Guardian Greaves2 Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature has vigilance and lifelink.
Equip 0 "The call of duty can't be answered by everyone, but those who do are sure to be called heroes."
Firecrackers1 Artifact
Flash
Sacrifice Firecrackers: Choose one—
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Untap that creature and remove it from combat.
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target blocking creature. That creature can't block this turn. "So you've never seen anyone beat that trick before? Yup."
Greaves is on the high end of power but ts fine. A simple card with a simple effect is good.
Firecrackers are too cheap. 2 is a perfectly reasonable cost for this effect. Other than that they are an interesting design. It really captures the concept of startling something.
Greaves is on the high end of power but ts fine. A simple card with a simple effect is good.
Firecrackers are too cheap. 2 is a perfectly reasonable cost for this effect. Other than that they are an interesting design. It really captures the concept of startling something.
I have to disagree. At just one more mana it's not going to be worth its place in the deck. You can run solid removal for 2.
The 1 mana cost is what makes it attractive and versatile.
Greaves is on the high end of power but ts fine. A simple card with a simple effect is good.
Firecrackers are too cheap. 2 is a perfectly reasonable cost for this effect. Other than that they are an interesting design. It really captures the concept of startling something.
I have to disagree. At just one more mana it's not going to be worth its place in the deck. You can run solid removal for 2.
The 1 mana cost is what makes it attractive and versatile.
I can understand wanting a card you make to be decent but there are some mechanical “dead zones” in the design space of MRF where card designs don’t exist for a reason.
For example, red can get 2/1 creatures for 1 mana with upside at rare (such as falkenrath gorger) so it would make sense for a plain elite vanguard to exist in red... but none have ever been printed. Mark Rosewater has stated that the combination of a consistent “aggro” theme for red in limited environments and the presence of burn spells that can hit players in every sense would make a plain 2/1 for 1 in red too dangerous to appear more than occasionally in drafts and sealed decks.
Looking at your card, it feels like it is almost there. Having 1 damage for 1 colorless mana at instant speed seems a bit too efficient for colorless cards however. moonglove extract and vial of dragonfire show what colorless cards can do as far as direct damage. While your card is not broken “in a vacuum”, it fails to conform the standards for what such a card could start... and this is more dangerous for colorless cards than most other cards as it can lead to that card appearing in most combat-based decks (probably not to the same degree as mental misstep or dismember but colorless “cost-efficient” cards that do not play into a VERY specific strategy are always somewhat at risk).
I’d say it’s in a state where nearly anything can fix it, though. Make the mana cost . Make an activation cost of . Remove flash from the card. Any of those three changes and this seems like a pretty real card.
One other thing that I’ll quickly point out, though, is that the untap and remove from combat effects aren’t really used any more in part because a quirk in the rules allows you to target a creature of yours after it has dealt damage but while it is technically still attacking, essentially giving it vigilance. The fact that newer players often miss this interaction makes wizards a bit likely to create that effect nowadays. You can remove that possibility by forcing the first ability to target a creature “you don’t control”
Rosy is right about targeting on Firecrackers. Both thematically and mechanically it makes sense to target attacking creature you don't control. Additionally, the remove an attacking/blocking creature is costed much higher than it once was. Labyrinth of Skophos costs 4 to activate, and you have to have 7 lands before Thaumatic Compass transforms into Spires of Orazca and only gets attacking creatures.
I also get the flavor of it being an artifact, but this feels more like it should just be an instant. I don't see the gameplay gain of it being an artifact with flash unless your set has a major artifact theme.
I can't agree still when the "standards" you're talking about are ones that don't create anything viable beyond the likes of sealed draft.
This isn't a healthy standard. And it's one that you're going to self-righteously turn your back on when it's convenient for you, or to your leisure, or to your benefit, when the opportunity comes. It's unjust to hold people up to standards like this, especially given patterns of behavior like this.
I wanted to do "blocking creature" but I wasn't sure if a creature declared as a blocker could be undeclared. I mean, golden rule aside.
Being able to target your own creatures like that is a quirk in the rules, where the rules are to blame, and need to be fixed. Once again, lets not blame a design for a problem in the ruling structures.
Being able to target your own creatures like that is a quirk in the rules, where the rules are to blame, and need to be fixed. Once again, lets not blame a design for a problem in the ruling structures.
And, yes, you could target a blocking creature and remove it from combat, but the creature it was blocking is still blocked and won't deal combat damage to the attacked player (without trample).
This isn't a healthy standard. And it's one that you're going to self-righteously turn your back on when it's convenient for you, or to your leisure, or to your benefit, when the opportunity comes. It's unjust to hold people up to standards like this, especially given patterns of behavior like this.
1. I want to start out by saying that you are Absolutely Correct that people on this card creation forum may recommend changes from established rules and building patterns, if that is what you are trying to say.
2. With that said, there is a vital difference between how other people on this forum make arguments for change in the rules and how you have been doing so thus far. This vital difference may account for why you are getting such a negative response.
2A: When one of us do not like a rule and feel that it should be changed, we create a thread about that change specifically. While there may be card designs in that thread, those designs largely exist to support the argument being made (often that doing so would allow for greater design space). If I felt that there should be language in mtg to choose when abilities trigger (to allow modal cards like commands to have two abilities resolve in either order or to give a creature either an ETB trigger OR a Death trigger), I would compose a new thread making that argument to see how people feel about that change. I would ask more experienced players whether that disrupts any other rules in significant ways and actually propose specific language for a possible replacement as needed. Finally, I would not take the conversation outside of that one specific thread (where people looking at the thread for the first time could easily look at the history of that discussion) to post more cards that follow a hypothetical set of rules. In short, if I do not like the rules, I would try to engage the community in a specific discussion about the rules.
2B: What has been happening in most of your threads, meanwhile, is that you post a card that does not follow the rules, you are informed of the rules, and you respond by essentially saying "but how would you like it if there wasn't a problem with the rules"? It seems transparent in most of these discussions that you were not fully aware of the rules that you broke and that you do not understand the surrounding rules well enough to actually engage in a discussion about those rules, what specific rules would change, what specific new language would be created, and so forth. You are routinely provided with alternative wordings that preserve most functionality of the cards you design but you ignore those in almost all cases. Worse, you repeatedly repeat these errors through new threads in a way that may leave new posters confused. I may be one of the few people who remembers the original thread in which you posted "deus ex" abilities and your reasoning for why the game needs a constant flow of cards. You do not link back to that thread when you make a new deus ex card, do not include a link in your signature, and do not even give new posters the basic respect of acknowledging the rules problems already discussed with those mechanics... which leads these same discussions about the rules problems to continue on loop. Even a small note in the opening posts of those threads like "Others have claimed that the language used for Deus Ex would not function as intended but I believe that the intention of this ability is clear and that the rules should accommodate it" would stop a lot of repeated discussions and save you a headache.
Firecrackers 1
Artifact
Flash
Sacrifice Firecrackers: Choose one—
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Untap that creature and remove it from combat.
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target blocking creature. That creature is removed from combat and the creature it was blocking deals damage as though it wasn't blocked unless it was blocked by one or more additional creatures.
It's a bit wordy, but should effectively do what you want. I don't want to call the card too strong as it's really not, but maybe too good? Even that is a bit of a push. Let's say it like this... It looks like it is good at what it does, but that thing that it does isn't that great. Lol
I almost removed flash because that does kinda push it over the edge then I realized the significance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artifact — Equipment
Equipped creature has vigilance and lifelink.
Equip 0
"The call of duty can't be answered by everyone, but those who do are sure to be called heroes."
Firecrackers 1
Artifact
Flash
Sacrifice Firecrackers: Choose one—
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Untap that creature and remove it from combat.
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target blocking creature. That creature can't block this turn.
"So you've never seen anyone beat that trick before? Yup."
Firecrackers are too cheap. 2 is a perfectly reasonable cost for this effect. Other than that they are an interesting design. It really captures the concept of startling something.
I have to disagree. At just one more mana it's not going to be worth its place in the deck. You can run solid removal for 2.
The 1 mana cost is what makes it attractive and versatile.
I can understand wanting a card you make to be decent but there are some mechanical “dead zones” in the design space of MRF where card designs don’t exist for a reason.
For example, red can get 2/1 creatures for 1 mana with upside at rare (such as falkenrath gorger) so it would make sense for a plain elite vanguard to exist in red... but none have ever been printed. Mark Rosewater has stated that the combination of a consistent “aggro” theme for red in limited environments and the presence of burn spells that can hit players in every sense would make a plain 2/1 for 1 in red too dangerous to appear more than occasionally in drafts and sealed decks.
Looking at your card, it feels like it is almost there. Having 1 damage for 1 colorless mana at instant speed seems a bit too efficient for colorless cards however. moonglove extract and vial of dragonfire show what colorless cards can do as far as direct damage. While your card is not broken “in a vacuum”, it fails to conform the standards for what such a card could start... and this is more dangerous for colorless cards than most other cards as it can lead to that card appearing in most combat-based decks (probably not to the same degree as mental misstep or dismember but colorless “cost-efficient” cards that do not play into a VERY specific strategy are always somewhat at risk).
I’d say it’s in a state where nearly anything can fix it, though. Make the mana cost . Make an activation cost of . Remove flash from the card. Any of those three changes and this seems like a pretty real card.
One other thing that I’ll quickly point out, though, is that the untap and remove from combat effects aren’t really used any more in part because a quirk in the rules allows you to target a creature of yours after it has dealt damage but while it is technically still attacking, essentially giving it vigilance. The fact that newer players often miss this interaction makes wizards a bit likely to create that effect nowadays. You can remove that possibility by forcing the first ability to target a creature “you don’t control”
I also get the flavor of it being an artifact, but this feels more like it should just be an instant. I don't see the gameplay gain of it being an artifact with flash unless your set has a major artifact theme.
This isn't a healthy standard. And it's one that you're going to self-righteously turn your back on when it's convenient for you, or to your leisure, or to your benefit, when the opportunity comes. It's unjust to hold people up to standards like this, especially given patterns of behavior like this.
I wanted to do "blocking creature" but I wasn't sure if a creature declared as a blocker could be undeclared. I mean, golden rule aside.
Being able to target your own creatures like that is a quirk in the rules, where the rules are to blame, and need to be fixed. Once again, lets not blame a design for a problem in the ruling structures.
Its not a quirk of the rules. You can specify that it isn't able to target your own creature, you're just choosing not to do so.
And, yes, you could target a blocking creature and remove it from combat, but the creature it was blocking is still blocked and won't deal combat damage to the attacked player (without trample).
1. I want to start out by saying that you are Absolutely Correct that people on this card creation forum may recommend changes from established rules and building patterns, if that is what you are trying to say.
2. With that said, there is a vital difference between how other people on this forum make arguments for change in the rules and how you have been doing so thus far. This vital difference may account for why you are getting such a negative response.
2A: When one of us do not like a rule and feel that it should be changed, we create a thread about that change specifically. While there may be card designs in that thread, those designs largely exist to support the argument being made (often that doing so would allow for greater design space). If I felt that there should be language in mtg to choose when abilities trigger (to allow modal cards like commands to have two abilities resolve in either order or to give a creature either an ETB trigger OR a Death trigger), I would compose a new thread making that argument to see how people feel about that change. I would ask more experienced players whether that disrupts any other rules in significant ways and actually propose specific language for a possible replacement as needed. Finally, I would not take the conversation outside of that one specific thread (where people looking at the thread for the first time could easily look at the history of that discussion) to post more cards that follow a hypothetical set of rules. In short, if I do not like the rules, I would try to engage the community in a specific discussion about the rules.
2B: What has been happening in most of your threads, meanwhile, is that you post a card that does not follow the rules, you are informed of the rules, and you respond by essentially saying "but how would you like it if there wasn't a problem with the rules"? It seems transparent in most of these discussions that you were not fully aware of the rules that you broke and that you do not understand the surrounding rules well enough to actually engage in a discussion about those rules, what specific rules would change, what specific new language would be created, and so forth. You are routinely provided with alternative wordings that preserve most functionality of the cards you design but you ignore those in almost all cases. Worse, you repeatedly repeat these errors through new threads in a way that may leave new posters confused. I may be one of the few people who remembers the original thread in which you posted "deus ex" abilities and your reasoning for why the game needs a constant flow of cards. You do not link back to that thread when you make a new deus ex card, do not include a link in your signature, and do not even give new posters the basic respect of acknowledging the rules problems already discussed with those mechanics... which leads these same discussions about the rules problems to continue on loop. Even a small note in the opening posts of those threads like "Others have claimed that the language used for Deus Ex would not function as intended but I believe that the intention of this ability is clear and that the rules should accommodate it" would stop a lot of repeated discussions and save you a headache.
Final note: If you feel that we abandon the standards that we hold you to, feel free to find an example and link us to it. To show you an example of when we don't, let's look at a brief exchange on your apex predator thread.
1. One poster comes up with a card (re)design they think would work
2. Another poster reports an obscure rule that would stop that design from functioning
3. The first poster acknowledged that they did not know that rule and that they will need to keep that rule in mind for the future
This is not some super esoteric standard that we are holding you up to. This is the standard that we are keeping for all of us.
I think in the event of which a declared blocker is somehow obstructed, it should invalidate the resolution of the block.
"Resolution of the block" is not a thing. Blockers are declared and then the creature is blocked. There is no in between.
Artifact
Flash
Sacrifice Firecrackers: Choose one—
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target attacking creature. Untap that creature and remove it from combat.
• Firecrackers deals 1 damage to target blocking creature. That creature is removed from combat and the creature it was blocking deals damage as though it wasn't blocked unless it was blocked by one or more additional creatures.
It's a bit wordy, but should effectively do what you want. I don't want to call the card too strong as it's really not, but maybe too good? Even that is a bit of a push. Let's say it like this... It looks like it is good at what it does, but that thing that it does isn't that great. Lol
I almost removed flash because that does kinda push it over the edge then I realized the significance.