I've been making a block for some time now. Made two sets before, they both sucked and I never "released" them... Now for the block... I still dont want to talk about it, but I have a cool ability that I really want to word properly. I'm thinking of submitting into the Mechanics Workshop after I perfect it more in its own thread... Here is what I have so far of one of the abilities, the other three being Projectile and Manifest and colored artifacts:
:xmana:: Transport Y: (At any time you could play a sorcery, transport target creature. You may transport up to Y creatures.Transport and transported creatures band.)
The ability has a cost:effect format because it has two variables to keep track of so I thought it works better that way. You pay and you get the effect being transporting Y things. I know Equip is the opposite, but whatever. Also, note that this is effectively the same thing as equipment. I do not want equipment!!! I need "equipment" that can attack as one with the stuff inside it.
As for putting Wurms inside it or whatever, I guess equipment has the same problem. "How is that Chaotic Ooze using that Leonin Scimitar?"
Yes, it's banding. Honestly, I liked banding, as did everyone else who understood it.
Before you dismiss this as some hopeless attempt to resurrect banding, plz help. This is not some crazy bands-with-other thing... Also, I know I submit this before, but perhaps I have a new take on it.
I really want to make Transports and Vehicles in this game in a flavorful and working manner. An example card follows:
Imperial Steam Tank -
Artifact Creature - Machine
:2mana:: Transport 2
~ gets +2/+0 for each creature transported.
~ cannot attack unless transporting at least one creature.
1/6
Forget the balance for the time being, I know it sucks, whatever.
I want to be able to have this Tank transport two Shadowmage infiltrators. If they block the tank, they'll fight a really big creature. If they let it through, the tank will blast them and the shadowmages will do their "infiltration". If they block the tank, the shadowmages get out and fight too. So banding works so perfectly here...
Not all machines will have the "...cannot attack unless..." clause, namely Automatons and such.
I want a warzone. I want a battlefield. I need a world where everyone is at war with one another. Where squadrons of thopters carrying mages do battle with steam tanks and clockwork automatons on the ground.
No golems, no lame artifact creatures, I need war machines. These will be small skirmishes with an entire plane at war with itself. The Phyrexian invasion was one thing, but what happens in a world that has discovered steam and gunpowder? What happens when technology begins mimicking what magic once monopolized? A bullet or a lightning bolt? It's not sci-fi, it's Steampunk, yo!
So, can anyone help with the transport mechanic, namely wording and such? I want it to be like banding. Even if you have prejudice against banding, tell me how it'll work as it is now. I want to keep the idea as it is, yet any form of wording works as long as it isn't a flood of words.
The flavor of transporting something doesn't lend that well for a banding mechanic. After all, transported troops can't really fight as long as they are in some kind of vehicle.
That's kinda true, but I wanted to simulate the feel of creatures inside firing arrows from battlements, hanging off the railings and attacking with swords, or in the case of ships laying siege on other ships from the main deck. Perhaps a tank wasnt the best example, but something like an airship that grants all attached creatures flying, etc. I want it to be transport as if the vehicle is carrying these creatures to the battlefield and they can exit the vehicle to pull off their special combat abilities during combat.
Also, with banding, the banded player gets to allocate combat damage. Will you allocate the 6 damage from the enemy Wurm onto the tank, or allow one of your guys in the tank to soak the damage? Etc. This way, the transport+creatures inside can be totally wiped out with enough damage.
Quote from Sheera »
x: Collate target untapped creature you control (Tap target untapped creature you control and attach it to ~this~ as long as that creature remains tapped. You may choose not to untap creatures attached to ~this~ during your untap step. Play this ability as a sorcery.)
This would lend itself to a decent battalion mechanic. However, in your wording it still confuses me how combat will occur. Do attached creatures take part in combat? Why can't a Prodigial Sorcerer inside a vehicle "Timmy" a creature?
* What happens if a transported creature has an evasion ability?
* Do transported creatures take part in combat?
* How and when can creatures leave the vehicle? If the vehicle was in combat, do the creatures continue attacking?
* You said that the creatures can be destroyed by a blocker. How does this work?
1) If a transported creature has evasion, and the transport becomes blocked, all creatures and the transport are blocked... just like banding...
2) Transported creatures take part in combat, just like banding...
3) Creatures "leave" the vehicle in combat, mechanically working like banding...
4) A blocker with enough power to overcome the transport and all transported creatures can take out the entire band... Just like banding...
This works just like banding...
What I want to do is exactly known when I say "banding"... But perhaps I am confused how I would word this ability...
4) A blocker with enough power to overcome the transport and all transported creatures can take out the entire band... Just like banding...
This is actually not like banding, at least if the player with banding is not wanting to lose all of his/her creatures.
When you control a creature with banding, you get to assign combat damage to the band. Meaning that you can put it all on one creature within the band and just lose a 1/1 if you want.
If you want it to be that much like banding, simply use existing rules and use the term "band" or "attacking band" somewhere in the reminder text or rules text.
Yeah, I did, but it seems clunky...
"I said Transport and transported creatures band"
It just seems so off...
Quote from WDunfee »
This is actually not like banding, at least if the player with banding is not wanting to lose all of his/her creatures.
When you control a creature with banding, you get to assign combat damage to the band. Meaning that you can put it all on one creature within the band and just lose a 1/1 if you want.
Yeah, that's true, but theres always the theoretical possibility that this would happen... It's more normal to throw all 14 damage onto a 1/1, yes...
Is it common for reminder text like this to have extra rules elsewhere? I know imprint, phasing, banding, and madness have complete rules elsewhere, but is it clunky?
I like my version best, but Nex's version was popular.
Hey!
I wish someone would have told me about this before!
This is awesome!
Thanks!
I would participate in that discussion, but my view of vehicles differs much from what they are getting at...
Amusing that they link back to my old thread I did concerning vehicles...
Nevertheless, I shall participate in this vehcile discussion to get an overall concensus
:xmana:: Transport Y: (At any time you could play a sorcery, transport target creature. You may transport up to Y creatures. Transport and transported creatures band.)
The ability has a cost:effect format because it has two variables to keep track of so I thought it works better that way. You pay
As for putting Wurms inside it or whatever, I guess equipment has the same problem. "How is that Chaotic Ooze using that Leonin Scimitar?"
Yes, it's banding. Honestly, I liked banding, as did everyone else who understood it.
Before you dismiss this as some hopeless attempt to resurrect banding, plz help. This is not some crazy bands-with-other thing... Also, I know I submit this before, but perhaps I have a new take on it.
I really want to make Transports and Vehicles in this game in a flavorful and working manner. An example card follows:
Imperial Steam Tank -
Artifact Creature - Machine
:2mana:: Transport 2
~ gets +2/+0 for each creature transported.
~ cannot attack unless transporting at least one creature.
1/6
Forget the balance for the time being, I know it sucks, whatever.
I want to be able to have this Tank transport two Shadowmage infiltrators. If they block the tank, they'll fight a really big creature. If they let it through, the tank will blast them and the shadowmages will do their "infiltration". If they block the tank, the shadowmages get out and fight too. So banding works so perfectly here...
Not all machines will have the "...cannot attack unless..." clause, namely Automatons and such.
I want a warzone. I want a battlefield. I need a world where everyone is at war with one another. Where squadrons of thopters carrying mages do battle with steam tanks and clockwork automatons on the ground.
No golems, no lame artifact creatures, I need war machines. These will be small skirmishes with an entire plane at war with itself. The Phyrexian invasion was one thing, but what happens in a world that has discovered steam and gunpowder? What happens when technology begins mimicking what magic once monopolized? A bullet or a lightning bolt? It's not sci-fi, it's Steampunk, yo!
So, can anyone help with the transport mechanic, namely wording and such? I want it to be like banding. Even if you have prejudice against banding, tell me how it'll work as it is now. I want to keep the idea as it is, yet any form of wording works as long as it isn't a flood of words.
Thanks!
That's kinda true, but I wanted to simulate the feel of creatures inside firing arrows from battlements, hanging off the railings and attacking with swords, or in the case of ships laying siege on other ships from the main deck. Perhaps a tank wasnt the best example, but something like an airship that grants all attached creatures flying, etc. I want it to be transport as if the vehicle is carrying these creatures to the battlefield and they can exit the vehicle to pull off their special combat abilities during combat.
Also, with banding, the banded player gets to allocate combat damage. Will you allocate the 6 damage from the enemy Wurm onto the tank, or allow one of your guys in the tank to soak the damage? Etc. This way, the transport+creatures inside can be totally wiped out with enough damage.
This would lend itself to a decent battalion mechanic. However, in your wording it still confuses me how combat will occur. Do attached creatures take part in combat? Why can't a Prodigial Sorcerer inside a vehicle "Timmy" a creature?
1) If a transported creature has evasion, and the transport becomes blocked, all creatures and the transport are blocked... just like banding...
2) Transported creatures take part in combat, just like banding...
3) Creatures "leave" the vehicle in combat, mechanically working like banding...
4) A blocker with enough power to overcome the transport and all transported creatures can take out the entire band... Just like banding...
This works just like banding...
What I want to do is exactly known when I say "banding"... But perhaps I am confused how I would word this ability...
This is actually not like banding, at least if the player with banding is not wanting to lose all of his/her creatures.
When you control a creature with banding, you get to assign combat damage to the band. Meaning that you can put it all on one creature within the band and just lose a 1/1 if you want.
Yeah, I did, but it seems clunky...
"I said Transport and transported creatures band"
It just seems so off...
Yeah, that's true, but theres always the theoretical possibility that this would happen... It's more normal to throw all 14 damage onto a 1/1, yes...
Is it common for reminder text like this to have extra rules elsewhere? I know imprint, phasing, banding, and madness have complete rules elsewhere, but is it clunky?
I like my version best, but Nex's version was popular.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=4557651&postcount=1
TheWarden's Creative Commons Music Pick Project (Retired):
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=336498
Hey!
I wish someone would have told me about this before!
This is awesome!
Thanks!
I would participate in that discussion, but my view of vehicles differs much from what they are getting at...
Amusing that they link back to my old thread I did concerning vehicles...
Nevertheless, I shall participate in this vehcile discussion to get an overall concensus