Commonly in Magic, a healing effect directed at a creature would "prevent the next X damage dealt" to it, but can you remove damage already on a creature, like...
Renew :2mana::symw:
Instant
Remove all damage from target creature.
Commonly in Magic, a healing effect directed at a creature would "prevent the next X damage dealt" to it, but can you remove damage already on a creature, like...
Renew :2mana::symw:
Instant
Remove all damage from target creature.
I don't think that would work. I think the wording would be "Prevent all damage that was dealt to target creature this turn.
There once was an errata-version of a card that did essentially what you want. From March 2002 to October 2004, the Oracle text for Consecrate Land said "If enchanted land would be destroyed, remove all damage from it instead," making it essentially an automatic regeneration without tapping. It was replaced with "Enchanted land is indestructible" when that term was defined.
So no, there is no problem with what was originally suggested.
Interesting. I'm thinking about putting some cards in a set that do this, kinda like "slow heals". And I put the sig banner in just a bit after that post, Oasis, lots of my other posts have it, but it didn't update old ones.
The difficulty with removing damage -- as opposed to preventing it, being indestructible, or out-and-out regeneration (which does things in addition to removing damage) -- is that it only works for creatures with relatively high toughness. You can't remove damage from an x/1 creature, since it will be dead before the remove-damage effect resolves; and, similarly, an x/2 creature can only "carry" one damage before it falls over dead.
It's a fairly weak ability, which may explain why it hasn't seen light in official expansions; that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile exploring, however.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
The difficulty with removing damage -- as opposed to preventing it, being indestructible, or out-and-out regeneration (which does things in addition to removing damage) -- is that it only works for creatures with relatively high toughness. You can't remove damage from an x/1 creature, since it will be dead before the remove-damage effect resolves; and, similarly, an x/2 creature can only "carry" one damage before it falls over dead.
This sort of argument can be made for many abilities; and in fact, it is called "game balance." If a mechanic is universally beneficial, it is unbalanced. For a somewhat lame example that I choose because it uses numbers in a similar way, you can't use Sunburst very effectively if the creature's CMC is 1. A better example is that you can't use Fear unless your opponent has black creatures.
It's a fairly weak ability, which may explain why it hasn't seen light in official expansions; that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile exploring, however.
Of course, this doesn't explain why, or that, it has been used.
(Le Chat has had Condor on her /ignore list for some time; recently, when she logged in from a public-access computer, she saw this post and felt obligated to respond.)
Quote from Condor »
This sort of argument can be made for many abilities; and in fact, it is called "game balance." If a mechanic is universally beneficial, it is unbalanced.
There are very few mechanics in Magic that could be termed "universally beneficial," if simply because there are other cards around to thwart it. Moreover, most players wouldn't play with a "universally beneficial" card; they want one that provides them with an advantage, not their opponent. Most gameworthy mechanics are exactly that: unbalanced. Le Chat gets to draw a card, you don't. Le Chat gains life, you don't. To go to the extreme, Le Chat wins the game. You don't.
But game balance isn't the issue here. Balance can often (not always) be achieved by attaching a cost or play requirement, requiring a targeting limitation, or restricting when an ability can be played (among many means). Gameworthiness is. What sort of interactions does it create for a player, and between players? How many different ways can it be used?
And there are other forces which drive whether a mechanic is gameworthy, among them flavor, storyline appropriateness, and how much delight their creator takes in it.
For a somewhat lame example that I choose because it uses numbers in a similar way, you can't use Sunburst very effectively if the creature's CMC is 1. A better example is that you can't use Fear unless your opponent has black creatures.
You've got that backwards. Fear provides an advantage unless the opponent has black and/or artifact creatures. Even then, there are some cards (Sea Kings' Blessing, or, previously, Sleight of Mind) that put things back in your favor.
Of course, this doesn't explain why, or that, it has been used.
It hasn't. Consecrate Land has an entirely different effect than "Remove n damage from target creature," and Le Chat is shocked that you don't recognize that. The real precedent for removing damage isn't Consecrate Land or regeneration; it's in the clean-up step, when damage is normally removed from creatures.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
(Le Chat has had Condor on her /ignore list for some time
Yes, it is well known that Le Chat prefers to ignore evidence that shows she is incorrect; this last post of hers is a good example of it.
There are very few mechanics in Magic that could be termed "universally beneficial,"
The English language can be ambiguous sometimes, with one word having two possible meanings, or two that could be used in the same place. Or both, as happened here. The way Le Chat is interpreting my use of "universal," which contradicts the obvious intent I had for it as evidenced by the examples I choose, is usually called "global" in Magic. I chose the un-used word "universal" to not have that meaning, but to mean "useful in all situations." But that was only obvious to somene who read the examples for their meaning (even if I did make the careless mistake of writing one example backwards).
Most gameworthy mechanics are exactly that: unbalanced. ... But game balance isn't the issue here.
Yet she criticizes this proposed mechanic for having an unbalanced aspect to it, then tries to lecture the person who pointed out the same definition of "unbalanced" that she did about what it means.
Consecrate Land has an entirely different effect than "Remove n damage from target creature," and Le Chat is shocked that you don't recognize that.
But I am not at all shocked that Le Chat failed to find the meaning, and truth, in what I wrote. Or that the intent of the card in question is irrelevent, as it did remove damage at one time, proving the only point I wanted to make (that there was no rules problem with the concept).
Yes, it is well known that Le Chat prefers to ignore evidence that shows she is incorrect; this last post of hers is a good example of it.
It's not "well-known," as you're the only person who feels that way. You fail to reflect on exactly why Le Chat has put you on her ignore list, and instead turn it into a personal attack: Exactly what got you on her /ignore list, and exactly why she puts you back there again. Welcome to /ignore.
Quote from Condor »
The English language can be ambiguous sometimes, with one word having two possible meanings, or two that could be used in the same place. Or both, as happened here. The way Le Chat is interpreting my use of "universal," which contradicts the obvious intent I had for it as evidenced by the examples I choose, is usually called "global" in Magic.
Except that "global" refers to enchantments, and not effects. None of the examples Le Chat gives -- drawing cards, gaining life, losing the game -- are "global" in nature, and certainly not as she expressed them.
Quote from Condor »
I chose the un-used word "universal" to not have that meaning, but to mean "useful in all situations."
The phrase you're searching for is "strictly better," and much has been written about that on the boards and in MtG columns.
Given the nature of the game, it's difficult to declare one effect strictly better than another, since you can always find a card which complicates the matter: Drawing cards is good, unless your opponent has a Underworld Dreams or Sudden Impact. Gaining life is good, unless False Cure or Transcendance comes into play. And so on.
But. Let's suppose that Le Chat Shocks her opponent's 2/2 creature. A Samite Healer is able to save that creature from dying. Its "remove all damage" cousin is unable to. It's also never able to save an x/1 creature from dying.
There are more x/1 and x/2 creatures in the game than toughness three or greater creatures, so -- in very general terms -- preventing damage is generally more useful than removing it.
Quote from Condor »
But that was only obvious to somene who read the examples for their meaning (even if I did make the careless mistake of writing one example backwards).
Yet she criticizes this proposed mechanic for having an unbalanced aspect to it, then tries to lecture the person who pointed out the same definition of "unbalanced" that she did about what it means.
Your definition of "unbalanced" was based on your definition of "universally beneficial," which you claim Le Chat misunderstood; so how is it that she "points out the same definition"?
Moreover, it is not Le Chat's claim that the mechanic is unbalanced -- exactly the opposite, that it's underpowered in relation to its existing cousin, preventing damage:
Quote from Le Chat »
It's a fairly weak ability ... that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile exploring, however.
And, as in all cases, Le Chat doesn't seek to lecture anyone. Part of developing a mechanic is understanding what it does, and how it functions in relation to (and compared with) other existing mechanics.
Quote from Condor »
But I am not at all shocked that Le Chat failed to find the meaning, and truth, in what I wrote. Or that the intent of the card in question is irrelevent, as it did remove damage at one time, proving the only point I wanted to make (that there was no rules problem with the concept).
Consecrated Land isn't a good precedent for removing damage; it's a bit like suggesting that Regeneration is a progenitor of Gustcloak Savior -- both, after all, can remove a creature from combat. If you want kudos for finding a card with "remove damage" in its text box, help yourself to a box of cookies. It's an entirely different mechanic, however, than what the thread originator proposed. And that's what makes it irrelevant.
.
Some obvious cards which remove damage:
Tomasite Healer -- 1W
Creature - Cleric
:symtap:: Remove all damage from target creature.
1/1
.
Saving Grave -- 1W
Instant
Remove all damage from target creature. Then, prevent all damage that would be dealt to it this turn.
.
Searing Balm -- :w/r:
Instant
Remove all damage from target creature. <THIS> deals damage to its controller equal to the damage removed.
.
Spikesore Hydra -- 3WR
Creature - Hydra
:symtap:: Remove all damage from <THIS>. <THIS> deals damage to target creature equal to the damage removed.
3/5
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
It is blatantly obvious. I didn't mention "global effects," I talked about individual effects being "universally benificial." Yet Le Chat "felt obligated" to lecture me on global effects since that made it look like she had a valid point and I didn't. And now she is again purposely trying to twist meanings, into "global enchantments." Who mentioned "global enchantments?"
You fail to reflect on exactly why Le Chat has put you on her ignore list, and instead turn it into a personal attack:
Le Chat fails to consider that I don't care why. But I do know exactly why. She doesn't like to have to face when she is not 100% correct. She would rather twist the meanings until she thinks it looks like she was correct. Maybe she doesn't even realize it - but it is blatantly obvious to whoever reads it.
And it looks to me like Le Chat started the "personal attack," when she "felt obligated" to deny statements of fact.
The phrase you're searching for is "strictly better," and much has been written about that on the boards and in MtG columns.
No. "strictly better" is for when you are comparing one effect to another. I was comparing one effect in several possible usages, and "strictly better" (as Le Chat is using it) does not fit there, and is not used that way in Magic literature.
Few effects are equally useful in all situations were you could try to apply them. That's what "not univerally benificial" was supposed to mean. It also is what "unbalanced" means. It was the concept in Le Chat's post that I replied to, and the concept clearly intended by my examples.
Moreover, it is not Le Chat's claim that the mechanic is unbalanced -- exactly the opposite, that it's underpowered in relation to its existing cousin, preventing damage:
Then why did she point out that it works on some creatures, but not others? That sounds like "unbalanced" to me. But it was not my point that it was "strictly better" than prevention in general; but it is better in some instances. It is balancing in that it can provide more usefulness in places where prevention might be weak ("unbalanced"). Like for damage that cannot be prevented, or because it is not tied to specific types or sources of damage (like many prevention effects are), or for more than one point at a time, or to apply it once you know where the damage ends up after possible redirection which prevention cannot.
And, as in all cases, Le Chat doesn't seek to lecture anyone.
Um, then what is it she "felt obligated" to do, and why is she explaining the meaning of terms that only she brought into the thread? It sure sounds like lecturing, and it sure sounds intentional.
I only said it did it, in response to a post that said there was no precedent for an effect that removed damage. And that there are no rules problems with doing it. But you could equally claim that the prevention from protections does not set the same precedent as the prevention from Samite Healer. The differences are about the same - not exactly the same, but similar. And no proposals we discuss here should be the same as something that exists already, so Le Chat's point that it isn't a good precedent is invalid.
If you want kudos for finding a card with "remove damage" in its text box, help yourself to a box of cookies.
I seek no such accolades. I am just saying it existed, and that there are no rules problems with it.
Now, Le Chat can stroke her fur all she wants about all of these irrelevant differences she is lecturing (intentionally, it seems) about. They are still irrelevant. My only point is what it has always been; that an effect that specifically removed damage once existed (setting a precedent) and that there are no rules problems with it.
Thanks for the help everyone, while the remove damage mechanic is a bit weak, i'm seeing how I can put it into one of my sets-in-the-making. Also, thanks Le Chat for the card ideas, the idea of having a second effect based on the amount of damage removed is great, and I think that's what will be on lots of the cards that use it.
Creature Bond, Mark II -- 1B
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature.
When enchanted creature is put into a graveyard from play, its controller loses life equal to the amount of damage on it.
But, is the proper locution "the amount of damage on it," "the amount of damage it has," "its damage," or what?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Well, "proper locution" is a bit of an oxymoron. "Locution" means something like a catch phrase, properly formed or not, used within a system or group. If this is to be something entirely new, there can be no existing locution. But if it is to use locution, it would be "its controller loses life equal to the damage already dealt to it this turn." That suggestion (and the proposed card, in many ways) is just a variation of Whipkeeper, once you get past the obvious difference that one is triggered and one is activated.
If we want something entirely new (which is usually why it is discussed here), we are free to create our own locution. And to make the proposed mechanic useful with this card, it seems we do. There is nothing wrong with "its controller loses life equal to the damage on it." That combines the locution used in two different concepts, the combination of which appears to be what is desired here.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Renew :2mana::symw:
Instant
Remove all damage from target creature.
Since there is a precedent in the rules for this, if you adhere to that wording (remove all damage from *whatever*) I see no problem at all with it.
I don't think that would work. I think the wording would be "Prevent all damage that was dealt to target creature this turn.
And where is the sig I made you?
So no, there is no problem with what was originally suggested.
It's a fairly weak ability, which may explain why it hasn't seen light in official expansions; that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile exploring, however.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Of course, this doesn't explain why, or that, it has been used.
There are very few mechanics in Magic that could be termed "universally beneficial," if simply because there are other cards around to thwart it. Moreover, most players wouldn't play with a "universally beneficial" card; they want one that provides them with an advantage, not their opponent. Most gameworthy mechanics are exactly that: unbalanced. Le Chat gets to draw a card, you don't. Le Chat gains life, you don't. To go to the extreme, Le Chat wins the game. You don't.
But game balance isn't the issue here. Balance can often (not always) be achieved by attaching a cost or play requirement, requiring a targeting limitation, or restricting when an ability can be played (among many means). Gameworthiness is. What sort of interactions does it create for a player, and between players? How many different ways can it be used?
And there are other forces which drive whether a mechanic is gameworthy, among them flavor, storyline appropriateness, and how much delight their creator takes in it.
You've got that backwards. Fear provides an advantage unless the opponent has black and/or artifact creatures. Even then, there are some cards (Sea Kings' Blessing, or, previously, Sleight of Mind) that put things back in your favor.
It hasn't. Consecrate Land has an entirely different effect than "Remove n damage from target creature," and Le Chat is shocked that you don't recognize that. The real precedent for removing damage isn't Consecrate Land or regeneration; it's in the clean-up step, when damage is normally removed from creatures.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
The English language can be ambiguous sometimes, with one word having two possible meanings, or two that could be used in the same place. Or both, as happened here. The way Le Chat is interpreting my use of "universal," which contradicts the obvious intent I had for it as evidenced by the examples I choose, is usually called "global" in Magic. I chose the un-used word "universal" to not have that meaning, but to mean "useful in all situations." But that was only obvious to somene who read the examples for their meaning (even if I did make the careless mistake of writing one example backwards).
Yet she criticizes this proposed mechanic for having an unbalanced aspect to it, then tries to lecture the person who pointed out the same definition of "unbalanced" that she did about what it means.
But I am not at all shocked that Le Chat failed to find the meaning, and truth, in what I wrote. Or that the intent of the card in question is irrelevent, as it did remove damage at one time, proving the only point I wanted to make (that there was no rules problem with the concept).
It's not "well-known," as you're the only person who feels that way. You fail to reflect on exactly why Le Chat has put you on her ignore list, and instead turn it into a personal attack: Exactly what got you on her /ignore list, and exactly why she puts you back there again. Welcome to /ignore.
Except that "global" refers to enchantments, and not effects. None of the examples Le Chat gives -- drawing cards, gaining life, losing the game -- are "global" in nature, and certainly not as she expressed them.
The phrase you're searching for is "strictly better," and much has been written about that on the boards and in MtG columns.
Given the nature of the game, it's difficult to declare one effect strictly better than another, since you can always find a card which complicates the matter: Drawing cards is good, unless your opponent has a Underworld Dreams or Sudden Impact. Gaining life is good, unless False Cure or Transcendance comes into play. And so on.
But. Let's suppose that Le Chat Shocks her opponent's 2/2 creature. A Samite Healer is able to save that creature from dying. Its "remove all damage" cousin is unable to. It's also never able to save an x/1 creature from dying.
There are more x/1 and x/2 creatures in the game than toughness three or greater creatures, so -- in very general terms -- preventing damage is generally more useful than removing it.
Your definition of "unbalanced" was based on your definition of "universally beneficial," which you claim Le Chat misunderstood; so how is it that she "points out the same definition"?
Moreover, it is not Le Chat's claim that the mechanic is unbalanced -- exactly the opposite, that it's underpowered in relation to its existing cousin, preventing damage:
And, as in all cases, Le Chat doesn't seek to lecture anyone. Part of developing a mechanic is understanding what it does, and how it functions in relation to (and compared with) other existing mechanics.
Consecrated Land isn't a good precedent for removing damage; it's a bit like suggesting that Regeneration is a progenitor of Gustcloak Savior -- both, after all, can remove a creature from combat. If you want kudos for finding a card with "remove damage" in its text box, help yourself to a box of cookies. It's an entirely different mechanic, however, than what the thread originator proposed. And that's what makes it irrelevant.
.
Some obvious cards which remove damage:
Tomasite Healer -- 1W
Creature - Cleric
:symtap:: Remove all damage from target creature.
1/1
.
Saving Grave -- 1W
Instant
Remove all damage from target creature. Then, prevent all damage that would be dealt to it this turn.
.
Searing Balm -- :w/r:
Instant
Remove all damage from target creature. <THIS> deals damage to its controller equal to the damage removed.
.
Spikesore Hydra -- 3WR
Creature - Hydra
:symtap:: Remove all damage from <THIS>. <THIS> deals damage to target creature equal to the damage removed.
3/5
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Le Chat fails to consider that I don't care why. But I do know exactly why. She doesn't like to have to face when she is not 100% correct. She would rather twist the meanings until she thinks it looks like she was correct. Maybe she doesn't even realize it - but it is blatantly obvious to whoever reads it.
And it looks to me like Le Chat started the "personal attack," when she "felt obligated" to deny statements of fact.
No. "strictly better" is for when you are comparing one effect to another. I was comparing one effect in several possible usages, and "strictly better" (as Le Chat is using it) does not fit there, and is not used that way in Magic literature.
Few effects are equally useful in all situations were you could try to apply them. That's what "not univerally benificial" was supposed to mean. It also is what "unbalanced" means. It was the concept in Le Chat's post that I replied to, and the concept clearly intended by my examples.
Then why did she point out that it works on some creatures, but not others? That sounds like "unbalanced" to me. But it was not my point that it was "strictly better" than prevention in general; but it is better in some instances. It is balancing in that it can provide more usefulness in places where prevention might be weak ("unbalanced"). Like for damage that cannot be prevented, or because it is not tied to specific types or sources of damage (like many prevention effects are), or for more than one point at a time, or to apply it once you know where the damage ends up after possible redirection which prevention cannot.
Um, then what is it she "felt obligated" to do, and why is she explaining the meaning of terms that only she brought into the thread? It sure sounds like lecturing, and it sure sounds intentional.
I only said it did it, in response to a post that said there was no precedent for an effect that removed damage. And that there are no rules problems with doing it. But you could equally claim that the prevention from protections does not set the same precedent as the prevention from Samite Healer. The differences are about the same - not exactly the same, but similar. And no proposals we discuss here should be the same as something that exists already, so Le Chat's point that it isn't a good precedent is invalid.
I seek no such accolades. I am just saying it existed, and that there are no rules problems with it.
Now, Le Chat can stroke her fur all she wants about all of these irrelevant differences she is lecturing (intentionally, it seems) about. They are still irrelevant. My only point is what it has always been; that an effect that specifically removed damage once existed (setting a precedent) and that there are no rules problems with it.
Creature Bond, Mark II -- 1B
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature.
When enchanted creature is put into a graveyard from play, its controller loses life equal to the amount of damage on it.
But, is the proper locution "the amount of damage on it," "the amount of damage it has," "its damage," or what?
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
If we want something entirely new (which is usually why it is discussed here), we are free to create our own locution. And to make the proposed mechanic useful with this card, it seems we do. There is nothing wrong with "its controller loses life equal to the damage on it." That combines the locution used in two different concepts, the combination of which appears to be what is desired here.