tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Dec 10, 2018 22:18:55 GMT
I'd like to get some criticism for this:
|
|
|
Post by shiftyhomunculus on Dec 11, 2018 0:24:30 GMT
This card would be extremely underpowered even if only you could activate the ability. Compare this to something like Weathered Wayfarer (an old card, granted, but not exactly a format-smashing powerhouse) for reference. It's even worse for being symmetrical, since you have to invest eight mana (!) before you can get your first land out of it, whereas your opponents only spend three to ramp, dodging the setup cost of resolving the enchantment.
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Dec 11, 2018 6:41:56 GMT
...whereas your opponents only spend three to ramp, dodging the setup cost of resolving the enchantment. At least in 1v1, they can't use it immediately though, because you wouldn't even play this if you were already ahead with lands. Given your example, I definitely see your point about it being overcosted though. How would you cost it?  for the card and  for activation? (Maybe I should limit it to use by its controller only...)
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Dec 13, 2018 21:09:19 GMT
Using the  as an activation cost for stuff that all players can use is a pretty slick move. I like it.
Instead of being an enchantment you could make it a creature of some sorts, perhaps a wayfarer.  So it would be meaningful even if the land drops aren't anymore.
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Feb 19, 2019 19:48:46 GMT
Sorry for my long absence. ameisenmeister : Making it a creature would work, but it would also destroy the flavor specifically tied to TES V: Skyrim. But I'll think of something. ...Okay, different question. This time, it's a How Would You Cost This question. My idea was to use Convoke on a   card. More specifically, I want to make a   Autochton Wurm with P/T flipped, i.e. 14/9, Convoke, and Trample. If I look at newer Convoke cards, we of course have Impervious Greatworm, which costs five mana less than Autochton Wurm, and with a higher power and toughness. It's also a monocolored Mythic and doesn't have Trample, although it does have Indestructible. So I'm not sure if these extremely huge creatures are simply less expensive nowadays, or if the missing Trample accounts for that. After all, at this level of power, that is kind of a huge deal. So should a creature with these stats have a cost closer to Autochton Wurm, or closer to Impervious Greatwurm? I'm not quite sure what to do here.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Feb 20, 2019 3:36:44 GMT
tarvoc ) I think it's partially power seep and partially the lack of trample, as well as the fact that Authochthon is just overcosted for what it does even after you factor in the era it was made in.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 20, 2019 19:19:53 GMT
I agree with Jéské. Authochthon Wurm is a kinda sad example of Wizards being way too careful with a new mechanic. On the other hand, I could be inclined to say that Impervious Greatworm is a bit overpowered, seeing how indestructible makes it really, really hard to get rid off.
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Feb 21, 2019 1:30:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 21, 2019 8:44:32 GMT
I guess so. Things that cost ten mana, even with some form of cost reduction, are allowed to be very, very powerful as they will likely never show up in any serious constructed format anyways. And a simple fattie with trample certainly won't make the cut either.
Do you already have an image for the card?
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Feb 21, 2019 15:17:10 GMT
I do, actually. It's part of a challenge I gave to myself where I pick one randomly chosen image from the fantasy folder of my deviantart faves each day and then make a card for it. I'm on day 41 now. Speaking of which, do you guys have any idea what to do with this? www.deviantart.com/sanskarans/art/Eater-418270917 I know it's arguably a little bit cheaty to ask for help, but I can't seem to come up with anything today.
|
|
Evil Coco
2/2 Zombie

Posts: 110
Favorite Set: Shadowmoor
|
Post by Evil Coco on Feb 22, 2019 1:27:09 GMT
 This is an idea i had based on the shield mechanic from games such as Slay the Spire and Dicey Dungeons.
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Feb 22, 2019 2:09:19 GMT
I think there's a word missing in the keyword description. Should probably be "permanent you control", not just "permanent you".
That said, this is a pretty weird new take on damage prevention. I think it would be interesting to see it in practice.
As for the card itself... it almost seems overcosted at first glance, but I find it hard to say how strong Shield counters are. Particularly because this card allows you to practically spam them given enough mana. So the ability activation cost might even be undercosted, particularly at common. I guess it requires playtesting (or a better judge of card design than I am).
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 22, 2019 9:11:19 GMT
I'm pretty sure that card is overcosted. Also, adding new counters to the game should always have good reasons for it and in this case it seems it could just say "   : Prevent the next 1 damage that wouold be dealt to you or target permament you control this turn." in 95% of the cases.
Also, rules question: Which point(s) of damage will be prevented if your opponent attacks you with two creatures and you block one of them and the other goes through. Who decides, which of these simultaneous damage instances will be affected? If you can't answer this question right off the bat, chances are most players can't either.
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Feb 22, 2019 15:12:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Feb 23, 2019 3:00:36 GMT
Concept for a set I'm working on: Nihilmancy (lit. "nothing magic") is invented to draw power from the void / or drawn out of some conceptual nonexistence. To represent this, I have two concepts. First is a "colorless matters" theme, with non-Eldrazi colorless cards playing the role of a sixth color in the set. The other is a "countering matters" mechanic called Ex Nihilo (lit. "from nothing"), which I'm having trouble with. The angle I'm going for with Ex Nihilo is to represent spells being pulled from the void by having it be the destruction of magic that fuels their effects. The two options I've considered right now are either having Ex Nihilo as an ability word to denote an effect that happens when the spell is countered, or using it as a cost reduction mechanic where you counter your own spells to fuel others.   Don't pay too much attention to the balance of the spell itself. I designed the "when countered" version first, and for the PoC sample card, went with something that opponents would want to counter. Also, each version could actually take one of three forms. For the "when countered" version, there's the "still good, even if" type, as shown here. There's also the "painful choice" type, where either option ends up being good for you/bad for them, but in different ways. Finally, there's the "countering reliant" option, where the effect is only good when countered, intended to be supported by card that let you counter yourself more easily (I think this is the most unique, but also the least desirable, as it is difficult for an opponent to respond to). The "when countered" style also has the problem across the board that it'll require a lot of support, meaning I'll have to make the set counterspell heavy, and spread counterspelling into all colours. While it was my original concept, this style is something I'm currently leaning away from. For the cost reduction approach, I only mocked up one style. However, another option I've considered is to make it function more like Emerge, with a cost reduced by the cost of the card countered. The main reason I've leaned in the direction I have here instead is that Emerge still has a coloured mana portion to be paid, and I want this to pay for the card in full. Dealing with remembering the coloured mana symbols seemed messy, and making the costs all use generic mana is functionally the same as what I have, but more wordy. Regardless, either version could also do cards that simply can't be cast any other way, having only an Ex Nihilo cost and no regular casting cost (which is thematic). Neither version really feels ready to pull out of the oven yet, though, and I'm worried I should just ditch the idea and focus more on the colorless cards.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Feb 23, 2019 5:34:50 GMT
Option 1 doesn't punish countering as much as you'd think. Anything that would bounce the spell ( Failure//Comply) or 86 it from the game ( Time Stop and similar "End the turn" effects) would effectively counter the spell as a consequence of game rules. The way such effects work is that they prevent the spell from resolving due to it being removed from the stack, not from being countered by a card.
Likewise, any ex nihilo spell that targets would attempt to resolve (per the recent rules changes) and just fail to if all its targets are rendered illegal or incapacitated. Even if the rules changes weren't in effect, the spell would have been countered per a state-based effect, not as a direct consequence of a spell/ability.
Option 2, I would think, would need a "[...]any time you could cast an instant[...]" clause, though this'd be to make it clear that you're countering the spell specifically for the ex nihilo effect.
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Feb 23, 2019 6:06:05 GMT
Option 2, I would think, would need a "[...]any time you could cast an instant[...]" clause, though this'd be to make it clear that you're countering the spell specifically for the ex nihilo effect. That actually raises an interesting point. I'd originally intended it to be workable on both Instants and Sorceries. Countering as a cost replacement would necessarily have to be done at Instant speed. So putting it on Sorceries wouldn't work unless I either bump the cost and it gives them pseudo-flash as a bonus (which in turn wouldn't work with the "no regular cost" model), or else used some form of context sensitive reminder text where Sorceries with the keyword had a "during your main phase" clause. Not unworkable, but definitely gives me more to think about than I originally considered.
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Feb 23, 2019 13:05:10 GMT
I definitely prefer the second version, for a simple reason The first version definitely violates 1.4 and arguably 3.2 of ameisenmeister's Guide in how to evaluate mechanics, which I think is pretty accurate. And yeah, the second version definitely needs an "at instant speed" clause if it appears on anything except instants. (I can see it appear on more than just instants or sorceries though. After all, Flash is also a thing.)
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Feb 23, 2019 14:55:23 GMT
I definitely prefer the second version, for a simple reason The first version definitely violates 1.4 and arguably 3.2 of ameisenmeister's Guide in how to evaluate mechanics, which I think is pretty accurate. And yeah, the second version definitely needs an "at instant speed" clause if it appears on anything except instants. (I can see it appear on more than just instants or sorceries though. After all, Flash is also a thing.) Believe it or not, that first point actually goes in the "pros" column for me, as I disagree pretty heavily with that guide. The rules you cited are a perfect example of why. With rule 1.4, Reach is a bad mechanic, since it is dependant on the opponent attacking with fliers. To a lesser extent, almost all combat-based abilities are bad, as even the act of attacking itself is dependant on whether or not the opponent blocks, what creatures they cast, etc...and yet blocking is and its related abilities are also completely dependant on your opponent deciding to attack you, not having evasion abilities that get around your defences, or even running creatures at all. Hexproof is a bad ability, because it only works if your opponent is using targeted spells. Ditto redirection. Yes, those are extreme examples, but it perfectly demonstrates why looking at things with such broad guidelines doesn't work. Having things that go off of what your opponent does is what makes the game interactive. The case for rule 3.2 isn't as bad, as there is some merit to things that don't happen much not being as interesting. However, it's terrible for creativity. Go look at the current list of CMCL decks from WotC, and you'll notice something. Most of them aren't running Enchantments, of those that are, it's rare to see any running more than a couple in their whole deck. Yet WotC was able to produce a whole block around making Enchantments matter - making Constellation, and the whole Theros block, a clear violation of the 3.2 "don't base mechanics on things that don't happen often" rule. Now, to Ameisenmeister's credit, they do acknowledge that you can make a set that revolves around the play a mechanic is supposed to interact with. However, they frame it as though this were inherently undesirable, rather than simply a design choice. Now, none of that is to say that I'm going to adopt the "when countered" model just to spit in the face of Ameisenmeister's guide. Contrarian as I am, I'm not spiteful, nor do I bear a grudge against the guide, nor its author. I just wanted to point out why I dislike the idea of such broad rules. Especially when they suggest evaluating based on arbitrary conditions in a vacuum, rather than how the mechanic plays - and especially how it plays in its set. They're useful for highlighting potential pitfalls that a creator should watch out for, just not so much for telling if something is actually bad. All that aside (and I don't want to turn this into an argument, so let's agree to disagree) my saying it's a pro is two parts hyperbole, and one part simply that it shows me that it is not a rigidly constrained mechanic, when I value creativity over orthodoxy. It doesn't outweigh the assessment I already came to, which is simply that making "when countered" effects with enough frequency to be keyworded would require more support, and a more casting-hostile environment, than I am prepared to provide. It would also require a more "break-y" set than I'm looking to make, as spreading countering heavily across the colours would definitely be overcoming weaknesses. Nothing inherently wrong with colour bends, or even the occasional break, but it definitely limits the viability of the set outside a vacuum, which doesn't fit my design goals. So, in other words, unless I can solve the support and colour pie hurdles, any other arguments I could make are moot. Though, that said, even if I go with the other Ex Nihilo design, I am may include a few non-keyworded "when countered" effects, if for no other reason than to piggyback off of that mechanic, possibly even going with a "countered by a spell or ability you control" wording to emphasise this connection. On the second point, I don't have much to say, other than that making it Flash wasn't really the goal. A Sorcery with Flash is an Instant with different card text, and I wasn't really planning on doing Ex Nihilo on other cards. Though, in fairness, that was mainly because "when countered" was the original design, and didn't play well with permanents. That could change. Even so, my current thought is to restrict non-instants to the caster's main phase.
|
|
|
Post by ameisenmeister on Feb 23, 2019 17:21:16 GMT
I definitely prefer the second version, for a simple reason The first version definitely violates 1.4 and arguably 3.2 of ameisenmeister's Guide in how to evaluate mechanics, which I think is pretty accurate. And yeah, the second version definitely needs an "at instant speed" clause if it appears on anything except instants. (I can see it appear on more than just instants or sorceries though. After all, Flash is also a thing.) Believe it or not, that first point actually goes in the "pros" column for me, as I disagree pretty heavily with that guide. The rules you cited are a perfect example of why. With rule 1.4, Reach is a bad mechanic, since it is dependant on the opponent attacking with fliers. To a lesser extent, almost all combat-based abilities are bad, as even the act of attacking itself is dependant on whether or not the opponent blocks, what creatures they cast, etc...and yet blocking is and its related abilities are also completely dependant on your opponent deciding to attack you, not having evasion abilities that get around your defences, or even running creatures at all. Hexproof is a bad ability, because it only works if your opponent is using targeted spells. Ditto redirection. Yes, those are extreme examples, but it perfectly demonstrates why looking at things with such broad guidelines doesn't work. Having things that go off of what your opponent does is what makes the game interactive. The case for rule 3.2 isn't as bad, as there is some merit to things that don't happen much not being as interesting. However, it's terrible for creativity. Go look at the current list of CMCL decks from WotC, and you'll notice something. Most of them aren't running Enchantments, of those that are, it's rare to see any running more than a couple in their whole deck. Yet WotC was able to produce a whole block around making Enchantments matter - making Constellation, and the whole Theros block, a clear violation of the 3.2 "don't base mechanics on things that don't happen often" rule. Now, to Ameisenmeister's credit, they do acknowledge that you can make a set that revolves around the play a mechanic is supposed to interact with. However, they frame it as though this were inherently undesirable, rather than simply a design choice. Now, none of that is to say that I'm going to adopt the "when countered" model just to spit in the face of Ameisenmeister's guide. Contrarian as I am, I'm not spiteful, nor do I bear a grudge against the guide, nor its author. I just wanted to point out why I dislike the idea of such broad rules. Especially when they suggest evaluating based on arbitrary conditions in a vacuum, rather than how the mechanic plays - and especially how it plays in its set. (...) Although I don't want to spam this thread with off-topic posts about the aforementioned guide, I feel kind of obliged to adress your criticisms. Your issue with point 1.4. (it's not really a rule but, as you said, a guideline) seems to be based on a misconception of what mechanics I tried to tackle with the guide. I was going after set-mechanics that are used to convey fresh flavor and an innovative play style for a set because almost all mechanics designed in the forums here are designed with new sets in mind. These mechanics tend to show up very frequently within their respective sets; even in a small set like Fate Reforged, for example, Dash appeared on eight cards although there were five other mechanic keywords in this set. Comparing that to evergreen mechanics like reach, hexproof, deathtouch etc. simply misses the point because these come up in every set and just don't have to do the same things that set mechanics have, e.g. make people feel excited about your set, establish the flavor of the world, make people want to build decks around that mechanic. Long story short, my point is that evergreen mechanics behave differently from set specific mechanics and comparing them isn't fair.
Your second point is, it appears to me, also based on a misconception. The argument that this rule is violated because Theros cares about enchantments while competitive modern decks don't run any is not valid. A mechanic is usually not designed for competitive constructed play (which doesn't stop individual cards with that mechanic appearing in such decks, of course) but is first and foremost designed for limited play. This is quite logical, as 1. limited is the way most people experience a new set for the first time and 2. a mechanic has to mean something for the set it's used in (establish flavor, excite people to buy, etc.). So when I say, things that don't happen often I don't mean things that don't happen often in some competitive contructed format but things that don't happen often within the set the mechanic is used in. If you played Journey into Nyx limited, for example, you will have noticed that enchantments indeed were frequent and you could indeed craft a constellation deck at the prerelease because the set was in some way build around the mechanic.
Finally I want to emphasize your point of seeing how a mechanic plays and plays in a set. Many of us here will never really see our mechanics play, that's why I formulated some guidelines according to my personal opinion and my impression of wotc's design tips. If you, however, have the possibility to test your cards, then please do. And if it works, even if it is something extremely wonky like "when this is countered, do X", then my guide is worth nothing in that case.
|
|
temawimag
2/2 Zombie

Posts: 137
Favorite Card: Elite Arcanist
|
Post by temawimag on Feb 28, 2019 8:05:05 GMT
Though, that said, even if I go with the other Ex Nihilo design, I am may include a few non-keyworded "when countered" effects, if for no other reason than to piggyback off of that mechanic, possibly even going with a "countered by a spell or ability you control" wording to emphasise this connection. I'm new. I'm stupid. And most importantly, I'm confused. I think for the options you've given as-is you're pretty much forced to go with the second option for the sole reason of a explaining the interaction between a spell being countered and an ability being simultaneously triggered from that spell. With something like Storm or Cascade, both of them go off of the actual casting, so they stay on the stack even if the original gets removed. For this, though, you're altering something after its been removed completely. It like if you had an ability that messes a creature's power/toughness whenever it dies - there might be some rule citation that you could use to justify it that my 3:00 AM mind is missing, but it's probably more simpler to just tie the ability to the card itself, and at that point you're trying to fix a niche interaction that you might as well rework the whole thing. I'm not knocking the idea at all, I'm just saying that it might help to iron-out how it interacts with the counter magic.
|
|
|
Post by kefke on Feb 28, 2019 8:25:29 GMT
Though, that said, even if I go with the other Ex Nihilo design, I am may include a few non-keyworded "when countered" effects, if for no other reason than to piggyback off of that mechanic, possibly even going with a "countered by a spell or ability you control" wording to emphasise this connection. I'm new. I'm stupid. And most importantly, I'm confused. I think for the options you've given as-is you're pretty much forced to go with the second option for the sole reason of a explaining the interaction between a spell being countered and an ability being simultaneously triggered from that spell. With something like Storm or Cascade, both of them go off of the actual casting, so they stay on the stack even if the original gets removed. For this, though, you're altering something after its been removed completely. It like if you had an ability that messes a creature's power/toughness whenever it dies - there might be some rule citation that you could use to justify it that my 3:00 AM mind is missing, but it's probably more simpler to just tie the ability to the card itself, and at that point you're trying to fix a niche interaction that you might as well rework the whole thing. I'm not knocking the idea at all, I'm just saying that it might help to iron-out how it interacts with the counter magic. Off the top of my head, a possible rework would be; Spells that counter ~ have "<Foo>".
Similar to "Spells that target ~ cost N more to cast." and such. However, my initial thought was that it wouldn't be much different from a "dies" or "discarded" trigger. Both are also cases where something gets an effect as the card is being sent to the graveyard.
|
|
temawimag
2/2 Zombie

Posts: 137
Favorite Card: Elite Arcanist
|
Post by temawimag on Mar 3, 2019 10:40:45 GMT
I'm new. I'm stupid. And most importantly, I'm confused. I think for the options you've given as-is you're pretty much forced to go with the second option for the sole reason of a explaining the interaction between a spell being countered and an ability being simultaneously triggered from that spell. With something like Storm or Cascade, both of them go off of the actual casting, so they stay on the stack even if the original gets removed. For this, though, you're altering something after its been removed completely. It like if you had an ability that messes a creature's power/toughness whenever it dies - there might be some rule citation that you could use to justify it that my 3:00 AM mind is missing, but it's probably more simpler to just tie the ability to the card itself, and at that point you're trying to fix a niche interaction that you might as well rework the whole thing. I'm not knocking the idea at all, I'm just saying that it might help to iron-out how it interacts with the counter magic. Off the top of my head, a possible rework would be; Spells that counter ~ have "<Foo>".
Similar to "Spells that target ~ cost N more to cast." and such. However, my initial thought was that it wouldn't be much different from a "dies" or "discarded" trigger. Both are also cases where something gets an effect as the card is being sent to the graveyard. The key difference is that for most of those abilities, they don't bother altering the original creature that died since the creature doesn't exist anymore, and for the discarded one they usually don't alter the text on the card either, but rather does something with the card itself or something on the board. For trying to replace an effect by means of a triggered ability, that effect needs to exist to be altered. Personally, I'd use "If ~ would be countered, instead it isn't, and..." to replace the effect on the countermagic's resolution, but that stops all counter magic, so I'm not certain if that's what you want or not. Also since this seems like the thread for it and I haven't heard anything back from the other thread, can anyone give me feedback on this U/R creature mechanic? 
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Mar 6, 2019 23:50:41 GMT
I just wondered if a card like the following could work, and how it would be worded correctly: (no name yet)   Instant  Flip the positions of two target spells or abilities on the stack. I'm not sure if I made clear what it's supposed to do, but I can give examples if necessary. As far as I know, this is without precedent, so not sure how to word it.
Maybe there's something in the rules that prevents it from working at all, but I would be interested in how you would do this kind of effect.
|
|
|
Post by hydraheadhunter on Mar 7, 2019 7:00:38 GMT
so, the best way to do something like this, in my opinion, would be "target spells control puts a copy of that spell on the stack then exiles the spell."
So for the stack: [Lightning Bolt] [Counterspell] [Spellswap (name for convince)] -> [Lightning Bolt] [Counterspell] [Lightning Bolt Copy].
This wording gets around "cannot be countered" clauses, has precedent language (see summary dismissal and timestop for exiling things on the stack), and innately copies perserves controller, mode, target, values paid, etc. The only issue is that it exiles the spell, so maybe a then put that card in the graveyard.
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 7, 2019 19:36:37 GMT
hydra ) That only moves one spell to the top of the stack. It doesn't swap two different spells' positions on it.
Honestly, I have no idea as to how something like this would be worded. Another issue that comes into play is that this spell is very, very, VERY limited in application. You'd first need (a) a stack long enough (that hasn't been shut down by Split Second) that something like this would be justifiable and (b) a circumstance where altering the order of spells would immediately be relevant. I can mainly see this being used to force a spell from the top of the stack back down to the bottom (Such as forcing a a damaging spell to resolve after a damage-prevention or prot spell) and/or to force a counterspell to resolve faster (say, swapping spell 5 (enemy buff spell) with spell 2 (which is a counterspell targeting spell 1), but the circumstances where the particular stack order and length are relevant are rare enough to not warrant something like this.
|
|
|
Post by Daij_Djan on Mar 7, 2019 21:21:40 GMT
For the record: Quite some time ago, there was a CotW entry (it won its challenge, if I remember correctly) which said "Rearrange the stack." Sure, it goes beyond what tarvoc originally asked for, but I wonder whether that'd be bad if you really want to go into that direction already anyway..
|
|
tarvoc
1/1 Squirrel
Posts: 56
Color Alignment: Blue
|
Post by tarvoc on Mar 8, 2019 0:42:54 GMT
For the record: Quite some time ago, there was a CotW entry (it won its challenge, if I remember correctly) which said "Rearrange the stack." Sure, it goes beyond what tarvoc originally asked for, but I wonder whether that'd be bad if you really want to go into that direction already anyway..
I actually like that idea better than mine. Rearranging the entire stack instead of just two spells or abilities on it makes for a somewhat wider variety of possible interactions.
I also think it has more possible applications than are apparent at first glance. For example, say you have a creature with a token-creating activated ability on the field. Someone (could be you or someone else) now casts a boardwipe. With this spell in hand, you can activate the ability of your token generator, then play the spell to have it swap places on the stack with the boardwipe, and now the boardwipe would go off and clear the field, and then the token-generating ability would go off afterwards and you'd still get the token without it immediately dying from the boardwipe. Sounds a bit fringe, but I think it might actually not be. Or at least not to that extent.
|
|
temawimag
2/2 Zombie

Posts: 137
Favorite Card: Elite Arcanist
|
Post by temawimag on Mar 8, 2019 9:06:49 GMT
I need some feedback on which of these two setups I should give my beefy aggro bomb. Basically, I want a trample creature that can hit the player for full power but still deal with creatures blocking it. Foo    Creature - Type (R) You may assign Foo’s combat damage as though it weren’t blocked. When Foo deals combat damage to a player, destroy all creatures that blocked Foo with toughness less than Foo’s power. 7/6 or.... Foo    Creature - Type (R) Trample If Foo would deal combat damage to a player, Foo instead deals damage equal to its power to that player. 7/6
|
|
|
Post by Jéské Couriano on Mar 8, 2019 22:47:12 GMT
tema ) The latter - because the first one is out-of-colour (supertrample is exclusively  ).
tarvoc ) That would still be essentially forcing a spell/ability down to the bottom of the stack, and even then it's far easier to find a way to cast the wipe at instant speed (or just cast Rout) after the token generator.
|
|