Flummox1U
Instant
Target permanent spell gains Vanishing 1. (That permanent enters the battlefield with one time counter on it when it resolves. At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, they remove a time counter from it. When the last is removed, they sacrifice it.)
What do you think? Meets in the middle of Remove Soul and Negate without stepping on either's toes.
Flummox1U
Instant
Target permanent spell gains Vanishing 1. (That permanent enters the battlefield with three time counters on it when it resolves. At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, they remove a time counter from it. When the last is removed, they sacrifice it.)
What do you think? Meets in the middle of Remove Soul and Negate without stepping on either's toes.
The vanishing 1 and reminder text are contradicting each other.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
I like a lot about this. The name is great. I think the cost is right for Vanishing 3. 'Permanent spell' is a tiny bit clunky, but the power level wouldn't work out otherwise. I just worry that Vanishing as a mechanic is super dead and I'm not sure if WotC would want to bring it back. Not in anything Standard-legal, but maybe a Commander or Masters product? That way you could also cut the number of Vanishing counters to 2 or the cost to U because a higher power level is fine there.
But that's tweaking around the edges. Nice design, Kryptnyt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood within this cloak to kill. There is only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof." - V, V for Vendetta. Alan Moore
The idea is neat but I ask. Does blue want this effect? Other than skirting power level being strictly inferior to actual counterspells isn't desirable in blue.
However, other colors would love preemptive removal that can get around hexproof and ward.
Overall, I don't think it fits nicely into the existing game as blue doesn't really want it unless there was an error in design and they make an overpowered version. While I don't think it fits neatly into any other color.
Discussing power level specifically. Your card feels too strong for standard as being able to answer any permanent spell for 2 mana is above average. Tagging just creature makes it too weak so it would have to choose what additional permanent type it hits. However, I don't know at what cost an eternal playable version of this effect would be.
The concept behind this card is terrific. Vanishing is both flavorful and mechanically sound as removal for blue, and has a great deal of design space to explore, but competing with classic bounce and counterspells is a hard business. I think it would better be utilized in some wider or more recurrent form, but there is a lot of ground to be tilled.
How is it strictly inferior to counterspell? The casting cost has 1 generic. That makes it easier to cast in a multiple colors deck.
I wasnt talking about specific cards. I was talking about the effect in general. Does blue want preemptive removal(fake counterspells)? From my perspective, it doesn't want this ability when appropriately costed.
It has to retain Vanishing from the stack to the battlefield. They are different zones, so it will lose whatever it gains there.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
It has to retain Vanishing from the stack to the battlefield. They are different zones, so it will lose whatever it gains there.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
It has to retain Vanishing from the stack to the battlefield. They are different zones, so it will lose whatever it gains there.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
I’m pretty sure that the recent rules change that allowed Henzie to work (granting spells blitz as a spell so you can get the alternate cost and also as permanents so they gain haste and the sac/draw trigger) also lets this work.
In other words, the rules added an addendum to make the ability work. It very rarely ever happens outside of your head but wizards accidentally made a card that didn’t quite work in the rules and they changed rules so it would function.
How does it feel to be on the other end of that argument?
I think the Vanishing should be 2 instead of 1, otherwise its almost pure removal. For example, if you target a planeswalker or creature, they don't get to activate or attack with it.
I think the wording may need to be tweaked to something like "noninstant and nonsorcery", since I think spells aren't permanents while being cast.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
I think the wording may need to be tweaked to something like "noninstant and nonsorcery", since I think spells aren't permanents while being cast.
The wording works as written. A “permanent spell” is a spell on the stack that has a permanent type. It is not a permanent until it resolves, but the game still recognizes its types in the came way that “Counter target creature spell” works.
I think the Vanishing should be 2 instead of 1, otherwise its almost pure removal. For example, if you target a planeswalker or creature, they don't get to activate or attack with it.
Planeswalkers get to activate once, and creatures will get their ETB and death triggers on the following upkeep while being allowed to block during your turn. It's much worse than simply countering, and Vanishing 2 would take forever to take effect.
It has to retain Vanishing from the stack to the battlefield. They are different zones, so it will lose whatever it gains there.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
I’m pretty sure that the recent rules change that allowed Henzie to work (granting spells blitz as a spell so you can get the alternate cost and also as permanents so they gain haste and the sac/draw trigger) also lets this work.
In other words, the rules added an addendum to make the ability work. It very rarely ever happens outside of your head but wizards accidentally made a card that didn’t quite work in the rules and they changed rules so it would function.
How does it feel to be on the other end of that argument?
I think like a developer, so it's perfectly normal to me.
And it's not odd for any of you? With the zero exceptions claimed all the time.
It has to retain Vanishing from the stack to the battlefield. They are different zones, so it will lose whatever it gains there.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
I’m pretty sure that the recent rules change that allowed Henzie to work (granting spells blitz as a spell so you can get the alternate cost and also as permanents so they gain haste and the sac/draw trigger) also lets this work.
In other words, the rules added an addendum to make the ability work. It very rarely ever happens outside of your head but wizards accidentally made a card that didn’t quite work in the rules and they changed rules so it would function.
How does it feel to be on the other end of that argument?
I think like a developer, so it's perfectly normal to me.
And it's not odd for any of you? With the zero exceptions claimed all the time.
It paradoxically isn’t odd specifically because this change is really rare, meaning that this change was widely publicized for its uniqueness and everyone had awareness of it.
Also, this change was validated on a mechanical level without referring to vague matters like “domain influence” or “force Majeure”. Blitz is one of the first mechanics (after dash) that impacts both how a creature is cast as a spell (what costs are paid) and how it acts as a permanent. Henzie is the first card trying to grant such an ability to cards without it. The rule that prevented it from working was fairly obscure (to the point where most people assumed that it worked as intended) and fuxi g the rules to allow such abilities to be granted would allow for future abilities to grant similar keywords.
If you were better able to articulate the actual rule changes (rather than saying “I would change the rules”) and what sort of design space your changes would open up, you might be able to win support for your abilities.
I think the Vanishing should be 2 instead of 1, otherwise its almost pure removal. For example, if you target a planeswalker or creature, they don't get to activate or attack with it.
Planeswalkers get to activate once, and creatures will get their ETB and death triggers on the following upkeep while being allowed to block during your turn. It's much worse than simply countering, and Vanishing 2 would take forever to take effect.
Exactly. Vanishing 2 would be at home on a sorcery wrath (like a fixed Upheval) or similar but otherwise this effect is a worse Twiddle even at U. Its greatest strength is clocking out dumb beatsticks and other playmakers, and counters/bounce are still going to outclass it.
It's certainly on par that it's a less effective Remove Soul that will miss the target on aggro, allow planeswalkers and artifacts to activate their abilities once. It's naturally just the versatility that would be unsettling. In reality, we know you'll never run soft removal over hard removal unless you're incredibly desperate or want to play risky. I think this finds a fine place among the silver table of periodic elements.
Instant
Target permanent spell gains Vanishing 1. (That permanent enters the battlefield with one time counter on it when it resolves. At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, they remove a time counter from it. When the last is removed, they sacrifice it.)
What do you think? Meets in the middle of Remove Soul and Negate without stepping on either's toes.
The vanishing 1 and reminder text are contradicting each other.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
But that's tweaking around the edges. Nice design, Kryptnyt.
However, other colors would love preemptive removal that can get around hexproof and ward.
Overall, I don't think it fits nicely into the existing game as blue doesn't really want it unless there was an error in design and they make an overpowered version. While I don't think it fits neatly into any other color.
Discussing power level specifically. Your card feels too strong for standard as being able to answer any permanent spell for 2 mana is above average. Tagging just creature makes it too weak so it would have to choose what additional permanent type it hits. However, I don't know at what cost an eternal playable version of this effect would be.
Effects that have named effects, "As this enters" or "As you cast" see those effects happen immediately, or correlate to abilities the card physically has and retains as it moves between the zones (the stack and the battlefield).
Effects that add text to spells are fine, they already exist and function as written.
If it's already been amended, then just disregard my notice. Just trying to lookout.
I’m pretty sure that the recent rules change that allowed Henzie to work (granting spells blitz as a spell so you can get the alternate cost and also as permanents so they gain haste and the sac/draw trigger) also lets this work.
In other words, the rules added an addendum to make the ability work. It very rarely ever happens outside of your head but wizards accidentally made a card that didn’t quite work in the rules and they changed rules so it would function.
How does it feel to be on the other end of that argument?
I think the wording may need to be tweaked to something like "noninstant and nonsorcery", since I think spells aren't permanents while being cast.
pucatrade
big receipts
alpha mox emerald
beta time walk
4 goyfs received
3 liliana of the veil
4 karn liberated
3 force of will
4 grove of the burnwillows
snapcaster mage
3 horizon canopy
2 full art damnation
The wording works as written. A “permanent spell” is a spell on the stack that has a permanent type. It is not a permanent until it resolves, but the game still recognizes its types in the came way that “Counter target creature spell” works.
Planeswalkers get to activate once, and creatures will get their ETB and death triggers on the following upkeep while being allowed to block during your turn. It's much worse than simply countering, and Vanishing 2 would take forever to take effect.
I think like a developer, so it's perfectly normal to me.
And it's not odd for any of you? With the zero exceptions claimed all the time.
It paradoxically isn’t odd specifically because this change is really rare, meaning that this change was widely publicized for its uniqueness and everyone had awareness of it.
Also, this change was validated on a mechanical level without referring to vague matters like “domain influence” or “force Majeure”. Blitz is one of the first mechanics (after dash) that impacts both how a creature is cast as a spell (what costs are paid) and how it acts as a permanent. Henzie is the first card trying to grant such an ability to cards without it. The rule that prevented it from working was fairly obscure (to the point where most people assumed that it worked as intended) and fuxi g the rules to allow such abilities to be granted would allow for future abilities to grant similar keywords.
If you were better able to articulate the actual rule changes (rather than saying “I would change the rules”) and what sort of design space your changes would open up, you might be able to win support for your abilities.
Exactly. Vanishing 2 would be at home on a sorcery wrath (like a fixed Upheval) or similar but otherwise this effect is a worse Twiddle even at U. Its greatest strength is clocking out dumb beatsticks and other playmakers, and counters/bounce are still going to outclass it.
If it was Vanishing 2 it should just cost one.
It wants to contest Reality Shift then.