I want to make a card that does something like this:
[CARDNAME]
Creature - ...
As CARDNAME enters the battlefield, put a [properties] token named [name] onto the battlefield. For as long as CARDNAME remains in play, that token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks.
Is this replacement effect allowed to exist? It's important that there is no time that one of the permanents exists but not the other.
Lastly, I need an activated ability that manipulates the token and only the token. I may manipulate its power/toughness, or I may want to prevent the next some damage it would deal. How can I do that?
Thanks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
This isn't the type of ability that fits in a replacement effect, and it would work perfectly fine as just a triggered ability.
When CARDNAME enters the field, put /T color Type> creature token named <Name> onto the field. As long as CARDNAME remains on the field, that token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks.
<Cost>: The creature token put onto the field with CARDNAME <gets/becomes> [...]
As a slightly less specific idea, I could see the ability like this:
Creature -- <Dude>
When CARDNAME enters the field, put /T color Type> creature token named <Name> onto the field with "<Name> can't attack unless another <Dude> creature also attacks."
Is this replacement effect allowed to exist? It's important that there is no time that one of the permanents exists but not the other.
From the information given, I don't particularly see why this is important. Does it have other abilities that connect its power and toughness to the number of creatures you control or something like that. Can you fill in a little more information for why the token needs to enter the field at exactly the same time as the creature?
I want to make a card that does something like this:
[CARDNAME]
Creature - ...
As CARDNAME enters the battlefield, put a [properties] token named [name] onto the battlefield. For as long as CARDNAME remains in play, that token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks.
Is this replacement effect allowed to exist?
The reason many potential replacements are inadvisable (as opposed to "not allowed"), is because some other effects need to keep track of what they do, and what they "did it" to. Since replacement effects don't "do" the actions, they only change what the original effect does, you are interfering with its assumptions about what it did. So, this is allowed, but there would be issues involved with it that make things complicated. You need to make sure you can handle such twists.
For example, if you Sneak Attack your original card into play, since technically it would be Sneak Attack that is putting the token into play as well, both the card and the token get the a "sacrifice at end of turn" delayed trigger. (Compare: Doubling Season and Gemini Engine). That one isn't complicated, but what about Animate Dead (which, by design, Doubling Season can't affect)? You probably need to add a restriction like "If you cast it."
It's important that there is no time that one of the permanents exists but not the other.
From the information given, I don't particularly see why this is important.
Which is why it is a good assumption that HH didn't give us all of the information. The idea here is to help him make his effect, not remake it as something you like that completely ignores what he says is important.
Lastly, I need an activated ability that manipulates the token and only the token. I may manipulate its power/toughness, or I may want to prevent the next some damage it would deal. How can I do that?
Look for examples like Tetravus, or somehow make it a linked ability using a phrase something like "the token FOOED by ~." I'm being vague, because you are. Since I'm sure you can see what I mean, I think this reply will actually be helpful.
Very helpful answers. Thank you.
And yes, you know me well, Condor.
I'm currently redesigning the card, and I'll let you know how the other issues go, but presently I have another question.
How would I write an effect that compels the card to attack if the token does? It being a requirement is essential.
Further, a rules question. If I were to have both this requirement, and the restriction "the token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks," would I be right about the following:
token attacks, card doesn't: Never okay
both attack: okay unless another restriction exists
neither attacks: Not okay if a requirement makes the token attack
card attacks, token doesn't: Not okay if a requirement makes the token attack
EDIT: So that is to say, because of the requirement, the restriction doesn't matter if an external requirement makes the token attack. That's what I want.
Thanks.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
How would I write an effect that compels the card to attack if the token does? It being a requirement is essential.
I think this would work:
"[CARDNAME] and [the easiest way to refer to the token] can't attack unless the other also attacks."
I think that if, say, the token was targeted by Nettling Imp that when the game checks "if able" the restriction will make it look at whether the card is able to attack as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
"[CARDNAME] and [the easiest way to refer to the token] can't attack unless the other also attacks."
I think that if, say, the token was targeted by Nettling Imp that when the game checks "if able" the restriction will make it look at whether the card is able to attack as well.
It has to be a requirement, Kraj. That's a restriction.
I remembered War's Toll in the meantime though, so that's solved. Although I still want to confirm the interaction.
For now, a new issue has come up. I need to do the following, because of space, and I just don't see another way to get something to work like it:
If a Construct would deal damage and a different source would deal damage to CARDNAME, instead prevent the damage that the Construct would deal and prevent 2 of the damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME.
Tinker around with 'parameters' of this effect to get it to work (like, replace "2" with "all"); I'm not sure what specifics the design wants. What's essential is that (a) CARDNAME is protected, (b) the Construct deals less damage, and (c) this only happens if two dealings would actually occur.
My mind is a-buzz at the potential of this effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
How would I write an effect that compels the card to attack if the token does? It being a requirement is essential.
So if the token has a "can't attack" effect, you want the card to be able to attack without it? That is the only difference between putting a requirement on it, or a restriction on the card. Base it on Ekundu Cyclops (slightly closer to your idea than War's Toll). The token should have "if <cardname> attacks, this creature also attacks if able." Note that this uses your card's name in the rules text of the token, much like Saproling Burst does.
For now, a new issue has come up. I need to do the following, because of space, and I just don't see another way to get something to work like it:
If a Construct would deal damage and a different source would deal damage to CARDNAME, instead prevent the damage that the Construct would deal and prevent 2 of the damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME.
Sometimes ideas get just a little too finicky to be practical.
Tinker around with 'parameters' of this effect to get it to work (like, replace "2" with "all"); I'm not sure what specifics the design wants. What's essential is that (a) CARDNAME is protected, (b) the Construct deals less damage, and (c) this only happens if two dealings would actually occur.
I don't know what you are trying to emphasize by "would actually occur." Obviously, at least one of them is not going to "actually" occur - that's the whole point. But you switched the concepts of essential points (a) and (b) from the example - the Construct's victim (can it be CARDNAME also?) was protected from the Construct, and less damage was dealt to CARDNAME. But, going from your list of points and not your example, I'd go with something like:
Prevent all damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME simultaneously with a Construct dealing damage to you or a another permanent you control, and 2 damage that any such Construct would deal.
I solved a BIG problem you had here: the APNAP ordering rules require that any replaced event must "affect" a single player only. If it sounds like one applies to two players, it necessarily gets split into two applications.
So if the token has a "can't attack" effect, you want the card to be able to attack without it? That is the only difference between putting a requirement on it, or a restriction on the card. Base it on Ekundu Cyclops (slightly closer to your idea than War's Toll). The token should have "if <cardname> attacks, this creature also attacks if able." Note that this uses your card's name in the rules text of the token, much like Saproling Burst does.
Could I not make it a property of the two permanents? I mean, I plan on saying
"As CARDNAME enters the battlefield, put [token] onto the battlefield. If the token attacks, CARDNAME also attacks if able."
or "If you would put CARDNAME onto the battlefield, instead put it and [token] onto. . ."
Actually I wanted to use this:
"CARDNAME enters the battlefield with a [token](. If the token attacks, CARDNAME also attacks if able) / (that can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks)."
Since putting a token on the field isn't a continuous effect, I though it could be pretty safe to get this in the rules.
Sometimes ideas get just a little too finicky to be practical.
I don't know what you are trying to emphasize by "would actually occur." Obviously, at least one of them is not going to "actually" occur - that's the whole point.
I solved a BIG problem you had here: the APNAP ordering rules require that any replaced event must "affect" a single player only. If it sounds like one applies to two players, it necessarily gets split into two applications.
I think that singularly undoes the idea. I really need it to be that the Construct, which would deal damage probably to something else, stops its damage, and this is protected too. Because the token is a Construct.
See, by 'would actually occur', I mean.... well, each of the following is wrong (and in Card-sticker language):
If CARDNAME would be dealt damage, prevent that damage and prevent the next X damage [something] would deal... blah blah blah this obviously fails.
[cost]: until eot, a Construct gets -N/-0 and CARDNAME gets +0/+N. Do this only if the Construct hasn't dealt damage this turn and N is less than the Construct's power
The limitation is really ugly and I don't have the space, but aside from that I need this to automatically activate. The only way to do that is to say even additionally that any player may activate it. (It is always in the opponent's interest to keep CARDNAME alive so long as the token is under your control; that's the hook of the design.)
Some kind of triggered ability doesn't work, because this damage will be from combat.
I need.... somehow... for "the 'power' of the token" - its worth in combat - to count toward "the card's 'toughness'," - its ability to stay alive.
I'm not getting into specifics because I honestly don't have any. Absolutely nothing is nailed down here except for making the token; these concepts are all the design is right now. :\
For now then it seems I'm a little too far off to ask to bother with these questions... so I'll return when I have something more specific I want to work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Which is why it is a good assumption that HH didn't give us all of the information. The idea here is to help him make his effect, not remake it as something you like that completely ignores what he says is important.
Which is why I asked for more information in order to better fit the design intent. The simplest way to do it would be with a normal triggered ability, so I was also a little curious why it couldn't just be a triggered ability. Meh.
"CARDNAME enters the battlefield with a [token] [...]
Actually, that doesn't look that bad. It is abbreviated down like the M10 Clone to be more similar to abilities like Protean Hydra.
If I understand the intent correctly, then War's Toll is the optimum format for the attack restriction, and for simplicity it could be on the original card (not the token) and should work the same.
CARDNAME enters the battlefield with a [P/T color Subtype creature token].
If CARDNAME or the token it put onto the battlefield attacks, the other attacks if able.
For now, a new issue has come up. I need to do the following, because of space, and I just don't see another way to get something to work like it:
If a Construct would deal damage and a different source would deal damage to CARDNAME, instead prevent the damage that the Construct would deal and prevent 2 of the damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME.
Tinker around with 'parameters' of this effect to get it to work (like, replace "2" with "all"); I'm not sure what specifics the design wants. What's essential is that (a) CARDNAME is protected, (b) the Construct deals less damage, and (c) this only happens if two dealings would actually occur.
My mind is a-buzz at the potential of this effect.
The wording here is a little ambiguous. I want to start by listing what I think I am reading so that it might be easier to correct the misunderstanding.
1. A Construct is dealing damage to any creature, player, or planeswalker.
2. CARDNAME is being dealt damage by something other than the Construct.
3. Prevent damage the Construct is dealing.
4. Prevent an equal amount of damage being dealt to CARDNAME.
If damage would be dealt to CARDNAME and a Construct would simultaneously deal damage, you may prevent any amount of damage that Construct would deal and prevent an equal amount of damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME by non-Construct sources.
Are there any times that this ability can be used other than combat? It would be a little wordier, but it might be easier if it just called it out as combat damage.
If combat damage would be dealt to CARDNAME and a Construct would simultaneously deal combat damage, you may prevent any amount of combat damage that Construct would deal and prevent an equal amount of combat damage that would be dealt to CARDNAME by non-Construct sources.
"CARDNAME enters the battlefield with a [token]...
The problem is that "with" in that context always means "the object entering the battlefield has..." If you let it mean something else here, it opens up the possibility that ETB counters can be put on other permanents besides the one ETBing.
I think that singularly undoes the idea.
Then the idea simply cannot work. A replacement effect has to look at only events that "affect" a single player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
[CARDNAME]
Creature - ...
As CARDNAME enters the battlefield, put a [properties] token named [name] onto the battlefield. For as long as CARDNAME remains in play, that token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks.
Is this replacement effect allowed to exist? It's important that there is no time that one of the permanents exists but not the other.
Lastly, I need an activated ability that manipulates the token and only the token. I may manipulate its power/toughness, or I may want to prevent the next some damage it would deal. How can I do that?
Thanks.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
When CARDNAME enters the field, put /T color Type> creature token named <Name> onto the field. As long as CARDNAME remains on the field, that token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks.
<Cost>: The creature token put onto the field with CARDNAME <gets/becomes> [...]
As a slightly less specific idea, I could see the ability like this:
Creature -- <Dude>
When CARDNAME enters the field, put /T color Type> creature token named <Name> onto the field with "<Name> can't attack unless another <Dude> creature also attacks."
From the information given, I don't particularly see why this is important. Does it have other abilities that connect its power and toughness to the number of creatures you control or something like that. Can you fill in a little more information for why the token needs to enter the field at exactly the same time as the creature?
The reason many potential replacements are inadvisable (as opposed to "not allowed"), is because some other effects need to keep track of what they do, and what they "did it" to. Since replacement effects don't "do" the actions, they only change what the original effect does, you are interfering with its assumptions about what it did. So, this is allowed, but there would be issues involved with it that make things complicated. You need to make sure you can handle such twists.
For example, if you Sneak Attack your original card into play, since technically it would be Sneak Attack that is putting the token into play as well, both the card and the token get the a "sacrifice at end of turn" delayed trigger. (Compare: Doubling Season and Gemini Engine). That one isn't complicated, but what about Animate Dead (which, by design, Doubling Season can't affect)? You probably need to add a restriction like "If you cast it."
Which is why it is a good assumption that HH didn't give us all of the information. The idea here is to help him make his effect, not remake it as something you like that completely ignores what he says is important.
Look for examples like Tetravus, or somehow make it a linked ability using a phrase something like "the token FOOED by ~." I'm being vague, because you are. Since I'm sure you can see what I mean, I think this reply will actually be helpful.
And yes, you know me well, Condor.
I'm currently redesigning the card, and I'll let you know how the other issues go, but presently I have another question.
How would I write an effect that compels the card to attack if the token does? It being a requirement is essential.
Further, a rules question. If I were to have both this requirement, and the restriction "the token can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks," would I be right about the following:
token attacks, card doesn't: Never okay
both attack: okay unless another restriction exists
neither attacks: Not okay if a requirement makes the token attack
card attacks, token doesn't: Not okay if a requirement makes the token attack
EDIT: So that is to say, because of the requirement, the restriction doesn't matter if an external requirement makes the token attack. That's what I want.
Thanks.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I think this would work:
"[CARDNAME] and [the easiest way to refer to the token] can't attack unless the other also attacks."
I think that if, say, the token was targeted by Nettling Imp that when the game checks "if able" the restriction will make it look at whether the card is able to attack as well.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
It has to be a requirement, Kraj. That's a restriction.
I remembered War's Toll in the meantime though, so that's solved. Although I still want to confirm the interaction.
For now, a new issue has come up. I need to do the following, because of space, and I just don't see another way to get something to work like it:
Tinker around with 'parameters' of this effect to get it to work (like, replace "2" with "all"); I'm not sure what specifics the design wants. What's essential is that (a) CARDNAME is protected, (b) the Construct deals less damage, and (c) this only happens if two dealings would actually occur.
My mind is a-buzz at the potential of this effect.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
So if the token has a "can't attack" effect, you want the card to be able to attack without it? That is the only difference between putting a requirement on it, or a restriction on the card. Base it on Ekundu Cyclops (slightly closer to your idea than War's Toll). The token should have "if <cardname> attacks, this creature also attacks if able." Note that this uses your card's name in the rules text of the token, much like Saproling Burst does.
Sometimes ideas get just a little too finicky to be practical.
I don't know what you are trying to emphasize by "would actually occur." Obviously, at least one of them is not going to "actually" occur - that's the whole point. But you switched the concepts of essential points (a) and (b) from the example - the Construct's victim (can it be CARDNAME also?) was protected from the Construct, and less damage was dealt to CARDNAME. But, going from your list of points and not your example, I'd go with something like: I solved a BIG problem you had here: the APNAP ordering rules require that any replaced event must "affect" a single player only. If it sounds like one applies to two players, it necessarily gets split into two applications.
Could I not make it a property of the two permanents? I mean, I plan on saying
"As CARDNAME enters the battlefield, put [token] onto the battlefield. If the token attacks, CARDNAME also attacks if able."
or "If you would put CARDNAME onto the battlefield, instead put it and [token] onto. . ."
Actually I wanted to use this:
"CARDNAME enters the battlefield with a [token](. If the token attacks, CARDNAME also attacks if able) / (that can't attack unless CARDNAME also attacks)."
Since putting a token on the field isn't a continuous effect, I though it could be pretty safe to get this in the rules.
I think that singularly undoes the idea. I really need it to be that the Construct, which would deal damage probably to something else, stops its damage, and this is protected too. Because the token is a Construct.
See, by 'would actually occur', I mean.... well, each of the following is wrong (and in Card-sticker language):
The limitation is really ugly and I don't have the space, but aside from that I need this to automatically activate. The only way to do that is to say even additionally that any player may activate it. (It is always in the opponent's interest to keep CARDNAME alive so long as the token is under your control; that's the hook of the design.)
Some kind of triggered ability doesn't work, because this damage will be from combat.
I need.... somehow... for "the 'power' of the token" - its worth in combat - to count toward "the card's 'toughness'," - its ability to stay alive.
I'm not getting into specifics because I honestly don't have any. Absolutely nothing is nailed down here except for making the token; these concepts are all the design is right now. :\
For now then it seems I'm a little too far off to ask to bother with these questions... so I'll return when I have something more specific I want to work.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Which is why I asked for more information in order to better fit the design intent. The simplest way to do it would be with a normal triggered ability, so I was also a little curious why it couldn't just be a triggered ability. Meh.
Actually, that doesn't look that bad. It is abbreviated down like the M10 Clone to be more similar to abilities like Protean Hydra.
If I understand the intent correctly, then War's Toll is the optimum format for the attack restriction, and for simplicity it could be on the original card (not the token) and should work the same.
The wording here is a little ambiguous. I want to start by listing what I think I am reading so that it might be easier to correct the misunderstanding.
1. A Construct is dealing damage to any creature, player, or planeswalker.
2. CARDNAME is being dealt damage by something other than the Construct.
3. Prevent damage the Construct is dealing.
4. Prevent an equal amount of damage being dealt to CARDNAME.
Are there any times that this ability can be used other than combat? It would be a little wordier, but it might be easier if it just called it out as combat damage.
The problem is that "with" in that context always means "the object entering the battlefield has..." If you let it mean something else here, it opens up the possibility that ETB counters can be put on other permanents besides the one ETBing.
Then the idea simply cannot work. A replacement effect has to look at only events that "affect" a single player.