View Single Post

Thread: MTG Share your Card Designs II

  1. - Top - End - #121
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Silfir's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Esslingen, Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MTG Share your Card Designs II

    Quote Originally Posted by Unavenger View Post
    "~ 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.
    Last edited by Silfir; 2019-08-18 at 07:46 PM.
    This signature is boring. The stuff I write might not be. Warning: Ponies.