Biorythm Phaser4 Artifact
Sources can't be targeted by other sources with the same converted mana cost. Phyrexian island speaks to them in a tongue that cancels out the vibrations of all other life and reason.
An idea I had that reminded me of noise cancelling technology. That might even be where this took inspiration from. I'd play with putting a Deus Ex Machina on here. Also, taking the anti-phase of this effect, a really interesting card can be made for Commander format.
Gears of War4 Artifact
Sources can't be targeted by other sources with the same converted mana cost.
At the end of turn, transform Gears of War.
// Fears of War Enchantment
Sources can only target other sources that have the same converted mana cost.
At the end of turn, transform Fears of War.
Lore Card
All this equipment, it wants to tell you that you're secure—and prepared—and ready to go...
...but then you get out there, and you realize you're bare—and alone—and nothing could begin to prepare you.
I would just question there should be a way to modulate the sequence between both sides.
Not entirely sure which one I enjoy the most. You can use a deck of entirely X spells to work-around the restriction for yourself. I thought that was so cool.
EDIT: I realize you were questioning if there was going to be a resolution for endpoints (permanents and cards in zones) to be defined as sources somehow. Yes, I'd imagine that would need to become a thing; being defined as an "endpoint source".
The thing is with that definition in mind, your card does almost nothing as to be a source it must (activate or trigger) in the case of a permanent ability (in which case it stops being a "source" once that ability resolves), be generating mana in case of a mana source, or be dealing damage in the case of a source of damage.
Those are way specific timings for your card protection that makes it unrealiable as it doesn't protect anything from anything most of the time. (And even in some cases it is also easy or unnecesary to play around, say mana sources cannot be disrupted, or there is no point targeting stuff that already put an ability in the stack, or is dealing damage)
What I believe you are pretending to do is something like the ability of Haktos the Unscarred which give it protection against stuff of a fixated mana value. Which is a fair ability and quite interesting but it needs to be worded properly. Something like, "Spells and permanents have hexproof (Not using protection, becuase that implies more than simply not being able to be targeted) from mana value equal to their mana value."
And a friendly reminder X spell calculate its mana value in the stack so they can tecnically not be a play around your "card's protection"
Creating the parameter of an endpoint as a source would do exactly that. It mediates that an object wants to become the source of a target—or that another object wants to make a source out of it (as a target). Thus, it becomes an identifiable source created by another source, defined as an endpoint source. All taking wing as descriptive context on the wings of all the natural targeting definitions, and rules, and operating functions.
Creating the parameter of an endpoint as a source would do exactly that. It mediates that an object wants to become the source of a target—or that another object wants to make a source out of it (as a target). Thus, it becomes an identifiable source created by another source, defined as an endpoint source. All taking wing as descriptive context on the wings of all the natural targeting definitions, and rules, and operating functions.
The Definition of unpractical you say, come one dude this game is already complex enough to try to turn it into some unintelligible mess that no one but the creators can understand how are you supposed to play it.
Also that doesn't even begin to describe what the **** do you pretend to be treated as a Source (As far as I identify there are two separate concepts using the same word in a manner you can't really tell what in the world you are trying to describe, imagine trying to explain this to a beginner, he would drop the game immediately)
That is terrible design-wise, you want the people you make your game for to want to play your game, not cringe at it.
At this point, we can't really begin to improvise or deploy ingenuity on anything here for the game (product).
We are cutting off the fundamentals of talent. This is something we should never do.
I do agree that they should an introductory rule book, that just establishes the basics, and then instructs new players in conflicts to just apply whatever rules they feel is acceptable and fair. And if they like then, just keep those rules in their playgroup.
Does anyone want to comment on the difference between the two designs?
I'm leaning more towards the second one now, but still feel there should be some means to modulate the transform sequence.
I'm normally with everyone shouting down the nonsense that Reap spews and while they are using the word source in a way where there is certainly a better word. Such as using Spells and permanents. Based on damage prevention effects' use of the word source, Auriok Replica, I think their use of it is technically valid if confusing.
Look at 102.7 If an effect requires a player to choose a source of damage, they may choose a permanent; a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell); any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a replacement or prevention effect that’s waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that’s waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in); or a face-up object in the command zone. A source doesn’t need to be capable of dealing damage to be a legal choice. The source is chosen when the effect is created.
It clearly defines what a source is in the context of MTG and even specifies that these are all sources regardless of their ability to do the thing that this effect cared about.
Reap, stop spewing nonsense and use the rules and precedence to argue your case. If I had read your nonsense replies before looking into how source is actually used in MTG I would have assumed this was another asspull and not worth looking into.
All that said, because this is confusing and the edge cases are few and old, using "spells and permanents" or "spell and abilities" is a better choice.
Just for reference, I may have only said target, but endpoint sources would also apply to other denominations: Choose, Name, etc. where a card is interacting with another card directly; but not when it's interacting with a non-card parameter (such as a color or a creature type); or interacting with a card indirectly (such as through a static ability effect); since these are intangible interactions.
I realize it could have been composed saying spells and permanents (cards in any zone), but always for that special futuristic feeling that context like this provides player. Not just for gracefulness and simplicity. It feels so open world, which is very dynamic to the gaming experience.
Additionally, if two sources have no cost, they are counted as the same. This shuts out effects like Ghost Quarter.
I'm normally with everyone shouting down the nonsense that Reap spews and while they are using the word source in a way where there is certainly a better word. Such as using Spells and permanents. Based on damage prevention effects' use of the word source, Auriok Replica, I think their use of it is technically valid if confusing.
Look at 102.7 If an effect requires a player to choose a source of damage, they may choose a permanent; a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell); any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a replacement or prevention effect that’s waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that’s waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in); or a face-up object in the command zone. A source doesn’t need to be capable of dealing damage to be a legal choice. The source is chosen when the effect is created.
It clearly defines what a source is in the context of MTG and even specifies that these are all sources regardless of their ability to do the thing that this effect cared about.
Reap, stop spewing nonsense and use the rules and precedence to argue your case. If I had read your nonsense replies before looking into how source is actually used in MTG I would have assumed this was another asspull and not worth looking into.
All that said, because this is confusing and the edge cases are few and old, using "spells and permanents" or "spell and abilities" is a better choice.
Yeah but sources aren't sources at all times (A permanent is only the source of an ability only while said ability is resolving for example), only when they are doing what they are suppoused to do, which makes it odd that Reaps card prevents interaction with them at such a narrow time span and even then it doesn't protect it from spells only from abilities from a source...it is really confusing at that point.
Of course always going by what Source as per rules is and not whatever Bull Reaps says it is.
A source is anything that exists in magic so you can just say anything. Elvish Mystic is the source of G, Grapeshot is the source of its trigger. Squire isn't a source except yes it is because equip it with Viridian Longbow and its now a source and it always has been because if a source is anything with the potential to be a source then it is.
They are saying that the designation of sources is temporal. And possibly, that this interrupts with the functionality (or intended functionality) of the card.
It doesn't. The card only needs to interact when sources are designated, in-which is when they become sources, and doesn't matter when this temporal designation ceases.
It only needed to pioneer that sources can be designated outgoing (as an Endpoint Source) and not just incoming (a source of damage, a source of damage prevention, a source of card drawing, a source of card discarding). Or—omg, omg—this could be a thing; the source of a target [or targeting]?
Yeah but sources aren't sources at all times (A permanent is only the source of an ability only while said ability is resolving for example), only when they are doing what they are suppoused to do,
Except, as the entire point of my post this isn't the case. If that was true you could only use such damage prevention effects on damage that was about to be dealt but you can use them in the upkeep on a land. According to the rules a source is always a permanent; a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell); any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a replacement or prevention effect that’s waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that’s waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in); or a face-up object in the command zone. The rules are quite clear that an object can be considered a source even if it's simply idling on the battlefield.
Reaps designs have a lot more problems than this.
By all that is unholy and wrought. Reap! Stop spewing nonsense. It doesn't help your case. Use existing magic rules and existing cards as precedence and you might convince people you are right.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artifact
Sources can't be targeted by other sources with the same converted mana cost.
Phyrexian island speaks to them in a tongue that cancels out the vibrations of all other life and reason.
An idea I had that reminded me of noise cancelling technology. That might even be where this took inspiration from. I'd play with putting a Deus Ex Machina on here. Also, taking the anti-phase of this effect, a really interesting card can be made for Commander format.
Gears of War 4
Artifact
Sources can't be targeted by other sources with the same converted mana cost.
At the end of turn, transform Gears of War.
//
Fears of War
Enchantment
Sources can only target other sources that have the same converted mana cost.
At the end of turn, transform Fears of War.
Lore Card
All this equipment, it wants to tell you that you're secure—and prepared—and ready to go...
...but then you get out there, and you realize you're bare—and alone—and nothing could begin to prepare you.
I would just question there should be a way to modulate the sequence between both sides.
How it already exists I reckon.
Not entirely sure which one I enjoy the most. You can use a deck of entirely X spells to work-around the restriction for yourself. I thought that was so cool.
EDIT: I realize you were questioning if there was going to be a resolution for endpoints (permanents and cards in zones) to be defined as sources somehow. Yes, I'd imagine that would need to become a thing; being defined as an "endpoint source".
Those are way specific timings for your card protection that makes it unrealiable as it doesn't protect anything from anything most of the time. (And even in some cases it is also easy or unnecesary to play around, say mana sources cannot be disrupted, or there is no point targeting stuff that already put an ability in the stack, or is dealing damage)
What I believe you are pretending to do is something like the ability of Haktos the Unscarred which give it protection against stuff of a fixated mana value. Which is a fair ability and quite interesting but it needs to be worded properly. Something like, "Spells and permanents have hexproof (Not using protection, becuase that implies more than simply not being able to be targeted) from mana value equal to their mana value."
And a friendly reminder X spell calculate its mana value in the stack so they can tecnically not be a play around your "card's protection"
The Definition of unpractical you say, come one dude this game is already complex enough to try to turn it into some unintelligible mess that no one but the creators can understand how are you supposed to play it.
Also that doesn't even begin to describe what the **** do you pretend to be treated as a Source (As far as I identify there are two separate concepts using the same word in a manner you can't really tell what in the world you are trying to describe, imagine trying to explain this to a beginner, he would drop the game immediately)
That is terrible design-wise, you want the people you make your game for to want to play your game, not cringe at it.
It's simple incoming and outgoing operating function.
An outgoing source.
An incoming source.
An endpoint source is an outgoing source. It wishes to be the source of a target or an object wishes for it to become the source of a target.
Yeah explain that to a 11 years old kid
Anyways, as you couldn't give me good undestanding of what this pretended on current magic rules do, i'll move on.
We are cutting off the fundamentals of talent. This is something we should never do.
I do agree that they should an introductory rule book, that just establishes the basics, and then instructs new players in conflicts to just apply whatever rules they feel is acceptable and fair. And if they like then, just keep those rules in their playgroup.
Does anyone want to comment on the difference between the two designs?
I'm leaning more towards the second one now, but still feel there should be some means to modulate the transform sequence.
Look at 102.7 If an effect requires a player to choose a source of damage, they may choose a permanent; a spell on the stack (including a permanent spell); any object referred to by an object on the stack, by a replacement or prevention effect that’s waiting to apply, or by a delayed triggered ability that’s waiting to trigger (even if that object is no longer in the zone it used to be in); or a face-up object in the command zone. A source doesn’t need to be capable of dealing damage to be a legal choice. The source is chosen when the effect is created.
It clearly defines what a source is in the context of MTG and even specifies that these are all sources regardless of their ability to do the thing that this effect cared about.
Reap, stop spewing nonsense and use the rules and precedence to argue your case. If I had read your nonsense replies before looking into how source is actually used in MTG I would have assumed this was another asspull and not worth looking into.
All that said, because this is confusing and the edge cases are few and old, using "spells and permanents" or "spell and abilities" is a better choice.
I realize it could have been composed saying spells and permanents (cards in any zone), but always for that special futuristic feeling that context like this provides player. Not just for gracefulness and simplicity. It feels so open world, which is very dynamic to the gaming experience.
Additionally, if two sources have no cost, they are counted as the same. This shuts out effects like Ghost Quarter.
Yeah but sources aren't sources at all times (A permanent is only the source of an ability only while said ability is resolving for example), only when they are doing what they are suppoused to do, which makes it odd that Reaps card prevents interaction with them at such a narrow time span and even then it doesn't protect it from spells only from abilities from a source...it is really confusing at that point.
Of course always going by what Source as per rules is and not whatever Bull Reaps says it is.
It doesn't. The card only needs to interact when sources are designated, in-which is when they become sources, and doesn't matter when this temporal designation ceases.
It only needed to pioneer that sources can be designated outgoing (as an Endpoint Source) and not just incoming (a source of damage, a source of damage prevention, a source of card drawing, a source of card discarding). Or—omg, omg—this could be a thing; the source of a target [or targeting]?
Reaps designs have a lot more problems than this.
By all that is unholy and wrought. Reap! Stop spewing nonsense. It doesn't help your case. Use existing magic rules and existing cards as precedence and you might convince people you are right.