Bitter Grudge4R Enchantment
If a creature you control would die, that creature fights target opponent first. (It deals damage to that player equal to its power, then that player deals damage to that creature equal to his or her life total.)
WAP Sorcery
Target creature you control fights target player. (It deals damage to that player equal to its power, then that player deals damage to that creature equal to his or her life total.) "Hit me as hard as you can." —Famous Last Words
Not sure the color and cost of the first one. I know it could be black, but I was thinking red.
Warning - Inappropriate Language. Thread title changed.
If the creature is already dying, Bitter Grudge doesn't need the player to deal damage to it. It can just say -
"When a creature you control dies, it deals damage equal to it's power to target opponent."
The effect feels Black-Red to me, but mono Red would only be a little bit of a bend. Probably 4ish Mana.
I would change the wording on your right reminder text so that there's no confusion. That the damage is simultaneous. Otherwise, it seems like the player would be dealt damage and then deal back equal to their newly reduced life total.
This should probably be 1R, since it's effectively a sorcery speed Fling.
Overall, these are reasonable card effects even if the wording is making things complicated by trying to make them simple. I could see either of those effects with more standard phrasing in a Standard set.
If the creature is already dying, Bitter Grudge doesn't need the player to deal damage to it. It can just say -
"When a creature you control dies, it deals damage equal to it's power to target opponent."
The effect feels Black-Red to me, but mono Red would only be a little bit of a bend. Probably 4ish Mana.
I would change the wording on your right reminder text so that there's no confusion. That the damage is simultaneous. Otherwise, it seems like the player would be dealt damage and then deal back equal to their newly reduced life total.
This should probably be 1R, since it's effectively a sorcery speed Fling.
Overall, these are reasonable card effects even if the wording is making things complicated by trying to make them simple. I could see either of those effects with more standard phrasing in a Standard set.
It is actually intended to work that way, where the player is dealt damage first, that damage resolves, and then the player deals damage equal to their new life total.
It is actually intended to work that way, where the player is dealt damage first, that damage resolves, and then the player deals damage equal to their new life total.
Okay, then you should change the word Fight to something else, as the rules for Fight specify that damage is dealt simultaneously (relevant if a creature fights a creature with wither, for instance)
I think using Fight against a player is pretty weird if you have to invent rules for it, but at the same time there's a bunch of cards that trigger whenever they fight so I don't know if we should be going there or not. Soul's Fire is a much better card most of the time. At five mana I'd like "Target player fights target creature that player doesn't control," so that you can use it as a removal spell as well. But that might change your punch timing? That's probably why it's weird.
If you want to the player to deal damage after the creature, that's fine. The ordering itself isn't an issue, it just needs a different word to avoid confusion. You are correct that the rules for fighting a player aren't currently defined, but if you use a terminology people are accustomed to they will assume it works the same as the previous version.
If you want to the player to deal damage after the creature, that's fine. The ordering itself isn't an issue, it just needs a different word to avoid confusion. You are correct that the rules for fighting a player aren't currently defined, but if you use a terminology people are accustomed to they will assume it works the same as the previous version.
How so?
The dynamics are different, so there should be beauty in the fact that it's adaptable. And thus, the adaption enables greater interactivity than it would have if you forced yourself to conform to conventions.
Conventions certainly have their place, and are best strictly honored in some events. But not all of them. The capability for adaptation can be a blessing.
If you want to the player to deal damage after the creature, that's fine. The ordering itself isn't an issue, it just needs a different word to avoid confusion. You are correct that the rules for fighting a player aren't currently defined, but if you use a terminology people are accustomed to they will assume it works the same as the previous version.
How so?
The dynamics are different, so there should be beauty in the fact that it's adaptable. And thus, the adaption enables greater interactivity than it would have if you forced yourself to conform to conventions.
Conventions certainly have their place, and are best strictly honored in some events. But not all of them. The capability for adaptation can be a blessing.
Variation in effects and how they are used is great. Variation in how words are used is awful.
This is one of the reasons Legendary Sorcerys failed so hard. Legendary has a meaning and its technically meaningless on non-permanent. But people wanted them so they tried and failed hard. This is a similar thing except you have the option of making it not work differently.
It would honestly be best to not use fight because players don't have power. The reason to use fight is to tap into player recognition. So if you really want to use fight then at minimum you have to maintain the other conventions of the mechanic.
The application of Legendary spells was bad. That's why—it falls short of greater potential than it sees.
This here is exactly the opposite of that, and is using application to achieve a greater potential that is available.
Actually, its exactly the same. You are using a word that means one thing and applying it in a similar context (against players instead of creatures) but significantly changing how it is executed (ordering of damage). People read "fight" and have a set of expectations; by going against that expectation you are creating confusion.
If, as you said earlier, you don't think the simultaneous damage would matter, why not change it?
Enchantment
If a creature you control would die, that creature fights target opponent first. (It deals damage to that player equal to its power, then that player deals damage to that creature equal to his or her life total.)
WAP
Sorcery
Target creature you control fights target player. (It deals damage to that player equal to its power, then that player deals damage to that creature equal to his or her life total.)
"Hit me as hard as you can."
—Famous Last Words
Not sure the color and cost of the first one. I know it could be black, but I was thinking red.
Warning - Inappropriate Language. Thread title changed.
"When a creature you control dies, it deals damage equal to it's power to target opponent."
The effect feels Black-Red to me, but mono Red would only be a little bit of a bend. Probably 4ish Mana.
I would change the wording on your right reminder text so that there's no confusion. That the damage is simultaneous. Otherwise, it seems like the player would be dealt damage and then deal back equal to their newly reduced life total.
This should probably be 1R, since it's effectively a sorcery speed Fling.
Overall, these are reasonable card effects even if the wording is making things complicated by trying to make them simple. I could see either of those effects with more standard phrasing in a Standard set.
It's intended to work with effects like Soul Link and Spiteful Sliver.
It is actually intended to work that way, where the player is dealt damage first, that damage resolves, and then the player deals damage equal to their new life total.
Okay, then you should change the word Fight to something else, as the rules for Fight specify that damage is dealt simultaneously (relevant if a creature fights a creature with wither, for instance)
—Famous Last Words
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS96QAcq43U
I think using Fight against a player is pretty weird if you have to invent rules for it, but at the same time there's a bunch of cards that trigger whenever they fight so I don't know if we should be going there or not. Soul's Fire is a much better card most of the time. At five mana I'd like "Target player fights target creature that player doesn't control," so that you can use it as a removal spell as well. But that might change your punch timing? That's probably why it's weird.
It wasn't intended to do anything in particular this way, only simply to be coherent.
If you want to the player to deal damage after the creature, that's fine. The ordering itself isn't an issue, it just needs a different word to avoid confusion. You are correct that the rules for fighting a player aren't currently defined, but if you use a terminology people are accustomed to they will assume it works the same as the previous version.
How so?
The dynamics are different, so there should be beauty in the fact that it's adaptable. And thus, the adaption enables greater interactivity than it would have if you forced yourself to conform to conventions.
Conventions certainly have their place, and are best strictly honored in some events. But not all of them. The capability for adaptation can be a blessing.
This is one of the reasons Legendary Sorcerys failed so hard. Legendary has a meaning and its technically meaningless on non-permanent. But people wanted them so they tried and failed hard. This is a similar thing except you have the option of making it not work differently.
It would honestly be best to not use fight because players don't have power. The reason to use fight is to tap into player recognition. So if you really want to use fight then at minimum you have to maintain the other conventions of the mechanic.
This here is exactly the opposite of that, and is using application to achieve a greater potential that is available.
I reported it three days ago.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
Actually, its exactly the same. You are using a word that means one thing and applying it in a similar context (against players instead of creatures) but significantly changing how it is executed (ordering of damage). People read "fight" and have a set of expectations; by going against that expectation you are creating confusion.
If, as you said earlier, you don't think the simultaneous damage would matter, why not change it?
We want to make it absolutely clear - titles of that nature are not ok. This thread will be locked..
Retired EDH - Tibor and Lumia | [PR]Nemata |Ramirez dePietro | [C]Edric | Riku | Jenara | Lazav | Heliod | Daxos | Roon | Kozilek