This is inspired by the hardy ability in the Savage Worlds RPG of all places.
Hardy (If a source would deal damage less than this creature's toughness, prevent that damage)
Or maybe this phrasing
Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
I'm not sure which of the two is closest to modern templating, but for the example cards I'll use the second.
So, creatures with Hardy can't suffer a death of a thousand cuts - you got to get them in one blow. This makes big hardy creatures very hard to deal with.
Example cards
Barkskin Bruiser3G Creature - Beast
3/3
Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
Barkskin Baloth3GG Creature - Beast
4/4
Trample, Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
Barkskin Spider2GG Creature - Spider
2/5
Reach, Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
Barkskin Wurm4GG Creature - Wurm
6/6
Trample, Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
Hardy -- These creatures have to take damage equal to its toughness to die from a single source, weather it's a creature or direct damage.
This saves your creatures from most combat damage, especially deathtouch, or most direct damage, but not removal or creature destruction.
You could use the Oracle wording from an existing card, Ogre Enforcer.
[CARDNAME] can't be destroyed by lethal damage unless lethal damage dealt by a single source is marked on it.
Why bring up the term "marked" when I've never seen another card with it? It isn't functionally different than preventing damage less than the creature's toughness, and a bit more complicated since it begs the question "what is the game meaning of marked"?
As for this as a regeneration replacement - apparently WotC R&D has decided regeneration is too complicated as it currently stands in the rules, so this is a mechanic that would be used in the same situations to create tough to deal with creatures, especially fatties.
So? That's the point of deathtouch, it kills stuff regardless of damage. Seems dumb to hose it for no reason.
Also makes this ability more complicated than it needs to be by adding additional rules outside those appearing on the card. And for the record regeneration hoses deathtouch as well, so I don't see a change to the status quo.
Uh, no. The outside rules need to be added because of how you want the ability.
? What I propose is drop dead simple: Prevent all damage that would be dealt to this creature less than its toughness. Damage prevention shuts off deathtouch as a side effect, but that isn't the main intent.
To make deathtouch damage not apply either requires more , not less.
How? Damage prevention has been in the game a long time and works as it always has.
Besides, Hardy isn't regenerate.
Never said it was. Simply thought it would be something to fill the same role.
It doesn't protect from destruction.
Wrong. It does protect from destruction due to insufficient damage.
Also to remphasis: Source?
Latest Developments column sometime in the last month. That or Making Magic. It's the only two columns I follow. This isn't a legal dissertation or a term paper, I'm not looking it up for you.
You could use the Oracle wording from an existing card, Ogre Enforcer.
[CARDNAME] can't be destroyed by lethal damage unless lethal damage dealt by a single source is marked on it.
Why bring up the term "marked" when I've never seen another card with it? It isn't functionally different than preventing damage less than the creature's toughness, and a bit more complicated since it begs the question "what is the game meaning of marked"?
The game meaning of "marked" when referring to damage is very well-defined. As stated beforehand, this is functionally different than preventing an amount of damage less than the creature's toughness, because preventing 1 damage being dealt to a 2/2 is different from having that 1 damage being marked on that 2/2 for purposes of triggered ability conditions.
apparently WotC R&D has decided regeneration is too complicated as it currently stands in the rules.
Source?
As an aside, that's easily simplified: 1B: Regenerate ~.
Could just become:
Regenerate 1B(When this permanent would die, you may instead pay 1B and tap it. Remove all damage counters from it.)
Sure a name change would be needed because "Regenerate target creature" wouldn't make sense any more, but eh.
Your simplification doesn't actually work within the rules. There are at least three reasons why your proposed simplification doesn't work, but I'll leave that to you to figure out.
Hardy (Ignore nonlethal damage dealt to this creature.)
Rule #.#: To ignore damage, do not place -1/-1 counters or mark damage.
That way everything works as normal, except the creature is unaffected by the damage.
There's no need for the term "ignore" when "prevent" already functions pretty much the same as "ignore." Your provided rule is also incomplete, and doesn't take into account any other results that damage can possibly have. Additionally, by using "ignore" instead of "prevent," you're proposing an arms race against effects that disallow damage prevention by making something that overrides that restriction.
-----
In any case -- in the middle of this discussion -- I'm not exactly clear as to what the intended functionality of hardy actually is. The main question is this: Is a 2/2 with hardy supposed to have a 1 damage from a deathtouch creature prevented? Is the 1 damage marked on it but the creature with hardy isn't destroyed? Or is it destroyed as usual?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
It's because only creatures die, so the reminder text would be different for creatures and other permanents, and There's no such thing as a damage counter, so it would just be damage. I think it would also be "if this creature would die."
So...
Regenerate 1B: (If this creature would die, instead you may pay 1B. If you do, remove all damage from it and return it to the battlefield tapped.)
For noncreatures, just replace the first sentence with "If this permanent would enter a graveyard from the battlefield."
"Battlelands" already don't make sense because unless the other 5 are printed in "Ravnica the Third: Battle for Jace's Head" or something, "battle" means impressively nothing.
In any case -- in the middle of this discussion -- I'm not exactly clear as to what the intended functionality of hardy actually is. The main question is this: Is a 2/2 with hardy supposed to have a 1 damage from a deathtouch creature prevented?
Yes. Using the "mark" wording to try to get around this is unintuitive and confusing. So a hardy creature survives deathtouch - so what?
No don't. You made the claim, prove it. There are plenty of instances of replacement effects, this is just another.
michaelmvm has identified all three reasons as to why your proposed wording doesn't work. It's also not very difficult to go on Gatherer or magiccards.info, search for all cards with the words "when", "would", and "instead", look for all cards that have all three words that have the same sentence construction as your proposed wording, and find out that no such card exists.
Many of your templating propositions simply don't work in the rules. If you propose those ideas with the intention of changing the relevant CR rules entries, then provide those changes. Otherwise, being adamant about your ideas despite being proven wrong will cause people to not take your ideas seriously.
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
The trouble with Regeneration as it stands now is that it's trying to capture two or three flavorful concepts with one mechanic:
Creatures healing wounds without actually dying. This flavor is best exemplified by Trolls.
Creatures dying, then coming back from the dead. Skeletons are the most iconic example of this flavor, though technically they aren't reanimating so much as simply reassembling. Other forms of undead get this flavor as well.
The original creature dying, but "regrowing" or replacing itself. This would be represented by Plants and Plant-like creatures such as Treefolk, Elementals, and Fungi.
While the attempt at lumping these concepts into a single mechanic was a valiant effort, the execution resulted in a confusing and not entirely satisfactory compromise, with a tapping clause that most players forget about. Flavor 1 leans towards damage prevention while flavors 2 and 3 are more akin to Persist and Undying, or possibly slower retrieval like Disentomb or Reclaim. They need to split the mechanic into two concepts, one that says "this doesn't die" and another that says "this dies then comes back from the dead".
What would be genious about separating Regenerating creatures into "damage prevention" and "recursion" camps is that red has long been the top anti-regeneration color (burning the wound or stump prevents regeneration) and it's also the top color for "damage can't be prevented" and "exile instead of dying" effects which just so happen to hose the two proposed regeneration substitutes. This would mean that, if Regeneration as a keyword action was discontinued and replaced with damage prevention and recursion, red could stop using "can't be regenerated" effects and start using the anti-prevention and anti-recursion effects already available to it.
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
I just realized that there are two threads by the same user about regeneration replacement abilities. IMO this thread really has no reason to go into all the triggered ability/death replacement effect variants. The ideas presented in the original post are fine variants on indestructible/regeneration that fit well into the colors that lose regeneration - and probably some more.
I personally suggest going with the first reminder text with a small correction:
Hardy (If a source would deal damage less than this creature's toughness to this creature, prevent that damage.)
Damage prevention is an established ability that can be interacted with nicely. A wording similar to Callous Giant is preferable to a wording based on Ogre Enforcer; the latter is just a restricted version of indestructible. If you want indestructible you've got that already as an evergreen keyword.
I do not consider hardy a full replacement to regeneration since it lacks some of the key aspects that make regeneration valuable like the ability to counter removal based on "destroy" effects. I also think it is too close to indestructible to be considered a full variant of another keyword. Lastly the flavor of hardy as well is closer to indestructible than to regeneration.
In summary I think the first proposed variant of hardy is a perfectly fine mechanic to use as a replacement/variant for indestructible in any given set/block. They contrast nicely if there is a damage based ability that has an effect beyond lethal damage e. g. wither which would be stronger against indestructible and weaker against hardy (while you usually expect the relation to be reversed).
The best thing about hardy is that while it works against creature damage and direct damage (i. e. it is a hoser), hardy still can be overcome with damage alone - yet it still makes combat rather easier than more comlicated by removing a subset of combat tricks and multiple blockers as options.
The worst thing is that it is useless on one-toughness creatures. This removes a whole set of possible design uses.
I want to emphasise that the most important change to the wording is to make certain the reminder text correctly spells out that only damage to *this creature* is prevented not any damage bellow a certain threshold.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Hardy (If a source would deal damage less than this creature's toughness, prevent that damage)
Or maybe this phrasing
Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
I'm not sure which of the two is closest to modern templating, but for the example cards I'll use the second.
So, creatures with Hardy can't suffer a death of a thousand cuts - you got to get them in one blow. This makes big hardy creatures very hard to deal with.
Example cards
Barkskin Bruiser 3G
Creature - Beast
3/3
Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
Barkskin Baloth 3GG
Creature - Beast
4/4
Trample, Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
Barkskin Spider 2GG
Creature - Spider
2/5
Reach, Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
Barkskin Wurm 4GG
Creature - Wurm
6/6
Trample, Hardy (Prevent all damage less than this creature's toughness)
This saves your creatures from most combat damage, especially deathtouch, or most direct damage, but not removal or creature destruction.
Servien
Chaos' Realm
Escalation of Chaos
Tales of Cahdaria
Enigmatic Distrubance
Celestial Unveiling
Regenerative (If this creature would be destroyed, it isn't. Instead, remove all damage from it and tap it.)
That aside, I like your mechanic idea, but I wouldn't go for a regeneration replacement with it.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
[CARDNAME] can't be destroyed by lethal damage unless lethal damage dealt by a single source is marked on it.
Equal or greater
Why bring up the term "marked" when I've never seen another card with it? It isn't functionally different than preventing damage less than the creature's toughness, and a bit more complicated since it begs the question "what is the game meaning of marked"?
As for this as a regeneration replacement - apparently WotC R&D has decided regeneration is too complicated as it currently stands in the rules, so this is a mechanic that would be used in the same situations to create tough to deal with creatures, especially fatties.
Interacts differently with Deathtouch, no?
Also makes this ability more complicated than it needs to be by adding additional rules outside those appearing on the card. And for the record regeneration hoses deathtouch as well, so I don't see a change to the status quo.
? What I propose is drop dead simple: Prevent all damage that would be dealt to this creature less than its toughness. Damage prevention shuts off deathtouch as a side effect, but that isn't the main intent.
How? Damage prevention has been in the game a long time and works as it always has.
Never said it was. Simply thought it would be something to fill the same role.
Wrong. It does protect from destruction due to insufficient damage.
Latest Developments column sometime in the last month. That or Making Magic. It's the only two columns I follow. This isn't a legal dissertation or a term paper, I'm not looking it up for you.
The game meaning of "marked" when referring to damage is very well-defined. As stated beforehand, this is functionally different than preventing an amount of damage less than the creature's toughness, because preventing 1 damage being dealt to a 2/2 is different from having that 1 damage being marked on that 2/2 for purposes of triggered ability conditions.
Your simplification doesn't actually work within the rules. There are at least three reasons why your proposed simplification doesn't work, but I'll leave that to you to figure out.
There's no need for the term "ignore" when "prevent" already functions pretty much the same as "ignore." Your provided rule is also incomplete, and doesn't take into account any other results that damage can possibly have. Additionally, by using "ignore" instead of "prevent," you're proposing an arms race against effects that disallow damage prevention by making something that overrides that restriction.
-----
In any case -- in the middle of this discussion -- I'm not exactly clear as to what the intended functionality of hardy actually is. The main question is this: Is a 2/2 with hardy supposed to have a 1 damage from a deathtouch creature prevented? Is the 1 damage marked on it but the creature with hardy isn't destroyed? Or is it destroyed as usual?
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
It's because only creatures die, so the reminder text would be different for creatures and other permanents, and There's no such thing as a damage counter, so it would just be damage. I think it would also be "if this creature would die."
So...
Regenerate 1B: (If this creature would die, instead you may pay 1B. If you do, remove all damage from it and return it to the battlefield tapped.)
For noncreatures, just replace the first sentence with "If this permanent would enter a graveyard from the battlefield."
I'm pretty sure that would work.
Tangolands FTW!
Yes. Using the "mark" wording to try to get around this is unintuitive and confusing. So a hardy creature survives deathtouch - so what?
So, what about "This creature will not be destroyed by lethal damage unless damage from a single source is equal to or greater than its toughness."
Or
"Lethal damage for this creature must come from a single source or it isn't destroyed."
michaelmvm has identified all three reasons as to why your proposed wording doesn't work. It's also not very difficult to go on Gatherer or magiccards.info, search for all cards with the words "when", "would", and "instead", look for all cards that have all three words that have the same sentence construction as your proposed wording, and find out that no such card exists.
Many of your templating propositions simply don't work in the rules. If you propose those ideas with the intention of changing the relevant CR rules entries, then provide those changes. Otherwise, being adamant about your ideas despite being proven wrong will cause people to not take your ideas seriously.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
While the attempt at lumping these concepts into a single mechanic was a valiant effort, the execution resulted in a confusing and not entirely satisfactory compromise, with a tapping clause that most players forget about. Flavor 1 leans towards damage prevention while flavors 2 and 3 are more akin to Persist and Undying, or possibly slower retrieval like Disentomb or Reclaim. They need to split the mechanic into two concepts, one that says "this doesn't die" and another that says "this dies then comes back from the dead".
What would be genious about separating Regenerating creatures into "damage prevention" and "recursion" camps is that red has long been the top anti-regeneration color (burning the wound or stump prevents regeneration) and it's also the top color for "damage can't be prevented" and "exile instead of dying" effects which just so happen to hose the two proposed regeneration substitutes. This would mean that, if Regeneration as a keyword action was discontinued and replaced with damage prevention and recursion, red could stop using "can't be regenerated" effects and start using the anti-prevention and anti-recursion effects already available to it.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
I personally suggest going with the first reminder text with a small correction:
I do not consider hardy a full replacement to regeneration since it lacks some of the key aspects that make regeneration valuable like the ability to counter removal based on "destroy" effects. I also think it is too close to indestructible to be considered a full variant of another keyword. Lastly the flavor of hardy as well is closer to indestructible than to regeneration.
In summary I think the first proposed variant of hardy is a perfectly fine mechanic to use as a replacement/variant for indestructible in any given set/block. They contrast nicely if there is a damage based ability that has an effect beyond lethal damage e. g. wither which would be stronger against indestructible and weaker against hardy (while you usually expect the relation to be reversed).
The best thing about hardy is that while it works against creature damage and direct damage (i. e. it is a hoser), hardy still can be overcome with damage alone - yet it still makes combat rather easier than more comlicated by removing a subset of combat tricks and multiple blockers as options.
The worst thing is that it is useless on one-toughness creatures. This removes a whole set of possible design uses.
I want to emphasise that the most important change to the wording is to make certain the reminder text correctly spells out that only damage to *this creature* is prevented not any damage bellow a certain threshold.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO