|
|
Post by vizionarius on Feb 12, 2022 8:27:01 GMT
A lot of corner "removal" cases not covered here but I figured a cleaner batch was better than an exhaustive one. The only one I'd add is "sacrificed," since that's pretty common, especially as a cost. |
|
|
|
Post by Grapple X on Feb 12, 2022 14:02:46 GMT
A lot of corner "removal" cases not covered here but I figured a cleaner batch was better than an exhaustive one. The only one I'd add is "sacrificed," since that's pretty common, especially as a cost. I was thinking of using "or its owner sacrificed it" but I thought that might work more to hose sacrifice decks than to encourage you to play edict effects, like it becomes a hoser and not a proactive tool. |
|
|
|
Post by vizionarius on Feb 12, 2022 16:43:13 GMT
I was thinking of using "or its owner sacrificed it" but I thought that might work more to hose sacrifice decks than to encourage you to play edict effects, like it becomes a hoser and not a proactive tool. Ah! Yeah, that's a fair concern. You can change the card to "...if you removed a creature this turn..." You wouldn't draw a card if someone else removed someone else's (or your) creature, but then it also wouldn't hose your removal deck if your opponent played it. Unless you want it to hose removal decks, just not sacrifice decks, which I can see. I do appreciate the difference between your list and sacrifice, namely your list generally has you doing something to an opponent's creature, whereas sacrifice is something you do to your own creature. Just brainstorming here, feel free to keep things as is. I do like your concept. |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Feb 12, 2022 18:26:57 GMT
Grapple X: You could do "a spell or ability an opponent controlled caused you to sacrifice a permanent". Also, your entry needs artist credit.
|
|
Vunik
2/2 Zombie
Maybe trying to kill an immortal mage wasn't the best plan . . .
Posts: 110
Color Alignment: White, Blue, Black
|
Post by Vunik on Feb 12, 2022 18:45:10 GMT
the5lacker Noted! I realized as I removed the Auras part that I had room to call out specifically only Equipment you control, so I did it on instinct. I think you're right though, not only is it funnier for her to grab anything, it's also more appropriate for an ultimate. Will update original post shortly!
|
|
|
|
Post by Grapple X on Feb 12, 2022 20:18:29 GMT
Grapple X : You could do "a spell or ability an opponent controlled caused you to sacrifice a permanent". Also, your entry needs artist credit. Edited to add an artist credit (shame Gwent doesn't list these directly but thankfully there's a database to comb through). |
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Feb 13, 2022 0:37:53 GMT
A lot of corner "removal" cases not covered here but I figured a cleaner batch was better than an exhaustive one. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Um... the term you're looking for is "left the battlefield" my guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Grapple X on Feb 13, 2022 0:55:50 GMT
A lot of corner "removal" cases not covered here but I figured a cleaner batch was better than an exhaustive one. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> Um... the term you're looking for is "left the battlefield" my guy. There's no sacrifice, state-based triggers, or a few corner cases (put into library, etc), so yes "left the battlefield" would be the way to catch it all but in batching three common removal methods it spells out that you want to do the things that UB can do proactively. Plus I think there's some value in spelling out things that could realistically be inferred (like the "when you cycle or discard" effects in Amonkhet--they could just say "when you discard" and be functionally identical but spelling out "cycling" underlines that there is where the synergy lies). That said I could see some value making this BR, replacing the "return to hand" with something like "if an effect not controlled by its owner caused it to be sacrificed" and tying it together with more of a "death" feel, and allowing self-bounce to be a counterplay to it. |
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Feb 13, 2022 13:34:01 GMT
Um... the term you're looking for is "left the battlefield" my guy. There's no sacrifice, state-based triggers, or a few corner cases (put into library, etc), so yes "left the battlefield" would be the way to catch it all but in batching three common removal methods it spells out that you want to do the things that UB can do proactively. Plus I think there's some value in spelling out things that could realistically be inferred (like the "when you cycle or discard" effects in Amonkhet--they could just say "when you discard" and be functionally identical but spelling out "cycling" underlines that there is where the synergy lies). That said I could see some value making this BR, replacing the "return to hand" with something like "if an effect not controlled by its owner caused it to be sacrificed" and tying it together with more of a "death" feel, and allowing self-bounce to be a counterplay to it. Right, I get your intention, that's fairly obvious. How would players PLAY with this? Or, more pertinently, how would players MISPLAY with this? |
|
|
|
Post by Grapple X on Feb 13, 2022 15:15:40 GMT
There's no sacrifice, state-based triggers, or a few corner cases (put into library, etc), so yes "left the battlefield" would be the way to catch it all but in batching three common removal methods it spells out that you want to do the things that UB can do proactively. Plus I think there's some value in spelling out things that could realistically be inferred (like the "when you cycle or discard" effects in Amonkhet--they could just say "when you discard" and be functionally identical but spelling out "cycling" underlines that there is where the synergy lies). That said I could see some value making this BR, replacing the "return to hand" with something like "if an effect not controlled by its owner caused it to be sacrificed" and tying it together with more of a "death" feel, and allowing self-bounce to be a counterplay to it. Right, I get your intention, that's fairly obvious. How would players PLAY with this? Or, more pertinently, how would players MISPLAY with this? I see it as encouraging a tap-out control style over a draw-go style; you could hold up instant speed removal to potentially use if you don't have anything to counter on your opponent's turn, but if you can potentially turn that Doom Blade into a cantrip maybe you have a decision to make between using it on your turn or holding up mana. As for misplays? I'm not sure--I don't know that anyone would mistake the trigger for an "each time" thing as it's similar to Deathreap Ritual or Twinblade Assassins, and I think the conditions are spelt out enough. |
|
inverness
3/3 Beast
Posts: 184
Favorite Card: Mystic Snake
Favorite Set: Kamigawa
Color Alignment: White, Green
|
Post by inverness on Feb 14, 2022 2:13:43 GMT
For the life of me, I couldn't come up with any good art pieces for this one, so here it is without.
|
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Feb 14, 2022 2:30:52 GMT
Right, I get your intention, that's fairly obvious. How would players PLAY with this? Or, more pertinently, how would players MISPLAY with this? I see it as encouraging a tap-out control style over a draw-go style; you could hold up instant speed removal to potentially use if you don't have anything to counter on your opponent's turn, but if you can potentially turn that Doom Blade into a cantrip maybe you have a decision to make between using it on your turn or holding up mana. As for misplays? I'm not sure--I don't know that anyone would mistake the trigger for an "each time" thing as it's similar to Deathreap Ritual or Twinblade Assassins, and I think the conditions are spelt out enough. I'm not talking about "this one card in particular right here, in its exclusivity" I'm talking about trying to keyword Removed and all the edge cases that players might *think* count intuitively as "Removed" but would not. The fact that there's reminder text does not mean players will not routinely misplay something that's counterintuitive. People routinely misplayed Shroud so bad for so long they gave up and made Hexproof. If you're like a quick and easy example of what I'm talking about: Does Lightning Bolt "remove" a creature? And, more pertinently, would the average player *think* that Lightning Bolt removes a creature? |
|
|
|
Post by Grapple X on Feb 14, 2022 10:32:50 GMT
I see it as encouraging a tap-out control style over a draw-go style; you could hold up instant speed removal to potentially use if you don't have anything to counter on your opponent's turn, but if you can potentially turn that Doom Blade into a cantrip maybe you have a decision to make between using it on your turn or holding up mana. As for misplays? I'm not sure--I don't know that anyone would mistake the trigger for an "each time" thing as it's similar to Deathreap Ritual or Twinblade Assassins, and I think the conditions are spelt out enough. I'm not talking about "this one card in particular right here, in its exclusivity" I'm talking about trying to keyword Removed and all the edge cases that players might *think* count intuitively as "Removed" but would not. The fact that there's reminder text does not mean players will not routinely misplay something that's counterintuitive. People routinely misplayed Shroud so bad for so long they gave up and made Hexproof. If you're like a quick and easy example of what I'm talking about: Does Lightning Bolt "remove" a creature? And, more pertinently, would the average player *think* that Lightning Bolt removes a creature? Okay, I see what you mean. Damage causes a destruction effect (indestructible's reminder text usually conveys this) but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a line to the reminder text to explain that lethal damage destroys a creature. |
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Feb 14, 2022 13:44:17 GMT
I'm not talking about "this one card in particular right here, in its exclusivity" I'm talking about trying to keyword Removed and all the edge cases that players might *think* count intuitively as "Removed" but would not. The fact that there's reminder text does not mean players will not routinely misplay something that's counterintuitive. People routinely misplayed Shroud so bad for so long they gave up and made Hexproof. If you're like a quick and easy example of what I'm talking about: Does Lightning Bolt "remove" a creature? And, more pertinently, would the average player *think* that Lightning Bolt removes a creature? Okay, I see what you mean. Damage causes a destruction effect (indestructible's reminder text usually conveys this) but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a line to the reminder text to explain that lethal damage destroys a creature. Right but does LIGHTNING BOLT destroy a creature? The fact that I'm asking this should tell you something. That something is that Lightning Bolt, and all other *sources* of damage, DO NOT destroy the things they damage. A creature dealt lethal damage is destroyed by a GAME RULE, not a Spell, Ability, Creature, etc. And nobody controls a Game Rule. So there's actually NO POSSIBLE WAY for your Remove batch to care both about things you control AND lethal damage. So at this point you're just going to wind up describing every single way a creature can leave the battlefield in an attempt to catch everything, and we already have a term for that. It's Leaves the Battlefield. |
|
|
|
Post by Grapple X on Feb 14, 2022 13:50:27 GMT
Okay, I see what you mean. Damage causes a destruction effect (indestructible's reminder text usually conveys this) but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a line to the reminder text to explain that lethal damage destroys a creature. Right but does LIGHTNING BOLT destroy a creature? The fact that I'm asking this should tell you something. That something is that Lightning Bolt, and all other *sources* of damage, DO NOT destroy the things they damage. A creature dealt lethal damage is destroyed by a GAME RULE, not a Spell, Ability, Creature, etc. And nobody controls a Game Rule. So there's actually NO POSSIBLE WAY for your Remove batch to care both about things you control AND lethal damage. So at this point you're just going to wind up describing every single way a creature can leave the battlefield in an attempt to catch everything, and we already have a term for that. It's Leaves the Battlefield. But this says nothing about who controls the source, so the fact that it's a game rule doesn't actually change anything about how it works, as long as it's a destruction effect. It just cares that it's destroyed/bounced/exiled in your turn, not who controlled the effect. |
|
the5lacker
3/3 Beast
Posts: 198
Favorite Card: The Reality Chip
Favorite Set: Kaladesh
Color Alignment: White, Blue
|
Post by the5lacker on Feb 14, 2022 13:55:01 GMT
Right but does LIGHTNING BOLT destroy a creature? The fact that I'm asking this should tell you something. That something is that Lightning Bolt, and all other *sources* of damage, DO NOT destroy the things they damage. A creature dealt lethal damage is destroyed by a GAME RULE, not a Spell, Ability, Creature, etc. And nobody controls a Game Rule. So there's actually NO POSSIBLE WAY for your Remove batch to care both about things you control AND lethal damage. So at this point you're just going to wind up describing every single way a creature can leave the battlefield in an attempt to catch everything, and we already have a term for that. It's Leaves the Battlefield. But this says nothing about who controls the source, so the fact that it's a game rule doesn't actually change anything about how it works, as long as it's a destruction effect. It just cares that it's destroyed/bounced/exiled in your turn, not who controlled the effect. You mentioned wanting to limit sacrifice effects to effects you controlled, I assume that intent was to batch *all* effects to effects you control as that'd be *even more inconsistent otherwise.* And that was only one of MANY examples of potential ways players will misplay with this. What about put onto top of library? What phased out? And you've yet to ever give an example of why this is better than Leaves the Battlefield, just how it's different. Worse is different. Why would you make a batch that serves the same function as "leaves the battlefield" but worse and less intuitive? |
|
|
|
Post by Grapple X on Feb 14, 2022 14:04:33 GMT
But this says nothing about who controls the source, so the fact that it's a game rule doesn't actually change anything about how it works, as long as it's a destruction effect. It just cares that it's destroyed/bounced/exiled in your turn, not who controlled the effect. You mentioned wanting to limit sacrifice effects to effects you controlled, I assume that intent was to batch *all* effects to effects you control as that'd be *even more inconsistent otherwise.* And that was only one of MANY examples of potential ways players will misplay with this. What about put onto top of library? What phased out? And you've yet to ever give an example of why this is better than Leaves the Battlefield, just how it's different. Worse is different. Why would you make a batch that serves the same function as "leaves the battlefield" but worse and less intuitive? The text spells out exactly what it includes, phasing and put into library aren't there so I don't see how that would be a concern. And as said before, not including sacrifice means it's not a hoser for sacrifice decks (it could be worded to only cover edict effects but that's something I didn't want to overburden it with) so the intention is to make it primarily an enabler for tap-out control. If it covers all "leave the battlefield" effects it becomes a sideboard card against aristocrat effects or value loops like Cat Food, and setting a limit to three effects that feel similar but are 90% caused by you being proactive and not just something your opponent might be doing themselves means you want to build around it, not just play it for incidental value. |
|
|
|
Post by sdfkjgh on Feb 14, 2022 21:27:30 GMT
For the life of me, I couldn't come up with any good art pieces for this one, so here it is without.
Now I can't help but think of The A Team's theme song played upside down.
"In 1972, a random bunch of guys were contracted by the United States government to clean up a mess left over after a crack commando unit escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still under contract, and bristling at the exclusivity clause preventing them from accepting any other jobs, they clean up the dirtiest messes and biggest mistakes that threaten the reputations of the government, the Pentagon, and international relations. If you've made a nuclear meltdown-level oopsie-doodle, if no one else wants to even be seen within 100 yards of you for fear of guilt by association, and if you have the proper requisition forms signed in triplicate and a half billion dollars spare to donate to various political reelection campaigns...maybe you can hire The B Team."
#ShitpostingOnTheSevens
|
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Feb 14, 2022 22:06:01 GMT
This thread is now closed, the poll can be found here. And here's the next challenge! |
|
"When in doubt, do a common."