Some time ago SOS and I had a little argument on wording a card. The idea behind the card was a 'constant' creature, one that could not have its power or toughness changed.
He first came out with the following wording:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If a spell or ability would alter Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
3/3
The main problem I had with the wording was the introduction of a new word - 'alter'.
I then suggested the following:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If Constant Angel's power is not 3, Constant Angel's power is 3.
If Constant Angel's toughness is not 3, Constant Angel's toughness is 3.
3/3
Besides the number of times the creature is being referred to in its rules text, I like the idea that there's a constant p/t checking ability in it. The problem with it is that it's never been done before, and it took SOS quite some time before he knew what's going on.
In the end, we agreed with the following:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If a spell or ability would change Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
3/3
Question:
Are all the three wordings correct? I haven't seen wordings 1. and 2. anywhere before, so I hope we can open up some new design space here.
#2 won't work. The layering for P/T effects is
"(6a) effects from characteristic-setting abilities; (6b) all other effects not specifically applied in 6c, 6d, or 6e; (6c) changes from counters; (6d) effects from static abilities that modify power and/or toughness but don't set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value; and (6e) effects that switch a creature's power and toughness."
The Angel's ability would be applied in 6a or 6b, giving other effects the chance to modify it.
I think #1 and #3 would work, but they both allow for bonuses from counters.
I'm not sure the usual replacement-effect wording "...instead it doesn't" would work with respect to continuous abilities, like Crusade. Replacement abilities typically deal with particular events.
I think you'd have to come up with new rules and wording to get it to work. "Constant Angel's power and toughness can't be changed," (or "altered," if you like ;)) seems OK to me, plus a rule that this change should be applied in the appropriate layer (whatever that would be - not my forte.)
Anyway, I think any of your suggested wordings are all right, but since it's not really a replacement ability (or at least, it's doing more than previous replacement abilities have done), the use of "instead" is confusing IMO.
Le Chat prefers "can't be increased or decreased," as that also allows for some creatures which only go one way.
Instead of ignoring the effect, replace it to another that sets the p/t: "If an effect would increase or decrease ~'s power or toughness, instead its power or toughness becomes 3 instead."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If a spell or ability would alter Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
3/3
This kind of wording - using "instead" to make it a replacement effect - can't work. Continuous effects, like Blessed Orator's - do not create "events." They are changes that apply continuously. They would not be affected by this.
If Constant Angel's power is not 3, Constant Angel's power is 3.
If Constant Angel's toughness is not 3, Constant Angel's toughness is 3.
This wouldn't work well, but only because of the sublayer system (as Diving Griffin explained). It is a static ability that sets P/T to a specific value, so it would apply in sublayer 6b. It could "depend" on other 6b effects (because of the "if" conditional), but again, it wouldn't affect Blessed Orator's effect (applied in 6d) or p/t switching effects.
Oh, and it would be worded "If Constant Angel's power is not 3, its power is 3." That takes out a few names in the text.
If a spell or ability would change Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
Again, it can't work as a replacement. This also wouldn't affect +1/+1 counters.
Quote from Le Chat »
Le Chat prefers "can't be increased or decreased," as that also allows for some creatures which only go one way.
But it opens up lots of room for arguments. Does an effect that sets it to a different value increase or decrease it? Or do you just mean "+" and "-" effects? And yes, there is a point to stressing that difference.
Instead of ignoring the effect, replace it to another that sets the p/t: "If an effect would increase or decrease ~'s power or toughness, instead its power or toughness becomes 3 instead."
This "new suggestion," suggesting that "Instead of ignoring the effect, replace it to another that sets the p/t" was the original proposal. And as I said (and Azerbaijan before), it doesn't work.
The best bet is something like "Constant Angel's power and toughness can't be changed." But AFAIK, all other "can't be" restrictions refer to some discrete event (even "can't be blocked" only refers to the act of declaring a blocker), so you would probably have to define "constant" as a keyword ability, put that in reminder text, and explain it fully in the rules.
Some time ago SOS and I had a little argument on wording a card. The idea behind the card was a 'constant' creature, one that could not have its power or toughness changed.
He first came out with the following wording:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If a spell or ability would alter Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
3/3
The main problem I had with the wording was the introduction of a new word - 'alter'.
I then suggested the following:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If Constant Angel's power is not 3, Constant Angel's power is 3.
If Constant Angel's toughness is not 3, Constant Angel's toughness is 3.
3/3
Besides the number of times the creature is being referred to in its rules text, I like the idea that there's a constant p/t checking ability in it. The problem with it is that it's never been done before, and it took SOS quite some time before he knew what's going on.
In the end, we agreed with the following:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If a spell or ability would change Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
3/3
Question:
Are all the three wordings correct? I haven't seen wordings 1. and 2. anywhere before, so I hope we can open up some new design space here.
I'm not a vet in creating cards, but heres a good word to use:
Can't!!!
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
Spells or abilites can't change Constant Angel's power or toughness.
:1mana:: Constant Angel gets +99/+99 until the end of turn.
3/3
Does it work this way? If yes look at the ability i tacked on for fun.
He first came out with the following wording:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If a spell or ability would alter Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
3/3
The main problem I had with the wording was the introduction of a new word - 'alter'.
I then suggested the following:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If Constant Angel's power is not 3, Constant Angel's power is 3.
If Constant Angel's toughness is not 3, Constant Angel's toughness is 3.
3/3
Besides the number of times the creature is being referred to in its rules text, I like the idea that there's a constant p/t checking ability in it. The problem with it is that it's never been done before, and it took SOS quite some time before he knew what's going on.
In the end, we agreed with the following:
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
If a spell or ability would change Constant Angel's power or toughness, instead it doesn't.
3/3
Question:
Are all the three wordings correct? I haven't seen wordings 1. and 2. anywhere before, so I hope we can open up some new design space here.
Level 2 Judge
Token and Playmat Store
Beyond the Guildpact
"(6a) effects from characteristic-setting abilities; (6b) all other effects not specifically applied in 6c, 6d, or 6e; (6c) changes from counters; (6d) effects from static abilities that modify power and/or toughness but don't set power and/or toughness to a specific number or value; and (6e) effects that switch a creature's power and toughness."
The Angel's ability would be applied in 6a or 6b, giving other effects the chance to modify it.
I think #1 and #3 would work, but they both allow for bonuses from counters.
I think you'd have to come up with new rules and wording to get it to work. "Constant Angel's power and toughness can't be changed," (or "altered," if you like ;)) seems OK to me, plus a rule that this change should be applied in the appropriate layer (whatever that would be - not my forte.)
Anyway, I think any of your suggested wordings are all right, but since it's not really a replacement ability (or at least, it's doing more than previous replacement abilities have done), the use of "instead" is confusing IMO.
Instead of ignoring the effect, replace it to another that sets the p/t: "If an effect would increase or decrease ~'s power or toughness, instead its power or toughness becomes 3 instead."
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
This kind of wording - using "instead" to make it a replacement effect - can't work. Continuous effects, like Blessed Orator's - do not create "events." They are changes that apply continuously. They would not be affected by this.
This wouldn't work well, but only because of the sublayer system (as Diving Griffin explained). It is a static ability that sets P/T to a specific value, so it would apply in sublayer 6b. It could "depend" on other 6b effects (because of the "if" conditional), but again, it wouldn't affect Blessed Orator's effect (applied in 6d) or p/t switching effects.
Oh, and it would be worded "If Constant Angel's power is not 3, its power is 3." That takes out a few names in the text.
Again, it can't work as a replacement. This also wouldn't affect +1/+1 counters.
But it opens up lots of room for arguments. Does an effect that sets it to a different value increase or decrease it? Or do you just mean "+" and "-" effects? And yes, there is a point to stressing that difference.
This "new suggestion," suggesting that "Instead of ignoring the effect, replace it to another that sets the p/t" was the original proposal. And as I said (and Azerbaijan before), it doesn't work.
The best bet is something like "Constant Angel's power and toughness can't be changed." But AFAIK, all other "can't be" restrictions refer to some discrete event (even "can't be blocked" only refers to the act of declaring a blocker), so you would probably have to define "constant" as a keyword ability, put that in reminder text, and explain it fully in the rules.
Shaky wording, but maybe a point to develop on?
Applications are down the hall, to the left, through the door, and over on the table to the right.
Definately not that, because then people would print 100 on the card for its power and go to town.
This certainly is a doozy to word.
"Stoned players can't attack, block, or play spells or abilities."
I'm not a vet in creating cards, but heres a good word to use:
Can't!!!
Constant Angel
:2mana::symw::symw:
Creature - Angel
Flying
Spells or abilites can't change Constant Angel's power or toughness.
:1mana:: Constant Angel gets +99/+99 until the end of turn.
3/3
Does it work this way? If yes look at the ability i tacked on for fun.
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=317475478823307368#overview/src=dashboard
Like reading magic theory?
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=2901104710618966704#overview/src=dashboard
Are you a navy Nuke?
http://blueconceptnavynuke.blogspot.com/2012/08/captains-mast-at-nnptc.html