Banisher of the Protected1BB
Creature - Human Wizard
During your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on a creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it. T: Put a -1/-1 counter on a creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it.
1/3
When you choose a creature on which to apply an effect, that's targeting. Trying to get around targeting restrictions by not using the word "target" nullifies the meaning of the word. Other games have issues of having multiple wordings for the same action, with the same action interacting with other cards differently based on how it's worded, and that just complicates the rules and makes gameplay devolve into matters of semantics. Not a fan.
When you choose a creature on which to apply an effect, that's targeting. Trying to get around targeting restrictions by not using the word "target" nullifies the meaning of the word. Other games have issues of having multiple wordings for the same action, with the same action restricted or not based on how it's worded, and that just complicates the rules and makes gameplay devolve into matters of semantics. Not a fan.
Ahem: Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts, to name just one. When it says "Target", that's targeting. Otherwise it's not.
When you choose a creature on which to apply an effect, that's targeting. Trying to get around targeting restrictions by not using the word "target" nullifies the meaning of the word. Other games have issues of having multiple wordings for the same action, with the same action restricted or not based on how it's worded, and that just complicates the rules and makes gameplay devolve into matters of semantics. Not a fan.
Ahem: Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts, to name just one. When it says "Target", that's targeting. Otherwise it's not.
With Teysa, you're not choosing the creature to destroy. It's an automatic action when a creature deals damage to you. When you choose a creature, that's targeting. Theoretically you could change the convention such that you can choose a creature without targeting it, but I'm saying you shouldn't do that.
No, it's not. Again, targeting is only things that say "target". That's the entire reason they use the word "target". Choosing a creature is completely different. Hence why cards such as Ashling, the Extinguisher say "choose target".
Yes, only things that say "target" count as targeted in the rules. But by design convention, anything that chooses a permanent to affect should be targeted. The only exceptions are Clone effects, which do not affect the chosen permanent directly. Teysa does not choose a permanent. When you bolster, the choice is by default made for you. If it chooses a permanent, and affects it directly, it should be targeted.
When you bolster, the choice is by default made for you. If it chooses a permanent, and affects it directly, it should be targeted.
Sure, that's why it even calls out that you choose. Not just "Put a +1/+1 counter on a creature you control with the lowest toughness" no no, it goes out of it's way to say "Choose a creature".
If it chooses a permanent, and affects it directly, it should be targeted.
Right, because putting a counter on something doesn't affect it directly.
They use the word target for things that target. Period. End of.
If something doesn't use target, it's because they don't want it stopped by the likes of Shroud, Hexproof or Protection.
Okay, bolster is a gray area. The choice is generally made for you, but you are allowed to choose when there's a tie. It doesn't use the word "target" because it's a restricted choice, and for clarity, not because it's mechanically relevant. There are no shroud creatures in the set, and protection is very limited. Are there any cards that don't use 'target' solely to get around shroud/hexproof/protection?
Banisher of the Protected1BB
Creature - Human Wizard
During your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on a creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it. T: Put a -1/-1 counter on a creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it.
1/3
When you choose a creature on which to apply an effect, that's targeting. Trying to get around targeting restrictions by not using the word "target" nullifies the meaning of the word. Other games have issues of having multiple wordings for the same action, with the same action interacting with other cards differently based on how it's worded, and that just complicates the rules and makes gameplay devolve into matters of semantics. Not a fan.
When you choose a creature on which to apply an effect, that's targeting. Trying to get around targeting restrictions by not using the word "target" nullifies the meaning of the word. Other games have issues of having multiple wordings for the same action, with the same action restricted or not based on how it's worded, and that just complicates the rules and makes gameplay devolve into matters of semantics. Not a fan.
Ahem: Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts, to name just one. When it says "Target", that's targeting. Otherwise it's not.
When you choose a creature on which to apply an effect, that's targeting. Trying to get around targeting restrictions by not using the word "target" nullifies the meaning of the word. Other games have issues of having multiple wordings for the same action, with the same action restricted or not based on how it's worded, and that just complicates the rules and makes gameplay devolve into matters of semantics. Not a fan.
Ahem: Teysa, Envoy of Ghosts, to name just one. When it says "Target", that's targeting. Otherwise it's not.
With Teysa, you're not choosing the creature to destroy. It's an automatic action when a creature deals damage to you. When you choose a creature, that's targeting. Theoretically you could change the convention such that you can choose a creature without targeting it, but I'm saying you shouldn't do that.
No, it's not. Again, targeting is only things that say "target". That's the entire reason they use the word "target". Choosing a creature is completely different. Hence why cards such as Ashling, the Extinguisher say "choose target".
Yes, only things that say "target" count as targeted in the rules. But by design convention, anything that chooses a permanent to affect should be targeted. The only exceptions are Clone effects, which do not affect the chosen permanent directly. Teysa does not choose a permanent. When you bolster, the choice is by default made for you. If it chooses a permanent, and affects it directly, it should be targeted.
When you bolster, the choice is by default made for you. If it chooses a permanent, and affects it directly, it should be targeted.
Sure, that's why it even calls out that you choose. Not just "Put a +1/+1 counter on a creature you control with the lowest toughness" no no, it goes out of it's way to say "Choose a creature".
If it chooses a permanent, and affects it directly, it should be targeted.
Right, because putting a counter on something doesn't affect it directly.
They use the word target for things that target. Period. End of.
If something doesn't use target, it's because they don't want it stopped by the likes of Shroud, Hexproof or Protection.
Okay, bolster is a gray area. The choice is generally made for you, but you are allowed to choose when there's a tie. It doesn't use the word "target" because it's a restricted choice, and for clarity, not because it's mechanically relevant. There are no shroud creatures in the set, and protection is very limited. Are there any cards that don't use 'target' solely to get around shroud/hexproof/protection?
We need to move this discussion to its own thread.
I agree with the detractors. Trying to come up with a way to "target" something without actually "targeting" it to get around hexproof is not something that has been done in Magic. As was pointed out, the only time this happens is whenever there is a restricted choice and the game itself determines the subset of permanents that can be chosen. Bolster is good for this. You only make a choice when the game can't determine one because of a tie. Teysa is the result of a triggered ability that is initiated not by a player actively attempting to do something but instead by an event that occurs in the game. It may not seem like much but it is a highly significant difference.
With that being said, and ignoring the fact that nothing really does what you want currently, your wording does technically get around Hexproof and Shroud. I would change it to say something like "Choose a creature...." then do something.
Also worth noting is that your wording also prevents anyone from responding to the ability the same way they would with a targeted spell or ability. This is because you choose targets when the spell or ability goes on the stack but then make other decisions and choices during resolution (there is more to it, but this is a quick summary). So your card design means that no one can do anything with the creature you plan on putting the counter on and stop the ability entirely unless they take a guess and then you can just choose something else.
Another way to do what you want is to find a way for Banisher of the Protected to remove hexproof from creatures (ex. Archetype of Endurance) or be able to target creatures as though they didn't have hexproof (ex. Glaring Spotlight).
Yes, only things that say "target" count as targeted in the rules. But by design convention, anything that chooses a permanent to affect should be targeted. The only exceptions are Clone effects, which do not affect the chosen permanent directly. Teysa does not choose a permanent. When you bolster, the choice is by default made for you. If it chooses a permanent, and affects it directly, it should be targeted.
What design convention are you referring to here? There is no design convention that states what you claim in Magic. The other games you refer to may not distinguish much between targeting, choosing, selecting, picking out, identifying, and other synonyms that may be used, but those games' design conventions are irrelevant to Magic card design, simply because those games aren't Magic. You also have to keep in mind that many of these other games you're talking about are either much simpler to physically play than Magic, or are played on mobile devices and computers, where the simplicity comes just from the actions being processed for you. I have an example, if anybody is interested.
There is a huge number of cards in the game designed with the game's definition of targeting in mind. By changing what the word "target" means, you change how each and every one of those cards work. At least rules-wise, the game is warped so much that what results shouldn't even be called Magic at that point.
There are some aspects of Magic's rules that should absolutely not be messed with if the objective is to avoid having serious patching up to do. These include things like reducing the number of colors in the game, revamping the process of casting spells and activating abilities, reworking the process of declaring attackers and blockers, the layer system, and the timing windows of state-based actions. Changing the rules for targeting is one of these, too. Because these aspects of the game are so fundamental to Magic's design, completely working even one of these from the ground up is simply not feasible. The only way I could imagine these working is if you provided some CR rules entries that specifically define how you envision the ideal rules for targeting to be, and even then they would only be acceptable if the vast majority of cards' interactions with each other stayed the same.
If the argument is that the card proposed by BlackTempleGuardian starts the arsm-race between "can't be" effects and "ignore" effects, then that's fine, and is something I agree with as well. But if the reason is that anything that involves any choice of a permanent, player, or zone should be targeting, it's quite difficult to agree with that reason, given the amount of history and number of cards Magic has accrued for all these years.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The real reason that bolster did not target also involves that keyword actions targeting with the word target hidden in the remnder text is an inferior implementation - something that stayed consistent until support. We'll see how happy they are with support going forward, but generally one has to keep in mind the difference.
The point is obviously consistency and the reasons you break it.
The discussion quoted in the original post is a good example of two people arguing past each other. BlackTempleGaurdian is searching for loopholes and tries to do something that is generally possible in the rules. The default wording should be used in general - exceptions need to be examined and justified and the arms race with hexproof/shroud has been identified as insufficient justification. And while calling it a "design convention" might not sit with everyone theazurespirit correctly identifies the sentiment behind the default wording and expresses correctly the general idea when it is abandoned.
The purpose of targeting is not simply to interact with hexproof or shroud, but also impacts greatly the way abilities play since targets have to be chosen before the ability resolves. This has been identified as a desirable effect and is what makes reacting to spells with spells of your own and abilities in a tactical manner possible and enables the gameplay we currently have. Removal is one of the prime examples of effects where this gameplay shines and as a designer you need to be aware that the game intentionally creates the expectation that players know at the time a spell/ability is announced the intented subject of the removal effect - and why the game is designed to foster that expectation.
This card's role as an arms race tool is not interesting enough to violate the expectation of payers - creating additional complexity with the use of a nonstandard wording for limited gain which arguably is not per se desirable on an individual card level in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
He can't name the ten times because he was just told by a mod to knock it off, as were you. I do remember the legendary lands, though.
On topic: I'm voting on the side of using a Glaring Spotlight-type wording:
-- Archetype of Endurance is good for allowing use of the term 'target', but it seems awkward outside of the text in black as a global effect, and within the abilities still has the "can't respond based on pre-chosen target" issue.
-- Personally, I think it's a neat design as a 1-of rare in some set. Probably not something Wizards would design, but it's close enough to the edge that it's within the boundary zone I'd think is fine in a fake set (and hey, Wizards has made Storm, Dredge, etc before, so y'know). Thus, getting rid of it or getting rid of the conceit of 'anti-hexproof' seems sad to me, though also probably most realistic IRL.
-- Glaring Spotlight on the ability gets the desired behavior for the card while also allowing other crucial behavior that others pointed out - namely, the ability to sacrifice in response, use in response, target with pump in response, etc. This is crucial especially with cards like these, and it would make it very unfun to play against if I cannot respond to it ahead of time.
As to how to implement it, maybe just some sort of thing like this at the start:
Banisher of the Protected 1BB
Creature - Human Wizard
Creatures your opponents control with hexproof or shroud may be targeted by abilities of [CARDNAME] as though they didn't have hexproof or shroud.
During your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it.
T: Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it.
1/3
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes... Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
I'd like to acknowledge this point, and indeed had, but I can no longer due to the fact that the Enchant keyword targets, even if it's reminder text doesn't mention it.
I want to point out that enchant is not a keyword action. I was talking about keyword actions exclusively on purpose.
Enchant works quite well considering that it is a fundamental reconstruction of very old rules that were tied to types on cards that didn't even have their types printed on them... better not to dwell on that.
Note though that enchant reminder text does not need to mention targets since targeting is inherent to the subtype Aura - enchant only restricts the possible targets. So not mentioning that enchant targets is strictly speaking correct.
I personally think it would be preferable if keyword actions (like bolster and support) generally shouldn't target (though I'm fine if they are used in abilities that target - and spell that out). With shroud and protection gradually phasing out the reason you mention becomes increasingly unimportant, but there are actually other aspects e. g. cantrips like Shoulder to Shoulder. I suppose generally printing these with reminder text is "okay", but certainly not "perfect".
Edit: Oh and for triggered abilities like Heroic.
Can you clarify what this means? I'm not sure which list this is appended to. Heroic is not even a keyword at all.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Add card that lets you choose, say via bolster, or support won't trigger Heroic. A card that tells you to target, like most cards, would.
Likewise, Support and Bolster don't kill illusions.
I'm not certain whether you consider that a good or bad thing. Heroic being very limited in its scope is not really all that important. There is no clear "better" or "worse" here since for some abilities triggering the targeting discussion is a benefit and for some it's a detriment. So these do not weigh in heavily. It's an aspect, but not pertinent.
Support (for better or worse) targets, so your last statement certainly is incorrect. Still reconsidering your view?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
I feel a bit nervous even stepping into this thread lol, but I want to contribute one of the more historically relevant hexproof arms race moments. In original Innistrad standard, Geist of Saint Traft was very difficult to deal with efficiently. The solution took a while to find, but back then we had the old legend rule, where two legendary permanents with the same name on the battlefield at the same time meant they both died (IIRC). So people played Clone variants since they don't target, would choose to copy Geist, and they'd both head to the graveyard.
It's widely assumed that situations like this are a primary cause for the updates to the Legend rule. Wizards doesn't like the gameplay of this type of arms race, and as a designer I can see why.
Hi. Forum noob here taking a stab at this problem.
The way I see it, hexproof and shroud are there to prevent permanents from being interacted with by spells and abilities whose "targets" are chosen by their caster. A single spell shouldn't be able to both a) nullify hexproof AND b) negatively affect its target. There are already ways to work around hexproof, like sacrifice effects, "all/each" effects, and triggered abilities that don't need to target. As others have mentioned, there's even precedence for an effect removing hexproof entirely, but allowing the same effect to also harm the ex-hexproof creature doesn't seem like a good mechanic to me.
Another workaround for "targeting" hexproof creatures could be to make it a liability instead of removing it...
Persecutor of the Righteous --- 1BB
Creature - Human Cleric --- 1/3
When Persecutor of the Righteous enters the battlefield, creatures your opponents control get -1/-1 until end of turn. 3BB, t: Creatures your opponents control get -1/-1 until end of turn. Then, for each opponent, if he or she controls a creature with hexproof, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature he or she controls.
So, it's still a utility creature based on -1/-1 counters, still somewhat hoses hexproof creatures, and doesn't introduce any un-fun mechanics. Whatcha think?
Another workaround for "targeting" hexproof creatures could be to make it a liability instead of removing it...
I think this is a great idea. Your example is based on OP's design obviously, but I think it'd be better to make hexproof a liability more directly if you were to go that route.
Persecute the Righteous1BB
Sorcery
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature with hexproof.
[i]Fateful hour[i] - If your life total is five or less, instead destroy each creature with hexproof.
Welcome to the forum!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree with the detractors. Trying to come up with a way to "target" something without actually "targeting" it to get around hexproof is not something that has been done in Magic. As was pointed out, the only time this happens is whenever there is a restricted choice and the game itself determines the subset of permanents that can be chosen. Bolster is good for this. You only make a choice when the game can't determine one because of a tie. Teysa is the result of a triggered ability that is initiated not by a player actively attempting to do something but instead by an event that occurs in the game. It may not seem like much but it is a highly significant difference.
With that being said, and ignoring the fact that nothing really does what you want currently, your wording does technically get around Hexproof and Shroud. I would change it to say something like "Choose a creature...." then do something.
Also worth noting is that your wording also prevents anyone from responding to the ability the same way they would with a targeted spell or ability. This is because you choose targets when the spell or ability goes on the stack but then make other decisions and choices during resolution (there is more to it, but this is a quick summary). So your card design means that no one can do anything with the creature you plan on putting the counter on and stop the ability entirely unless they take a guess and then you can just choose something else.
Another way to do what you want is to find a way for Banisher of the Protected to remove hexproof from creatures (ex. Archetype of Endurance) or be able to target creatures as though they didn't have hexproof (ex. Glaring Spotlight).
What design convention are you referring to here? There is no design convention that states what you claim in Magic. The other games you refer to may not distinguish much between targeting, choosing, selecting, picking out, identifying, and other synonyms that may be used, but those games' design conventions are irrelevant to Magic card design, simply because those games aren't Magic. You also have to keep in mind that many of these other games you're talking about are either much simpler to physically play than Magic, or are played on mobile devices and computers, where the simplicity comes just from the actions being processed for you. I have an example, if anybody is interested.
There is a huge number of cards in the game designed with the game's definition of targeting in mind. By changing what the word "target" means, you change how each and every one of those cards work. At least rules-wise, the game is warped so much that what results shouldn't even be called Magic at that point.
There are some aspects of Magic's rules that should absolutely not be messed with if the objective is to avoid having serious patching up to do. These include things like reducing the number of colors in the game, revamping the process of casting spells and activating abilities, reworking the process of declaring attackers and blockers, the layer system, and the timing windows of state-based actions. Changing the rules for targeting is one of these, too. Because these aspects of the game are so fundamental to Magic's design, completely working even one of these from the ground up is simply not feasible. The only way I could imagine these working is if you provided some CR rules entries that specifically define how you envision the ideal rules for targeting to be, and even then they would only be acceptable if the vast majority of cards' interactions with each other stayed the same.
If the argument is that the card proposed by BlackTempleGuardian starts the arsm-race between "can't be" effects and "ignore" effects, then that's fine, and is something I agree with as well. But if the reason is that anything that involves any choice of a permanent, player, or zone should be targeting, it's quite difficult to agree with that reason, given the amount of history and number of cards Magic has accrued for all these years.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The point is obviously consistency and the reasons you break it.
The discussion quoted in the original post is a good example of two people arguing past each other. BlackTempleGaurdian is searching for loopholes and tries to do something that is generally possible in the rules. The default wording should be used in general - exceptions need to be examined and justified and the arms race with hexproof/shroud has been identified as insufficient justification. And while calling it a "design convention" might not sit with everyone theazurespirit correctly identifies the sentiment behind the default wording and expresses correctly the general idea when it is abandoned.
The purpose of targeting is not simply to interact with hexproof or shroud, but also impacts greatly the way abilities play since targets have to be chosen before the ability resolves. This has been identified as a desirable effect and is what makes reacting to spells with spells of your own and abilities in a tactical manner possible and enables the gameplay we currently have. Removal is one of the prime examples of effects where this gameplay shines and as a designer you need to be aware that the game intentionally creates the expectation that players know at the time a spell/ability is announced the intented subject of the removal effect - and why the game is designed to foster that expectation.
This card's role as an arms race tool is not interesting enough to violate the expectation of payers - creating additional complexity with the use of a nonstandard wording for limited gain which arguably is not per se desirable on an individual card level in the first place.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
On topic: I'm voting on the side of using a Glaring Spotlight-type wording:
-- Archetype of Endurance is good for allowing use of the term 'target', but it seems awkward outside of the text in black as a global effect, and within the abilities still has the "can't respond based on pre-chosen target" issue.
-- Personally, I think it's a neat design as a 1-of rare in some set. Probably not something Wizards would design, but it's close enough to the edge that it's within the boundary zone I'd think is fine in a fake set (and hey, Wizards has made Storm, Dredge, etc before, so y'know). Thus, getting rid of it or getting rid of the conceit of 'anti-hexproof' seems sad to me, though also probably most realistic IRL.
-- Glaring Spotlight on the ability gets the desired behavior for the card while also allowing other crucial behavior that others pointed out - namely, the ability to sacrifice in response, use in response, target with pump in response, etc. This is crucial especially with cards like these, and it would make it very unfun to play against if I cannot respond to it ahead of time.
As to how to implement it, maybe just some sort of thing like this at the start:
Banisher of the Protected 1BB
Creature - Human Wizard
Creatures your opponents control with hexproof or shroud may be targeted by abilities of [CARDNAME] as though they didn't have hexproof or shroud.
During your upkeep, put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it.
T: Put a -1/-1 counter on target creature. If that creature has hexproof, put an additional -1/-1 counter on it.
1/3
--Buck v Bell, 1927. This case, regarding the compulsory sterilization of inmates at mental institutions, has -- somehow -- never been overturned. Just a wee PSA for ya.
I want to point out that enchant is not a keyword action. I was talking about keyword actions exclusively on purpose.
Enchant works quite well considering that it is a fundamental reconstruction of very old rules that were tied to types on cards that didn't even have their types printed on them... better not to dwell on that.
Note though that enchant reminder text does not need to mention targets since targeting is inherent to the subtype Aura - enchant only restricts the possible targets. So not mentioning that enchant targets is strictly speaking correct.
I personally think it would be preferable if keyword actions (like bolster and support) generally shouldn't target (though I'm fine if they are used in abilities that target - and spell that out). With shroud and protection gradually phasing out the reason you mention becomes increasingly unimportant, but there are actually other aspects e. g. cantrips like Shoulder to Shoulder. I suppose generally printing these with reminder text is "okay", but certainly not "perfect".
Can you clarify what this means? I'm not sure which list this is appended to. Heroic is not even a keyword at all.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
I'm not certain whether you consider that a good or bad thing. Heroic being very limited in its scope is not really all that important. There is no clear "better" or "worse" here since for some abilities triggering the targeting discussion is a benefit and for some it's a detriment. So these do not weigh in heavily. It's an aspect, but not pertinent.
Support (for better or worse) targets, so your last statement certainly is incorrect. Still reconsidering your view?
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
It's widely assumed that situations like this are a primary cause for the updates to the Legend rule. Wizards doesn't like the gameplay of this type of arms race, and as a designer I can see why.
The way I see it, hexproof and shroud are there to prevent permanents from being interacted with by spells and abilities whose "targets" are chosen by their caster. A single spell shouldn't be able to both a) nullify hexproof AND b) negatively affect its target. There are already ways to work around hexproof, like sacrifice effects, "all/each" effects, and triggered abilities that don't need to target. As others have mentioned, there's even precedence for an effect removing hexproof entirely, but allowing the same effect to also harm the ex-hexproof creature doesn't seem like a good mechanic to me.
Another workaround for "targeting" hexproof creatures could be to make it a liability instead of removing it...
Persecutor of the Righteous --- 1BB
Creature - Human Cleric --- 1/3
When Persecutor of the Righteous enters the battlefield, creatures your opponents control get -1/-1 until end of turn.
3BB, t: Creatures your opponents control get -1/-1 until end of turn. Then, for each opponent, if he or she controls a creature with hexproof, put a -1/-1 counter on each creature he or she controls.
So, it's still a utility creature based on -1/-1 counters, still somewhat hoses hexproof creatures, and doesn't introduce any un-fun mechanics. Whatcha think?
Persecute the Righteous 1BB
Sorcery
Put a -1/-1 counter on each creature with hexproof.
[i]Fateful hour[i] - If your life total is five or less, instead destroy each creature with hexproof.
Welcome to the forum!