MTG Salvation

Yay!

Quote from Legend

And I imagine it would be an enchantment.

And I imagine it would be a Construct tribal structure.
Once again I see no reason to discuss the monocolored white enchantment you want to submit next week over the white-black creature that actually was submitted.

The card doesn't break the color pie. It uses flavor to justify one valid color combination over another valid color combination that might be the preferred choice on a card without flavor.

I see no reason to look down upon a valid choice just because it's not the preferred choice - after all both Armored Pegasus and Storm Crow can exist without invalidating the other.
It's not like the submitted card is Willow Fairie. It's more like Gaea's Skyfolk.

I also assume nothing about the environment of the set that returns to Ravnica again.

EDIT: BTW:
Today's votes don't reflect the quality of today's cards. I felt none stood out, so I gave my two votes to people who previously where close third places this month to even out the inherent flaws of the current voting system.

Quote from SecretInfiltrator

And I imagine it would be a Construct tribal structure.
Once again I see no reason to discuss the monocolored white enchantment you want to submit next week over the white-black creature that actually was submitted.

The card doesn't break the color pie. It uses flavor to justify one valid color combination over another valid color combination that might be the preferred choice on a card without flavor.

I see no reason to look down upon a valid choice just because it's not the preferred choice - after all both Armored Pegasus and Storm Crow can exist without invalidating the other.
It's not like the submitted card is Willow Fairie. It's more like Gaea's Skyfolk.

I also assume nothing about the environment of the set that returns to Ravnica again.

EDIT: BTW:
Today's votes don't reflect the quality of today's cards. I felt none stood out, so I gave my two votes to people who previously where close third places this month to even out the inherent flaws of the current voting system.

Is there anything else you wouldn't like to discuss?

Quote from Legend

Is there anything else you wouldn't like to discuss?

Much. Among other things guides to a diverse field of illegal activities.

My point is not that I wouldn't like to discuss it under any circumstances, but that there is no reason to go deeper into it now or bring it up here in the first place. The new card you propose doesn't invalidate the one you criticized. So discussing that new idea and its merits doesn't have anything to do anymore with the DCC.

Quote from SecretInfiltrator

The new card you propose doesn't invalidate the one you criticized.

Just to be clear, that was never my intention.

EDIT: "Phyrexian Charm"

Wow does all this talk about flaws in the voting system make me uncomfortable when I've been at the top for a while :S Can't say it isn't true but I'm not asking to benefit from it and personally try always to vote for the 2 best cards and eschew tactical voting (including voting for Piar's card yesterday when that vote helped put him ahead of me).

Anyhow, best of luck to all for the end and looking forward to another awesome year of card designing in 2014.

Re: today's submission: a) Players gaining triggered abilities is compatible with current rules just fine; and b) If textbox size and wackiness were no barriers, this card would have been worded:

Quote from Alternate version »

When Living Mirror dies, target opponent gets seven misfortune counters. (At the beginning of each player's upkeep, if that player is misfortunate, they lose a misfortune counter and 1 life. If a misfortunate player would win a coin flip, instead they lose that flip.)

Jardan, Subduer 3UB
Legendary Creature - Human Wizard

Creatures your opponents control get -X/-0, where X is the number of cards in your hand.
t: Gain control of target creature with negative power for as long as you control Jardan.

"That's how I like those who oppose me: weak enough to be ruled, strong enough to be useful."

3/3

I'm not sure that this effect works. I'm no rules expert, but I'm pretty sure that creatures can't have negative power unless they're Char Rumbler.

sure, it'd work, but "less than zero power" might be clearer

Quote from CryoZenith

I admit. My submission is rather peculiar.

It would probably be "You may sacrifice a creature at any time you could cast an instant."

Quote from CryoZenith

That doesn't work at all. It HAS to be worded as an activated ability (i.e. have an ":" somewhere).

Perhaps my Mango was slightly off. It probably shouldn't have had the word "at" in it, which would have read
"You may sacrifice a creature any time you could cast an instant." Channel, Guardian Angel, also Sphinx of Jwar Isle and all things with flash.

Quote from CryoZenith

I will just tell you this right now so you can change it. This card was already posted in a DCC in November.

Actually it was December.

Quote from Legend

Blind Justice (Common)
RW
Instant
Target player sacrifices an attacking creature at random.

Quote from CryoZenith

That doesn't work at all. It HAS to be worded as an activated ability (i.e. have an ":" somewhere). The way you word it simply means you have permission when you're instructed to. It's as if you have a card that said "You may draw cards at any time you could cast an instant.". That wouldn't allow you to deck yourself, that would simply redundantly give you permission to draw 2 cards when you cast Divination.

I can think of at least one way to do it that isn't an activated ability:

"At the beginning of your end step, your life total becomes equal to your life total. You may sacrifice a creature to ignore this effect this turn."

But that's limited to only once, so what you need is something slightly more ridiculous with the same basic "you're ignoring something that does nothing anyway":

"You may sacrifice a creature to ignore all triggered abilities of target permanent that would resolve during your next untap step."

This works because triggers can't resolve during the untap step. (If something triggers during the untap step, it resolves at the beginning of the next step that occurs afterward - usually your upkeep, unless you're somehow required to skip your upkeep.)

Problem solved, even if it's not the world's greatest idea to be allowing things like that.

(The reason this works is because it's abusing CR 115, the rule that defines "special actions".)

Quote from CryoZenith

Those work because they give you permission to do things you couldn't do normally. And in all cases of permanents doing this, they're static abilities, and this needs to be activated to make sense.

Do you not think that "You may sacrifice a creature any time you could cast an instant." makes sense and likewise gives permission just as much as if not more so than Sphinx of Jwar Isle?

Quote from CryoZenith

I wasn't talking about that one. I clearly remember that a DCC in November was won by an identical card. It was called Banshee's Wail. MDenham, you remember that one? Bad at using the forum search function.

I remember this one. Because it was mine. Posted on October 25th

Quote from FreshMeat

Banshee Scream BR
Instant (R)
Target player sacrifices a creature chosen at random.
The wailing of a banshee heralds certain, unspecific death.

@ManyCookies: ...is your card for today's poll supposed to let you cast things from the battlefield?

Because that's just weird.

Things on the battlefield are not "cards" as far as the game is concerned, they are permanents. Rest assured that my submission does not allow you to cast anything on the battlefield.

Vedalken Orrery, Mindslaver- force opponent to name Mountain

I'm curious what people thought of my card. I thought I had a wonderful idea, I'm just concerned that maybe the seemingly good idea was too oppressive/abusable.

Quote from CryoZenith

As creative as this card is, I hope you are aware that they can always name a card that isn't legal in the format you're playing.

Nope!

201.3. If an effect instructs a player to name a card, the player must choose the name of a card that exists in the Oracle card reference (see rule 108.1) and is legal in the format of the game the player is playing. (See rule 100.6.) If the player wants to name a split card, the player must choose the name of one of its halves, but not both. (See rule 708.) If the player wants to name a flip card’s alternative name, the player may do so. (See rule 709.) If the player wants to name the back face of a double-faced card, the player may do so. (See rule 711.) A player may not choose the name of a token unless it’s also the name of a card.

Quote from EyeballFrog

Mimeomancer 2U
Creature -- Human Wizard (R)
Soulbond
As long as Mimeomancer is paired with another creature, it is a copy of that creature.
You see, there is no me. There used to be a me, but I had it surgically removed.
0/1

"except it still has soulbound?" just a thought

Quote from CryoZenith

Acidic Fog BB
Creature - Wall

Defender, Deathtouch, Indestructible
Creatures blocked by Acidic Fog gain trample.

"It's basically just animated gas. Your foes will get a hit through. But if that's not enough, problem solved." - Asphodel merchant

1/1

what if instead of having indestructible and granting trample to what's blocked it said "All damage that would be dealt to Acidic Fog is dealt to you instead?"

the cost could be upped a bit too to be safe

Quote from hopefulhawkeye

Today's bestow guy is missing his hardcast cost.

It's probably intentional.

Eh, you are probably right. Just thought I would try something new and strange.

Quote from Rudyard

"except it still has soulbound?" just a thought

Nope. Pairing doesn't go away just because it loses soulbond, and soulbond will only trigger if it's unpaired anyways. So it works fine.

Quote from EyeballFrog

Nope. Pairing doesn't go away just because it loses soulbond, and soulbond will only trigger if it's unpaired anyways. So it works fine.

well, my suggestion doesn't help by itself, but it'd be needed for it to copy new things, if you wanted it to have the ability to keep changing

as it stands, the card loses its cloning static ability if it's cloning something, so it no longer has the ability that lets it be a copy so there's a paradox. you would need it to say "except it still has this ability" and i'd only suggest also adding "still has this ability and soulbound" so it could do it again

Quote from Ink-Treader

Geomancer's Command 2GG
Instant (R)
Gain control of all lands target player controls until end of turn. Untap those lands.
"You think yourself the master of all you survey? Can you hear the land? Feel its heartbeat? No? Then you're master of nothing!"
-Heliffa, Queen of Lyvelos

would add "you can't sacrifice those lands" to be safe. otherwise the combos are too cruel

this would also work to avoid abuse: "Untap all lands target player controls. You and only you may activate abilities of those lands this turn."

Quote from Rudyard

well, my suggestion doesn't help by itself, but it'd be needed for it to copy new things, if you wanted it to have the ability to keep changing

as it stands, the card loses its cloning static ability if it's cloning something, so it no longer has the ability that lets it be a copy so there's a paradox. you would need it to say "except it still has this ability" and i'd only suggest also adding "still has this ability and soulbound" so it could do it again



would add "you can't sacrifice those lands" to be safe. otherwise the combos are too cruel

this would also work to avoid abuse: "Untap all lands target player controls. You and only you may activate abilities of those lands this turn."

I definitely gave some thought to the "mwahahaha Zuran Orb mwahahaha" things that could come up. (in retrospect, I was sure that'd sink the card's chances) The first idea there is the most sensible (not weird) of the ideas, but the second does also prevent Ruin Ghost shenanigans (then again Ruin Ghost is at least clever...) I think I'd use the first one... got to throw the Johnnies of the world a bone.

In case my opinion of the current standings as of this morning wasn't blatantly obvious... Really? Five people tied for first almost a third of the way through the month, and another person only one point back?

This has, um, never happened before. And it's just kind of weird to look at on the spreadsheet.

I blame myself, if I'd been posting cards no doubt I would've been getting all those votes. Alas, I've been feeling particularly uninspired lately.