Knight of CarnageRR Creature — Elemental Knight
If a creature or planeswalker an opponent controls would be dealt non-combat damage, its controller is dealt that much damage instead.
3/1
Knight of TreacheryBB Creature — Zombie Knight
If a creature an opponent controls would have any +1/+1 counters placed on it, put that many -1/-1 counters on it instead.
3/1
Knight of ParadoxUU Creature — Illusion Knight
If a non-creature permanent would have any counters placed on it, remove that many counters from it instead.
0/4
Knight of HighwoodsGG Creature — Elf Knight
Other green creatures you control with a converted mana cost 1 or less have base power and toughness 2/3.
2/2
Knight of ChokepointWW Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while its controller has 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
Knight of Carnage probably needs to be either 1RR or 2RR. The damage redirection makes abilities light Pyroclasm very strong to be built around.
Knight of Treachery is much more niche. Obviously its good to hose counter strategies, but it is less efficient to use proactively since it will usually be better to put +1/+1 counters on your own creatures and attacking with them than to use the same ability to put -1/-1 counters on an opponent's creatures.
Knight of Paradox likely need something else. As a 0/4 it cannot be used very usefully in combat so, in most cases, this will simply be a non-creature Solemnity that prevents planeswalkers from being put into play.
Simple but important, Carnage needs to deal damage not cause loss of life. It combos with other in color effects and doesn't step on Black's toes. Also 3/1 almost certainly too strong.
Treachery, its not any counters its one or more counters
Paradox, not a blue effect. Black removes counters and white prevents them from being put on. Also as a hard counter to planeswalkers far too good at this cost.
Highwood, no need for this to be other green creatures. Also its base power and toughness.
The concept of Knight of Carnage relays the aspect of 'an overmaster's desperate scramble to protect its own in the face of a threat'. The shepherd runs around taking bites from the wolves to protect the sheep. God takes cheapshots from evildoers to protect the faithful. I'm not against the functionality of damage. Of course I conceived that. It's just I felt the way I wrote it was more everflowing.
Paradox is not a hard counter. It just cancels out most ultimate's and turns all planeswalkers into those spindown walkers from Spark.
Being other green creatures is an important restriction. The cost enables blending too easy, where unique abilities from other colors become to easy to super-cast alongside this and its effect. The effect is a little much. I had to admit this seems more like a 1GG Lord to me. Can't say I entirely agree with the other suggestion, but I'm not against it either. If I had to change one, I would be compelled to change them all, and this would become a new cycle of Lords.
Paradox is not a hard counter. It just cancels out most ultimate's and turns all planeswalkers into those spindown walkers from Spark.
Unfortunately, this is not how the rules say your card works. It prevents any counters from being placed, including permanents that would enter the battlefield with counters.
Reap I understand you don't know how the rules work and thus usually fail to capture your intened design with your innitial concept. Don't worry that's what we're here for.
For your green knight you failed to elaborate what you think "other green creatures" means so it will be difficult to assist in your design. To help you along this path "other green creautures" actually means creatures that aren't this one and are green. The reason it isn't needed on your knight is because it can't fulfill its requirement so other green creatures is redundant.
To fix your blue knight. "If one or more counters would be placed on a noncreature permanent other than as it enters the battlefield. Instead remove that many counters from that permanent."
Having counters placed on a permanent when it enters the battlefield (per its identity) should be a state-based effect that doesn't coincide with any static, or other effects/abilities active. It's a product of game transition that should take place in a vacuum, as many other effects do, for proper resolve.
What he meant us you don't need the word "other". It can just say "Green creatures blah blah blah" because "other" just keeps it from effecting itself, which it can't do anyway.
Having counters placed on a permanent when it enters the battlefield (per its identity) should be a state-based effect that doesn't coincide with any static, or other effects/abilities active. It's a product of game transition that should take place in a vacuum, as many other effects do, for proper resolve.
Reap, I tried to explain that "Other green creatures" meant "creatures that are green besides this one" and you came back with "But look at all these nongreen creatures" I'll just reiterate. You don't need the "other" your card works as you intended it to without it.
Also, I know you think you know how the rules work and you want them to work as you believe they 'should'. But they don't. The rules work as they are written. So your card needs to change to keep its intended functionality. I know that for you, change is scary and means that your first attempt failed and that any failure marks you personally as a failure but that isn't the case Reap. Mistakes happen we can fix them.
Finally, no effect takes place in a vacuum. Once again, I understand you believe the rules to function in a specific way but we can't have that Reap. Everyone plays by the same rules so you have to understand that this isn't how the rules work.
What he meant us you don't need the word "other". It can just say "Green creatures blah blah blah" because "other" just keeps it from effecting itself, which it can't do anyway.
It could actually—technically; with the Disarm keyword I came up with in Rapier: Divine Soul.
It bothers me tremendously that Knight of the Highwoods is not a 2/3
Carnage is a wiener card with Blasphemous Act and the other two are pretty boring sideboard cards
Knight of Sweet VinegarWW
Creature - Fox Knight
Exile five cards from your graveyard: Put target exiled card into its owners graveyard.
2/2
Except Evolutionary Escalation—that really pushes the Zombie into the same territory. I am warming up to the thought of them being 1CC Lords. I don't think I would change the P/T on any of them though. Pushing against adding any evergreen keywords to them either.
Does it bother anyone that the first three don't have the classic 2/2 P/T? This is something that would have bothered me in my early days, but in all my experience, I have found something special in giving/or creating unique identities for designs where possible. The 3/1 split creates a 'unique identity' for these cards in their colors—aligned with classic properties that have always existed in these colors. The same for the 0/4 split.
From the development perspective, it can be hard not to be compelled by 'underwhelming perception'. It urges one to be overzealous—and this will detract from aspects of challenge surrounding the card. But if you take a step back, and look at the design; imagine it was just handed to you to play with as it is; those perceptive elements disappear; and you only see an 'aspect of challenge' that comes with the design. Exciting—thrilling. Exactly what breeds the life of fun into the game.
What he meant us you don't need the word "other". It can just say "Green creatures blah blah blah" because "other" just keeps it from effecting itself, which it can't do anyway.
It could actually—technically; with the Disarm keyword I came up with in Rapier: Divine Soul.
No, that's not what your keyword does. Your knight cares about converted mana costs. Not even you have made something as stupid as changing converted mana costs of creatures in play. So there is no need for the word other because it will never have a converted mana cost of 1 or less.
Also, you misunderstanding your own works is a very common theme. As common as you defending to the death your misinterpretation of rules. You really need to learn to accept that it is possible that you are wrong. The greats mistake anyone can make is not learning from their mistakes.
What he meant us you don't need the word "other". It can just say "Green creatures blah blah blah" because "other" just keeps it from effecting itself, which it can't do anyway.
It could actually—technically; with the Disarm keyword I came up with in Rapier: Divine Soul.
No, that's not what your keyword does. Your knight cares about converted mana costs. Not even you have made something as stupid as changing converted mana costs of creatures in play. So there is no need for the word other because it will never have a converted mana cost of 1 or less.
Also, you misunderstanding your own works is a very common theme. As common as you defending to the death your misinterpretation of rules. You really need to learn to accept that it is possible that you are wrong. The greats mistake anyone can make is not learning from their mistakes.
That's a cute way of trying to play off the unacknowledged effect.
Disarm causes creatures to lose a colored mana symbol—that would reduce the CMC of this creature from 2 to 1—where its effect would kick in for itself.
What he meant us you don't need the word "other". It can just say "Green creatures blah blah blah" because "other" just keeps it from effecting itself, which it can't do anyway.
It could actually—technically; with the Disarm keyword I came up with in Rapier: Divine Soul.
No, that's not what your keyword does. Your knight cares about converted mana costs. Not even you have made something as stupid as changing converted mana costs of creatures in play. So there is no need for the word other because it will never have a converted mana cost of 1 or less.
Also, you misunderstanding your own works is a very common theme. As common as you defending to the death your misinterpretation of rules. You really need to learn to accept that it is possible that you are wrong. The greats mistake anyone can make is not learning from their mistakes.
That's a cute way of trying to play off the unacknowledged effect.
Disarm causes creatures to lose a colored mana symbol—that would reduce the CMC of this creature from 2 to 1—where its effect would kick in for itself.
My mistake, I read only your initial mechanic not all of your revisions(those should really go in the original post so its obvious to anyone joining the conversation what the current state is). So I take it back you did make something as stupid as changing a creature's converted mana cost on the battlefield without any actual point. I'll stand by it not needing "other" because it only causes problems with another custom mechanic that is itself awful.
I do find it very odd how you defend other mechanics you designed as functioning regardless of what already exists but you hold fast that an ill-conceived previous mechanic you designed should influence your future designs.
It bothers me tremendously that Knight of the Highwoods is not a 2/3
Carnage is a wiener card with Blasphemous Act and the other two are pretty boring sideboard cards
Knight of Sweet VinegarWW
Creature - Fox Knight
Exile five cards from your graveyard: Put target exiled card into its owners graveyard.
2/2
We don't use vinegar—we use baking soda.
As for the white one, I think it would be something like:
Knight of ChokepointWW Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while it's controller has 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
Maybe have it as a replacement function, where they have to "sacrifice a permanent of that type".
Knight of ChokepointWW Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while a player controls 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
Maybe have it as a replacement function, where they have to "sacrifice a permanent of that type".
Needs to be "If a non-land permanent would enter the battlefield while its controller controls 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead." Sacrifice can be used instead, and would probably be better for balance, but the previous wording mean that if I got to 4 lands and you were stuck on 2, you couldn't play any more lands the rest of the game. That kind of hard lock out is very bad for gameplay (see Winter Orb, Stasis, etc)
Knight of ChokepointWW Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while a player controls 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
Maybe have it as a replacement function, where they have to "sacrifice a permanent of that type".
Needs to be "If a non-land permanent would enter the battlefield while its controller controls 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead." Sacrifice can be used instead, and would probably be better for balance, but the previous wording mean that if I got to 4 lands and you were stuck on 2, you couldn't play any more lands the rest of the game. That kind of hard lock out is very bad for gameplay (see Winter Orb, Stasis, etc)
Right, 'it's controller' should be in there. It is intended to limit lands in addition to everything else.
Right, 'it's controller' should be in there. It is intended to limit lands in addition to everything else.
Okay, I realized the wording needs to be tweaked slightly
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while its controller controls four or more permanents it shares a type with, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
That's needed since some permanents have multiple type.
As you have it currently, the 4th card of a type is a dead card, no reason to even try casting it. I suggest that, instead of a replacement effect to exile, it should trigger when the permanent enter play and sacrifice either (a) that permanent or (b) a permanent it shares a type with. Either way, casting permanents will still be relevant since you can trigger enters the battlefield/dies effects rather than they just being dead in your hand, and the latter lets you cast a new creature and sacrifice a less good one so you can improve your board state even if you are stuck at 4 creatures.
(a)
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
When a permanent enters the battlefield while its controller controls four or more permanents it shares a type with, its controller sacrifices it.
2/2
(b)
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
When a permanent enters the battlefield while its controller controls four or more permanents it shares a type with, its controller sacrifices a permanent it shares a type with.
2/2
The problem with making the "sacrifice a permanent that shares a type" trigger is that it becomes broken if you have multiple of these creatures on the battlefield. If it's a replacement effect it only happens once.
Although, the lands part alone makes this broken as it is at 2 mana.
For chokepoint. Do you want to have to sacrifice a card when you play Dryad Arbor if you control 2 lands and 2 creatures? I would think no but it's hard to determine intent on such obviously griefer cards.
The problem with making the "sacrifice a permanent that shares a type" trigger is that it becomes broken if you have multiple of these creatures on the battlefield. If it's a replacement effect it only happens once.
Although, the lands part alone makes this broken as it is at 2 mana.
It actually wouldn't be bad in multiples, because the conditional trigger would check on resolution if there were still more than 4 permanents sharing a type with the new one. So if there were two of these knights, and you played a 5th land, you'd sacrifice a land to the first trigger and then the second trigger would try to resolve and say, "Wait, there's only four of you. Nevermind, we cool."
For chokepoint. Do you want to have to sacrifice a card when you play Dryad Arbor if you control 2 lands and 2 creatures? I would think no but it's hard to determine intent on such obviously griefer cards.
The problem is I don't think the "4 or more permanents of the same type" wording works due to multi-type permanents. I'll have to dig at it a bit, but its an odd condition to word.
"Whenever a permanent enters the battlefield while its controller controls four or more permanents that share a single card type with it, its controller sacrifices it."
I believe that "card type" should be referenced rather than "type" (as seen in the oracle text for confusion in the ranks, which strictly refers to permanents on the battlefield). Stops confusion such as if someone controls 2 goblins and 2 boggart shenanigans, which is technically 4 creatures sharing a "type" but probably not in the sense we are thinking.
Requiring all four permanents to share a "single card type" with the new card eliminates the difficulty of dual-type cards. If an artifact creature enters the battlefield while its controller has two mana rocks and two mana dorks, there are not four permanents that share a single card type with it.
Creature — Elemental Knight
If a creature or planeswalker an opponent controls would be dealt non-combat damage, its controller is dealt that much damage instead.
3/1
Knight of Treachery BB
Creature — Zombie Knight
If a creature an opponent controls would have any +1/+1 counters placed on it, put that many -1/-1 counters on it instead.
3/1
Knight of Paradox UU
Creature — Illusion Knight
If a non-creature permanent would have any counters placed on it, remove that many counters from it instead.
0/4
Knight of Highwoods GG
Creature — Elf Knight
Other green creatures you control with a converted mana cost 1 or less have base power and toughness 2/3.
2/2
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while its controller has 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
Knight of Treachery is much more niche. Obviously its good to hose counter strategies, but it is less efficient to use proactively since it will usually be better to put +1/+1 counters on your own creatures and attacking with them than to use the same ability to put -1/-1 counters on an opponent's creatures.
Knight of Paradox likely need something else. As a 0/4 it cannot be used very usefully in combat so, in most cases, this will simply be a non-creature Solemnity that prevents planeswalkers from being put into play.
Knight of Highwoods GG
Creature — Elf Knight
Other green creatures you control with a converted mana cost 1 or less have power and toughness 2/3.
2/2
lol Skyshroud Elite is a 3/5 for
Treachery, its not any counters its one or more counters
Paradox, not a blue effect. Black removes counters and white prevents them from being put on. Also as a hard counter to planeswalkers far too good at this cost.
Highwood, no need for this to be other green creatures. Also its base power and toughness.
Paradox is not a hard counter. It just cancels out most ultimate's and turns all planeswalkers into those spindown walkers from Spark.
Being other green creatures is an important restriction. The cost enables blending too easy, where unique abilities from other colors become to easy to super-cast alongside this and its effect. The effect is a little much. I had to admit this seems more like a 1GG Lord to me. Can't say I entirely agree with the other suggestion, but I'm not against it either. If I had to change one, I would be compelled to change them all, and this would become a new cycle of Lords.
Unfortunately, this is not how the rules say your card works. It prevents any counters from being placed, including permanents that would enter the battlefield with counters.
For your green knight you failed to elaborate what you think "other green creatures" means so it will be difficult to assist in your design. To help you along this path "other green creautures" actually means creatures that aren't this one and are green. The reason it isn't needed on your knight is because it can't fulfill its requirement so other green creatures is redundant.
To fix your blue knight. "If one or more counters would be placed on a noncreature permanent other than as it enters the battlefield. Instead remove that many counters from that permanent."
EDIT: Okay, there's Gilded Goose now, Scryb Sprites, Xantid Swarm, and Uktabi Drake (although I'm not sure that one would count since it has Echo).
Aven Envoy, Aven Skirmisher, Beckon Apparition, Healer's Hawk, Oona's Gatewarden, etc. will require color hacks. This extends to every other color and their color unique abilities.
Having counters placed on a permanent when it enters the battlefield (per its identity) should be a state-based effect that doesn't coincide with any static, or other effects/abilities active. It's a product of game transition that should take place in a vacuum, as many other effects do, for proper resolve.
Carnage is a wiener card with Blasphemous Act and the other two are pretty boring sideboard cards
Knight of Sweet Vinegar WW
Creature - Fox Knight
Exile five cards from your graveyard: Put target exiled card into its owners graveyard.
2/2
Also, I know you think you know how the rules work and you want them to work as you believe they 'should'. But they don't. The rules work as they are written. So your card needs to change to keep its intended functionality. I know that for you, change is scary and means that your first attempt failed and that any failure marks you personally as a failure but that isn't the case Reap. Mistakes happen we can fix them.
Finally, no effect takes place in a vacuum. Once again, I understand you believe the rules to function in a specific way but we can't have that Reap. Everyone plays by the same rules so you have to understand that this isn't how the rules work.
It could actually—technically; with the Disarm keyword I came up with in Rapier: Divine Soul.
Except Evolutionary Escalation—that really pushes the Zombie into the same territory. I am warming up to the thought of them being 1CC Lords. I don't think I would change the P/T on any of them though. Pushing against adding any evergreen keywords to them either.
Does it bother anyone that the first three don't have the classic 2/2 P/T? This is something that would have bothered me in my early days, but in all my experience, I have found something special in giving/or creating unique identities for designs where possible. The 3/1 split creates a 'unique identity' for these cards in their colors—aligned with classic properties that have always existed in these colors. The same for the 0/4 split.
From the development perspective, it can be hard not to be compelled by 'underwhelming perception'. It urges one to be overzealous—and this will detract from aspects of challenge surrounding the card. But if you take a step back, and look at the design; imagine it was just handed to you to play with as it is; those perceptive elements disappear; and you only see an 'aspect of challenge' that comes with the design. Exciting—thrilling. Exactly what breeds the life of fun into the game.
Also, you misunderstanding your own works is a very common theme. As common as you defending to the death your misinterpretation of rules. You really need to learn to accept that it is possible that you are wrong. The greats mistake anyone can make is not learning from their mistakes.
That's a cute way of trying to play off the unacknowledged effect.
Disarm causes creatures to lose a colored mana symbol—that would reduce the CMC of this creature from 2 to 1—where its effect would kick in for itself.
I do find it very odd how you defend other mechanics you designed as functioning regardless of what already exists but you hold fast that an ill-conceived previous mechanic you designed should influence your future designs.
We don't use vinegar—we use baking soda.
As for the white one, I think it would be something like:
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while it's controller has 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
Maybe have it as a replacement function, where they have to "sacrifice a permanent of that type".
Needs to be "If a non-land permanent would enter the battlefield while its controller controls 4 or more permanents of the same type, exile that permanent instead." Sacrifice can be used instead, and would probably be better for balance, but the previous wording mean that if I got to 4 lands and you were stuck on 2, you couldn't play any more lands the rest of the game. That kind of hard lock out is very bad for gameplay (see Winter Orb, Stasis, etc)
Right, 'it's controller' should be in there. It is intended to limit lands in addition to everything else.
Okay, I realized the wording needs to be tweaked slightly
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
If a permanent would enter the battlefield while its controller controls four or more permanents it shares a type with, exile that permanent instead.
2/2
That's needed since some permanents have multiple type.
As you have it currently, the 4th card of a type is a dead card, no reason to even try casting it. I suggest that, instead of a replacement effect to exile, it should trigger when the permanent enter play and sacrifice either (a) that permanent or (b) a permanent it shares a type with. Either way, casting permanents will still be relevant since you can trigger enters the battlefield/dies effects rather than they just being dead in your hand, and the latter lets you cast a new creature and sacrifice a less good one so you can improve your board state even if you are stuck at 4 creatures.
(a)
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
When a permanent enters the battlefield while its controller controls four or more permanents it shares a type with, its controller sacrifices it.
2/2
(b)
Knight of Chokepoint WW
Creature — Human Knight
When a permanent enters the battlefield while its controller controls four or more permanents it shares a type with, its controller sacrifices a permanent it shares a type with.
2/2
Although, the lands part alone makes this broken as it is at 2 mana.
It actually wouldn't be bad in multiples, because the conditional trigger would check on resolution if there were still more than 4 permanents sharing a type with the new one. So if there were two of these knights, and you played a 5th land, you'd sacrifice a land to the first trigger and then the second trigger would try to resolve and say, "Wait, there's only four of you. Nevermind, we cool."
The problem is I don't think the "4 or more permanents of the same type" wording works due to multi-type permanents. I'll have to dig at it a bit, but its an odd condition to word.
I believe that "card type" should be referenced rather than "type" (as seen in the oracle text for confusion in the ranks, which strictly refers to permanents on the battlefield). Stops confusion such as if someone controls 2 goblins and 2 boggart shenanigans, which is technically 4 creatures sharing a "type" but probably not in the sense we are thinking.
Requiring all four permanents to share a "single card type" with the new card eliminates the difficulty of dual-type cards. If an artifact creature enters the battlefield while its controller has two mana rocks and two mana dorks, there are not four permanents that share a single card type with it.
It would have to explicitly exempt permanents of other types.