|
Post by uaiop on May 18, 2019 16:31:17 GMT
Hi i just got this in mind. I will post the card so that you can see what im talking about. Attachment DeletedSince i render enchanted creature legendary which is supertype how does it work with the fact that it loses all types? It would just be a legendary creature and nothing more. This refers specifically to a scenario: lets say that i enchant a token and there are plenty of them on my opponent's battlefield. It could be use to exile each other token? So it would work by "name" or by "type" in this case. Ehy i am sorry if some of this stuff is lame, im not 100% keen on mtg rulings, in fact despite playing since quite a bit of time, i need to get some stuff down properly
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 19, 2019 2:25:16 GMT
It does not work that way:
1 ) The Legendary supertype only functions if there is another legendary permanent with the same name on the same side of the field. One legendary token would do nothing to the others unless the other tokens were already legendary (and in that case - Leyline of Singularity - this card is redundant), and it wouldn't affect anything on your side of the field. Theros' ruleset amended the legendary rules to work this way in order to encourage people to play Gods without worrying about their lynchpin getting canceled out. 2 ) Since the card strips off "all types" [sic] without specifying, this would end up killing the Aura as it's no longer enchanting a creature. This would also render P/T irrelevant since without it being a creature it can't attack, block, or do anything really creature-relevant anyway.
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 19, 2019 17:03:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 19, 2019 17:30:23 GMT
I think i got another little doubt about this: Attachment DeletedIt is that thing the same as Hex. It is clear that you got to get exactly six specific targets for it. Now mi intempt here was a bit different maybe...for example it could be less than four. What about the wording? Should it be "up to…" or it would be confusing?
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 19, 2019 19:42:37 GMT
Plague ) Omit "other" as Legendary is not a creature type.
Eviction ) "up to" is not needed here because unlike Hex, this ability does not target, and if he doesn't have 5+ creatures he just sacrifices whatever creatures he has.
This also should be at a bare minimum. Barring Annihilator, anything that sacrifices more than two permanents is locked into that rarity by default ( Voldaren Pariah/Abolisher of Bloodlines, All is Dust, Wildfire among others)
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 19, 2019 19:59:25 GMT
ehy thanks buddy you really helped Now that i mind it is true that would be incorrect to say "other" because legendary is not a creature type, and about Carnal Eviction you are right, it is quite heavy
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 21, 2019 19:19:45 GMT
Since Conor Mcgregor was done i got doubt on this: Attachment DeletedShould i limit the untap here too?
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 21, 2019 20:12:24 GMT
That should be a tap ability, not an untap, to be perfectly honest.
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 21, 2019 20:32:18 GMT
That should be a tap ability, not an untap, to be perfectly honest. ye i know but i wanted it to be different, it is that of a big deal?
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 21, 2019 20:46:44 GMT
It is. Untap costs verge on being busted and were confusing, which are why they have been (almost) perennially 9 on the Storm Scale whenever MaRo has been asked about it.
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 21, 2019 21:05:44 GMT
It is. Untap costs verge on being busted and were confusing, which are why they have been (almost) perennially 9 on the Storm Scale whenever MaRo has been asked about it. Thanks for your interest I didnt even know about the Storm Scale, really useful and cool Personally i really like the trick and trickery of untapping, so it makes me sad in a sense, that it is 9 ranked and not likely to be around Now that i think of it, how does this ability work, we might have seen it many times, can i use it to totally fuck up the combat phase? In the way that a creature Attacks, and i destroy it since it is probably being tapped
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 21, 2019 23:36:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 22, 2019 0:07:12 GMT
No, because upon leaving the battlefield, any attached cards lose any "memory" of what they were attached to and fall off, so if at some point the enchantment returned it would need reattached to a creature immediately or go to the bin.
There is a way to work around this, but unfortunately it's not in colour in black: Have the Aura grant an ability that phases the creature it enchants out. (See Teferi's Drake for an explanation of how phasing functions.)
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 22, 2019 0:28:08 GMT
wow that phasing thing is probably the most fascinating i ever saw in magic, of course i didnt know about that
yeah, as i feared it was obvious that auras dies
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 22, 2019 0:43:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 22, 2019 4:00:34 GMT
That works much better.
And Phasing is an ability that most players nowadays wouldn't be aware of due to it existing pretty much only in Mirage Block (printed in the mid-90's) and being seen as a downside mechanic since then; Wizards doesn't do downside mechanics anymore for fairly obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 22, 2019 10:53:00 GMT
Thanks, i just updated more. I then thought that exiling a creature that just died taking it back and forth to the battlefield would be a bit white flavour and slipping out of the original intempt.
It can be downside, but not 100% Why cant it be reprinted for that reason?
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 22, 2019 18:17:25 GMT
It won't be reprinted because its effect is a limitation on the card.
If a keyword ability only ever serves as a restriction or disadvantage on the card, it pushes their Storm Scale rating closer to 10. A card that you can only use every other turn (Phasing), that requires an upkeep the next turn or it dies (Echo), that self-destructs after so long (Fading/Vanishing), or that requires gradually-increasing upkeep (Cuimulative upkeep) is generally not going to be seen as a good card, exceptions notwithstanding ( Illusions of Grandeur in decks centring around giving opponents your permanents, for example).
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 22, 2019 18:53:55 GMT
It won't be reprinted because its effect is a limitation on the card.
If a keyword ability only ever serves as a restriction or disadvantage on the card, it pushes their Storm Scale rating closer to 10. A card that you can only use every other turn (Phasing), that requires an upkeep the next turn or it dies (Echo), that self-destructs after so long (Fading/Vanishing), or that requires gradually-increasing upkeep (Cuimulative upkeep) is generally not going to be seen as a good card, exceptions notwithstanding ( Illusions of Grandeur in decks centring around giving opponents your permanents, for example). Thanks for the insightful reply Then, I personally like those, i mean i like abilities like that, fading...i think theyre awesome just by a flavour point of view, and why not, for the sake of the trick they can bring
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on May 22, 2019 19:00:21 GMT
Thanks for the insightful reply Then, I personally like those, i mean i like abilities like that, fading...i think theyre awesome just by a flavour point of view, and why not, for the sake of the trick they can bring The problem is that these abilities are seen as generally lacking from the PoV of a player opening a booster pack, who'll be far more concerned about the crunch than the fluff. You don't want the new keyword in your set to be something that looks complicated or disadvantageous, no matter how the stats of the card are (for example, creatures with Phasing and Fading/Vanishing are generally above-curve power-wise).
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 22, 2019 19:14:43 GMT
It is. Untap costs verge on being busted and were confusing, which are why they have been (almost) perennially 9 on the Storm Scale whenever MaRo has been asked about it. Thanks for your interest I didnt even know about the Storm Scale, really useful and cool Personally i really like the trick and trickery of untapping, so it makes me sad in a sense, that it is 9 ranked and not likely to be around Now that i think of it, how does this ability work, we might have seen it many times, can i use it to totally fuck up the combat phase? In the way that a creature Attacks, and i destroy it since it is probably being tapped Regarding this the last part of my post i know now what i was talking about, doubts that come out from rust of the game ah! A lame one actually, i can destroy an attacker with Tivon's ability/Royal Assassin (for example) abilitiy (to simplify)
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on May 22, 2019 19:16:06 GMT
Thanks for the insightful reply Then, I personally like those, i mean i like abilities like that, fading...i think theyre awesome just by a flavour point of view, and why not, for the sake of the trick they can bring The problem is that these abilities are seen as generally lacking from the PoV of a player opening a booster pack, who'll be far more concerned about the crunch than the fluff. You don't want the new keyword in your set to be something that looks complicated or disadvantageous, no matter how the stats of the card are (for example, creatures with Phasing and Fading/Vanishing are generally above-curve power-wise). Completely reasonable Their fascination is so powerful anyway
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on Oct 5, 2019 13:00:45 GMT
Hi all! I'm using this thread after a long time for some doubts. Don't know if it's the best place to but since i opened it I thought it was the right thread Since i did a card called Glittervoid i find myself thinking: if my intempt is to consider "exile a spell" the same as "counter a spell" in black, how can it work to the fullest given a scenario where target player casts various spells one by one let them resolve one by one then at the end of this row i cast my glittervoid. The fact is it cannot stop spells that have resolved already! How can i fix this? Or should i consider changing the sense of it all for "exile spells" as for "exile after they resolved"? = making much less sense Letting the card how it is, how can it possibly work and be effective in a real scenario? Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Oct 5, 2019 18:31:42 GMT
There's good news and bad news.
Good news is that the card can work as written. Exiling a spell off the stack is functionally identical to countering it. (There exist cards that bounce spells on the stack such as Unsubstantiate and Failure//Comply, and thus this would work in the same manner as those.)
Bad news is that this is out-of-colour ( ). Monoblack doesn't get anything that manipulates the stack, and what little it got in the old days was colour-hate (generally of green or white). This card only works as a Dimir-coloured card.
That being said, the way the card is written it essentially prohibits casting any further spells this turn as opposed to just exile-countering whatever spells are on the stack. Is this intended?
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on Oct 5, 2019 19:14:25 GMT
There's good news and bad news.
Good news is that the card can work as written. Exiling a spell off the stack is functionally identical to countering it. (There exist cards that bounce spells on the stack such as Unsubstantiate and Failure//Comply, and thus this would work in the same manner as those.)
Bad news is that this is out-of-colour ( ). Monoblack doesn't get anything that manipulates the stack, and what little it got in the old days was colour-hate (generally of green or white). This card only works as a Dimir-coloured card.
That being said, the way the card is written it essentially prohibits casting any further spells this turn as opposed to just exile-countering whatever spells are on the stack. Is this intended?
First of all, nice to hear from you again your help got me out of various little/not so little things in the past Yeah, i thought of exiling spells just as a way for black to counter them instead of going "counter", plus it came naturally to match the card idea and flavour some way. But of course i intend exiling as for putting those spells in exile too. That being said, the way the card is written it essentially prohibits casting any further spells this turn as opposed to just exile-countering whatever spells are on the stack. Is this intended?I'm not sure this is the way it's supposed to work. I mean, i intended to exile all spells that have been cast but didn't resolved yet...here i thought of how complex it was to make it work, because if player B casts various spells let's say one, then another and so on, i can't cast Glittervoid as that player finished casting those spells because by that time they would have all resolved! Am i right on this? But now that you proposed this type of reading, maybe it completely changes the way the card is supposed to be played. Instead of "countering" spells, it stands as an obliteration for all spells that are about to be cast. Clever. As for the color part, well, damn it really costs me so much shifting it to blue at the moment. But yeah your point is valid nevertheless P.S. Now that i think of it, being clear this spell now basically works as a "casting spells deterrent" a player might just avoid this spell by not casting anything. Loss of life because of exiled spells is completely useless and the spell itself seems just like a big bust...more white than anything. I just wanted it to be cast after a row of spells (or just one if that is the case) and be effective.
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Oct 5, 2019 19:27:25 GMT
I mean, i intended to exile all spells that have been cast but didn't resolved yet... Well, the correct wording for this is simple: Exile all other spells.But yeah, if your opponent just cast one spell, lets it resolve, and then casts the next one, your card turns into a simple Counterspell.
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on Oct 5, 2019 19:46:45 GMT
Well, doesn't Summary Dismissal kind of end up working (failing) the same way?
Maybe the 9 cmc can be a "heavy debt" for it being kind of unnatural and far stretched
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Oct 5, 2019 19:55:10 GMT
The problem is, there's no way to really improve this imho. You cannot "take back / reverse" a spell that's already resolved, so you could only at best prevent further spells from happening - either by exiling all other spells whenever they get cast until end of turn or (which would be cleaner but requires white) by simply not allowing any player to cast further spells until end of turn. Continuing to exile all further spells would obviously be more in flavor, but mechanically much more complicated as the casting denial and in the end lead to the same result..
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on Oct 5, 2019 20:09:01 GMT
I think i got it. Let me work on it, but i definitely have a clearer view about it. Huge spell, but sharp focused now.
|
|
|
Post by uaiop on Oct 5, 2019 22:51:58 GMT
|
|