Azorius because coming up with token-based mechanics is hard.
Lawmagic can go on any card type, though it should have a fixed duration on instants and sorceries. Every card that invokes lawmagic will create a law, then have a penalty for when an opponent breaks the law. This represents the Azorius' goal as a guild: working hard to make sure nothing is accomplished.
District CurfewWU
Sorcery {R}
Until your next turn, casting spells is against the law.
Until your next turn, whenever an opponent breaks the law, draw a card. "The Ninth District is under quarantine per the Grand Arbiter's mandate. Neither entry nor departure is permitted until the investigation concludes."
-- Lavinia
Isn't this just a worse Silence?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Call me Fortuna, please. Ms. Imperatrix Mundi is the empress of the world.
Yes, that's what I mean. Barring a few relatively unusual effects, your opponent can always play as if you'd just Silenced them. Any spell they do cast is, if they're playing well, going to be worth more to them than giving you card draw. It's basically Silence stapled to a cantrip, except instead of getting both your opponent gets to choose which you get.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Call me Fortuna, please. Ms. Imperatrix Mundi is the empress of the world.
The flavor of glimpsing the firemind driving people nuts seems a bit odd. He's a dragon that's well know to be such. I don't think looking at him would drive anyone mad (it certainly didn't in the novels.)
The wiki says that the Firemind is also a term for a sort of direct look into Niv-Mizzet's brain, which is what I was basing the flavour on there.
Also, my apologies to all if my critiques come off as harsh. I'm having some brain troubles and my mood is pretty foul. No excuse, but we work with what this imperfect world offers us
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Call me Fortuna, please. Ms. Imperatrix Mundi is the empress of the world.
The Card: Why doesn't this just say "Cripple up to three target creatures"? Repeatedly crippling a creature with the same spell achieves nothing, because it became the target long before it was crippled, and the way this spell is written implies quite the opposite. This does not seem like a good showcase or a very tightly-written card. (If your intent is that this could be used to destroy one creature and cripple another, then your reminder text needs some work and the comprehensive rules for your ability will be a headache - this mechanic works much better under the assumption that it doesn't from a rules perspective).[/spoiler][spoiler=RaikouRider]
Pretty sure it works, because even though it is the same spell, written the way it is it would target the creature more than one separate time therfor allowing it to destroy 1 creature and cripple another. I did research this to try and be sure, but there are only a handful of cards worded in this fashion and couldn't get a definitive answer.
I did more research to try and verify whether my card worked as intended; that three instances of cripple as separate clauses allow you to destroy one creature by target the same one twice and cripple a second. I believe I have confirmed that it works as intended in the following section of the comprehensive rules, emphasis bolded:
112.2c An object may have multiple abilities. If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate ability. If the object is not represented by a card, the effect that created it may have given it multiple abilities. An object may also be granted additional abilities by a spell or ability. If an object has multiple instances of the same ability, each instance functions independently. This may or may not produce more effects than a single instance; refer to the specific ability for more information.
My entry with cripple is worded as follows, emphasis bolded:
(Tap that creature. The next time it is dealt damage or targeted by a spell or ability this turn, destroy it.)
Since each line is a separate, independent ability and cripple checks based on abilities as well as spells the two instances on the same card work to trigger it, destroying a creature. It doesn't matter that it's the same spell thanks to it checking for abilities too. This makes it separate to how say a heroic creature triggers, since that only checks for the spell targeting it.
Is it your intention that if you cripple a creature currently the target of another spell or ability, it's destroyed immediately? So that crippling can snatch out a creature from beneath a buff, say?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Call me Fortuna, please. Ms. Imperatrix Mundi is the empress of the world.
Is it your intention that if you cripple a creature currently the target of another spell or ability, it's destroyed immediately? So that crippling can snatch out a creature from beneath a buff, say?
No, and it doesn't work that way. The targets of a spell are chosen as part of casting a spell and triggers related to targeting with said spell are put on to the stack imediately as it is cast. If you respond to the casting of the spell with an effect that cripples, it will not trigger to destroy the creature for being targeted, because it was targeted before it was crippled.
However, if that original spell deals damage to the target, crippling it in response would kill it.
Is it your intention that if you cripple a creature currently the target of another spell or ability, it's destroyed immediately? So that crippling can snatch out a creature from beneath a buff, say?
No, and it doesn't work that way. The targets of a spell are chosen as part of casting a spell and triggers related to targeting with said spell are put on to the stack imediately as it is cast. If you respond to the casting of the spell with an effect that cripples, it will not trigger to destroy the creature for being targeted, because it was targeted before it was crippled.
However, if that original spell deals damage to the target, crippling it in response would kill it.
If it doesn't work that way, it doesn't work that way with your spell either. By the time the creature is actually affected by your spell, the targets for the spell and all its spell abilities were chosen a long time ago. The only way that you could use your spell to destroy a creature outright is if it were triggered by being the target, not by being targeted.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Call me Fortuna, please. Ms. Imperatrix Mundi is the empress of the world.
Is it your intention that if you cripple a creature currently the target of another spell or ability, it's destroyed immediately? So that crippling can snatch out a creature from beneath a buff, say?
No, and it doesn't work that way. The targets of a spell are chosen as part of casting a spell and triggers related to targeting with said spell are put on to the stack imediately as it is cast. If you respond to the casting of the spell with an effect that cripples, it will not trigger to destroy the creature for being targeted, because it was targeted before it was crippled.
However, if that original spell deals damage to the target, crippling it in response would kill it.
If it doesn't work that way, it doesn't work that way with your spell either. By the time the creature is actually affected by your spell, the targets for the spell and all its spell abilities were chosen a long time ago. The only way that you could use your spell to destroy a creature outright is if it were triggered by being the target, not by being targeted.
Ugh. Maybe you're right. Really would like some additional opinions though.
I'm pretty sure the person with name so long I don't want to type it is right. None of the creatures you target with your card would be crippled when you actually choose your targets.
Also, I'll have my judgments up tomorrow night. I wanted to have them up tonight, but I'm finding the cards to be a bit difficult to evaluate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
I'm a bit confused by battlegird. Is the creature battlegirded indefinitely? Kinda like monstrous? If so I would recommend some kind of marker to keep track of what is battlegirded. The fact that the second ability only lasts until end of turn and says "whenever" makes me think that the creature is only battlegirded until end of turn, but the reminder text does not say that.
To answer your questions, battlegird is an event, not a status. That's why it says "Whenever you battlegird" and not "When ~ becomes battlegirded"
I apologize if that is a stupid question, I suppose it should have been obvious to me (I figured that's how it worked), but for some reason I just find battlegird to be odd. I'd probably like it if I played with it, but I've been rather busy lately and didn't get as much time as would've liked to think about how these abilities would play out.
Speaking of which, I'm not sure why everyone thinks scheme is broken. All the ability does is exile a card from your hand or library facedown, it's what you do with those cards that could make it broken. I understand that it could be broken if design wasn't careful with the ability, but I assume the card given as the example is the most powerful scheme card (it is a legend after all). A card like this makes scheme seem just fine at common....
Scheming Schemer
Creature — Schemer (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, scheme.
, Turn target face down card you own in exile face up: Gain 2 life.
1/1
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
No need to apologize; I hope that I didn't somehow imply that I thought your question was silly. These subtle wording issues are important in this hobby.
Well, this is a round for the oldies. I'm not sure I will be submitting; I have no intuitive picture of any of those sets other than 'old' and in a few cases 'bad', and the research required to develop one is pretty unappealing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Call me Fortuna, please. Ms. Imperatrix Mundi is the empress of the world.
No need to apologize; I hope that I didn't somehow imply that I thought your question was silly. These subtle wording issues are important in this hobby.
If anything makes me feel a bit silly, it's the fact that everyone else seems to really like your card, and has no problem with the ability. It just seems weird to me that the ability word battlegird doesn't actually mean anything in itself. If you made a card that just had battlegird without the secondary ability, it wouldn't mean anything at all. Most other event-type words (like destroy) have their own meaning all by themselves. Does that make sense? I can't think of anything else quite like battlegird. Is there something I'm not thinking of?
On another note, I understand where FortunaImperatrixMund is coming from concerning the top 4 challenge. I have exactly the same feelings about those sets. That said, I have every intention of giving the challenge a whirl.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Well, this is a round for the oldies. I'm not sure I will be submitting; I have no intuitive picture of any of those sets other than 'old' and in a few cases 'bad', and the research required to develop one is pretty unappealing.
My impression for this challenge is that, instead of working from a preexisting holistic vision, we get to look at those sets and create a holistic vision that holds together the set. There wasn't much in those sets that was cohesive mechanically, so we need only look at them from a flavor point of view and top-down develop a mechanical vision from that starting point.
Well, this is a round for the oldies. I'm not sure I will be submitting; I have no intuitive picture of any of those sets other than 'old' and in a few cases 'bad', and the research required to develop one is pretty unappealing.
My impression for this challenge is that, instead of working from a preexisting holistic vision, we get to look at those sets and create a holistic vision that holds together the set. There wasn't much in those sets that was cohesive mechanically, so we need only look at them from a flavor point of view and top-down develop a mechanical vision from that starting point.
The trouble is, I don't have an intuitive picture of the flavour of any of them either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Call me Fortuna, please. Ms. Imperatrix Mundi is the empress of the world.
Well, this is a round for the oldies. I'm not sure I will be submitting; I have no intuitive picture of any of those sets other than 'old' and in a few cases 'bad', and the research required to develop one is pretty unappealing.
My impression for this challenge is that, instead of working from a preexisting holistic vision, we get to look at those sets and create a holistic vision that holds together the set. There wasn't much in those sets that was cohesive mechanically, so we need only look at them from a flavor point of view and top-down develop a mechanical vision from that starting point.
The trouble is, I don't have an intuitive picture of the flavour of any of them either.
Neither do I. The set who's flavor I best understand is Arabian Nights, but a lot of the themes from that block wouldn't be allowed in modern design. There's no way cards like Jihad and Army of Allah would be printed today. It's gonna be tough to do much research into these sets while Christmas is going on, but hopefully I'm up for the challenge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Truth, this round is a toughie. Translating something meaningful from the older sets into contemporary design is difficult as they were still shooting in the dark back then. Do your reasearch and try to make a card that stands out on it's own while still having identifiable origins.
I feel that was my mistake in the last round. While cripple was one of the better mechanics, the card I used didn't showcase it as well especially since I made a mistake that inhibited one of it's intend uses, distracting from it's many other ones (it was one of the most lenticular cards for sure!) This made it read as a bad card on its own despite some other strong ideas in it.
Anyway, still here to kick ass in the top 5! Watch out!
While I agree that cripple was one of the better mechanics from the last round, I'm not so sure I would consider the card representing it a lenticular design. It seems like it would be more of a rules nightmare that would often be played incorrectly (even by more experienced players). If the card actually allowed you to destroy a creature by targeting twice, then it would be lenticular, since it would be really straight forward, but with hidden strategic complexity. It is correct that the card couldn't destroy a creature on its own right?
Edit: BTW, I agree with everybody that enlighten would be better if it only counted spells you control and not abilities. I had that as one of the prior versions of the ability, and have been convinced from the round's crits that it is the better way to go. Another version of the ability counted any spell, including an opponent's. What do people think of that idea? For reference that version would look like this.... Enlighten 1 (When this creature becomes the target of a spell, if it isn't enlighted, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes enlightened.) This version might be adding unneeded complexity though.
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
While I agree that cripple was one of the better mechanics from the last round, I'm not so sure I would consider the card representing it a lenticular design.
Lenticular design implies that the card has obvious and non obvious uses. Some that novices would focus on and others that only experience players can see. As I admitted, the idea of whether the card worked as a kill spell on its own confused that matter and was a mistake. That said, the card still had a lot of other uses, some of which were not mentioned or considered in any of the reviews. A short list:
Cripple up to three creatures to combo with another spell to kill them.
Cripple up to three creatures to combo with an activated/triggered ability to kill them.
Use cripple to tap up to three creatures so they can't block or attack.
Use cripple to effectively give up to three blocking/blocked creatures deathtouch.
A number of possible mixtures of the above
I would argue that the effective 3x deathtouch use of the card is not something a beginner player would notice. Perhaps others too. There are a lot of uses for the card that are obvious to new players (mostly the doubling up of spells and abilities to target and deal damage) and then there are those that are only obvious to more experienced ones.
I understand how lenticular design works, I'm just saying that the card is confusing as it is worded, particularly to new players. It's hard to call a confusing card lenticular, but I suppose you address that in your previous post.
Interestingly enough, the 3x deathtouch use of the card is the first thing I thought of. Followed closely by combining the card with Electrickery.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Isn't this just a worse Silence?
The wiki says that the Firemind is also a term for a sort of direct look into Niv-Mizzet's brain, which is what I was basing the flavour on there.
Also, my apologies to all if my critiques come off as harsh. I'm having some brain troubles and my mood is pretty foul. No excuse, but we work with what this imperfect world offers us
Pretty sure it works, because even though it is the same spell, written the way it is it would target the creature more than one separate time therfor allowing it to destroy 1 creature and cripple another. I did research this to try and be sure, but there are only a handful of cards worded in this fashion and couldn't get a definitive answer.
I did more research to try and verify whether my card worked as intended; that three instances of cripple as separate clauses allow you to destroy one creature by target the same one twice and cripple a second. I believe I have confirmed that it works as intended in the following section of the comprehensive rules, emphasis bolded:
My entry with cripple is worded as follows, emphasis bolded:
Since each line is a separate, independent ability and cripple checks based on abilities as well as spells the two instances on the same card work to trigger it, destroying a creature. It doesn't matter that it's the same spell thanks to it checking for abilities too. This makes it separate to how say a heroic creature triggers, since that only checks for the spell targeting it.
No, and it doesn't work that way. The targets of a spell are chosen as part of casting a spell and triggers related to targeting with said spell are put on to the stack imediately as it is cast. If you respond to the casting of the spell with an effect that cripples, it will not trigger to destroy the creature for being targeted, because it was targeted before it was crippled.
However, if that original spell deals damage to the target, crippling it in response would kill it.
If it doesn't work that way, it doesn't work that way with your spell either. By the time the creature is actually affected by your spell, the targets for the spell and all its spell abilities were chosen a long time ago. The only way that you could use your spell to destroy a creature outright is if it were triggered by being the target, not by being targeted.
Ugh. Maybe you're right. Really would like some additional opinions though.
Also, I'll have my judgments up tomorrow night. I wanted to have them up tonight, but I'm finding the cards to be a bit difficult to evaluate.
To answer your questions, battlegird is an event, not a status. That's why it says "Whenever you battlegird" and not "When ~ becomes battlegirded"
Interesting question.
Speaking of which, I'm not sure why everyone thinks scheme is broken. All the ability does is exile a card from your hand or library facedown, it's what you do with those cards that could make it broken. I understand that it could be broken if design wasn't careful with the ability, but I assume the card given as the example is the most powerful scheme card (it is a legend after all). A card like this makes scheme seem just fine at common....
Scheming Schemer
Creature — Schemer (C)
When ~ enters the battlefield, scheme.
, Turn target face down card you own in exile face up: Gain 2 life.
1/1
On another note, I understand where FortunaImperatrixMund is coming from concerning the top 4 challenge. I have exactly the same feelings about those sets. That said, I have every intention of giving the challenge a whirl.
The trouble is, I don't have an intuitive picture of the flavour of any of them either.
I feel that was my mistake in the last round. While cripple was one of the better mechanics, the card I used didn't showcase it as well especially since I made a mistake that inhibited one of it's intend uses, distracting from it's many other ones (it was one of the most lenticular cards for sure!) This made it read as a bad card on its own despite some other strong ideas in it.
Anyway, still here to kick ass in the top 5! Watch out!
Edit: BTW, I agree with everybody that enlighten would be better if it only counted spells you control and not abilities. I had that as one of the prior versions of the ability, and have been convinced from the round's crits that it is the better way to go. Another version of the ability counted any spell, including an opponent's. What do people think of that idea? For reference that version would look like this.... Enlighten 1 (When this creature becomes the target of a spell, if it isn't enlighted, put a +1/+1 counter on it and it becomes enlightened.) This version might be adding unneeded complexity though.
Lenticular design implies that the card has obvious and non obvious uses. Some that novices would focus on and others that only experience players can see. As I admitted, the idea of whether the card worked as a kill spell on its own confused that matter and was a mistake. That said, the card still had a lot of other uses, some of which were not mentioned or considered in any of the reviews. A short list:
I would argue that the effective 3x deathtouch use of the card is not something a beginner player would notice. Perhaps others too. There are a lot of uses for the card that are obvious to new players (mostly the doubling up of spells and abilities to target and deal damage) and then there are those that are only obvious to more experienced ones.
Interestingly enough, the 3x deathtouch use of the card is the first thing I thought of. Followed closely by combining the card with Electrickery.