Psionic Gauntlet3 Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature has base power and toughness equal to the number of cards in the hand of the player with the most cards in hand. 1: Choose a creature. The chosen creature loses a keyword ability of your choice until end of turn. Activate this ability only if Psionic Gauntlet is equipped to a creature.
Equip 1
Inspired by Mentalforce Armor from Rapier: Divine Soul. It looks like it has a nice place in Knuxtxdxth huh?
A fairly coherent card. I assume it chooses instead of targets to get hexproof and protections. Since you're already choosing at the start you can retemplste it to "Choose a creature and a keyword ability. Until end of turn, the chosen creature loses the chosen ability."
The cost and equip cost have me scratching my head. I have no idea if this is too expensive or too cheap. As a start this is probably reasonable but it leaves me feeling off.
This card is strictly better than Empyrial Plate, so it should cost more. Plate is cheap because you have to not develop your board to maximize its effect, where this gets an increased bonus off your opponents building their hands. Add that to the extra activated ability tacked on top and this should cost 1-2 mana more. The activated ability is also strong for its cost, and so should either cost more or be limited to once per turn.
Casting costs aside, this is one of your better designs. The abilities work within the rules, are interesting without being overly convoluted or twisted for corner cases, and move the game forward without leading to stalemated boardstates.
8/10
EDIT: Misread that it sets p/t instead of being +x/+x. That makes it slightly weaker than empyrial plate, but still very aggressive in the early game so still probably needs an extra 1 to the cc.
No, ability cost has to stay, because removing a keyword ability is essentially removal when you're going to use it most effectively.
Flying is kind of the equalizer here. A creature with flying that also has deathtouch or first strike becomes problematic, but within reasonable cost still given the domain influence of removal.
I don't think Empyrial Plate is really a standard of greatness or anything. Certainly, it has utilities, but can be obsoleted easily with little impact on the game abroad. At worst, you can just run them in a split (4-1 or 4-2), if your deck really has the utility for them.
No, ability cost has to stay, because removing a keyword ability is essentially removal when you're going to use it most effectively.
Flying is kind of the equalizer here. A creature with flying that also has deathtouch or first strike becomes problematic, but within reasonable cost still given the domain influence of removal.
I don't think Empyrial Plate is really a standard of greatness or anything. Certainly, it has utilities, but can be obsoleted easily with little impact on the game abroad. At worst, you can just run them in a split (4-1 or 4-2), if your deck really has the utility for them.
Empyrial Plate was from the first set to introduce equipment and thus was notorious for the abilities being undercosted.
As to the activated ability, you made my point for me because you can activate the ability multiple times and remove the flying AND first strike AND deathtouch for the creature you hypothetically described.
I see nothing wrong with this card. Nothing has ever interacted before with "keyword abilities". To my knowledge, everything has just listed the abilities it interacts with. But unlike some of your bold rules/syntax choices, this is one I could really see them doing. It's a lot easier to do that than to write a laundry list of keywords to work with like Odric, Lunarch Marshal. I think this card is fine as is.
Obviously, they have to write the keyword soup when they want to restrict designation of just any keyword.
Should designs that would interact with one be allowed any? Certainly not. Some are just immensely over-the-top (indestructible/unblockable). Ones with point values would be typically able to assign any number of points unless explained otherwise on the card or in comprehensive rulings. I do think the latter should see that if a points based keyword is designated for assignment, it by default designates a single point, and cannot exceed this unless otherwise specified on the card. Taking such a keyword away obviously should not be limited this way by default.
This way, it would be much easier to open up interactivity for said keyword soup abilities, by simply using a restriction clause to exempt the over-the-top keywords from designation.
Obviously, they have to write the keyword soup when they want to restrict designation of just any keyword.
Should designs that would interact with one be allowed any? Certainly not. Some are just immensely over-the-top (indestructible/unblockable). Ones with point values would be typically able to assign any number of points unless explained otherwise on the card or in comprehensive rulings. I do think the latter should see that if a points based keyword is designated for assignment, it by default designates a single point, and cannot exceed this unless otherwise specified on the card. Taking such a keyword away obviously should not be limited this way by default.
This way, it would be much easier to open up interactivity for said keyword soup abilities, by simply using a restriction clause to exempt the over-the-top keywords from designation.
Part of the reasoning is that people don't always understand what actually is a keyword ability. For instance, "unblockable" is not and never has been an actual keyword, and that confusion is part of the reason the templating was updated to "cannot be blocked". Similarly, indestructible was not a keyword when originally made (cards read "CARDNAME is indestructible.") and the rules were updated later to be a keyword (printings just say "Indestructible")
I see nothing wrong with this card. Nothing has ever interacted before with "keyword abilities". To my knowledge, everything has just listed the abilities it interacts with. But unlike some of your bold rules/syntax choices, this is one I could really see them doing. It's a lot easier to do that than to write a laundry list of keywords to work with like Odric, Lunarch Marshal. I think this card is fine as is.
In fairness, removing a lot of those keywords wouldn't have any effect on a permanent already in play because they only matter in hand (Kicker, Spectacle, Companion), in the graveyard (Encore, Escape), before the permanent becomes a creature (Crew) or when it enters the battlefield and would already be on the stack before the equipment can remove them (Bloodthirst, Riot, Fabricate).
*Before Reap responds with "Clearly removing Bloodthirst or Fabricate in response to the etb trigger would also remove the ability on the stack. Everyone knows that!"... No, that's not how it works.
No, because the intention was only to soft lock combat keywords. So that's overbearing from the intention.
It would need to read, "Cards in your opponent's hand, graveyard, and spells they cast lose the chosen keyword."
An interesting debate though, is if a creature is equipped with something like Sword of Feast and Famine, and Psionic Gauntlet causes the creature to lose Protection from green for example, should it remain lost and disable the ability for the equipment to regrant it. How about Stillmoon Cavalier? Should it be able to activate its ability to regain First Strike after Psionic Gauntlet causes it to lose the ability? I would suggest that if an effect causes a card to lose the keyword for a designated time, it shouldn't be able to regain it through that time.
No, because the intention was only to soft lock combat keywords. So that's overbearing from the intention.
It would need to read, "Cards in your opponent's hand, graveyard, and spells they cast lose the chosen keyword."
An interesting debate though, is if a creature is equipped with something like Sword of Feast and Famine, and Psionic Gauntlet causes the creature to lose Protection from green for example, should it remain lost and disable the ability for the equipment to regrant it. How about Stillmoon Cavalier? Should it be able to activate its ability to regain First Strike after Psionic Gauntlet causes it to lose the ability? I would suggest that if an effect causes a card to lose the keyword for a designated time, it shouldn't be able to regain it through that time.
Its a debate on how the ability should function but now how the rules would currently handle the ability. If a card loses an ability, nothing inherently prevents it from regaining that ability. That's why the archetypes also prevent the gaining of that ability. If you want the function you describe you need the same wording as the archetypes. Archetype of Courage
Though if you do that, it might need to increase its cost. And if your increasing the cost you might want to go full archetype and effect the whole board and maybe off the battlefield as well.
I don't think the cost would need to increase. It's already perfectly adjusted, even if it did prevent the ability from being regained.
Forward seconding that the rules should be amended to prevent abilities from being regained when lost for a duration of time without the need for text explaining this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature has base power and toughness equal to the number of cards in the hand of the player with the most cards in hand.
1: Choose a creature. The chosen creature loses a keyword ability of your choice until end of turn. Activate this ability only if Psionic Gauntlet is equipped to a creature.
Equip 1
Inspired by Mentalforce Armor from Rapier: Divine Soul. It looks like it has a nice place in Knuxtxdxth huh?
The cost and equip cost have me scratching my head. I have no idea if this is too expensive or too cheap. As a start this is probably reasonable but it leaves me feeling off.
It doesn't feel right to me reducing any of the costs. The first ability alone can grant +3/+3 on average to a 1/1.
Rograkh, Son of Rohgahh for example.
Casting costs aside, this is one of your better designs. The abilities work within the rules, are interesting without being overly convoluted or twisted for corner cases, and move the game forward without leading to stalemated boardstates.
8/10
EDIT: Misread that it sets p/t instead of being +x/+x. That makes it slightly weaker than empyrial plate, but still very aggressive in the early game so still probably needs an extra 1 to the cc.
Otherwise, yeah IF you have to tweak some value I would up the equip cost to 3 o 4, and the reduce ability cost to 1
Flying is kind of the equalizer here. A creature with flying that also has deathtouch or first strike becomes problematic, but within reasonable cost still given the domain influence of removal.
I don't think Empyrial Plate is really a standard of greatness or anything. Certainly, it has utilities, but can be obsoleted easily with little impact on the game abroad. At worst, you can just run them in a split (4-1 or 4-2), if your deck really has the utility for them.
Empyrial Plate was from the first set to introduce equipment and thus was notorious for the abilities being undercosted.
As to the activated ability, you made my point for me because you can activate the ability multiple times and remove the flying AND first strike AND deathtouch for the creature you hypothetically described.
I think this one could be 5 or 6 bucks huh?
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Should designs that would interact with one be allowed any? Certainly not. Some are just immensely over-the-top (indestructible/unblockable). Ones with point values would be typically able to assign any number of points unless explained otherwise on the card or in comprehensive rulings. I do think the latter should see that if a points based keyword is designated for assignment, it by default designates a single point, and cannot exceed this unless otherwise specified on the card. Taking such a keyword away obviously should not be limited this way by default.
This way, it would be much easier to open up interactivity for said keyword soup abilities, by simply using a restriction clause to exempt the over-the-top keywords from designation.
Part of the reasoning is that people don't always understand what actually is a keyword ability. For instance, "unblockable" is not and never has been an actual keyword, and that confusion is part of the reason the templating was updated to "cannot be blocked". Similarly, indestructible was not a keyword when originally made (cards read "CARDNAME is indestructible.") and the rules were updated later to be a keyword (printings just say "Indestructible")
The only card to ever to it is an un-card
Modular Monstrosity
Also taking account that the Keyword abilities list is always growing, we are at 152 right now:
702.2. Deathtouch
702.3. Defender
702.4. Double Strike
702.5. Enchant
702.6. Equip
702.7. First Strike
702.8. Flash
702.9. Flying
702.10. Haste
702.11. Hexproof
702.12. Indestructible
702.13. Intimidate
702.14. Landwalk
702.15. Lifelink
702.16. Protection
702.17. Reach
702.18. Shroud
702.19. Trample
702.20. Vigilance
702.21. Ward
702.22. Banding
702.23. Rampage
702.24. Cumulative Upkeep
702.25. Flanking
702.26. Phasing
702.27. Buyback
702.28. Shadow
702.29. Cycling
702.30. Echo
702.31. Horsemanship
702.32. Fading
702.33. Kicker
702.34. Flashback
702.35. Madness
702.36. Fear
702.37. Morph
702.38. Amplify
702.39. Provoke
702.40. Storm
702.41. Affinity
702.42. Entwine
702.43. Modular
702.44. Sunburst
702.45. Bushido
702.46. Soulshift
702.47. Splice
702.48. Offering
702.49. Ninjutsu
702.50. Epic
702.51. Convoke
702.52. Dredge
702.53. Transmute
702.54. Bloodthirst
702.55. Haunt
702.56. Replicate
702.57. Forecast
702.58. Graft
702.59. Recover
702.60. Ripple
702.61. Split Second
702.62. Suspend
702.63. Vanishing
702.64. Absorb
702.65. Aura Swap
702.66. Delve
702.67. Fortify
702.68. Frenzy
702.69. Gravestorm
702.70. Poisonous
702.71. Transfigure
702.72. Champion
702.73. Changeling
702.74. Evoke
702.75. Hideaway
702.76. Prowl
702.77. Reinforce
702.78. Conspire
702.79. Persist
702.80. Wither
702.81. Retrace
702.82. Devour
702.83. Exalted
702.84. Unearth
702.85. Cascade
702.86. Annihilator
702.87. Level Up
702.88. Rebound
702.89. Totem Armor
702.90. Infect
702.91. Battle Cry
702.92. Living Weapon
702.93. Undying
702.94. Miracle
702.95. Soulbond
702.96. Overload
702.97. Scavenge
702.98. Unleash
702.99. Cipher
702.100. Evolve
702.101. Extort
702.102. Fuse
702.103. Bestow
702.104. Tribute
702.105. Dethrone
702.106. Hidden Agenda
702.107. Outlast
702.108. Prowess
702.109. Dash
702.110. Exploit
702.111. Menace
702.112. Renown
702.113. Awaken
702.114. Devoid
702.115. Ingest
702.116. Myriad
702.117. Surge
702.118. Skulk
702.119. Emerge
702.120. Escalate
702.121. Melee
702.122. Crew
702.123. Fabricate
702.124. Partner
702.125. Undaunted
702.126. Improvise
702.127. Aftermath
702.128. Embalm
702.129. Eternalize
702.130. Afflict
702.131. Ascend
702.132. Assist
702.133. Jump-Start
702.134. Mentor
702.135. Afterlife
702.136. Riot
702.137. Spectacle
702.138. Escape
702.139. Companion
702.140. Mutate
702.141. Encore
702.142. Boast
702.143. Foretell
702.144. Demonstrate
702.145. Daybound and Nightbound
702.146. Disturb
702.147. Decayed
702.148. Cleave
702.149. Training
702.150. Compleated
702.151. Reconfigure
702.152. Blitz
702.153. Casualty
*Before Reap responds with "Clearly removing Bloodthirst or Fabricate in response to the etb trigger would also remove the ability on the stack. Everyone knows that!"... No, that's not how it works.
It would need to read, "Cards in your opponent's hand, graveyard, and spells they cast lose the chosen keyword."
An interesting debate though, is if a creature is equipped with something like Sword of Feast and Famine, and Psionic Gauntlet causes the creature to lose Protection from green for example, should it remain lost and disable the ability for the equipment to regrant it. How about Stillmoon Cavalier? Should it be able to activate its ability to regain First Strike after Psionic Gauntlet causes it to lose the ability? I would suggest that if an effect causes a card to lose the keyword for a designated time, it shouldn't be able to regain it through that time.
Though if you do that, it might need to increase its cost. And if your increasing the cost you might want to go full archetype and effect the whole board and maybe off the battlefield as well.
Forward seconding that the rules should be amended to prevent abilities from being regained when lost for a duration of time without the need for text explaining this.