Prophetic Banisher2WW Creature — Angel
Flying
Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals damage to an opponent, you may look at that player's hand and choose a nonland card. That player can't cast the chosen card or any cards with the same name during his or her next turn. All are destroyed by their duality; man, woman, and child; and equally so by their actions—as they are by their words.
2/5
Saw someone try to design a blue white version of Hypnotic Specter on Instagram. They tried to hotfix the design into the colors by putting the card on the bottom of the library. Another mistake they made was trying to retain the Specter type. This is really what they were looking for here.
There are many rules issues here. What if they have multiple cards with the same name? How do you know which one they can't cast?
Say this effect goes off, then next turn they cast the chosen card. "I just drew a second copy," they say. How do you fix this issue without calling a judge?
This plays horribly with your set mechanics. In your Deus Ex Machina set players are wheeling and drawing cards all over the place. You get this effect off on me, then I cast one of your spells that lets me shuffle in three cards and draw three or whatever. I cast two spells with the same name as the card you chose. "I shuffled in the one you picked and drew them both," I say. How do you tell if I'm cheating? How for that matter does a judge tell if I'm cheating?
The previous poster is right about the rules issues, but there are two different ways to solve it depending on how you want the interactions to work.
A)
Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals combat damage to an opponent, you may look at that player's hand and choose a nonland from it. That player exiles the chosen card until the end of their next turn.
B)
Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals combat damage to an opponent, you may look at that player's hand and choose a nonland from it. That player can't cast spells with the same name as the chosen card until the end of their next turn.
Option A is more surgical, and won't stop if they have multiple copies in hand, but it also keeps them from filtering away the nullified card as Tadpole mentioned. B straight up nullifies and copies in hand or drawn afterwards (also I tweaked so that if you choose and instant they cannot just cast it on your endstep).
Note, I recommend changing the effect to when it deals combat damage, since even if you canfind a way for the angel to deal non-combat damage to the opponent, the timing of when they can cast the spell again becomes a little more confusing if you do so on their turn, for option B especially.
Pretty sure errata would rule that any other cards with the same name as the chosen card cannot be cast. I don't think it's really ambiguous how this intends to work—but there it is in plain English.
The effect doesn't trigger off combat damage because Hypnotic Specter doesn't either. Since it's a softer lock than Hypnotic Specter's ability, there's an additional point of toughness for added balance.
Pretty sure errata would rule that any other cards with the same name as the chosen card cannot be cast. I don't think it's really ambiguous how this intends to work—but there it is in plain English.
Unfortunately, it is ambiguous. You are assuming because you know how you want it to work, it is obvious to everyone, but that's not how people actually understand cards. As you originally wrote it, the opponent is prevented from casting the specific card you chose. Because the card is in a hidden zone, though, if they were to cast the card on the next turn, you would have no way to verify if it was the same card or another copy they drew.
This is why templating the card correctly is important, so you don't have to errata it later. You want to use wording B for your card so there is no confusion (taking out the "combat" damage, of course).
This effect should be worded like Alhammarret, High Arbiter or Sorcerous Spyglass, with relevant adjustments. That is,
"Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals damage to an opponent, look at that player's hand and choose the name of a nonland card from it.
Until the end of your next turn, that player can't cast spells with the chosen name."
I also removed the unnecessary may clause (Hypnotic Specter doesn't even have one) and changed to the same 'until the end of your next turn' as rowanalpha recommended because it's simpler to track and more effective.
I would note that, as Alhammarret hints at, this is actually a blue effect, and not a white one. White actually doesn't have any cards that look at or reveal and opponent's hand (that is, not including multicolour cards that do, which all have blue or black in them—which are the colours that do get this effect). The closest thing is Planeswalker's Mirth. Which not only is the only example I could find, but it only reveals a single random card at a time and it's also rather old and not a reliable indicator of modern colour pie.
This card should be blue or white-blue.
This effect should be worded like Alhammarret, High Arbiter or Sorcerous Spyglass, with relevant adjustments. That is,
"Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals damage to an opponent, look at that player's hand and choose the name of a nonland card from it.
Until the end of your next turn, that player can't cast spells with the chosen name."
I honestly think that adaptation was bad for coherence.
Not really looking to argue about it. Just wanted to state my perspective.
"Named card" should have remained as it was for the diversity of context. It was a unique, replacement/alternative context that provided a great outpost for wording composure, development, and aesthetic.
This effect should be worded like Alhammarret, High Arbiter or Sorcerous Spyglass, with relevant adjustments. That is,
"Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals damage to an opponent, look at that player's hand and choose the name of a nonland card from it.
Until the end of your next turn, that player can't cast spells with the chosen name."
I honestly think that adaptation was bad for coherence.
Not really looking to argue about it. Just wanted to state my perspective.
"Named card" should have remained as it was for the diversity of context. It was a unique, replacement/alternative context that provided a great outpost for wording composure, development, and aesthetic.
Dude, what does that mean? You've got to stop doing this. Stop with the weird lingo and just say what you mean plainly so we can all just get on with it.
What context? What is replacement and alternative context here and what's the difference? What exactly does outpost here mean? What the hell is wording composure? And what does this all mean with regard to the wording changes I suggested? "Named card" doesn't even appear in your original wording either?
Dude, what does that mean? You've got to stop doing this. Stop with the weird lingo and just say what you mean plainly so we can all just get on with it.
What context? What is replacement and alternative context here and what's the difference? What exactly does outpost here mean? What the hell is wording composure? And what does this all mean with regard to the wording changes I suggested? "Named card" doesn't even appear in your original wording either?
Just want to clarify that this is not how debate works.
If everything needs to be explained to you like this, then you are unqualified to debate.
This is not a debate. We are trying to help you with the wording of your card. If you want to be obtuse (I have no idea what your last post meant either) then don't be surprised if you don't get any help.
For any desired effect, there is at most one correct wording.
I say at most because there are a number of effects that are generally agreed to have no proper wording because they do not belong in this game (whether because the effect would be too clunky, wordy, or counterintuitive, because it would be too complex for new players or enable cheating, or so forth).
There really isn’t much debate to be had regarding wording. Flavor and power are arguable and debatable but the correct wording for effects is pretty hard to dispute.
Dude, what does that mean? You've got to stop doing this. Stop with the weird lingo and just say what you mean plainly so we can all just get on with it.
What context? What is replacement and alternative context here and what's the difference? What exactly does outpost here mean? What the hell is wording composure? And what does this all mean with regard to the wording changes I suggested? "Named card" doesn't even appear in your original wording either?
Just want to clarify that this is not how debate works.
If everything needs to be explained to you like this, then you are unqualified to debate.
Can you imagine going up to the podium and being like, "Ugh, what does all this stuff mean?"
Can you imagine going to an mtg tournament and being like, "Excuse me, what does all this stuff mean?"
Let's all understand the fundamentals of language and the subject before we begin to do anything, especially "offer our help".
First, this is exactly how a debate works. Except you wouldn't go up to the podium and say "Ugh, what does all this stuff mean?" you would do as DJK did and say "Clarify what you just said". If you participate in debates and expect to not be asked to clarify your statements when they aren't clear then you are participating in "bad faith". Meaning you have no intention of debating you just want to state your case. You did admit to not wanting to debate and just wanting to sate your preference but that entire attitude is counterproductive to the purpose of this site.
As for participating in an MTG tournament and asking "Excuse me, what does all this stuff mean?". If you do that a judge will politely explain what it all means because that is their purpose. If you are still confused because of the language they used then you are expected to ask follow up questions to clarify what the specific words they used meant.
All in all, reality is far diverged from your position. In reality, when holding a conversation or debate one is expected to clarify their stance and even their specific word choice and meaning when asked.
Ignoring all that and talking about the card. Choosing a card and then locking cards based on the chosen cards name is bad for streamlining coherence. A cleaner method that opens up a diversity of context is "When ~ deals damage to an opponent look at that player's hand. Choose a nonland card name. Until your next turn opponents can't cast spells with the chosen name."
Dude, what does that mean? You've got to stop doing this. Stop with the weird lingo and just say what you mean plainly so we can all just get on with it.
What context? What is replacement and alternative context here and what's the difference? What exactly does outpost here mean? What the hell is wording composure? And what does this all mean with regard to the wording changes I suggested? "Named card" doesn't even appear in your original wording either?
Just want to clarify that this is not how debate works.
If everything needs to be explained to you like this, then you are unqualified to debate.
Good debate is not predicated on posturing and lofty pretense, it's based on effective communication that allows you to effectively isolate key points of disagreement and consider the relevant facts, theories and logical conclusions to be found therein.
Using obscure and convoluted language and ideas doesn't make you smart, and explaining yourself in an accessible way doesn't make you dumb. What are you afraid of?
Lest I remind you, you came here looking for critique. Do you actually want that critique or not?
Bigger, Scarier Tidehollow Sculler2WB
Artifact Creature - Zombie Specter
Fear, Flying
When Bigger, Scarier Tidehollow Sculler deals combat damage to an opponent, that opponent reveals their hand and you choose a nonland card from it. Exile that card.
When Bigger, Scarier Tidehollow Sculler leaves the battlefield, return the exiled cards to their owner's hand. "Boo!"
3/4
Took an existing well-known hand disruption and put a Specter spin on it. Can a Specter be a Zombie? I'm not sure. Maybe the Zombie is riding a Specter, which would be awkward because the Specter has a humanoid part. So he'd be riding in front of or behind the humanoid part of the specter.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Creature — Angel
Flying
Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals damage to an opponent, you may look at that player's hand and choose a nonland card. That player can't cast the chosen card or any cards with the same name during his or her next turn.
All are destroyed by their duality; man, woman, and child; and equally so by their actions—as they are by their words.
2/5
Saw someone try to design a blue white version of Hypnotic Specter on Instagram. They tried to hotfix the design into the colors by putting the card on the bottom of the library. Another mistake they made was trying to retain the Specter type. This is really what they were looking for here.
Say this effect goes off, then next turn they cast the chosen card. "I just drew a second copy," they say. How do you fix this issue without calling a judge?
This plays horribly with your set mechanics. In your Deus Ex Machina set players are wheeling and drawing cards all over the place. You get this effect off on me, then I cast one of your spells that lets me shuffle in three cards and draw three or whatever. I cast two spells with the same name as the card you chose. "I shuffled in the one you picked and drew them both," I say. How do you tell if I'm cheating? How for that matter does a judge tell if I'm cheating?
A)
Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals combat damage to an opponent, you may look at that player's hand and choose a nonland from it. That player exiles the chosen card until the end of their next turn.
B)
Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals combat damage to an opponent, you may look at that player's hand and choose a nonland from it. That player can't cast spells with the same name as the chosen card until the end of their next turn.
Option A is more surgical, and won't stop if they have multiple copies in hand, but it also keeps them from filtering away the nullified card as Tadpole mentioned. B straight up nullifies and copies in hand or drawn afterwards (also I tweaked so that if you choose and instant they cannot just cast it on your endstep).
Note, I recommend changing the effect to when it deals combat damage, since even if you canfind a way for the angel to deal non-combat damage to the opponent, the timing of when they can cast the spell again becomes a little more confusing if you do so on their turn, for option B especially.
The effect doesn't trigger off combat damage because Hypnotic Specter doesn't either. Since it's a softer lock than Hypnotic Specter's ability, there's an additional point of toughness for added balance.
Unfortunately, it is ambiguous. You are assuming because you know how you want it to work, it is obvious to everyone, but that's not how people actually understand cards. As you originally wrote it, the opponent is prevented from casting the specific card you chose. Because the card is in a hidden zone, though, if they were to cast the card on the next turn, you would have no way to verify if it was the same card or another copy they drew.
This is why templating the card correctly is important, so you don't have to errata it later. You want to use wording B for your card so there is no confusion (taking out the "combat" damage, of course).
"Whenever Prophetic Banisher deals damage to an opponent, look at that player's hand and choose the name of a nonland card from it.
Until the end of your next turn, that player can't cast spells with the chosen name."
I also removed the unnecessary may clause (Hypnotic Specter doesn't even have one) and changed to the same 'until the end of your next turn' as rowanalpha recommended because it's simpler to track and more effective.
I would note that, as Alhammarret hints at, this is actually a blue effect, and not a white one. White actually doesn't have any cards that look at or reveal and opponent's hand (that is, not including multicolour cards that do, which all have blue or black in them—which are the colours that do get this effect). The closest thing is Planeswalker's Mirth. Which not only is the only example I could find, but it only reveals a single random card at a time and it's also rather old and not a reliable indicator of modern colour pie.
This card should be blue or white-blue.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I honestly think that adaptation was bad for coherence.
Not really looking to argue about it. Just wanted to state my perspective.
"Named card" should have remained as it was for the diversity of context. It was a unique, replacement/alternative context that provided a great outpost for wording composure, development, and aesthetic.
Dude, what does that mean? You've got to stop doing this. Stop with the weird lingo and just say what you mean plainly so we can all just get on with it.
What context? What is replacement and alternative context here and what's the difference? What exactly does outpost here mean? What the hell is wording composure? And what does this all mean with regard to the wording changes I suggested? "Named card" doesn't even appear in your original wording either?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Just want to clarify that this is not how debate works.
If everything needs to be explained to you like this, then you are unqualified to debate.
For any desired effect, there is at most one correct wording.
I say at most because there are a number of effects that are generally agreed to have no proper wording because they do not belong in this game (whether because the effect would be too clunky, wordy, or counterintuitive, because it would be too complex for new players or enable cheating, or so forth).
There really isn’t much debate to be had regarding wording. Flavor and power are arguable and debatable but the correct wording for effects is pretty hard to dispute.
Can you imagine going up to the podium and being like, "Ugh, what does all this stuff mean?"
Can you imagine going to an mtg tournament and being like, "Excuse me, what does all this stuff mean?"
Let's all understand the fundamentals of language and the subject before we begin to do anything, especially "offer our help".
As for participating in an MTG tournament and asking "Excuse me, what does all this stuff mean?". If you do that a judge will politely explain what it all means because that is their purpose. If you are still confused because of the language they used then you are expected to ask follow up questions to clarify what the specific words they used meant.
All in all, reality is far diverged from your position. In reality, when holding a conversation or debate one is expected to clarify their stance and even their specific word choice and meaning when asked.
Ignoring all that and talking about the card. Choosing a card and then locking cards based on the chosen cards name is bad for streamlining coherence. A cleaner method that opens up a diversity of context is "When ~ deals damage to an opponent look at that player's hand. Choose a nonland card name. Until your next turn opponents can't cast spells with the chosen name."
Good debate is not predicated on posturing and lofty pretense, it's based on effective communication that allows you to effectively isolate key points of disagreement and consider the relevant facts, theories and logical conclusions to be found therein.
Using obscure and convoluted language and ideas doesn't make you smart, and explaining yourself in an accessible way doesn't make you dumb. What are you afraid of?
Lest I remind you, you came here looking for critique. Do you actually want that critique or not?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Artifact Creature - Zombie Specter
Fear, Flying
When Bigger, Scarier Tidehollow Sculler deals combat damage to an opponent, that opponent reveals their hand and you choose a nonland card from it. Exile that card.
When Bigger, Scarier Tidehollow Sculler leaves the battlefield, return the exiled cards to their owner's hand.
"Boo!"
3/4
Took an existing well-known hand disruption and put a Specter spin on it. Can a Specter be a Zombie? I'm not sure. Maybe the Zombie is riding a Specter, which would be awkward because the Specter has a humanoid part. So he'd be riding in front of or behind the humanoid part of the specter.