Chaos-Born Nemesis1RR Creature — Shapeshifter Rogue RR : Exchange ~'s abilities with the abilities of all other creatures on the battlefield until end of turn.
3/1
Here's a concept I came up with thinking of a check-and-balance towards True-Name Nemesis. It's essentially its polar opposite, but the character design has a bit of a more creative/cosmic twist on it. The operating function is simple. All other creatures gain this ability—and this creature gains all of their abilities combined until end of turn.
This is an interesting idea. It's not undoable. There is an unwritten convention that static abilities and triggered abilities shouldn't be copied ie: Experiment Kraj, Necrotic Ooze, but I've never really known why, since there are other effects that copy card text in full, ie: lone.
The hitch I think is the color and cost. Stealing every other creature's text box is a massive effect for just two mana, even with the possibility that the text will immediately get stolen again by an opponent. And red has only one existing card that copies abilities, that that card is Mairsil, the Pretender, not the most clear of precedents. On the other hand, there are so few cards that do this type of thing, that its really hard to make a complete argument against red. Red gets spell copying, and ability copying is at least adjacent to that.
This sort of freeform ability swap/exchange doesn't work in Magic's rules, or they would have already printed a lot of creatures like it.
That's why cards like Majestic Myriarch or Odric, Lunarch Marshal have such awkward wording instead of just "This creature has all keyword abilities of other creatures you control."
There's only one card that works this way (Escaped Shapeshifter), which had to awkwardly have the qualifier "not named escaped shapeshifter" errata'd onto it in order to not cause rules issues.
So the biggest problem here is characteristic-defining abilities. Just gaining activated and triggered abilities helps a lot, buuuut that still has issues with comprehending the board state when a lot of abilities are gained.
Even if you could sort out the difficulty in the nemesis gaining all these abilities, like conflicting CDAs, the wording as per the OP would be needlessly complicated in use because of the exchange effect instead of 'stealing'. Its still ambiguous to grok how an exchange occurs between 1 object and an arbitrary # of objects. You intend it that all other creatures lose their abilities and gain "RR: Exchange ~'s abilities with the abilities of all other creatures on the battlefield until end of turn.", but that's not necessarily obvious. But this gets ultra chaotic rules-wise because instead of just one rules headache from a single creature vacuuming up the abilities, you'll be playing hot potato with it, with layers and layers of timestamped swap effects.
Just something like "RR: ~ gains the abilities of all other creatures and all other creatures lose their abilities until end of turn" would at least cut down on the chaos, but maybe chaos is part of your plan
In some cases, it can simply count as both, but we all know that when two rulings contradict each other, the one that says "No" takes precedence. Contradictions between retained abilities can follow this same dynamic. For example, technically, the ability that says "it is" all colors, is saying, 'Yes'. And the ability that says, "it isn't" any colors, is saying, 'No'. It's technically a yes and no conflict adaptation, where the same resolution can be applied.
The term 'is' equals 'Yes', and the terms 'isn't' or 'is not' equals 'No'. In conflicts between them, one that says 'isn't' or 'is not' always takes precedence.
For power and toughness abilities, you can simply have the Comp Rules define that the ability which generates the greatest value takes precedence.
You must have noticed by now that your designs are almost always met by rules concerns even when the idea behind the card is interesting and unique (as it frequently is!). This is because you insist that your designs should all come with their own rules fiats. I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with Magic's comprehensive rules. Though they are somewhat more constraining, constraint breeds creativity!
It isn't.
Errata is reserved only for keeping old cards with outdated wording functional despite future rules updates. A new card should never be made that immediately requires errata.
Perhaps you are referring to the 'rulings' section of Gatherer? Those aren't made on the spot for new cards. They're made using the game's independent, comprehensive rules for how various general types of effects work in any given circumstance. They are placed there for simplicity and ease of reference, but they are strictly not necessary for any but a few cards (all of which are either from Un-sets or old in design). They could be consistently and independently determined by referencing the game's comprehensive rules.
Common sense varies between people.
To me it would be 'common sense' that if my Myr Welder exiled a Prototype Portal with its ability, it could create copies of other cards it exiled. That is not the case, because the comprehensive rules define how these abilities work through the generalized implementation of 'linked abilities'.
This is necessary to the health of the game, since Magic is played in tournaments. Competitive players must be able to know beforehand and with certainty how two cards will interact. They cannot wait until they are in the middle of a finals game and then hope that the judge rules in their favor.
In some cases, it can simply count as both, but we all know that when two rulings contradict each other, the one that says "No" takes precedence. Contradictions between retained abilities can follow this same dynamic. For example, technically, the ability that says "it is" all colors, is saying, 'Yes'. And the ability that says, "it isn't" any colors, is saying, 'No'. It's technically a yes and no conflict adaptation, where the same resolution can be applied.
The term 'is' equals 'Yes', and the terms 'isn't' or 'is not' equals 'No'. In conflicts between them, one that says 'isn't' or 'is not' always takes precedence.
Incorrect.
In this case since the creature is receiving two static, characteristic-defining abilities with the same timestamp (comprehensive rules 613), the active player decides what order they apply in. That means if you activate your creature during your turn, you get to decide whether it is all or no colors and how its power/toughness are determined. But, if you activate it during my turn, I get to decide. Very unintuitive, and definitely contrary to the common sense of most people.
"can't" overrides effects that allow something to happen, but the same is not true of "no". I assume you got that idea from rule 101.2, but 101.2a specifically states "Adding abilities to objects and removing abilities from objects don’t fall under this rule. (See rule 112.10.)"
For power and toughness abilities, you can simply have the Comp Rules define that the ability which generates the greatest value takes precedence.
You seem to over-emphasize Magic's "Golden Rules" to the exclusion of all others, and want to rework any rules which go contrary to how you want a specific card to work. But trying to create magic cards that each explicitly override three different rules, or come bundled with explicit overwrites thereof, in order to work via the first golden rule is extremely inelegant design.
Incorrect.
In this case since the creature is receiving two static, characteristic-defining abilities with the same timestamp (comprehensive rules 613), the active player decides what order they apply in. That means if you activate your creature during your turn, you get to decide whether it is all or no colors and how its power/toughness are determined. But, if you activate it during my turn, I get to decide. Very unintuitive, and definitely contrary to the common sense of most people.
I know this, but since that doesn't provide a concrete functionality, I suggested the "Yes/No" adaptation.
That would cut out all the confusion, and keep things solid and stable.
I know this, but since that doesn't provide a concrete functionality, I suggested the "Yes/No" adaptation.
That would cut out all the confusion, and keep things solid and stable.
Except it wouldn't cut the confusion.
For starters it isn't a clear cut yes/no.
A creature is colourless, therefore it isn't any colour.
A creature is coloured, therefore it isn't colourless.
Which of these yes/no scenarios is the one you are thinking of?
How would it work with something that states it is a specific colour and loses all others?
How would power/toughness-setting abilities work? Would Tarmogoyf win over Lhurgoyf?
Simply stealing all abilities is a giant mess rules-wise and shouldn't be attempted imo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
How would it work with something that states it is a specific colour and loses all others?
How would power/toughness-setting abilities work? Would Tarmogoyf win over Lhurgoyf?
You didn't read my entire explanation. It covers power/toughness conflict.
Also, MTG methodology doesn't do double entendres. If it's a color, it is. It it's colorless, it isn't any colors. Just because you can explain it in backwards terminology, doesn't mean the game is going to allow you to reference that way, because that's incoherent.
'Does' and 'doesn't' is simply another yes and no conflict. It would follow the same protocol. The one that says "No" (or doesn't) takes precedence.
Public Mod Note
(void_nothing):
Infraction for trolling. Don't try to bait by making false claims about the rules.
How would it work with something that states it is a specific colour and loses all others?
How would power/toughness-setting abilities work? Would Tarmogoyf win over Lhurgoyf?
You didn't read my entire explanation. It covers power/toughness conflict.
Also, MTG methodology doesn't do double entendres. If it's a color, it is. It it's colorless, it isn't any colors. Just because you can explain it in backwards terminology, doesn't mean the game is going to allow you to reference that way, because that's incoherent.
'Does' and 'doesn't' is simply another yes and no conflict. It would follow the same protocol. The one that says "No" (or doesn't) takes precedence.
Yes I did, and no it doesn't.
3 different abilities make a creature a 2/6 and a 6/2, and a 4/4, which one of those "generates the greatest value"?
Say you have Possessed Barbarian and some card granting another colour. What colour will the nemesis be?
Are you talking about the "no taking precedence" where something you aren't allowed to due takes precedence over something mandatory? So if you have to sac a permanent but you have a card out that says you cannot sac permanents you won't sac a permanent?
Because that is a whole other rule and reasoning and isn't as clear cut.
Why is the ability devoid special? It is an ability that has an effect, the effect removes colour but why is that more of a no than some other ability?
flying means a creature cannot be blocked except by creatures with flying/reach, so it removes blockability. Does that make it a "no" ability aswell?
There are probably a lot of different weird cases where the outcome isn't very clear. And if you need to ad hoc special explanations and extra rules in droves to make the mechanics of a card work within the rule of magic then perhaps the mechanics may need some rewriting.
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Also worth noting, these are only the conflicts we can come up with. There are 4000+ creatures in magic with an ability of some sort.
You've proposed rules changes to solve only some of the consequences of your card. You would need a rules change for every possible confusing interaction. At that point you're making total fiats and have defeated the entire purpose of creating a magic card (that is, creating something that works within an existing framework).
3 different abilities make a creature a 2/6 and a 6/2, and a 4/4, which one of those "generates the greatest value"?
Well, obviously I was speaking in terms of equal denominators. In an event like this, I image the ruling would state "greatest equal value" (meaning the greatest value that's equal on both sides), or otherwise it would probably have to be left to the player's choice. That's how I would do it, I think. Greatest equal value, or otherwise value of the player's choice.
3 different abilities make a creature a 2/6 and a 6/2, and a 4/4, which one of those "generates the greatest value"?
Well, obviously I was speaking in terms of equal denominators. In an event like this, I image the ruling would state "greatest equal value" (meaning the greatest value that's equal on both sides), or otherwise it would probably have to be left to the player's choice. That's how I would do it, I think. Greatest equal value, or otherwise value of the player's choice.
There was nothing abvious about it. When you yourself aren't sure how you imagine the card would work it is a pretty good sign that things needs to be reworded.
If the rules would state "greatest equal value", what does that even mean? One could guess that it would mean the same power and toughness. but gretest equal value is itself not defined.
This card alone would need a tonne of added rules and exceptions just to make it work which is a red light.
Sure, the idea of a creature stealing all abilities of other creatures is fun. But as it is written it simply doesn't work. Even the keyword exchange needs a bunch of rules taked on since it is only clearly defined for an exchange of two things.
Just to make teh ability work it would needto be worded something like
RR: Each other creature loses all abilities until end of turn. ~gains all abilities lost this way until end of turn. Any creature who lost an ability this way gains this ability until end of turn.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
that would be really really really broken, but it's interesting. This reminds me of Phoebe, Head of S.N.E.A.K.. In order for this to work, the abilities would have to be stolen, not exchanged, otherwise everyone would keep casting it, essentially causing a broken mess of triggers. In addition, this card would have to copy only non-legendary creatures. Maybe instead of an activated ability, it could be an attack trigger, and the card becomes a copy of all of defending player's creatures? You could make this mechanic work if you used the text box mechanic that Phoebe has, or maybe keywords only? (Odric, lunarch marshal)
Creature — Shapeshifter Rogue
RR : Exchange ~'s abilities with the abilities of all other creatures on the battlefield until end of turn.
3/1
Here's a concept I came up with thinking of a check-and-balance towards True-Name Nemesis. It's essentially its polar opposite, but the character design has a bit of a more creative/cosmic twist on it. The operating function is simple. All other creatures gain this ability—and this creature gains all of their abilities combined until end of turn.
The hitch I think is the color and cost. Stealing every other creature's text box is a massive effect for just two mana, even with the possibility that the text will immediately get stolen again by an opponent. And red has only one existing card that copies abilities, that that card is Mairsil, the Pretender, not the most clear of precedents. On the other hand, there are so few cards that do this type of thing, that its really hard to make a complete argument against red. Red gets spell copying, and ability copying is at least adjacent to that.
That's why cards like Majestic Myriarch or Odric, Lunarch Marshal have such awkward wording instead of just "This creature has all keyword abilities of other creatures you control."
There's only one card that works this way (Escaped Shapeshifter), which had to awkwardly have the qualifier "not named escaped shapeshifter" errata'd onto it in order to not cause rules issues.
For example, your creature could gain both Devoid and "Chaos-Born Nemesis is all colors" at the same time. What color is it now?
- Rabid Wombat
So the biggest problem here is characteristic-defining abilities. Just gaining activated and triggered abilities helps a lot, buuuut that still has issues with comprehending the board state when a lot of abilities are gained.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Just something like "RR: ~ gains the abilities of all other creatures and all other creatures lose their abilities until end of turn" would at least cut down on the chaos, but maybe chaos is part of your plan
That's easily hammered out in the Errata ruling.
In some cases, it can simply count as both, but we all know that when two rulings contradict each other, the one that says "No" takes precedence. Contradictions between retained abilities can follow this same dynamic. For example, technically, the ability that says "it is" all colors, is saying, 'Yes'. And the ability that says, "it isn't" any colors, is saying, 'No'. It's technically a yes and no conflict adaptation, where the same resolution can be applied.
The term 'is' equals 'Yes', and the terms 'isn't' or 'is not' equals 'No'. In conflicts between them, one that says 'isn't' or 'is not' always takes precedence.
For power and toughness abilities, you can simply have the Comp Rules define that the ability which generates the greatest value takes precedence.
Pretty common sense solution to that one.
It isn't.
Errata is reserved only for keeping old cards with outdated wording functional despite future rules updates. A new card should never be made that immediately requires errata.
Perhaps you are referring to the 'rulings' section of Gatherer? Those aren't made on the spot for new cards. They're made using the game's independent, comprehensive rules for how various general types of effects work in any given circumstance. They are placed there for simplicity and ease of reference, but they are strictly not necessary for any but a few cards (all of which are either from Un-sets or old in design). They could be consistently and independently determined by referencing the game's comprehensive rules.
Common sense varies between people.
To me it would be 'common sense' that if my Myr Welder exiled a Prototype Portal with its ability, it could create copies of other cards it exiled. That is not the case, because the comprehensive rules define how these abilities work through the generalized implementation of 'linked abilities'.
This is necessary to the health of the game, since Magic is played in tournaments. Competitive players must be able to know beforehand and with certainty how two cards will interact. They cannot wait until they are in the middle of a finals game and then hope that the judge rules in their favor.
Incorrect.
In this case since the creature is receiving two static, characteristic-defining abilities with the same timestamp (comprehensive rules 613), the active player decides what order they apply in. That means if you activate your creature during your turn, you get to decide whether it is all or no colors and how its power/toughness are determined. But, if you activate it during my turn, I get to decide. Very unintuitive, and definitely contrary to the common sense of most people.
"can't" overrides effects that allow something to happen, but the same is not true of "no". I assume you got that idea from rule 101.2, but 101.2a specifically states "Adding abilities to objects and removing abilities from objects don’t fall under this rule. (See rule 112.10.)"
You seem to over-emphasize Magic's "Golden Rules" to the exclusion of all others, and want to rework any rules which go contrary to how you want a specific card to work. But trying to create magic cards that each explicitly override three different rules, or come bundled with explicit overwrites thereof, in order to work via the first golden rule is extremely inelegant design.
- Rabid Wombat
R: ~ gains all abilities of target creature until end of turn. Then that creature loses all abilities until end of turn.
Then the time stamp becomes much more intuitive.
I know this, but since that doesn't provide a concrete functionality, I suggested the "Yes/No" adaptation.
That would cut out all the confusion, and keep things solid and stable.
Except it wouldn't cut the confusion.
For starters it isn't a clear cut yes/no.
A creature is colourless, therefore it isn't any colour.
A creature is coloured, therefore it isn't colourless.
Which of these yes/no scenarios is the one you are thinking of?
How would it work with something that states it is a specific colour and loses all others?
How would power/toughness-setting abilities work? Would Tarmogoyf win over Lhurgoyf?
Simply stealing all abilities is a giant mess rules-wise and shouldn't be attempted imo.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You didn't read my entire explanation. It covers power/toughness conflict.
Also, MTG methodology doesn't do double entendres. If it's a color, it is. It it's colorless, it isn't any colors. Just because you can explain it in backwards terminology, doesn't mean the game is going to allow you to reference that way, because that's incoherent.
'Does' and 'doesn't' is simply another yes and no conflict. It would follow the same protocol. The one that says "No" (or doesn't) takes precedence.
Yes I did, and no it doesn't.
3 different abilities make a creature a 2/6 and a 6/2, and a 4/4, which one of those "generates the greatest value"?
Say you have Possessed Barbarian and some card granting another colour. What colour will the nemesis be?
Are you talking about the "no taking precedence" where something you aren't allowed to due takes precedence over something mandatory? So if you have to sac a permanent but you have a card out that says you cannot sac permanents you won't sac a permanent?
Because that is a whole other rule and reasoning and isn't as clear cut.
Why is the ability devoid special? It is an ability that has an effect, the effect removes colour but why is that more of a no than some other ability?
flying means a creature cannot be blocked except by creatures with flying/reach, so it removes blockability. Does that make it a "no" ability aswell?
There are probably a lot of different weird cases where the outcome isn't very clear. And if you need to ad hoc special explanations and extra rules in droves to make the mechanics of a card work within the rule of magic then perhaps the mechanics may need some rewriting.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
You've proposed rules changes to solve only some of the consequences of your card. You would need a rules change for every possible confusing interaction. At that point you're making total fiats and have defeated the entire purpose of creating a magic card (that is, creating something that works within an existing framework).
- Rabid Wombat
Well, obviously I was speaking in terms of equal denominators. In an event like this, I image the ruling would state "greatest equal value" (meaning the greatest value that's equal on both sides), or otherwise it would probably have to be left to the player's choice. That's how I would do it, I think. Greatest equal value, or otherwise value of the player's choice.
There was nothing abvious about it. When you yourself aren't sure how you imagine the card would work it is a pretty good sign that things needs to be reworded.
If the rules would state "greatest equal value", what does that even mean? One could guess that it would mean the same power and toughness. but gretest equal value is itself not defined.
This card alone would need a tonne of added rules and exceptions just to make it work which is a red light.
Sure, the idea of a creature stealing all abilities of other creatures is fun. But as it is written it simply doesn't work. Even the keyword exchange needs a bunch of rules taked on since it is only clearly defined for an exchange of two things.
Just to make teh ability work it would needto be worded something like
RR: Each other creature loses all abilities until end of turn. ~gains all abilities lost this way until end of turn. Any creature who lost an ability this way gains this ability until end of turn.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
It means that the power and toughness are the same. For example, among 2/3, 1/1, and 4/4, 4/4 is the greatest equal value.
Maybe it would be better to use the word equivalent instead?