Escapism1 Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control no creature tokens, you may summon a creature token that's a copy of a Bird, Faerie, or Rogue creature you control with converted mana cost 2 or less. Learn from nature to be not like it.
I wanted to 'build a better Bitterblossom' here. Better obviously being subjective context to power, balance, and utility. Obviously this is treading dangerous waters, and restrictive creature types is something I think average people should shun, but this really shows the beauty it can hold well. It also shows how much better the action word summon is over create for creature tokens. Summon was one of the most dynamic words in the MTG catalog back when it was host for creatures. It was such a wow factor that really brought you into the fantasy of the game. I do think that for what was gained from it that it was a very hard, but necessary modification to make. The force majeure that was lost is kind of soul shaking. It's ideal though that it would be possible to recapture it for the game like this—and leaves to question how or why this diversified option was passed over in lieu of the bland and monotone, uniform implementation of the action word 'create'.
Litigate2U Instant
Fateseal X target opponent, where X is equal to the converted mana cost of target spell that player controls. You may fateseal before or after that spell resolves. There's no having an intelligent conversation with you. But that's exactly how I like it for where I want you—in court.
The utility of this card would likely catch some people off-guard, and they would be scared to use it. But for me, it's one of those 'more than one way to skin a cat' flip-takes on counterspells in blue. This is something I'm always avid about developing or designing for—to diversify upon the color for added interactivity and excitement in its available play-styles.
Bonus Card
Pt'tbnk Creature — Homunculus Rogue
You may have Pt'tbnk enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature card you own from outside the game with converted mana cost 2 or less.
As long as you control no other creatures, Pt'tbnk can't attack or block. "J-j-j-j-j-j-j-jjimmy!"
Alt Flavor Text "Y'r mkng m ptn'yr tbnk?" —The Alchemist's Confession Tales
Alt Flavor Text 2 "Y'r mkng mm ptn'mbnk?" —The Alchemist's Confession Tales
Lore Card
The conscious of life is just like the energy or the cells that it's made of at its worst. It is good and becomes corrupt. It is a mistake that begins to multiply. Do not make words you cannot or will not keep. Do not bring anything into this world you're unable or unwilling to take out.
Escapism: thank you for fully articulating that you wanted a change in the rules in the opening post rather than leaving readings to infer that summon = create. Otherwise, the card is fairly powerful and you need to specify that the copy is a token but I’m not totally against the idea.
Litigate: You chronically underestimate how good fateseal is and getting more than fateseal 2 is utterly backbreaking in actual games. The before or after thing is also just weird. I can tell that you were imagining one specific scenario in your head when you added that and I personally don’t imagine that extreme corner case could be worth the big change in the rules that would be needed to incorporate this rules change. Also note that this usage of “or” (before or after) is different from the type of “or” your deus ex machina abilities use (when x happens or when y happens).
Put’tbnk: First of all, how dare you insert a vowel into the name of a homunculus. This thing should be named Pt’tbnk (pronounced the same way, though). More importantly, copying a creature would make this card lose its drawback and this card is a creature without a listed power and toughness, which is a kinda big deal. Also, the idea of getting a wish for a cheap utility creature that you effectively play for free (even if you make the drawback work) is kind of silly as I’m far more likely to one a 1-drop or 2 drop creature for an ability than combat.
Why is your Bird, Fairy, Rouge tribal card green? Those tribes aren't green. Ignoring this problem. Its not a terrible effect.
Litigate, what do you think should happen if after casting this, the targeted spell is Remanded? This is a perfect example of an acorn card. The players can understand what it does but writing out the rules for this type of effect is a nightmare.
Put'tbunk, another perfect example of acorn technology. Though you could probably get proper wording for this if you try.
The color split is to allow sharing of the effect into other dual color domains where it could or should be suite, such as green and black for example. Using hybrid intuitively like this helps to provide for the game more abundantly, which gives players more bang for their buck, and utility with their invested collection. I was kind of on the fence and wanted to pitch the notion of if-or-not putting token should be necessary here with the rebranding of summon, especially that it's a copy (and must be a token). If you're creating a custom creature token from scratch then sure, you need that context for coherence and continuity of the effect. But honestly I feel like we should just be able to say 'summon a copy' and leaving the action word statement at that does well across the board.
If you cast it on Remand, and Litigate is countered, it has no effect. Did you seriously just ask what happens when a spell is countered? Otherwise, Remand is countering something else, and then is targeted by Litigate? In which you would be able to Fateseal 2. The spell resolves but the destination of the card is changed. Nothing changes about the resolution of the card on the stack, so nothing changes about the functionality of Litigate (being able to choose fateseal before or after that spell resolves). If Remand targets itself, and Litigate targets Remand, Litigate resolves first; the player is simply forced into fatesealing before Remand counters itself and returns itself to the hand (where otherwise it never resolved to be able to choose the after).
For the record, I do not underestimate how powerful fateseal is. I have expressed continuously that I understand exactly how powerful fateseal is. It is just that I strive to find ways to concentrate its potential in ways that stabilizes its power (by measure, or condition, or erratic scale).
On the blended wish effect for Pt'tbnk, I don't think it's as complex as you want to make it. The term "creature card" simply a necessary reference because it involves a card from other zones than the battlefield or the stack. Creature cards, become creature spells, become creature permanents. This transitional action already exists, we're just using a different conversion process in that cascade. This doesn't impede on anything. You're simply converting from card to permanent instead—rather than from spell to permanent. I don't think that's going to be too hard for people to grasp the concept of, or make anyone feel like this shouldn't be an acceptable operation.
Otherwise, you use a multi-facet operation, but potentially involving and even greater mental loop to process.
As you cast Pt'tbnk, choose a creature card you own from outside the game.
Pt'tbnk enters the battlefield as a creature copy of the chosen creature card.
Thus, you must decide which is the more graceful selection. This train needs to keep moving—the development wheels need to keep turning. It's unrealistic to expect such uniform of unicode things to stretch into infinity for you. You can't get everything to fit into this container, you need to create another container.
The color split is to allow sharing of the effect into other dual color domains where it could or should be suite, such as green and black for example.
If you made it black that would make a lot of sense. Those tribes are in blue and black. But you made it blue and green when those tribes are not green. This forces you to add green for commander with almost no added tribesmen.
If you cast it on Remand, and Litigate is countered, it has no effect. Did you seriously just ask what happens when a spell is countered? Otherwise, Remand is countering something else, and then is targeted by Litigate? In which you would be able to Fateseal 2. The spell resolves but the destination of the card is changed. Nothing changes about the resolution of the card on the stack, so nothing changes about the functionality of Litigate (being able to choose fateseal before or after that spell resolves). If Remand targets itself, and Litigate targets Remand, Litigate resolves first; the player is simply forced into fatesealing before Remand counters itself and returns itself to the hand (where otherwise it never resolved to be able to choose the after).
I said it as simply as possible and yet you don't understand. You even came up with every other possible scenario but the one I asked.
You cast litigate targeting X. It resolves, X is still on the stack. Controller of X casts Remand on X. What do you think should happen to the effect of Litigate? These are the types of questions you need to think about when you introduce new effects or timings.
The color split is to allow sharing of the effect into other dual color domains where it could or should be suite, such as green and black for example. Using hybrid intuitively like this helps to provide for the game more abundantly, which gives players more bang for their buck, and utility with their invested collection. I was kind of on the fence and wanted to pitch the notion of if-or-not putting token should be necessary here with the rebranding of summon, especially that it's a copy (and must be a token). If you're creating a custom creature token from scratch then sure, you need that context for coherence and continuity of the effect. But honestly I feel like we should just be able to say 'summon a copy' and leaving the action word statement at that does well across the board.
Besides all the unnecesary retexting on the card I feel this could be done at some point of the game, Birds and Faeries have been green in the past and are usually associated with the forest so I can see this card being part green BUT, why rogues? They have nothing on common with those two nor fit the theme of the card, you could pick something else like, insects, or squirrels that would fit the theme better (Also the name of the card itself is odd but whatever).
If you cast it on Remand, and Litigate is countered, it has no effect. Did you seriously just ask what happens when a spell is countered? Otherwise, Remand is countering something else, and then is targeted by Litigate? In which you would be able to Fateseal 2. The spell resolves but the destination of the card is changed. Nothing changes about the resolution of the card on the stack, so nothing changes about the functionality of Litigate (being able to choose fateseal before or after that spell resolves). If Remand targets itself, and Litigate targets Remand, Litigate resolves first; the player is simply forced into fatesealing before Remand counters itself and returns itself to the hand (where otherwise it never resolved to be able to choose the after).
For the record, I do not underestimate how powerful fateseal is. I have expressed continuously that I understand exactly how powerful fateseal is. It is just that I strive to find ways to concentrate its potential in ways that stabilizes its power (by measure, or condition, or erratic scale).
I believe he ask what happen if the card that is being targeted by Litigate is Remanded, as in Litigate loses its target before it can resolve.
Speaking of Litigate, well your card single handlely makes Vampiric Tutor and similar cards useless and make card draw spells specially red ones (You know the impulsive draw effects like Light Up the Stage)so much worse that it is kinda difficult to say they should exist, fateseal is kinda of an ill concived ability that you shouldn't have too much of otherwise you can just build around it and bassically be playing solitarie all game which is the most unfun experience ever.
As you cast Pt'tbnk, you may reveal a creature card with mana value 2 or less you own from outside the game.
Pt'tbnk enters the battlefield as a copy of the revealed card, except it has "Insert the drawback". 0/0?
ACTUALLY: With those little changes the wording works perfectly well and it is based on already existing cards, so yeah that would work.
The only odd part about that is the cost, why would a clone, that is not a shapeshifter for some reason, be RG (As in you can play it with no blue at all)?
ALSO: It makes a little bit with you using copy as a word for two different actions among your cards (One for creating a token and the other for cloning a creature) which is kinda inconsistent.
I'd like to add the fact of why I choose green blue (opposed to more native colors) is that this forces monocolor decks to have to splash for the effect, which in cases like this certainly wants to offer its power with that challenge. It might seem more familiar now that I've brought it to light entirely, and displays another prime means of using the hybrid platform to not only provide diversity, but challenge. I was not under-thinking the potential of this design when I made this choice, it enveloped all these aspects to bring the most well-rounded and thoughtful form of this design to the table.
As for Remand and Litigate, so did we actually ask what happens to a spell when it loses its target? That effect of the spell can't resolve and does nothing instead. The difference between poison and medicine is always going to be in the dose. No one is saying to abuse fateseal. I have not abused it yet myself. I simply continue to find means to use the mechanic in ways that are incredibly amusing. This should serve as a great example of what to do with such a volatile mechanic like this. And how one designs for it most effectively—on a large scale. It holds great power, where utilizing it requires tincturing, or maceration.
Your composure for Pt'tbunk does work, but let's throwback to a very important notion that [it's not as elegant]. Once again, adapting this change doesn't actually require a lot of work and this goes on to become a solution into the future, to allow more elegant wording composure for effects that's easier on the eyes and the interactivity demand of the game.
Do you really feel more comfortable forcing the loop through all those extra hoops so you don't have to amend anything else? This seems incredibly contradictory to the base argument. You want it to be easy to understand. You're saying it complicates things to amend it. But you're allowing something to be created by over-complicated means anyways for the sake of that argument. You're still saying that it enters as a copy of a card by the way, and not a permanent. It's simply referencing it in a different means, but at the same time, and in a more convoluted manner actually.
You really prefer this wording composure to my brush up take?
As for Remand and Litigate, so did we actually ask what happens to a spell when it loses its target?
No, let's drop the Remand it seems to confuse you. What happens if the spell Litigate targets never resolves. You have the ability as you may fateseal before or after it resolves, while this is vague in itself. I am asking you what you think should happen in the scenario where the spell doesn't ever resolve.
For clarity, Litigate resolves. All of its targets were legal. However, the spell Litigate targeted doesn't resolve. How do you think Litigate's ability should be handled? And why?
If you feel up for a bonus question. Should the rules treat this differently if the spell is countered versus removed from the stack as they are very different things usually both resulting in the spell not resolving.
You would be forced to fateseal before it would have resolved.
Otherwise, the rules would say that the card has to check to see that initial spell would resolve before allowing the player to decide legality for the fateseal effect (and choose to fateseal before it officially resolves or after).
I'd like to add the fact of why I choose green blue (opposed to more native colors) is that this forces monocolor decks to have to splash for the effect, which in cases like this certainly wants to offer its power with that challenge. It might seem more familiar now that I've brought it to light entirely, and displays another prime means of using the hybrid platform to not only provide diversity, but challenge. I was not under-thinking the potential of this design when I made this choice, it enveloped all these aspects to bring the most well-rounded and thoughtful form of this design to the table.
Yeah seems like you overthink cards too much, is Ok. Still suggesting exchanging rogues for a more flavorful tribe considering the card's caracteristics
As for Remand and Litigate, so did we actually ask what happens to a spell when it loses its target? That effect of the spell can't resolve and does nothing instead. The difference between poison and medicine is always going to be in the dose. No one is saying to abuse fateseal. I have not abused it yet myself. I simply continue to find means to use the mechanic in ways that are incredibly amusing. This should serve as a great example of what to do with such a volatile mechanic like this. And how one designs for it most effectively—on a large scale. It holds great power, where utilizing it requires tincturing, or maceration.
You use it often in many of your designs, that counts as abuse if you think of the context of all those designs cohexisting at the same time in the game, its a little too much. Fateseal is one of those ability that shouldn't be allowed in big number as is removes a lot of the player-to-player and luck factor of the game in favor of the player that can constantly manipulate the card its opponent is going to draw. It works great as a one of, but seeing it too much and too often does not seems like a path the game should follow. Sorry
Your composure for Pt'tbunk does work, but let's throwback to a very important notion that [it's not as elegant]. Once again, adapting this change doesn't actually require a lot of work and this goes on to become a solution into the future, to allow more elegant wording composure for effects that's easier on the eyes and the interactivity demand of the game.
Elegant meaning? Using fancy words? IDK, I would always go for the practical route, so I have no means to know what this elegance is suppoused to be. All in all it becomes a really subjetive matter. But cards with clear and explicit instructions are always easier to play, to read, to follow, etc.
Do you really feel more comfortable forcing the loop through all those extra hoops so you don't have to amend anything else? This seems incredibly contradictory to the base argument. You want it to be easy to understand. You're saying it complicates things to amend it. But you're allowing something to be created by over-complicated means anyways for the sake of that argument. You're still saying that it enters as a copy of a card by the way, and not a permanent. It's simply referencing it in a different means, but at the same time, and in a more convoluted manner actually.
It doesnt force anything it is worded by having clear sequence of instructions:
Ability 1:
1) We have the timing: As it is being cast
2) We have the instruction to reveal a card (With a set of caracteristics being its type and mana value) which as per rules is hidden information until you reveal it
3) revealing the card happens to store that card information as a variable we will use later
Ability 2:
1) We have the timing: When it enters the battlefield
2) The first part is your regular clone effect with the target beign directed to the stored variable from before
3) The rest is salt and pepper, or the spice of your choice (Meaning extra text)
None of those small instructions are complicated by themselves, All of them can be clearly executed by simply reading the text in the card (This is a really important thing), none of them require support from extra external ruling (Even the actions that don't seem obvious are instructed to avoid having to go to those externals rules, eg revealing a card from outside the game), none of them are ambigous, and so and so.
You would be forced to fateseal before it would have resolved.
Otherwise, the rules would say that the card has to check to see that initial spell would resolve before allowing the player to decide legality for the fateseal effect (and choose to fateseal before it officially resolves or after).
OK, but what does that mean? How do you check if something would have resolved? Do you wait for the stack to clear? The phase to end? This isn't clear.
Why does the player decide legality? This seems like you have no idea what the word means but you used it because it felt right. What does officially resolve mean for a spell that isn't on the stack? You didn't even come close to actually answering the question that would satisfy the rules.
If the rules are too hard then you can design acron cards which function on gut feeling as opposed to the rules of the game.
There might not be a lot of good selections for rogues, but that could change. Escapism is a condition in which individuals seek to run away from the reality of things by using other mediums as a gateway. Thus, what better creature type is there for this than rogues? It serves as an important aspect to the flavor, and wants to be thought provoking to people in real life who might be able to relate to such a thing in their own lives (or own life choices). They relate to being a roguish character, and then might be able to relate to the notion of Escapism, and how it can be an unwise, unhealthy choice they make.
The concept of elegance is an old MTG design trope. It was based on the principals of being able to achieve a desired result by not only the simplest means, but the smoothest, most direct, and most coherent means. It also coincided with the notion of their being beauty in simplicity, as a yellow flag against over-complicating a design. It would apply here to the wording composure, which also can coincide with the principals of elegance. Just like with computer code, wording composure can be functional, but it's not as neat and elegant as it wants to be. Thus, the ingenuity or improvisation on wording composure seeks to make it neater and more elegant; coherent, easy on the eyes, space-saving (without other compromises); and etc.
I would have also notioned this same bit towards the composure used for Escapism originally. If you're going to implement a new action word (summon in this case), why not go ahead and optimize some of the wording composure standards to make them more neat and elegant and easy reading? It was just that I realized without writing "token", we should still provide reminder text to distinguish that the copy isn't a token or otherwise. Thus, it becomes more intelligible to simply distinguish [summon a creature token that's a copy]. Per Exhume, there should be no need to distinguish the means of selection any further (using 'of your choice' or 'target' for example).
On that note, reminder text could be used if absolutely necessary to distinguish that the card (or card's effect) needs to check if the spell actually resolves or not. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't (or wouldn't) work otherwise without it.
Reap, you said a lot of words without actually saying anything meaningful.
The core problem with of Litigate is that "before or after that spell resolves doesn't actually define when the effect happens. For something to happen in a game, either a player has to have priority to take an action (cast a spell, play a land, morph a creature, etc.) or both players have to pass priority and allow an ability already on the stack to resolve.
Now, your spell without that "before or after" nonsense would work just fine: It goes on the stack, players can respond, and then it resolves.
As written, though, if the spell is countered, the spell never resolves so there is no longer a "before or after" for the action to take place. Further, even if it does resolve, your card doesn't define how you get to choose when to take the before action or the after action.
As to the other two cards,
The Homunculus does need the updated text that 5Colors gave you because, as currently written, the "Cannot attack or or block" ability will get overwritten by the copy effect and never affect the clone.
The Enchantment is fine except that Rogue doesn't really fit with the other two creature types and getting a free token each round is very strong for sac effects and chump blocks, so the enchantment should probably cost 3 mana instead of 2.
Wouldn't this be in the vain of a delayed trigger in the event that a player chooses fateseal after?
Litigate > player chooses before > Litigate resolves
[or]
Litigate > player chooses after > delayed trigger is created > Litigate resolves
The rules would simply state that the player has to choose before or after when they cast the spell, and then it creates a delayed trigger for the effect when they choose after.
Thus, this systematic method would go on to provide an answer for other effects that provide the ability to choose timing sequence. And this whole thing opens up interactive design space for the whole team.
Wouldn't this be in the vain of a delayed trigger in the event that a player chooses fateseal after?
Litigate > player chooses before > Litigate resolves
[or]
Litigate > player chooses after > delayed trigger is created > Litigate resolves
The rules would simply state that the player has to choose before or after when they cast the spell, and then it creates a delayed trigger for the effect when they choose after.
Thus, this systematic method would go on to provide an answer for other effects that provide the ability to choose timing sequence. And this whole thing opens up interactive design space for the whole team.
Alright, let's accept this as the answer. Now, circle back to the question. What do you think will happen when they choose after and the spell never resolves? Based on your suggestion the rules now have an answer but is it in line with your intent or understanding? Because it has become quite common for the rules not to support the intent of your design.
Wouldn't this be in the vain of a delayed trigger in the event that a player chooses fateseal after?
Litigate > player chooses before > Litigate resolves
[or]
Litigate > player chooses after > delayed trigger is created > Litigate resolves
The rules would simply state that the player has to choose before or after when they cast the spell, and then it creates a delayed trigger for the effect when they choose after.
Thus, this systematic method would go on to provide an answer for other effects that provide the ability to choose timing sequence. And this whole thing opens up interactive design space for the whole team.
Dude, do players have to carry a freaking rulebook for each card you'll ever made, what is the point on that?
I've seen you preaching the rules states this, the rules states that, which rules? The actual rules or yours? becuase that is two different worlds we are talking about, I may ask you to properly refer them as to "My rules" when you talk about your weird vision of the game, better yet, make a freaking post with all the rules you feel necesary and pin it to your banner so we can have the reference and we can stop wasting time.
Can we stop with the rulebook reference? There's no standard game of Magic that would be exempt from that.
Don't limit yourselves like this.
In this age of technology, where people can just look up ruling on their mobile devices, this argument basically fails to have any grounds whatsoever.
In closing, the card should require the target to have remained a valid reference through to resolution of its effect. So when this effect is floated by means of the delayed trigger, it should require that the original target remained valid and resolved, and was not disrupted by any means (thus revoking its validity as a reference). I don't think anyone who reads or hears that would say it's not fair. It's obviously setting strict guidelines to secure its legitimacy.
I know I've used this effect before (with fateseal also), so it's weird that this has become an issue suddenly. And we didn't already talk about this and clear it. Not saying everyone could or should remember that, but it wasn't that long ago that it should still be valid as a modern reference, and was cleared to implement and discuss further suggestively.
Wouldn't this be in the vain of a delayed trigger in the event that a player chooses fateseal after?
Litigate > player chooses before > Litigate resolves
[or]
Litigate > player chooses after > delayed trigger is created > Litigate resolves
The rules would simply state that the player has to choose before or after when they cast the spell, and then it creates a delayed trigger for the effect when they choose after.
Thus, this systematic method would go on to provide an answer for other effects that provide the ability to choose timing sequence. And this whole thing opens up interactive design space for the whole team.
Except your card does not create a delayed trigger. It COULD, if you worded it correctly, but thats not what the thing you wrote does.
Here's I'll fix it for you.
Litigate 1U
Instant
You may Fateseal X target spell's controller, where X is that spell's mana value. If you do not, when that spell resolves Fateseal X that spell's controller.
Because it is actually written correctly, it will actually create a delayed trigger that can resolve after the target's resolution (assuming it resolves) if you want it too, but with no ambiguity of then the "before or after it happens" happens, or when the choosing happens, or what happens if the spell is countered after your spell resolves and you didn't already fateseal.
I think you're suggestive exclusivity in what defines the trigger, but we should be able to be more open source with this into the future, I would like to say.
Thus, per the golden rule, when a card says to do something, it is done.
Adding the context of selection scenarios with "You may" or "Any player may" providing a time-lapsed option, is a simple addition to the database. And given the design space that it opens up for the entire team, and interactivity it provides for the game, it should be well-received.
I think you're suggestive exclusivity in what defines the trigger, but we should be able to be more open source with this into the future, I would like to say.
Thus, per the golden rule, when a card says to do something, it is done.
Adding the context of selection scenarios with "You may" or "Any player may" providing a time-lapsed option, is a simple addition to the database. And given the design space that it opens up for the entire team, and interactivity it provides for the game, it should be well-received.
I am not "suggesting" exclusivity in what defines a trigger. The rules specifically defines a trigger.
603. Handling Triggered Abilities
603.1. Triggered abilities have a trigger condition and an effect. They are written as “[When/Whenever/At] [trigger condition or event], [effect]. [Instructions (if any).]”
Just because you write something on a card, that doesn't mean it works in the game rules. You have posted a card here for criticism and feedback, and part of that feedback is how to make the card actually work within the game rules.
Are you suggesting exclusivity in the fact that they cannot (or could never) include additional designations (such as [You] or [May])?
First, [You], [May], and [You may] already appear on huge numbers of cards, so your question as written is kind of nonsensical, but I'll answer the questions you seem like you were trying to ask instead of what you actually wrote.
Can a card be written in a way that allows a player to do something at one of two different points in the game? Yes, I demonstrated how to do so above.
Can a working card be written using the verbiage you used? No, it cannot.
Could it be written that way in the future? Only if there were a severe quantity of text added to the comp rules defining the timing, priority, and interactions of abilities that allowed such a choice. Since the benefits of such additions are negligible and the effects can already be approximated without changing the underlying rules structure, it is unlikely such a change would be considered worth the effort.
So you're suggesting we should rather add a clause such as;
If you choose after, the target spell must resolve or this effect does nothing instead.
Rather than
Corporate Needs You To Find The Differences Between This Picture And This Picture
It's literally one sentence.
open up all that design space for the whole team?
Public Mod Note
(rowanalpha):
Per your previous warning, this forum is notfor arguing how the rules of the game "should" work. Please reread the "Spirit of the Card Creation Forum" regarding the focus of threads and feedback.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control no creature tokens, you may summon a creature token that's a copy of a Bird, Faerie, or Rogue creature you control with converted mana cost 2 or less.
Learn from nature to be not like it.
Litigate 2U
Instant
Fateseal X target opponent, where X is equal to the converted mana cost of target spell that player controls. You may fateseal before or after that spell resolves.
There's no having an intelligent conversation with you. But that's exactly how I like it for where I want you—in court.
Bonus Card
Pt'tbnk
Creature — Homunculus Rogue
You may have Pt'tbnk enter the battlefield as a copy of any creature card you own from outside the game with converted mana cost 2 or less.
As long as you control no other creatures, Pt'tbnk can't attack or block.
"J-j-j-j-j-j-j-jjimmy!"
Alt Flavor Text
"Y'r mkng m ptn'yr tbnk?"
—The Alchemist's Confession Tales
Alt Flavor Text 2
"Y'r mkng mm ptn'mbnk?"
—The Alchemist's Confession Tales
Lore Card
The conscious of life is just like the energy or the cells that it's made of at its worst. It is good and becomes corrupt. It is a mistake that begins to multiply. Do not make words you cannot or will not keep. Do not bring anything into this world you're unable or unwilling to take out.
Litigate: You chronically underestimate how good fateseal is and getting more than fateseal 2 is utterly backbreaking in actual games. The before or after thing is also just weird. I can tell that you were imagining one specific scenario in your head when you added that and I personally don’t imagine that extreme corner case could be worth the big change in the rules that would be needed to incorporate this rules change. Also note that this usage of “or” (before or after) is different from the type of “or” your deus ex machina abilities use (when x happens or when y happens).
Put’tbnk: First of all, how dare you insert a vowel into the name of a homunculus. This thing should be named Pt’tbnk (pronounced the same way, though). More importantly, copying a creature would make this card lose its drawback and this card is a creature without a listed power and toughness, which is a kinda big deal. Also, the idea of getting a wish for a cheap utility creature that you effectively play for free (even if you make the drawback work) is kind of silly as I’m far more likely to one a 1-drop or 2 drop creature for an ability than combat.
Litigate, what do you think should happen if after casting this, the targeted spell is Remanded? This is a perfect example of an acorn card. The players can understand what it does but writing out the rules for this type of effect is a nightmare.
Put'tbunk, another perfect example of acorn technology. Though you could probably get proper wording for this if you try.
If you cast it on Remand, and Litigate is countered, it has no effect. Did you seriously just ask what happens when a spell is countered? Otherwise, Remand is countering something else, and then is targeted by Litigate? In which you would be able to Fateseal 2. The spell resolves but the destination of the card is changed. Nothing changes about the resolution of the card on the stack, so nothing changes about the functionality of Litigate (being able to choose fateseal before or after that spell resolves). If Remand targets itself, and Litigate targets Remand, Litigate resolves first; the player is simply forced into fatesealing before Remand counters itself and returns itself to the hand (where otherwise it never resolved to be able to choose the after).
For the record, I do not underestimate how powerful fateseal is. I have expressed continuously that I understand exactly how powerful fateseal is. It is just that I strive to find ways to concentrate its potential in ways that stabilizes its power (by measure, or condition, or erratic scale).
On the blended wish effect for Pt'tbnk, I don't think it's as complex as you want to make it. The term "creature card" simply a necessary reference because it involves a card from other zones than the battlefield or the stack. Creature cards, become creature spells, become creature permanents. This transitional action already exists, we're just using a different conversion process in that cascade. This doesn't impede on anything. You're simply converting from card to permanent instead—rather than from spell to permanent. I don't think that's going to be too hard for people to grasp the concept of, or make anyone feel like this shouldn't be an acceptable operation.
Otherwise, you use a multi-facet operation, but potentially involving and even greater mental loop to process.
As you cast Pt'tbnk, choose a creature card you own from outside the game.
Pt'tbnk enters the battlefield as a creature copy of the chosen creature card.
Thus, you must decide which is the more graceful selection. This train needs to keep moving—the development wheels need to keep turning. It's unrealistic to expect such uniform of unicode things to stretch into infinity for you. You can't get everything to fit into this container, you need to create another container.
I said it as simply as possible and yet you don't understand. You even came up with every other possible scenario but the one I asked.
You cast litigate targeting X. It resolves, X is still on the stack. Controller of X casts Remand on X. What do you think should happen to the effect of Litigate? These are the types of questions you need to think about when you introduce new effects or timings.
Besides all the unnecesary retexting on the card I feel this could be done at some point of the game, Birds and Faeries have been green in the past and are usually associated with the forest so I can see this card being part green BUT, why rogues? They have nothing on common with those two nor fit the theme of the card, you could pick something else like, insects, or squirrels that would fit the theme better (Also the name of the card itself is odd but whatever).
I believe he ask what happen if the card that is being targeted by Litigate is Remanded, as in Litigate loses its target before it can resolve.
Speaking of Litigate, well your card single handlely makes Vampiric Tutor and similar cards useless and make card draw spells specially red ones (You know the impulsive draw effects like Light Up the Stage)so much worse that it is kinda difficult to say they should exist, fateseal is kinda of an ill concived ability that you shouldn't have too much of otherwise you can just build around it and bassically be playing solitarie all game which is the most unfun experience ever.
ACTUALLY: With those little changes the wording works perfectly well and it is based on already existing cards, so yeah that would work.
The only odd part about that is the cost, why would a clone, that is not a shapeshifter for some reason, be RG (As in you can play it with no blue at all)?
ALSO: It makes a little bit with you using copy as a word for two different actions among your cards (One for creating a token and the other for cloning a creature) which is kinda inconsistent.
Birds of Paradise also feels left out.
As for Remand and Litigate, so did we actually ask what happens to a spell when it loses its target? That effect of the spell can't resolve and does nothing instead. The difference between poison and medicine is always going to be in the dose. No one is saying to abuse fateseal. I have not abused it yet myself. I simply continue to find means to use the mechanic in ways that are incredibly amusing. This should serve as a great example of what to do with such a volatile mechanic like this. And how one designs for it most effectively—on a large scale. It holds great power, where utilizing it requires tincturing, or maceration.
Your composure for Pt'tbunk does work, but let's throwback to a very important notion that [it's not as elegant]. Once again, adapting this change doesn't actually require a lot of work and this goes on to become a solution into the future, to allow more elegant wording composure for effects that's easier on the eyes and the interactivity demand of the game.
Do you really feel more comfortable forcing the loop through all those extra hoops so you don't have to amend anything else? This seems incredibly contradictory to the base argument. You want it to be easy to understand. You're saying it complicates things to amend it. But you're allowing something to be created by over-complicated means anyways for the sake of that argument. You're still saying that it enters as a copy of a card by the way, and not a permanent. It's simply referencing it in a different means, but at the same time, and in a more convoluted manner actually.
You really prefer this wording composure to my brush up take?
For clarity, Litigate resolves. All of its targets were legal. However, the spell Litigate targeted doesn't resolve. How do you think Litigate's ability should be handled? And why?
If you feel up for a bonus question. Should the rules treat this differently if the spell is countered versus removed from the stack as they are very different things usually both resulting in the spell not resolving.
Otherwise, the rules would say that the card has to check to see that initial spell would resolve before allowing the player to decide legality for the fateseal effect (and choose to fateseal before it officially resolves or after).
Yeah seems like you overthink cards too much, is Ok. Still suggesting exchanging rogues for a more flavorful tribe considering the card's caracteristics
You use it often in many of your designs, that counts as abuse if you think of the context of all those designs cohexisting at the same time in the game, its a little too much. Fateseal is one of those ability that shouldn't be allowed in big number as is removes a lot of the player-to-player and luck factor of the game in favor of the player that can constantly manipulate the card its opponent is going to draw. It works great as a one of, but seeing it too much and too often does not seems like a path the game should follow. Sorry
Elegant meaning? Using fancy words? IDK, I would always go for the practical route, so I have no means to know what this elegance is suppoused to be. All in all it becomes a really subjetive matter. But cards with clear and explicit instructions are always easier to play, to read, to follow, etc.
It doesnt force anything it is worded by having clear sequence of instructions:
Ability 1:
1) We have the timing: As it is being cast
2) We have the instruction to reveal a card (With a set of caracteristics being its type and mana value) which as per rules is hidden information until you reveal it
3) revealing the card happens to store that card information as a variable we will use later
Ability 2:
1) We have the timing: When it enters the battlefield
2) The first part is your regular clone effect with the target beign directed to the stored variable from before
3) The rest is salt and pepper, or the spice of your choice (Meaning extra text)
None of those small instructions are complicated by themselves, All of them can be clearly executed by simply reading the text in the card (This is a really important thing), none of them require support from extra external ruling (Even the actions that don't seem obvious are instructed to avoid having to go to those externals rules, eg revealing a card from outside the game), none of them are ambigous, and so and so.
I do and the mayority of the player base would do too.
Why does the player decide legality? This seems like you have no idea what the word means but you used it because it felt right. What does officially resolve mean for a spell that isn't on the stack? You didn't even come close to actually answering the question that would satisfy the rules.
If the rules are too hard then you can design acron cards which function on gut feeling as opposed to the rules of the game.
The concept of elegance is an old MTG design trope. It was based on the principals of being able to achieve a desired result by not only the simplest means, but the smoothest, most direct, and most coherent means. It also coincided with the notion of their being beauty in simplicity, as a yellow flag against over-complicating a design. It would apply here to the wording composure, which also can coincide with the principals of elegance. Just like with computer code, wording composure can be functional, but it's not as neat and elegant as it wants to be. Thus, the ingenuity or improvisation on wording composure seeks to make it neater and more elegant; coherent, easy on the eyes, space-saving (without other compromises); and etc.
I would have also notioned this same bit towards the composure used for Escapism originally. If you're going to implement a new action word (summon in this case), why not go ahead and optimize some of the wording composure standards to make them more neat and elegant and easy reading? It was just that I realized without writing "token", we should still provide reminder text to distinguish that the copy isn't a token or otherwise. Thus, it becomes more intelligible to simply distinguish [summon a creature token that's a copy]. Per Exhume, there should be no need to distinguish the means of selection any further (using 'of your choice' or 'target' for example).
On that note, reminder text could be used if absolutely necessary to distinguish that the card (or card's effect) needs to check if the spell actually resolves or not. But that doesn't mean that it shouldn't (or wouldn't) work otherwise without it.
The core problem with of Litigate is that "before or after that spell resolves doesn't actually define when the effect happens. For something to happen in a game, either a player has to have priority to take an action (cast a spell, play a land, morph a creature, etc.) or both players have to pass priority and allow an ability already on the stack to resolve.
Now, your spell without that "before or after" nonsense would work just fine: It goes on the stack, players can respond, and then it resolves.
As written, though, if the spell is countered, the spell never resolves so there is no longer a "before or after" for the action to take place. Further, even if it does resolve, your card doesn't define how you get to choose when to take the before action or the after action.
As to the other two cards,
The Homunculus does need the updated text that 5Colors gave you because, as currently written, the "Cannot attack or or block" ability will get overwritten by the copy effect and never affect the clone.
The Enchantment is fine except that Rogue doesn't really fit with the other two creature types and getting a free token each round is very strong for sac effects and chump blocks, so the enchantment should probably cost 3 mana instead of 2.
Litigate > player chooses before > Litigate resolves
[or]
Litigate > player chooses after > delayed trigger is created > Litigate resolves
The rules would simply state that the player has to choose before or after when they cast the spell, and then it creates a delayed trigger for the effect when they choose after.
Thus, this systematic method would go on to provide an answer for other effects that provide the ability to choose timing sequence. And this whole thing opens up interactive design space for the whole team.
Dude, do players have to carry a freaking rulebook for each card you'll ever made, what is the point on that?
I've seen you preaching the rules states this, the rules states that, which rules? The actual rules or yours? becuase that is two different worlds we are talking about, I may ask you to properly refer them as to "My rules" when you talk about your weird vision of the game, better yet, make a freaking post with all the rules you feel necesary and pin it to your banner so we can have the reference and we can stop wasting time.
Don't limit yourselves like this.
In this age of technology, where people can just look up ruling on their mobile devices, this argument basically fails to have any grounds whatsoever.
In closing, the card should require the target to have remained a valid reference through to resolution of its effect. So when this effect is floated by means of the delayed trigger, it should require that the original target remained valid and resolved, and was not disrupted by any means (thus revoking its validity as a reference). I don't think anyone who reads or hears that would say it's not fair. It's obviously setting strict guidelines to secure its legitimacy.
I know I've used this effect before (with fateseal also), so it's weird that this has become an issue suddenly. And we didn't already talk about this and clear it. Not saying everyone could or should remember that, but it wasn't that long ago that it should still be valid as a modern reference, and was cleared to implement and discuss further suggestively.
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/826469-mesmerize
Except your card does not create a delayed trigger. It COULD, if you worded it correctly, but thats not what the thing you wrote does.
Here's I'll fix it for you.
Litigate 1U
Instant
You may Fateseal X target spell's controller, where X is that spell's mana value. If you do not, when that spell resolves Fateseal X that spell's controller.
Because it is actually written correctly, it will actually create a delayed trigger that can resolve after the target's resolution (assuming it resolves) if you want it too, but with no ambiguity of then the "before or after it happens" happens, or when the choosing happens, or what happens if the spell is countered after your spell resolves and you didn't already fateseal.
Thus, per the golden rule, when a card says to do something, it is done.
Adding the context of selection scenarios with "You may" or "Any player may" providing a time-lapsed option, is a simple addition to the database. And given the design space that it opens up for the entire team, and interactivity it provides for the game, it should be well-received.
Just because you write something on a card, that doesn't mean it works in the game rules. You have posted a card here for criticism and feedback, and part of that feedback is how to make the card actually work within the game rules.
Litigate should just be abandoned.
Elegance extends to language. Try improving your grasp of the english version.
Are you suggesting exclusivity in the fact that they cannot (or could never) include additional designations (such as [You] or [May])?
Can a card be written in a way that allows a player to do something at one of two different points in the game? Yes, I demonstrated how to do so above.
Can a working card be written using the verbiage you used? No, it cannot.
Could it be written that way in the future? Only if there were a severe quantity of text added to the comp rules defining the timing, priority, and interactions of abilities that allowed such a choice. Since the benefits of such additions are negligible and the effects can already be approximated without changing the underlying rules structure, it is unlikely such a change would be considered worth the effort.
If you choose after, the target spell must resolve or this effect does nothing instead.
Rather than
open up all that design space for the whole team?