomically gain and lose life in the rules.
And then there's the implications should we take your argument at face value. If we accept your argument, then the ability does literally nothing because it cancels out its own effect and then stops.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 31, 2020 1:40:17 GMT
I'm not talking about two Furnaces, as you've described it you only need one. If the replacement result is a completely disconnected new event, then the replacement effect can modify it again. If we both have a Cutpurse, then when you steal my token it's a new event that can be modified again. Both scenarios can vacillate, triggering off each other, into a game-winning draw. Except that 614.5 says otherwise- your cutpurse takes my token, my cutpurse takes it back, and yours can't take it again because it's not a completely separate token creation event disconnected from the original token creation event. The lifegain becomes lifeloss, then becomes lifegain again, but it can't be turned back to lifeloss because it's not a completely seperate life gaining event disconnected from the original life gaining event. That's due to APNAP order, actually. Both of the Crafty Cutpurses are still modifying the same event (The initial token generation) so the active player chooses in what order they resolve. Once again, what you have cannot do that as both triggers are mutually exclusive, meaning that they both cannot apply to the same event unless you find a way to simultaneously and atomically gain and lose life in the rules.
Honestly, this has just made the Cutpurse ruling stop making sense on its most technical level, because the implication here is that your own Cutpurse triggers when a token enters the battlefield under your own control, causing two completely opposing triggers to then need to be sorted through when there's no reason your own would have anything to say about it except until after it's already been taken. At face value, choosing "one of the applicable Crafty Cutpurse effects" makes perfect sense when dealing with multiple opponents who have an effect active, but not in a one-on-one scenario, because why would your Crafty Cutpurse even touch a token of your own creation already when it's expressly looking to modify tokens created by your opponent? So one of the following situations must be occurring: 1) Replacement effects are anticipatorily triggering to events their wording does not indicate it should (and thus Cutpurse has a finger on your own tokens, and Sagume's lifeloss-to-lifegain conversion is paying attention to an event that is already lifegain to begin with) 2) Replacement effects can be set off by other replacement effects (and thus one Cutpurse reacts after another has done its thing, and Sagume's two halves of the effect would do the same, in which case a generous reading of 614.5 is the only way any of it doesn't go off forever) or 3) This interaction never existed in the rules on a technical level to begin with, and the only reason any of it works is because when you lift the hood Eli Shiffrin is curled up inside going "shhh, it works, trust me" (which lets Cutpurses work in an intuitive way even when it doesn't make sense if you think about it too hard, and Sagume could theoretically get even smudgier than she already very much is and work just fine, provided she bribes and/or coerces the right people)
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 31, 2020 1:58:30 GMT
Honestly, this has just made the Cutpurse ruling stop making sense on its most technical level, because the implication here is that your own Cutpurse triggers when a token enters the battlefield under your own control, causing two completely opposing triggers to then need to be sorted through when there's no reason your own would have anything to say about it except until after it's already been taken. At face value, choosing "one of the applicable Crafty Cutpurse effects" makes perfect sense when dealing with multiple opponents who have an effect active, but not in a one-on-one scenario, because why would your Crafty Cutpurse even touch a token of your own creation already when it's expressly looking to modify tokens created by your opponent? So one of the following situations must be occurring: 1) Replacement effects are anticipatorily triggering to events their wording does not indicate it should (and thus Cutpurse has a finger on your own tokens, and Sagume's lifeloss-to-lifegain conversion is paying attention to an event that is already lifegain to begin with) 2) Replacement effects can be set off by other replacement effects (and thus one Cutpurse reacts after another has done its thing, and Sagume's two halves of the effect would do the same, in which case a generous reading of 614.5 is the only way any of it doesn't go off forever) or 3) This interaction never existed in the rules on a technical level to begin with, and the only reason any of it works is because when you lift the hood Eli Shiffrin is curled up inside going "shhh, it works, trust me" (which lets Cutpurses work in an intuitive way even when it doesn't make sense if you think about it too hard, and Sagume could theoretically get even smudgier than she already very much is and work just fine, provided she bribes and/or coerces the right people) I should note that the quotes I provided are from the judge rulings on the card, and are copy-pasted from the card's Oracle page (scroll down to the bottom).
They are consistent with the two modifying the same event because the token is not actually created until those effects resolve, as per the Cutpurse's own wording. Cutpurse hijacks the actual creation effect, and as such any and all triggers based off of that effect must resolve before the token can actually be created since it modifies an aspect of the token generation (i.e. whose control it is created under).
And once again, this does not address Sagume at all because (1) the triggers on her trigger on different events that are mutually-exclusive and (2) each replacement creates its own event as a result of it resolving, per 614.6.
You can try to cheat this by putting them on the same line all you want, but this does not work, as even a casual read of the entirety of Section 614 will tell you. The rules explicitly state "effects", not "abilities", which tells me that an ability can have multiple triggers which independently fire, as is the case here.
BTW, in re Cutpurse: Rule 616.1.
|
|