Okay so I developed a new creature type while searching google images. i found a nice picture of dragon that to me looked like it belongs in the prehistoric age. With this in mind i decided to tinker around with the mage and came up with a new creature type.
New Creature Type: Primal- Primal is noting major, as it does not effect any game aspect other than being a new type. It is a word that serves that same aspect as something like Elder. Only reason I did Primal is just to make them feel even older than the Elder Dragons.
Of course, i am not going to introduce a new creature type without giving them something fun. Thus Paramount. Paramount is a synonym for Primal, so i felt it could be a fun word to use.
Paramount (this creature can only be destroyed as a result of combat damage.)
Is is basically a Pseudo Indestructible I feel it is not too bad. I mean in the form of a Primal Dragon, yes it can be scary. But if I gave it to a (for sake of argument, Human) It just protects them form removal in the traditional sense. Things like Exile and -X/-X still kill them. If you have a bigger creature, you can kill them. All Paramount doe sis make you think inside the box when dealing with them. (As in, don't overthink it, get basic, kill them with combat damage. The primitive option in getting rid of creatures.)
So what do you think of Paramount? (i mean Primal could be switched back for Elder, I just wanted to have the keyword sort of associated to a creature type.)
Given that i do not know the Artists name and i have been in trouble before for posting Custom cards without artists recognition (kinda hard to find a card's artist on google images)
nothing special. however Paramount does offer Anthem builds to be more prominent, as you have these creatures that only fear combat damage, become massive creatures. A few anthems and this little 5/5 may become a 10/10
My question is, with the way it is worded, would deathtouch kill?
"This creature can't be destroyed unless it has enough combat damage marked on it to destroy it." Or, "This creature can't be destroyed unless it has combat damage greater to or equal to than its toughness marked on it." Or, "Nothing other than combat damage destroys this creature," aping indestructible itself.
"You can only kill it in combat" is fairly grokkable, and for maximum grokkability, the deathtouch-enabling function has to be in place. For a much more rules and development-questionable version, "This can't leave the battlefield except by being destroyed by combat damage."
Primal should not be a creature type, for two important reasons. One, it's an adjective, and creature types are nouns. This rule is so important it wasn't even broken in an Un-set for Magical Hacker, which was originally supposed to be a "Creature - Teenage Human Gamer" so that Mistform Ultimus could be a hero on the half shell. Two, it doesn't seem to mean anything other than "from a long time ago" - any two given creatures with this types wouldn't have to be physically or conceptually like one another, so why connect them? "Elder" is a type that refers to a specific generation of beings on every plane it's used on, and is used very sparingly and thus far only for legendaries. You can't be older than the (Dominarian) Elder Dragons, they just are the oldest Dragons.
Yeah, this definitely needs more clarification when it comes to receiving both combat and noncombat damage. While there is a distinction between combat and noncombat damage when damage is dealt, the state-based action that destroys creatures with lethal damage marked currently does not discriminate, so the official text needs to navigate that in one way or another.
Yeah, this definitely needs more clarification when it comes to receiving both combat and noncombat damage. While there is a distinction between combat and noncombat damage when damage is dealt, the state-based action that destroys creatures with lethal damage marked currently does not discriminate, so the official text needs to navigate that in one way or another.
Cut the knot. "Prevent all noncombat damage that would be dealt to this creature and "destroy" effects don't destroy it."
Yeah, this definitely needs more clarification when it comes to receiving both combat and noncombat damage. While there is a distinction between combat and noncombat damage when damage is dealt, the state-based action that destroys creatures with lethal damage marked currently does not discriminate, so the official text needs to navigate that in one way or another.
Cut the knot. "Prevent all noncombat damage that would be dealt to this creature and "destroy" effects don't destroy it."
that actually works nicely. It prevents deathtouch from killing (which was what i was wanting to include, while it can only be killed through combat.
It is still a little wordy. But it has what I want.
Would this still prevent Board wipes from killing it? Or would the destroy effect be considered in a board wipe?
Yeah, this definitely needs more clarification when it comes to receiving both combat and noncombat damage. While there is a distinction between combat and noncombat damage when damage is dealt, the state-based action that destroys creatures with lethal damage marked currently does not discriminate, so the official text needs to navigate that in one way or another.
Cut the knot. "Prevent all noncombat damage that would be dealt to this creature and "destroy" effects don't destroy it."
that actually works nicely. It prevents deathtouch from killing (which was what i was wanting to include, while it can only be killed through combat.
It is still a little wordy. But it has what I want.
Would this still prevent Board wipes from killing it? Or would the destroy effect be considered in a board wipe?
I mean, obviously it does nothing to exiling, but destroy effects literally mean effects that say "destroy" in the text. It's part of indestructible's effect and I took the clause directly from indestructible's reminder text.
If you really want to get around deathtouch you have to say "This creature can't be destroyed unless it has combat damage greater to or equal to than its toughness marked on it." Damage dealt by an attacking or blocking creature with deathtouch is still combat damage.
Yeah, this definitely needs more clarification when it comes to receiving both combat and noncombat damage. While there is a distinction between combat and noncombat damage when damage is dealt, the state-based action that destroys creatures with lethal damage marked currently does not discriminate, so the official text needs to navigate that in one way or another.
Cut the knot. "Prevent all noncombat damage that would be dealt to this creature and "destroy" effects don't destroy it."
that actually works nicely. It prevents deathtouch from killing (which was what i was wanting to include, while it can only be killed through combat.
It is still a little wordy. But it has what I want.
Would this still prevent Board wipes from killing it? Or would the destroy effect be considered in a board wipe?
I mean, obviously it does nothing to exiling, but destroy effects literally mean effects that say "destroy" in the text. It's part of indestructible's effect and I took the clause directly from indestructible's reminder text.
If you really want to get around deathtouch you have to say "This creature can't be destroyed unless it has combat damage greater to or equal to than its toughness marked on it." Damage dealt by an attacking or blocking creature with deathtouch is still combat damage.
Well deathtouch reads
(Any amount of damage this deals to a creature is enough to destroy it.)
I get that it is still combat damage, but it also states destroy so would that not make it a destroy effect.
I mean, in the end, given how confusing the ability is, i may in the end just allow deathtouch to take effect in killing the creature.
New Creature Type: Primal- Primal is noting major, as it does not effect any game aspect other than being a new type. It is a word that serves that same aspect as something like Elder. Only reason I did Primal is just to make them feel even older than the Elder Dragons.
Of course, i am not going to introduce a new creature type without giving them something fun. Thus Paramount. Paramount is a synonym for Primal, so i felt it could be a fun word to use.
Paramount (this creature can only be destroyed as a result of combat damage.)
Is is basically a Pseudo Indestructible I feel it is not too bad. I mean in the form of a Primal Dragon, yes it can be scary. But if I gave it to a (for sake of argument, Human) It just protects them form removal in the traditional sense. Things like Exile and -X/-X still kill them. If you have a bigger creature, you can kill them. All Paramount doe sis make you think inside the box when dealing with them. (As in, don't overthink it, get basic, kill them with combat damage. The primitive option in getting rid of creatures.)
So what do you think of Paramount? (i mean Primal could be switched back for Elder, I just wanted to have the keyword sort of associated to a creature type.)
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
But
Screeching Horror
4RG
Creature- Primal Dragon
Flying
Paramount
5/5
nothing special. however Paramount does offer Anthem builds to be more prominent, as you have these creatures that only fear combat damage, become massive creatures. A few anthems and this little 5/5 may become a 10/10
My question is, with the way it is worded, would deathtouch kill?
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
"You can only kill it in combat" is fairly grokkable, and for maximum grokkability, the deathtouch-enabling function has to be in place. For a much more rules and development-questionable version, "This can't leave the battlefield except by being destroyed by combat damage."
Primal should not be a creature type, for two important reasons. One, it's an adjective, and creature types are nouns. This rule is so important it wasn't even broken in an Un-set for Magical Hacker, which was originally supposed to be a "Creature - Teenage Human Gamer" so that Mistform Ultimus could be a hero on the half shell. Two, it doesn't seem to mean anything other than "from a long time ago" - any two given creatures with this types wouldn't have to be physically or conceptually like one another, so why connect them? "Elder" is a type that refers to a specific generation of beings on every plane it's used on, and is used very sparingly and thus far only for legendaries. You can't be older than the (Dominarian) Elder Dragons, they just are the oldest Dragons.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
As for paramount while a new name is needed i guess i could tool around and find the right wording for the ability without getting confusing.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
that actually works nicely. It prevents deathtouch from killing (which was what i was wanting to include, while it can only be killed through combat.
It is still a little wordy. But it has what I want.
Would this still prevent Board wipes from killing it? Or would the destroy effect be considered in a board wipe?
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
If you really want to get around deathtouch you have to say "This creature can't be destroyed unless it has combat damage greater to or equal to than its toughness marked on it." Damage dealt by an attacking or blocking creature with deathtouch is still combat damage.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Well deathtouch reads
(Any amount of damage this deals to a creature is enough to destroy it.)
I get that it is still combat damage, but it also states destroy so would that not make it a destroy effect.
I mean, in the end, given how confusing the ability is, i may in the end just allow deathtouch to take effect in killing the creature.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I will use the work around to make it so he can not be killed by death touch.
UB Vela the Night-Clad BUDecklist
WBG Ghave, Guru of Spores GBW
WUBRGThe Ur-DragonWUBRGDecklist