-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unavenger
"~ has indestructible unless lethal damage is marked on it" is a) totally correct wording and b) what I'd actually use. Notably, there's no problem with keywording this, because there's no rule saying keywords can't give out other keywords (see also riot). However, I wouldn't want that ability to be common enough to be keyworded.
That's a silly argument. So long as the condition under which it has indestructible is true (namely, it doesn't have lethal damage on it) it has actual indestructible. It's like saying that Paradise Druid never actually has real hexproof because if you can tap it without targeting it, then you can target it with your second spell, so it can be targeted, so long as you do something else first.
Paradise Druid has hexproof exactly as it's in the rulebook while it's untapped, and loses it when it taps. That's exactly like Ahn-Crop Invader.
The creature Ninjaman is trying to make never, at any time, has indestructible as it's listed in the rulebook. You have to deviate from the rules just to check for lethal damage as a state-based action. (The rules tell you to ignore those if a creature has indestructible.)
If it can be destroyed by lethal damage, it doesn't have indestructible. It's destructible. You can get the behavior Ninjaman wants by using Ogre Enforcer as precedent and not mention the indestructible keyword at all.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silfir
Paradise Druid has hexproof exactly as it's in the rulebook while it's untapped, and loses it when it taps. That's exactly like Ahn-Crop Invader.
The creature Ninjaman is trying to make never, at any time, has indestructible as it's listed in the rulebook. You have to deviate from the rules just to check for lethal damage as a state-based action. (The rules tell you to ignore those if a creature has indestructible.)
If it can be destroyed by lethal damage, it doesn't have indestructible. It's destructible. You can get the behavior Ninjaman wants by using Ogre Enforcer as precedent and not mention the indestructible keyword at all.
I agree with your conclusion here. It is enough different that referencing Indestructable is not the best way to go about it. Much like Hexproof and Shroud are similar, but would not refernce each other.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
It might be correct to not reference indestructible, it definitely is if there is rules problems, which I'm not sure if there actually is.
I think it's in a weird spot where it's not enough indestructible to have indestructible, but it also has enough indestructible that if it didn't people would look at it and go "why doesn't this say indestructible." At least that was my worry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mythmonster2
I have an idea for a card, but I'm not sure what color it would be. It'd be either an enchantment or a creature (or an enchantment creature), but the main line of text is this:
I'm leaning towards white, but I've also considered green or, as a long shot, blue. Thoughts?
First, don't put your card text in a quote, as that means it disappears when I quote it.
I'm pretty sure it would be white. I'm quite certain it shouldn't be made, as it seems really annoying.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
On the indestructible discussion, has something like the following been dismissed?
“~ can’t be destroyed by spells or abilities (it can still be killed by damage)”
Just for clarification, you do want the creature to die to lightning bolt right?
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Androgeus
On the indestructible discussion, has something like the following been dismissed?
“~ can’t be destroyed by spells or abilities (it can still be killed by damage)”
Just for clarification, you do want the creature to die to lightning bolt right?
Yes it has:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
I know it isn't exactly the same, but what about "can't be destroyed by spells or abilities." Leaves it open to combat damage but makes it immune to spot removal.
And my response:
Quote:
That would work, but it is a quite confusing wording, as it doesn't look like a lightning bolt should be able to destroy it, but it is.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silfir
You have to deviate from the rules just to check for lethal damage as a state-based action.
No, you don't, because you're not checking for lethal damage as an SBA until after the creature has already lost indestructible as part of its static ability. It remains indestructible as long as it doesn't have lethal damage marked on it [CR 604.1, 611.3a], then the static ability says "Hey, you! You're not indestructible any more!" Then, once it no longer has indestructible, the SBA checks next time a player would gain priority. It's the same way that trample checks for lethal damage on indestructible creatures.
Checking the rules and the one relevant example more carefully, another way of wording it is "~ can't be destroyed by effects (It can only be destroyed by lethal damage or deathtouch damage)" or "~ can only be destroyed by damage." These are probably more succinct anyway.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unavenger
Checking the rules and the one relevant example more carefully, another way of wording it is "~ can't be destroyed by effects (It can only be destroyed by lethal damage or deathtouch damage)" or "~ can only be destroyed by damage." These are probably more succinct anyway.
Would "~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage." work?
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
Would "~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage." work?
Not if you want it to work with damage from deathtouch. Damage from a source with deathtouch isn't actually lethal damage, only treated as lethal damage when determining whether or not a damage assignment is legal [CR 702.2c]. You could write "~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage and damage from sources with deathtouch" I suppose, but "~ can only be destroyed by damage" is probably cleaner and better.
On the other hand, if you want to prevent deathtouch from working too, it would work fine.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Unavenger
On the other hand, if you want to prevent deathtouch from working too, it would work fine.
If I can stop deathtouch without too much hassle, I'll take that too. One word more is as good as I could have hoped.
I think that means I will go with:
"~ can only be destroyed by lethal damage."
Thanks so much to everyone who chipped in.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
(name undecided)
Legendary Land ... R
Hexproof
~ enters the battlefield tapped.
You can't play Lands not named "Wastes"
T: Add C
1, T, sacrifice a Land : Search your graveyard, hand, and library for a Basic Land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.
2, T, sacrifice a Land not named "Wastes": Search your graveyard, hand, and library for a non-Legendary Land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.
3, T, sacrifice a non-Basic Land: Search your graveyard, hand, and library for any Land card, put it onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.
4, T, sacrifice a Legendary Land: Search your graveyard, hand, and library for up to five Land cards named "Wastes", put them onto the battlefield tapped, and shuffle your library.
WUBRG, T, sacrifice five Legendary Lands: You win the game.
...This wouldn't fit on a card, and is therefore unprintable; please ignore that particular factor when criticizing it.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enderlord99
...This wouldn't fit on a card, and is therefore unprintable; please ignore that particular factor when criticizing it.
That is a very important factor when criticizing cards, and a very important skill when making cards is the ability to keep the text down, keeping what is essential to the effect without being too wordy.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
That is a very important factor when criticizing cards, and a very important skill when making cards is the ability to keep the text down, keeping what is essential to the effect without being too wordy.
Right, but I already know it has that problem, so pointing it out doesn't change anything.
What else do you have to say about it, if anything? Also, since shortening it is so important... how would I do so, without losing anything critical to the concept?
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enderlord99
Right, but I already know it has that problem, so pointing it out doesn't change anything.
What else do you have to say about it, if anything? Also, since shortening it is so important... how would I do so, without losing anything critical to the concept?
Hexproof seems unnecessary. The restriction on only being able to play wastes is too hard. Each of the sacrifice effects seem like they could be on a card on their own. The win seems unnecessary, if you can tutor for that many lands you can probably find Inkmoth Nexus+Kessig Wolfrun or Dark Depths+Thespian Stage to win you the game.
If you play it with only wastes in play it takes 21 turns to win with it, and an overall investment of 45 mana. Maze's End is a slow win condition, this is absurd.
It is however probably too strong a win condition if you just wait until you have five legendary lands. It can even sacrifice itself.
It also wants you to play way more lands than would be feasible in a 60 card deck if you intend to seach the entire chain.
Boundless Wastes
Legendary Land - M
T: Add C
2, T, Sacrifice a Basic land: Search your library for a legendary land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control eight or more legendary lands, you win the game.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
Hexproof seems unnecessary. The restriction on only being able to play wastes is too hard. Each of the sacrifice effects seem like they could be on a card on their own. The win seems unnecessary, if you can tutor for that many lands you can probably find Inkmoth Nexus+Kessig Wolfrun or Dark Depths+Thespian Stage to win you the game.
If you play it with only wastes in play it takes 21 turns to win with it, and an overall investment of 45 mana. Maze's End is a slow win condition, this is absurd.
It is however probably too strong a win condition if you just wait until you have five legendary lands. It can even sacrifice itself.
It also wants you to play way more lands than would be feasible in a 60 card deck if you intend to seach the entire chain.
Boundless Wastes
Legendary Land - M
T: Add C
2, T, Sacrifice a Basic land: Search your library for a legendary land card and put it onto the battlefield tapped, then shuffle your library.
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control eight or more legendary lands, you win the game.
Your version seems great, though I'd add an additional tweak that it can search for any land (though in practice, of course, people would only tutor legendary ones, because of the final ability)
Thanks!
EDIT: This next card is also a land, and is exceedingly simple... but also makes no sense in any Limited environment whatsoever, though it should be fine in Eternal ones:
Crumbling Archway
Land - Desert Gate ... Uncommon
T: add C
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enderlord99
Your version seems great, though I'd add an additional tweak that it can search for any land (though in practice, of course, people would only tutor legendary ones, because of the final ability)
Only if they wanted to use it for winning. Elvish Reclaimer is a card, and the effect is much easier to use when it's on an untapped land than on a creature. The ability to tutor for any land is too strong to just slap on a land like that.
Quote:
EDIT: This next card is also a land, and is exceedingly simple... but also makes no sense in any Limited environment whatsoever, though it should be fine in Eternal ones:
Crumbling Archway
Land - Desert Gate ... Uncommon
T: add C
It feels too much like shoehorning two land types together, and not for any reason since they don't work together in any meaningful way.
And it would make sense in limited, as it would be printed in a limited environment where those types mattered.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
It feels too much like shoehorning two land types together
It feels too much like what it is. Got it. :smalltongue:
Spoiler: Futile attempt at making the concept flavorful
Show
If I could get italics to work on my copy of MSE, the flavor-text would be "Look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!"
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enderlord99
It feels too much like what it is. Got it. :smalltongue:
Spoiler: Futile attempt at making the concept flavorful
Show
If I could get italics to work on my copy of MSE, the flavor-text would be "
Look upon my works ye mighty, and despair!"
It doesn't come in tapped though, not very gate like.
What about comes in tapped, taps for two colorless?
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
It doesn't come in tapped though, not very gate like.
I'm pretty sure entering tapped has nothing to do with being a gate and everything to do with being a dual land.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
It doesn't come in tapped though, not very gate like.
What about comes in tapped, taps for two colorless?
Are you seriously suggesting a Sol land?
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
Are you seriously suggesting a Sol land?
He seems to be.
Clearly, ETB tapped is plenty of downside for that{.}
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enderlord99
He seems to be.
Clearly, ETB tapped is plenty of downside for that{.}
I mean, it probably wouldn't be over-the-top in commander. One of the things that makes sol ring very good in commander is that it allows for first turns like land>sol ring>signet which means you end up with 5 mana to spend turn 2 with that turns land-drop. This would be nowhere near as explosive.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DeTess
I mean, it probably wouldn't be over-the-top in commander. One of the things that makes sol ring very good in commander is that it allows for first turns like land>sol ring>signet which means you end up with 5 mana to spend turn 2 with that turns land-drop. This would be nowhere near as explosive.
It ramps by itself. It's the same as casting a mana rock on turn 2, except it only requires one card.
Also, no sol land is as good as Sol Ring, doesn't keep them from being really good.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
Are you seriously suggesting a Sol land?
The weakest sol land, yeah. Etb tapped is a major drawback in constructed.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tvtyrant
The weakest sol land, yeah. Etb tapped is a major drawback in constructed.
Yes, and being a sol land is a monstrous upside. I'm not sure if you realize, but simply playing this is ramp. It's like casting a rampant growth, only it requires on less card, and costs one less mana.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
Yes, and being a sol land is a monstrous upside. I'm not sure if you realize, but simply playing this is ramp. It's like casting a rampant growth, only it requires on less card, and costs one less mana.
Or it's like a sakura-tribe elder without the 1/1 body for chump-blocking for 1 mana less. It's not a bad land, but in commander it's not that great either. In other formats it might be problematic, but then again many other formats are fast enough that the fact that it enters tapped would be a serious problem.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Steal Willpower uubb
Instant
Target player skips their next step or phase of your choice. At the beginning of your next end step, take an extra step or phase of that type.
"I so dearly envy your determination. Let me show you what I could do with just a sliver of it."
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gooddragon1
Steal Willpower uubb
Instant
Target player skips their next step or phase of your choice. At the beginning of your next end step, take an extra step or phase of that type.
"I so dearly envy your determination. Let me show you what I could do with just a sliver of it."
I like the idea, but I think there'll be some problems with having the extra step start at the beginning of your next end step given that a lot of 'end of turn' stuff(such as temporary tokens disappearing, 'did you do X during your turn' effects triggering, etc.) triggers at that point in the turn. I'd make it work more like 'clocknapper' (which allows you to act during that step/phase as if it was your own), which should avoid issues like that.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ninjaman
Yes, and being a sol land is a monstrous upside. I'm not sure if you realize, but simply playing this is ramp. It's like casting a rampant growth, only it requires on less card, and costs one less mana.
By skipping a turn, yes. The depletion lands aren't particularly good and having colored mana makes them roughly comparable, the real sol lands are far better but require having a lot of good colorless or 1 mana color cards to be good.
In a set that doesn't have a high artifact or eldrazi focus it is going to be a decent but not OP land for limited and standard, and it won't see play in Modern or Legacy at all. Set in a Ravnica set and it would be outright detrimental, fixing no mana at all.
-
Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DeTess
I like the idea, but I think there'll be some problems with having the extra step start at the beginning of your next end step given that a lot of 'end of turn' stuff(such as temporary tokens disappearing, 'did you do X during your turn' effects triggering, etc.) triggers at that point in the turn. I'd make it work more like 'clocknapper' (which allows you to act during that step/phase as if it was your own), which should avoid issues like that.
But it is yours? It's happening on your turn and you are "take"ing it. I'm not totally sure. Paradox haze says gets. Maybe "At the beginning of your next end step, you get an extra step or phase of that type."
Also, messing with time is a perk. Like sundial of the infinite.