The Wonderful All-Encompassing Card Clinic

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...)

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.

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.

This is an idea i had based on the shield mechanic from games such as Slay the Spire and Dicey Dungeons.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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