Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 18, 2018 23:41:50 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 18, 2018 23:41:50 GMT
I'm going to say this one more time. If literally all you have to offer is "No, this does not and cannot possibly in any form work", then I'm not interested. If you have, say, an alternative interpretation, a suggestion for improvement, or somesuch like others have offered, I will happily listen to them, discuss, and take it all on board.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 19, 2018 3:51:28 GMT
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Aug 19, 2018 3:51:28 GMT
I'm with impspiritguide on the idea of riffing on Vanguards. Perhaps Wield can create an Avatar creature that transfers all damage to you? (Like Personal Incarnation.) Perhaps also look at how Heros' Path did it with their Hero Equipment and class cards. Mainly curious about one thing, though - how would Deathtouch interact with a player attacking?
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 19, 2018 4:36:53 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 19, 2018 4:36:53 GMT
I'm going to say this one more time. If literally all you have to offer is "No, this does not and cannot possibly in any form work", then I'm not interested. If you have, say, an alternative interpretation, a suggestion for improvement, or somesuch like others have offered, I will happily listen to them, discuss, and take it all on board.
I did give a suggestion - make a new game entirely out of the concept.
What you want to do does not work in Magic's rules as written and is dubious from a flavour standpoint depending on whom you ask. It would work far better as an entirely new game.
ZephyrPhantom ) I asked about that, albeit indirectly. Arix's reply was that it wouldn't. They also dodged the more extreme example of a Phage chumpblock.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 19, 2018 20:15:13 GMT
Post by mrlozano on Aug 19, 2018 20:15:13 GMT
I might be a little too late for this but I just had an idea and, well, who knows? (I think it would work with the rules, but flavor gets a little cut off.) Also extra points for me, for avoiding instant death against Phage.
|
|
impspiritguide
2/2 Zombie
Favorite Color: Brown
Posts: 129
Set Hub: http://magicseteditor.boards.net/thread/256/pokemon-thread
Formerly Known As: Imp Elemental Spirit Guide
|
Wield
Aug 19, 2018 22:31:27 GMT
Post by impspiritguide on Aug 19, 2018 22:31:27 GMT
mrlozano,
That is similar to what we started with when we tried the avatar style tokens.
The problem we encountered is that you have to cost it appropriate to having a "20" toughness (or "40" for commander) (aka at least a casting cost of 6 at a minimum) because of multiple reasons.
At that time we changed away from toughness=life total, the biggest problem was brokenness with Diamond Valley which wouldn't affect your concept as much as using 1-turn use tokens. But there was also Transmutation combined with Lance, or Berserk (although I believe it was restricted at the time we changed this). I'm sure with the card pool available now there are even worse things that could be done, possibly something that would make Heartless Hidetsugu with Furnace of Rath, look like child's play. I like the restricting effects to attacking and blocking but you have to plan on a changing card pool so even if this didn't cause brokenness now it might in the future.
We modified it to a toughness of 1 with the following abilities:
-“Prevent all damage that would be dealt to ~this~. That damage is dealt to ~this~'s controller instead,” (I think this is the right wording for today, we used Redirect this damage on the cards I printed) -"~this~ may not be sacrificed," -"Effects that would reduce ~this~'s toughness below 1 only reduce it to 1." (this probably needs a rules lawyers help).
I don't think you need the sacrifice restriction for your version as it isn't a token, but it still fits flavorwise (sacrificing yourself is bad juju).
EDIT: I'm still not sure why everyone is concerned with Deathtouch, it mostly seems a non-issue to me, everything we have talked about isn't a creature. I definitely understand the concern with Phage, but when something conflicts with only a single card that is when a ruling about their interaction is all that is necessary, and when the damage is redirected to the controller, it seems pretty obvious you don't attack someone who has a Phage that can block; besides how many extra rulings has Phage had to have over the years anyways, Phage is the problem card in that instance (I created a Phage commander deck just because I could, figure that one out).
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 20, 2018 1:43:12 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 20, 2018 1:43:12 GMT
I really don't see how Phage is such a rules problem. The mechanic, as written, outright says that the blocking creature deals it damage to you. Therefore an ability that triggers "Whenever this deals combat damage to a player" would trigger. And there's nothing particularly weird about Phage's ability that doesn't make sense if it's blocking. How is that even an issue that requires a ruling? I don't understand the confusion.
mrlozano - That's similar to what I had in mind when I thought of using something related to an animation effect. Perhaps even looking into introducing a Vehicle-esque new card type (or super or sub, depending on what I find) with the explicit purpose of allowing it to attack (after combing through the rules kinotherapy posted earlier). I also wouldn't mind keeping the idea of it being Equipment that you can also hand out to creatures like any other Equipment if you want, but that's a distant secondary goal if anything.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 20, 2018 19:37:39 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 20, 2018 19:37:39 GMT
EDIT: I'm still not sure why everyone is concerned with Deathtouch, it mostly seems a non-issue to me, everything we have talked about isn't a creature. I definitely understand the concern with Phage, but when something conflicts with only a single card that is when a ruling about their interaction is all that is necessary, and when the damage is redirected to the controller, it seems pretty obvious you don't attack someone who has a Phage that can block; besides how many extra rulings has Phage had to have over the years anyways, Phage is the problem card in that instance (I created a Phage commander deck just because I could, figure that one out). The concern with Deathtouch is because of how it works as far as damage assignments are concerned. Deathtouch causes that creature to deal lethal damage with one damage.
The most liberal reading of the rules with respect to this turns any creature with DT into a Phage, potentially. Even if this is not the case (I don't believe it is) it's one of Black's options for getting rid of creatures, and only reinforces the fact that Wield screws black and blue.
Arix ) It's an issue because as it stands right now Phage is literally the only option black has to feasibly contest Wield.
|
|
bagz
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 91
|
Wield
Aug 23, 2018 13:58:19 GMT
Post by bagz on Aug 23, 2018 13:58:19 GMT
I agree with Jéské Couriano here but also would be interested in seeing this prototyped as a new game.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 1:40:03 GMT
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Aug 24, 2018 1:40:03 GMT
In its current state I think it'd be an okay silver border prompt (albeit still serious flavor - I admittedly use 'gold border' for sets like these instead) if you really wanted to go ahead and make it into an MTG set*, using a mix of mrlozano's implementation with the restrictions impspiritguide has proposed. * Arix I think something that's worth noting about Vehicles (in combination with Jeske's point on Black's reliance on Deathtouch/Creature removal to combat things) is that since Vehicles can become creatures and Equipment rely on creatures sticking around to matter, both of these subtypes are partially balanced by the fact they are susceptible to artifact and creature removal. In order for Wielded artifacts to not force colors to do things they shouldn't they probably need to answer the question of "How can Black deal with this type?" as well.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 1:52:50 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 24, 2018 1:52:50 GMT
[...] In order for Wielded artifacts to not force colors to do things they shouldn't they probably need to answer the question of "How can Black deal with this type?" as well. Black is not the only colour I have concerns about; Wield also screws blue to an extent.
White, green, and red have some artifact hate (even if it's less so in white).
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 2:11:52 GMT
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Aug 24, 2018 2:11:52 GMT
In a set that does less Unsummon/ Clone and more Boomerang/ Echoing Truth/ Mechanized Production/ Stolen Identity I think Blue can handle Wields just fine without forcing a color bend. I'm actually more concerned about White than Blue tbh due to its frequent usage of (attacking) creature removal. (That said I focused on how Black interacts with Vehicles because I think it does the best job of clearly explaining what Wields lack.)
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 2:54:17 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 24, 2018 2:54:17 GMT
Arix ) It's an issue because as it stands right now Phage is literally the only option black has to feasibly contest Wield.
You originally brought it up as a rules concern, I offer a simple explanation, now you're shifting the goalposts to make it a different point entirely? I'm not playing this game.
I disagree entirely that one colour being unable to outright destroy something makes it inherently busted - if that were true, enchantments as a card type would be inherently busted. I agree it needs to be a consideration when building the environment - hence the entire reason I'm here. One possibility would be to hand black a few more saboteur effects than normal. Paying mana to essentially give your opponent free attacks and the triggers associated with them could be a potential check. It wouldn't be quite as good, but hey, colours have weaknesses. Three colours being able to outright destroy them and one having access to bounce/counter/ Encrust effects seems good enough to me.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 4:03:44 GMT
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Aug 24, 2018 4:03:44 GMT
Red not being able to handle enchantments is a valid point but it's also a notoriously common complaint about Red to the point WoTC even snuck a Commander based answer in the form of Enchanter's Bane. (Not to mention Chaos Warp is a fairly common reprint for a reason.) I don't think that kind of complaint should be attached to an entirely new mechanic of all things, doubly so when Wields are effectively going to be substituting for creatures in a deck because they both fill the same "beat face" role. Black may have saboteur effects but unlike Blue and counterspells those effects tend to take more of a backseat to the number of killspells it has at its disposal (this is part of the reason I also wasn't concerned about blue - even if you didn't include any relevant bounce there's almost guaranteed to be an efficient counterspell that would work as an answer). Part of the reason a portion of the conversation has been focused around Deathtouch, Phage, and the like is that killspells and killspell-like things are the larger part of Black's answers to problems. Unlike White who can rely on lifegain, tax enchantments, and even the occasional artifact removal a large amount of Wield cards in one set would require Black to have all its eggs in one basket (discarding cards), which I feel limits the color.
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 4:12:15 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 24, 2018 4:12:15 GMT
It's not a complaint I'm making, just an observation.
I don't think that kind of complaint should be attached to an entirely new mechanic of all things, doubly so when Wields are effectively going to be substituting for creatures in a deck because they both fill the same "beat face" role. They may fill the same role, but Wields would be sufficiently less efficient/effective at it. You could spend three mana on the Battleaxe, then another three to wield it, before getting in an attack for 3 (and letting your opponent get a free hit in return, as mentioned) while being unable to block with it, or you could spend that three mana on, say, a Centaur Courser and be free to attack and block with it as you please.
That's what I mean by colours having weaknesses, and black's "answers" being less efficient or simply less good than the other colours' answers.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 4:26:11 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 24, 2018 4:26:11 GMT
You could spend three mana on the Battleaxe, then another three to wield it, before getting in an attack for 3 (and letting your opponent get a free hit in return, as mentioned) while being unable to block with it, or you could spend that three mana on, say, a Centaur Courser and be free to attack and block with it as you please.
That assumes the Courser will not be restrained(white/blue), exiled (white), bounced/countered (blue), 86'd (black), deathtouched (black/green), burnt to the ground (red), boxed (red/green) or get gulped down by a bigger fish (green). The Courser is as cheap as it is for its body because it's a vanilla creature and doesn't have any extra gimmickry.
Wield, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. Black can't 86 it. Red, green, and white have dedicated artifact hate, blue can bounce or counter it. Black can do literally nothing except hardcast Phage and bait out an attack. And even then, methods of removing noncreature artifact threats are rarer than methods of removing creature threats on account of every colour, in every block, having some means to remove or otherwise mitigate creatures. Unless artifacts are the main focus of the set/block artifact hate is practically never seen outside red and green, and even if we do factor these in black - one of the friendliest colours for artifacts - has absolutely no recourse to remove what essentially amounts to a creature that is not a creature.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 4:30:33 GMT
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Aug 24, 2018 4:30:33 GMT
Arix Just to be clear I'm not saying you were complaining, but other players do. A quick search on various MTG subreddits should turn up more than a few threads about it ( like this one) and it's come up at least twice on Blogatog. I think the appeals and strengths of Wield cards clearly laid out at this point. The issue is not that they are imbalanced as a whole but rather they make it incredibly difficult for one color to function in a set featuring them. As I edited into my above post, Black's usage of discard is not its primary answer to threats (rather, it acts as a way to answer things killspells cannot) and I am concerned that trying to shift more in that direction will result in Black consistently being the weakest color in any set that features them. There are ways to compromise on that (perhaps Black gets more modal spells that are part killspell, part discard) but I think that is sort of ungraceful to do because you are still forcing Black into a sort of 'one trick pony' setup. If you feel you can address the concerns with Wields and Black at the set design level I think your best bet is just to go ahead and make a full set that shows these cards can work without disrupting Black's place in Limited/Constructed play. I'd be happy to playtest if I'm available by then but until I see the results for myself I'm going to remain somewhat skeptical that Wields can last beyond one set. (P.S. - You should really reupload that Battleaxe with proper artist credit, since Daij took it down and I can't remember the cost or full text.)
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 4:47:32 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 24, 2018 4:47:32 GMT
Arix Just to be clear I'm not saying you were complaining, but other players do. A quick search on various MTG subreddits should turn up more than a few threads about it ( like this one) and it's come up at least twice on Blogatog. I think the appeals and strengths of Wield cards clearly laid out at this point. The issue is not that they are imbalanced as a whole but rather they make it incredibly difficult for one color to function in a set featuring them. As I edited into my above post, Black's usage of discard is not its primary answer to threats (rather, it acts as a way to answer things killspells cannot) and I am concerned that trying to shift more in that direction will result in Black consistently being the weakest color in any set that features them. There are ways to compromise on that (perhaps Black gets more modal spells that are part killspell, part discard) but I think that is sort of ungraceful to do because you are still forcing Black into a sort of 'one trick pony' setup. I think it'd be quite doable. By giving black more saboteur abilities to give Wielding against them have an additional cost, along with perhaps some in-colour artifact punishment (as it has gotten in past, usually artifact-themed sets). I do feel that the other four colours already having access to ways to outright stop them would go a long way towards it. It would mean that the only way you would have no access whatsoever to straight removal against them would be if you were monoblack, and if you ever go monocolour, you're inviting weaknesses to be exploited. That's pretty much the very nature of the game. Also, it would hardly be the only thing going on in such a set - black may be the weakest against Wields, but it could easily have strengths in other areas.
To be completely clear, I never expected them to last beyond a single set. I'm not trying to introduce a new evergreen thing here, rather a set-specific keyword.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 4:54:17 GMT
Post by Fleur on Aug 24, 2018 4:54:17 GMT
Regarding black, if I might take a different approach to answering that question: I agree with the fact that black wouldn't have a direct answer to blowing up Wielded cards and countering them in that sense, seeing that black cannot really destroy artifacts that emulate creatures. However, I could see black getting a number of ways to counter this sort of issue with being unable to deal with Wield directly: 1) "Saboteur" effects; ex: Whenever a creature deals combat damage to a player, <do thing>. (To an equal degree, you could totally give these to blue as well.)These have a lot of ground in black - possibly enough to create an archetype. Evasion abilities like menace and flying take root in black, while on combat damage effects such as discard and cantripping (with life loss) allow black to find another avenue to trigger such effects outside of attacking - in this case, through enemies attacking with wield. A design like: !Specter Creature - Not Specter Whenever CARDNAME deals combat damage to a player, that player discards a card and you gain 2 life. 2/4 ...would go a long way to mitigating black's weakness to Wield by providing an effect that black has access to which counters it. 2) Making a player care more about their life total. (Ex: Life total thresholds). Harking back to Zendikar's 10-or-less life theme, black could gain tools that force an opponent to care more about how much life they have left or how much they lose life - as Wield attacks put your own life total in the forefront of combat and danger, putting more emphasis on how much life one has left would help add a method to dissuade opponents from overzealously using Wield without opposition. For instance, take the card below as an example: Sanguine Boy Sammy Creature - Vampire Flying Lifelink CARDNAME enters the battlefield with a +1/+1 counter on it if an opponent has 10 or less life. 1/1 The above card would not only provide black with a tool to race Wield cards with, but would also provide black a way to come back from an opponent aggressively using Wields against them. Alternatively, black could get burn-esque cards that emulate red somewhat (ex: Bump in the Night) to give a threat to players who are aggressively wielding. These are just two of many tools that black and/or blue could use to shore up their weakness to Wield without necessarily breaking or bending pie. While I'm not sure if these would give them an equal scope to answer such cards compared to other colors, I'm fairly certain that it would be enough scope to not create too much trouble or issue in a limited format. Then again, you'd ought to playtest it and see how it goes. Re: direct answers - I don't think it's a problem that black cannot 86 it directly. As long as black is provided with other ways to deal with it (saboteur, discard, life thresholds, forcing the other player to care more about life), I think it would be fine. In fact, it could create a different dynamic for black and/or blue that would not normally be seen in other limited environments.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 5:00:29 GMT
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Aug 24, 2018 5:00:29 GMT
@ Arix - Fair enough. I feel it's important to see how cards function within the context of the entire set and there's only so much I can assess from 2-3 cards. If they're meant to just be a set-specific keyword and not akin to a recurring mechanic like Vehicles I'd like eventually see what the full extent of this set is like. If time permits, I'd like to playtest as well. @ Yoshi - While I'm still on the fence about Black being more saboteur focused I do think more Pulse Tracker effects is actually a good way to naturally play into Wield's weakness of shunting damage off to the player to preserve its ability to keep beating face in combat. Something like the following would be interesting to see as well: Boneleech Wall Creature - Wall Defender Whenever ~ blocks an attacking permanent, that permanent's owner loses 1 life. 1/3
|
|
Arix
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 54
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 5:11:53 GMT
Post by Arix on Aug 24, 2018 5:11:53 GMT
Fleur - Life threshold cards are an interesting idea. It does play into the inherent danger of being a tank. Perhaps also making black a more aggressive colour in general would be a good way to combat them. The increased saboteur effects also coincidentally play well with another, more traditional mechanic I've been toying with but haven't found a home for yet.
ZephyrPhantom - I think I'm really forming a set idea here, but I'm still putting some finishing touches on my current project Dragon's Dawn. I'll certainly start noting down some ideas and we'll see what happens.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 8:01:46 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Aug 24, 2018 8:01:46 GMT
[...] Fleur Perhaps also making black a more aggressive colour in general would be a good way to combat them.[...] Black is the second-slowest colour (blue is the only colour slower than it) because, flavourwise, black plays a long game and is willing to accept short-term loss for long-term payoff. There aren't any really good ways to show an aggressive black off card-wise, however, except on mid- and end-game cards, and this is a major crux of the problem.
Most of black's cheap creatures are slow and expendable, with the budget emphasis more on kill spells or carrot-and-stick spells. If Wield is going to be costed anywhere close to competitively relative to Equipments, black really doesn't have any viable answer - bleeding effects are only going to matter so much when you've no creatures on the field to stem the damage dealt to you every single turn by something you can't get rid of without being forced to sideboard an ungodly-expensive colourless spell ( Scour from Existence) that, barring a Black Market, Culling the Weak, or Rit, isn't going to even be an option until T7.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 9:02:37 GMT
Post by shiftyhomunculus on Aug 24, 2018 9:02:37 GMT
There aren't any really good ways to show an aggressive black off card-wise, however, except on mid- and end-game cards, and this is a major crux of the problem.
Eh? In Constructed, aggressive black is at least as common as slow controlling black, and there have been plenty of Limited archetypes that have made fast black work. The 2-Power Black One-Drop With A Drawback (and just recently we got Grasping Scoundrel so we don't even necessarily need the drawback any more) has been a Magic staple for years, and if that's not a perfect exemplar of aggro black then I don't know what is.
|
|
|
Wield
Aug 24, 2018 13:15:40 GMT
Post by Fleur on Aug 24, 2018 13:15:40 GMT
Jéské Couriano: I think that's a pretty narrowminded view of black you've outlined. In a set where black decides that short-term risk is worth it for killing the opponent faster, I could see black as second fastest behind red. In addition, black gets efficient draw, block preventers, and weenies with drawbacks (Carnophage, Diregraf Ghoul, etc.) all of which make black what I think could be a fairly viable aggro color. While black might end up second-slowest in most sets, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility at all for it to be significantly faster.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 14, 2018 21:12:19 GMT
Post by ameisenmeister on Dec 14, 2018 21:12:19 GMT
Arix & Jeske This thread might be already dead but I had an idea about how to create euipment that can be used by the player without breaking any rules (I hope). I agree that something other than a creature should not be able to attack as this would bring more rules-trouble than it's worth, but what do you think about this:
*Snip*
They kind of work like regular artifacts but can also be used by your creatures. I'm unsure whether this overwriting of the equip ability works but if not one could just give them another activated ability that let's the player attach them to themselves.
Healer's Robe was missing artist credit. ~Daij_Djan
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 14, 2018 22:42:46 GMT
Post by Jéské Couriano on Dec 14, 2018 22:42:46 GMT
ameisenmeister ) The entire issue with Wield is that the way it was set up pretty much destroyed the combat paradigm. Stuff like what you just showed off doesn't rely on the player/artifact attacking, so it would be fine, behaving more like player aurae.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 14, 2018 22:56:29 GMT
Post by ameisenmeister on Dec 14, 2018 22:56:29 GMT
Yes, I know that this was the main problem and I also agree that artifacts or players which/who attack is going to destroy the rules for no good.
I'm intrigued by the idea of equipment that can be used by the player themselves, though, and as there are some ideas floating around here, I thought I'd share mine, too.
Btw, is aurae a typo or really the correct plural word for aura?
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 19, 2018 9:39:55 GMT
Post by kefke on Dec 19, 2018 9:39:55 GMT
Reading through this thread, I actually cannot comprehend what the big deal is. How do you counter someone using Wield? You block them.
In other words, a Wielder attacking is a really bad idea if the opponent has anything on the board. You say that Black has nothing? Black has Infect. Attacking a Black player is free licence for them to kill you. Blue has permanent bounce. Blue has ways to make things not take damage. Blue has countering this stuff before it ever hits the board. Literally any colour can just put out weenies and gang block for great justice damage.
Wieldable artifacts should grant lower Power than a creature of the same CMC would get to compensate for not being able to be killed the same way a creature can, maybe have a cost per attack rather than just staying on, but that's about the only real balance issue once you redefine the rules to account for the fact that a Wielding player may attack. By attacking with your "you", you're giving the opponent free hits with every untapped creature they've got. That's a baked-in downside, and potentially a pretty major one.
As for Deathtouch...it's a complete non-issue, and always was. It's already covered in the difference between creatures and planeswalkers. Deathtouch says "Any amount of damage this deals to a creature is enough to destroy it." (emphasis mine). A player isn't a creature, and a player can't be destroyed even if they did count as a creature, because the destroy keyword action is specific to permanents, which players are not. So Deathtouch does nothing to an attacking player.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 19, 2018 19:54:16 GMT
Post by ameisenmeister on Dec 19, 2018 19:54:16 GMT
You see, this actually is the problem. Creatures can block only creatures, not players. Says so in 509.1a. If you argue that kill spells and deathtouch are no problem, then, following the same logic, blocking is also impossible.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 19, 2018 20:11:16 GMT
Post by kefke on Dec 19, 2018 20:11:16 GMT
...once you redefine the rules to account for the fact that a Wielding player may attack. A- HEM. Honestly, this shouldn't even need to be spelled out, though. It's right there on the card. "While attached to you, you can attack with it. Creatures blocking it deal their damage to you." The card states that you can attack with it, and states that it can be blocked. So, in accordance with the Golden Rules, it can. Redefining what can attack and be blocked is really just a formality.
|
|
|
Wield
Dec 19, 2018 22:08:50 GMT
Post by ameisenmeister on Dec 19, 2018 22:08:50 GMT
Okay, then just assuming that this works (which I doubt), how would cards like these look in the real world. First, they would certainly confuse a lot of players as they would likely argue whether deathtouch now kills a player or if an equipped player can be tapped with Twiddle. You might believe that it's not complicated at all but I still hear newer players time and again wondering whether they can kill a planeswalker with deathtouch. But the more important question might just be what cards would look like with this version of wield. As you said, creatures dealing damage to equipped player directly hurt that players life total. When would you dare to attack as yourself at all if your opponent can just gang block you for good? The cards Arix showed both have some form of damage prevention that makes them viable, but will they all have something like that? The gameplay these cards encourage are mass removal and control, then swinging in as a weirdly hasty nothing that can't be interacted with unless the opponent happens to have an answer to your artifact. That, by all means,doesn't sound like fun and I also doubt that this is what Arix had in mind.
|
|