Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 31, 2020 2:24:54 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.
Yes, I pointed to those rulings to start with. I'm not sure I follow your logic on how these are not cross-applicable- why is the Cutpurse ruling consistent when the token is not created until after they resolve, but not the lifegain/loss? These are not triggers activating in response to life being gained or lost- how do these not apply before any life totals are changed? I also don't see how the life-changing effects are mutually exclusive, because one is gain and the other is loss and those can't both happen, but the cutpurses aren't mutually exclusive because one creates a token for me and the other for you and those can't both happen. I don't see how the life effects each create a new event for the other but the cutpurse effects don't, and I don't see how an effect looking for a "token that would be created under an opponent’s control" would be under consideration at the moment you create a token under your own control. I don't see the logically-consistent way that one functions but the other does not.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Jan 31, 2020 3:01:16 GMT
I'm not sure I follow your logic on how these are not cross-applicable- why is the Cutpurse ruling consistent when the token is not created until after they resolve, but not the lifegain/loss? These are not triggers activating in response to life being gained or lost- how do these not apply before any life totals are changed? I also don't see how the life-changing effects are mutually exclusive, because one is gain and the other is loss and those can't both happen, but the cutpurses aren't mutually exclusive because one creates a token for me and the other for you and those can't both happen. I don't see how the life effects each create a new event for the other but the cutpurse effects don't, and I don't see how an effect looking for a "token that would be created under an opponent’s control" would be under consideration at the moment you create a token under your own control. I don't see the logically-consistent way that one functions but the other does not. Because the triggers are on mutually-exclusive events.
They trigger when you would gain life and when you would lose life, respectively, by any means. Under no circumstance can they apply to the same event because of this, due to it being impossible to simultaneously and atomically gain and lose life in a single transaction; as a consequence they fire off of each other. At best this negates the entire ability (reversing heal -> reversing damage = heal if we buy your argument) and at worst this draws the game (reversing heal -> reversing damage -> reversing heal ad nauseam).
Note that a replacement effect is not the same thing as an ability. Replacement effects can be used as part of an ability.
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Jan 31, 2020 4:50:04 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. My concern is more that it might just be too weak due to that lack of impact. Underpowered is one thing, but there is a difference between that and constantly getting ignored for better cards in a deck, which is a problem I often have when building for casual play - it's really frustrating to have Booster Tutor sit in my hand just because I will die if I don't Doom Blade the Krosan Cloudscraper on the other side of the board, for example. If I'm playing Red for card draw, I generally don't want to wait until 4 mana to play Ellen for the value she currently offers - even in EDH, I've got optons like Reforge the Soul and Wheel of Fortune in instants and Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion as a much better Commander for less than 0.50 USD. If you want to keep the card the way it is to represent the memory loss effect, I'd at least suggest reducing the cost to , which makes it somewhat slow still but at least a decent wheel effect to slam down on turn 3 in most games, casual, competitive, or otherwise. That said, I generally design cards with the assumption I or someone else is going to play them, so that's just my 2 cents.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Jan 31, 2020 13:33:47 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. My concern is more that it might just be too weak due to that lack of impact. Underpowered is one thing, but there is a difference between that and constantly getting ignored for better cards in a deck, which is a problem I often have when building for casual play - it's really frustrating to have Booster Tutor sit in my hand just because I will die if I don't Doom Blade the Krosan Cloudscraper on the other side of the board, for example. If I'm playing Red for card draw, I generally don't want to wait until 4 mana to play Ellen for the value she currently offers - even in EDH, I've got optons like Reforge the Soul and Wheel of Fortune in instants and Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion as a much better Commander for less than 0.50 USD. If you want to keep the card the way it is to represent the memory loss effect, I'd at least suggest reducing the cost to , which makes it somewhat slow still but at least a decent wheel effect to slam down on turn 3 in most games, casual, competitive, or otherwise. That said, I generally design cards with the assumption I or someone else is going to play them, so that's just my 2 cents. In this project, I have held to three primary objectives: 1) As often as possible, make the card strongly evocative of the character being represented; such that someone who knows the character can make the connection between them and the effects of the card instantly, and that someone who does not know the character can approximate the character's details fairly accurately without needing to think too hard about it, just off the card's text. 2) As often as possible, make the card interesting to consider and fun to play with and against; the card does not need to be a competitive... er, competitor, nor does it need to be a thrilling slam dunk either as a commander or in a commander's 99, but it should always be able to slot into a casual deck and be enjoyable to actually play around with. 3) Don't break the dang game; make cards efficient, but don't make them overpowered- push them as far as they're comfortable going, but if there's a thin line between too good and not good enough, favor the latter. For Ellen, I feel very satisfied with where she is on 1) and 2), but 3) is where I've been having difficulty evaluating her. Once she's rolling, she's essentially "draw 3 every turn", and for a deck that's good at playing out its hand that's a fat pipe of gas to work with, and that's had me nervous. That's why I plugged in the exile clause- I will admit that I'm attached to it partially because it felt like a very clever way to double down on 1) while adding a safety valve to help with 3), but even then the rate has been some trouble for me. I think I'll go with your advice and adjust it to , then see if I can playtest it with someone and see how it performs.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Mapi on Jan 31, 2020 14:04:31 GMT
My concern is more that it might just be too weak due to that lack of impact. Underpowered is one thing, but there is a difference between that and constantly getting ignored for better cards in a deck, which is a problem I often have when building for casual play - it's really frustrating to have Booster Tutor sit in my hand just because I will die if I don't Doom Blade the Krosan Cloudscraper on the other side of the board, for example. If I'm playing Red for card draw, I generally don't want to wait until 4 mana to play Ellen for the value she currently offers - even in EDH, I've got optons like Reforge the Soul and Wheel of Fortune in instants and Neheb, Dreadhorde Champion as a much better Commander for less than 0.50 USD. If you want to keep the card the way it is to represent the memory loss effect, I'd at least suggest reducing the cost to , which makes it somewhat slow still but at least a decent wheel effect to slam down on turn 3 in most games, casual, competitive, or otherwise. That said, I generally design cards with the assumption I or someone else is going to play them, so that's just my 2 cents. In this project, I have held to three primary objectives: 1) As often as possible, make the card strongly evocative of the character being represented; such that someone who knows the character can make the connection between them and the effects of the card instantly, and that someone who does not know the character can approximate the character's details fairly accurately without needing to think too hard about it, just off the card's text. 2) As often as possible, make the card interesting to consider and fun to play with and against; the card does not need to be a competitive... er, competitor, nor does it need to be a thrilling slam dunk either as a commander or in a commander's 99, but it should always be able to slot into a casual deck and be enjoyable to actually play around with. 3) Don't break the dang game; make cards efficient, but don't make them overpowered- push them as far as they're comfortable going, but if there's a thin line between too good and not good enough, favor the latter. For Ellen, I feel very satisfied with where she is on 1) and 2), but 3) is where I've been having difficulty evaluating her. Once she's rolling, she's essentially "draw 3 every turn", and for a deck that's good at playing out its hand that's a fat pipe of gas to work with, and that's had me nervous. That's why I plugged in the exile clause- I will admit that I'm attached to it partially because it felt like a very clever way to double down on 1) while adding a safety valve to help with 3), but even then the rate has been some trouble for me. I think I'll go with your advice and adjust it to , then see if I can playtest it with someone and see how it performs. I think is the way to go, unless you want to make her "exile EVERYTHING and draw three" effect also happen on ETB.
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Feb 4, 2020 2:14:11 GMT
I've managed to add my entire project into Cockatrice, and distributed it to a few friends for playtesting, though timing events where we can play together is tough. Still, I did manage to get one game with Ellen in while testing to make sure everything works, and while I just dropped her into an existing decklist that she seemed suited to rather than made any effort to build a deck with her in mind, I was very happy with her performance in that game at ! I'll keep playing with it, though, see where it goes. In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had any insights on the wording for the second lines of each of these? I think I have them as de-clunked as they can go, but i'd be very interested to see if anyone else has better ways to word them. ... now that I have them side-by-side instead of both swimming separately in a lake of like 150 cards, these two are dang similar in a lot of ways, huh...?
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Feb 4, 2020 7:45:08 GMT
I've managed to add my entire project into Cockatrice, and distributed it to a few friends for playtesting, though timing events where we can play together is tough. Still, I did manage to get one game with Ellen in while testing to make sure everything works, and while I just dropped her into an existing decklist that she seemed suited to rather than made any effort to build a deck with her in mind, I was very happy with her performance in that game at " style="max-width:100%;"]! I'll keep playing with it, though, see where it goes. In the meantime, I was wondering if anyone had any insights on the wording for the second lines of each of these? I think I have them as de-clunked as they can go, but i'd be very interested to see if anyone else has better ways to word them. ... now that I have them side-by-side instead of both swimming separately in a lake of like 150 cards, these two are dang similar in a lot of ways, huh...? Glad to hear Ellen at works well, dude. The way I see it, if you're playing the cards and actually having a good game with them, it's okay if they're somewhat similar. I think they both clearly want to do different things in this case (Patchouli in particular interests me, being a sort of Baral variant that encourages more Control play over storm). Her wording seems fine, overall. "Additional cost" and "may" on Rikako are kind of contradictory. I would instead look to Improvise's wording and word it as something like: "When casting a noncreature nonartifact spell, each artifact you tap after you’re done activating mana abilities pays for , where X is the converted mana cost of that artifact." It's a bit of improvised wording (pun intended), but WoTC has shown recently with things like Convoke/Improvise that they can be a little flexible in these matters so long as the rulings are clear. (This also gets rid of the need to specify the artifacts *must* be untapped.) Also, this isn't an issue per se, but I'm going to preempt it before someone else criticizes you over it and note that large amounts of flavor text generally can make even a simple card (like Patchy's, actually) look way more crammed - like, just a quick look over most recent MTG cards seems to indicate that most cards with effects don't get more than 3 lines of flavortext whereas Rikako has 4, and Patchy has 5. Since you're playing on Cockatrice this probably isn't an issue, but if you're going for making a card look 'neat' it might be something to keep in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Feb 4, 2020 11:01:58 GMT
Patchy ) "[...]spell you've cast before it each turn." -> "[...]spell you cast before it this turn." The former wording tracks the cost turn-over-turn, while the latter tracks it for a turn only before resetting back to 0 at the start of the next turn. (Precedent: Any card with Storm, which tracks more-or-less this exact thing.)
|
|
Richy
0/0 Germ
Posts: 28
Favorite Card: Boldwyr Intimidator
Color Alignment: Blue, Red
|
Post by Richy on Feb 4, 2020 12:34:04 GMT
"Additional cost" and "may" on Rikako are kind of contradictory. I would instead look to Improvise's wording and word it as something like: "When casting a noncreature nonartifact spell, each artifact you tap after you’re done activating mana abilities pays for , where X is the converted mana cost of that artifact." It's a bit of improvised wording (pun intended), but WoTC has shown recently with things like Convoke/Improvise that they can be a little flexible in these matters so long as the rulings are clear. (This also gets rid of the need to specify the artifacts *must* be untapped.) But can that wording be cleanly altered to fit? As it is currently, you can only tap a single artifact per spell to get a discount, while the improvised wording lets you mass-tap artifacts to mass-discount a big spell. I'm just running it through my head in a hurry before I need to rush out the door for something, but it feels like it'd end up getting funky again that way. (Also, the Convoke and Improvise wording exists in reminder text rather than printed card text, so it gets to be a bit looser in its wording since it's just summarizing the rulebook instead of writing out a rule- the difference between Bestow and a Licid, kind of sort of best example I could think of off the top of my head and not really the best)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 16:20:37 GMT
For the first, how about “As you cast a non-creature, non-artifact spell, you may tap an artifact you control. If you do, reduce that spell’s cost by X, where X is the tapped artifact’s CMC.”
Since it’s not technically an additional cost, this should make the wording much clearer. It also places the trigger in the right place, during the spell casting rather than after.
|
|
|
Post by Aarhg on Feb 24, 2020 21:08:52 GMT
Here's yet another attempt at letting white draw cards.
The idea is to let white earn some decent card advantage by doing something very in color, like destroying an enchantment.
Another white spell in the same vein as this could have you target exactly three creatures you control and give them flying, then draw two cards. It's conditional, but playing white you're likely to have enough creatures in play to cast it.
It's comparable to Survival Cache, which lets you draw two cards if you've managed to keep your life total high enough.
|
|
|
Post by ZephyrPhantom on Feb 26, 2020 12:18:02 GMT
Here's yet another attempt at letting white draw cards. The idea is to let white earn some decent card advantage by doing something very in color, like destroying an enchantment.
At surface value, I think this is okay, but I feel like MaRo's statements on a colorshifted Collective Unconscious sum up my thoughts here.From what I understand, to have multiple cards drawn off a single card, white's cards in this area needs to be very situational (e.g Alms Collector) and/or capable of reinforcing some kind of theme - i.e. you can use Survival Cache and Dawn of Hope only well in lifegain decks, and Aura/Enchantment decks are generally less-powerful enough that things Kor Spiritdancer and Mesa Enchantress arguably are necessary just for the aspect of Enchantress to function. ( MaRo apparently considered Mentor of the Meek a color bend.) I think destroying an enchantment falls under "too general" because while it might seem relatively expensive in faster formats it also generates a lot of advantage to the point that I think a lot of sideboards would be okay with running at least 1 because it's just that rare for a White control effect to let you draw this 'well'. In slower formats like EDH it'd be run in every White deck not using a card draw color in the 99 for similar reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 3, 2020 20:34:36 GMT
It definitely needs rewording, as the first sentence is run-on and shouldn't be a draw.
|
|
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 Mar 3, 2020 23:31:12 GMT
The cost is fine based on Cloudblazer, which has a bigger ETB and flying, but none of the passives. Maybe 3/3 or 4/4 for the P/T, since it is mythic. Idk how to balance the creature side with the planeswalker side though.
|
|
dopler64
0/0 Germ
Sleepy
Posts: 17
Favorite Card: Rules Lawyer
Favorite Set: Unstable
|
Post by dopler64 on Mar 9, 2020 15:14:41 GMT
I have created 2 versions of a card idea I had, one a sorcery, one an enchantment. I was wondering which felt best, and in what ways can I clean up the formatting. {Card 1} Desecrated Puppet Enchantment - Aura Enchant creature When ~ enters the battlefield, put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control. Attach ~ to that creature. Enchanted creature is blue and black, and is a zombie in addition to its other creature types. If ~ or enchanted creature would leave the battlefield, exile enchanted creature. {Card 2} Desecrated Puppet Sorcery Put target creature card from a graveyard onto the battlefield under your control. This creature is blue and black, and is a zombie in addition to its other creature types. If this creature would leave the battlefield, instead exile it.
|
|
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 Mar 9, 2020 16:07:22 GMT
The sorcery version is cleaner since as an aura it would have to have the awkward wording of Animate Dead. The way it's worded now you need to cast it, attaching it to a creature, then it animates a dead creature and moves to that creature. The bigger issue here is that it's hybrid, giving mono-blue creature reanimation which it never gets. It should be gold or mono black.
|
|
dopler64
0/0 Germ
Sleepy
Posts: 17
Favorite Card: Rules Lawyer
Favorite Set: Unstable
|
Post by dopler64 on Mar 9, 2020 16:52:24 GMT
Cool, thank you for the input! Other than the color identity issue, does the costing look good?
|
|
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 Mar 9, 2020 18:27:21 GMT
You could probably bring it down to 4 cmc since it's a little worse than Necromantic Summons, but 5 is fine
|
|
Evil Coco
2/2 Zombie
Posts: 110
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
|
Post by Evil Coco on Mar 9, 2020 19:40:46 GMT
~ Legendary Creature - ~ WizardFlying Instants and sorceries you control cost / less for each other nontoken Wizard you control (you may reduce the cost by or for each.) 2/2
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 9, 2020 20:10:51 GMT
This shouldn't even need reminder text. Also, why the tildes?
|
|
dopler64
0/0 Germ
Sleepy
Posts: 17
Favorite Card: Rules Lawyer
Favorite Set: Unstable
|
Post by dopler64 on Mar 10, 2020 17:46:01 GMT
As long as we're talking cost reductions, what do we think of these two cards? {Card 1} Honor the dead Enchantment When Honor the dead enters the battlefield, gain 2 life. Creatures in your graveyard cost less to cast. (This doesn’t reduce generic mana cost.)
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 10, 2020 19:30:30 GMT
Unless you're running a "graveyard matters" set, I don't see how this would not be out of colour in those colours. White is the only colour you could make a case for, and even then it's flimsy. Graveyard manipulation of this sort is exclusively in general.
White pulls creatures wholesale, but generally does not get any sort of cost reduction. Green returns binned cards to the hand. Red sits around a burning gravesite and sings kumbaya.
(The reminder text is NOT redundant - 118.7b. --Bori)
|
|
dopler64
0/0 Germ
Sleepy
Posts: 17
Favorite Card: Rules Lawyer
Favorite Set: Unstable
|
Post by dopler64 on Mar 10, 2020 19:39:37 GMT
The set has a Red-Green-White tribe with a keyworded mechanic that let's you return some creatures as spirits in specific circumstances. It's flavored pretty inline with it's colors, but I do understand that they are only secondary in graveyard creature return, so I may need to change the mechanic.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 10, 2020 19:48:03 GMT
Given Unearth (Alara Block) and Afterlife (Ravnica Allegiance) a RGW mechanic like that could work. But even in both those cases the ability belonged to a faction that was partially black.
|
|
dopler64
0/0 Germ
Sleepy
Posts: 17
Favorite Card: Rules Lawyer
Favorite Set: Unstable
|
Post by dopler64 on Mar 10, 2020 21:39:26 GMT
Jéské CourianoWhat do you think of the mechanic as it currently stands: {The Mechanic} Glory
Reminder Text: (If this creature dies in combat, it may be cast from your graveyard. A creature cast this way is a spirit with haste, and must be sacrificed at the end of the turn.)
Full rules: If a creature with Glory is killed by combat damage, it becomes glorified. A glorified creature may be cast from its owner's graveyard for its standard mana cost. A creature cast this way is a spirit in addition to its other types, and has haste and “At the beginning of the end step, sacrifice this creature”
The mechanic is inspired by the Viking concept of Valhalla, and dying in glorious combat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2020 22:26:21 GMT
Exile it instead of sacrificing it at the end of turn and you might have a winner there.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 10, 2020 22:36:41 GMT
Glory needs a reword, straight-up.
Also, the "full rules" would be something like this:
702.xxxx Glory 702.xxxxa Glory is a keyword ability that represents two abilities. The first is a triggered ability that activates on the battlefield. The second is a static ability that functions while the card with glory is in a graveyard. "Glory" means "When this creature dies, if it dies due to damage dealt by another creature, it becomes glorious" and "If this card is glorious, you may cast it from your graveyard. If you do, it gains haste and becomes a Spirit in addition to its other types, and is sacrificed at the beginning of the next end step."
I agree that sac should be an exile, so as to avoid glory chains. If that is the case, though, then the exile needs to be whenever it would leave the battlefield in addition to EoT, per Unearth.
|
|
dopler64
0/0 Germ
Sleepy
Posts: 17
Favorite Card: Rules Lawyer
Favorite Set: Unstable
|
Post by dopler64 on Mar 11, 2020 3:55:10 GMT
I feel like the reminder text needs to mention that the death has to be due to combat damage, as that serves two purposes: - Reinforces the flavor of earning a place in Valhalla
- Makes it somewhat harder to resurrect the creature, as killing the creature directly or with non-combat damage prevents this state
I feel like this second point, coupled with having to pay full cost for the creatures most of the time, balances out the advantage that comes from not exiling the creature after a single use.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 11, 2020 11:44:47 GMT
I spaced on the combat damage part of it; that's on me.
The problem with that is that allowing glory-chains like this also severely limits what abilities you can put on them, because it means that you can essentially recur triggers that normally cannot recur, such as ETB/LTB triggers. This in turn means that any such triggers must be toned down or they risk blackspotting limited.
And death by combat damage is not a significant hoop; for green in particular combat damage is literally their only option as their direct-damage spells are generally pitiful or biased against flying creatures (which is why Deathtouch is in green).
|
|
dopler64
0/0 Germ
Sleepy
Posts: 17
Favorite Card: Rules Lawyer
Favorite Set: Unstable
|
Post by dopler64 on Mar 11, 2020 16:51:41 GMT
My intent was to give the opposing blue/black tribe a lot of answers to Glory, such as freeze and other tap-related abilities from blue, and creature kill and sacrifice from black; This would be part of the limiting factor for Glory. That being said, I've still never been 100% happy with how Glory works, so I will also try to think of other mechanics that could represent Valhalla. If anyone here has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them!
|
|