Reveal your library, remove a card from the game, then shuffle your library: Put a +1/+1 counter on ~ unless an opponent reveals his or her library and removes a card of the same card type from the game. That player shuffles his or her library.
Need some templating help. Is it necessary to put "Remove a card in your library from the game" or is it implied with the "Reveal your library" part? I also want the opponent to shuffle only if they've searched (successfully or not).
On top of that, I think I've seen it before, but do cards with the card name in it ever shorten the cardname in order to fit the text in the box? I thought I've seen it before, but I can't find any proof.
For example, Akroma, Angel of Wrath is a long name. If she had an ability that referenced herself, could they just shorten it to Akroma? Have they ever done that with other cards before? Recently?
":0mana:: Search your library for a card, reveal it, and remove it from the game. If a card is removed this way, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. Any other player may search his or her library for a card of the same card type, reveal it, and remove it from the game to counter this ability. Each player who searches their library this way shuffles their library."
It's vastly overpowered: Consider this, one or two hardy creatures, and the rest of your deck land. Or run this in an all-artifact deck: your opponent isn't likely to be playing with more than ten or so artifacts (except in affinity), so it basically reads: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature for each card in your library. Then swing and win.
Also, you want to limit putting the counter on only if you actually remove a card; otherwise, Leveller + this = instawin, as your opponent can't counter it by removing a card (since nothing will match a non-existent type).
As for the legends question, the short answer is that yes, they do that from time to time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
It's vastly overpowered: Consider this, one or two hardy creatures, and the rest of your deck land. Or run this in an all-artifact deck: your opponent isn't likely to be playing with more than ten or so artifacts (except in affinity), so it basically reads: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature for each card in your library. Then swing and win.
Also, you want to limit putting the counter on only if you actually remove a card; otherwise, Leveller + this = instawin, as your opponent can't counter it by removing a card (since nothing will match a non-existent type).
Well if you only have one or two hardy creatures and about 50-something land, then how good can the deck be? It's running 50-something land. Not only will you have to draw the creature you need, but it will have to go uncountered and undestroyed.
As for the limit, which is understandable, I'd figure that the only way you can remove a card is if there a card to remove. Things removed in groups remove the group entirely, regardless of whether or not there are any objects in that group- for example, Wit's End on an opponent without any hand. However, in my original card's case, you have to remove a card from the game as part of the cost, as in Wild Mongrel's case (you can't keep discarding cards if there are no cards to discard).
As for the ability, it's not on target creature, but on the creature with the ability, and the creature is 3-colors. As for "countering the ability" and running it in an all artifact deck, I think I can change it so the card they remove only has to share a type with the removed card- for example, you remove an artifact creature or artifact land from the game, and they only have to remove an artifact or a land, or an artifact or a creature.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Getting the last word does not mean that you win the argument.
Aren't the reveals unnecessary, as can't all players can peruse the removed-from-game zone freely?
I thought so as well, unless of course it says "face-down".
Edit: Yeah, that's right.
217.7b Cards in the removed-from-the-game zone are kept face up and may be examined by any player at any time. Cards “removed from the game face down” can’t be examined by any player except when instructions allow it.
Reveal your library, remove a card from the game, then shuffle your library: Put a +1/+1 counter on ~ unless an opponent reveals his or her library and removes a card of the same card type from the game. That player shuffles his or her library.
Need some templating help. Is it necessary to put "Remove a card in your library from the game"
Yes. You also have the problem that (rule 409.1h) costs can be paid in any order. So you you can shuffle it before you reveal it.
This really doesn't work as a cost. If you really want that function (like, if you want to be able to respond to the type of card removed), you'll need some more work. Also, IMO the revealing part makes this much harder to word, and I don't see the point. So I'm going to change it.
I also want the opponent to shuffle only if they've searched (successfully or not).
No problem: 0: You may search your library for a card and remove it from the game. If you do, shuffle it and then put a +1/+1 counter on ~ unless any opponent searches his or her library for a card of the same type, removes it from the game, and shuffles his or her library.
On top of that, I think I've seen it before, but do cards with the card name in it ever shorten the cardname in order to fit the text in the box? I thought I've seen it before, but I can't find any proof.
Legendary cards do it if they use their name twice. Arashi, the Sky Asunder is the first I found alphabetically. Recent enough?
[Edit]
Quote from Zyrakris »
I'd figure that the only way you can remove a card is if there a card to remove.
That works for your wording, where it was a cost, and mine, where I said "you may." (You can't choose to do it if it is impossible.)
I think I can change it so the card they remove only has to share a type with the removed card- for example, you remove an artifact creature or artifact land from the game, and they only have to remove an artifact or a land, or an artifact or a creature.
Reasonable; then you'd say "that shares a type with" in the ability.
[Second Edit]
You can get a "cost-like" funciton, and maybe make it easier to word with the reveal, if you make it two abilities:
0: You may [reveal] search your library for any card, and remove it from the game. If you do, shuffle your library.
When you remove a card frm the game with ~, put a +1/+1 counter on ~ unless any opponent searches his or her library for a card of the same type, removes it from the game, and shuffles his or her library.
":0mana:: Search your library for a card, reveal it, and remove it from the game. If a card is removed this way, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. Any other player may search his or her library for a card of the same card type, reveal it, and remove it from the game to counter this ability. Each player who searches their library this way shuffles their library."
Um, you have to counter an ability before it starts to resolve. You can't don't know what type of card to do at that time.
Also, you want to limit putting the counter on only if you actually remove a card;
That was one reason why it was a cost originally. You changed that part it so that it didn't work right.
Search your library and remove a card from the game: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature unless an opponent searches his library and removes a card of the same type from the game. All players who have searched their library this turn, shuffle their libraries.
It's not a land deck where this effect (depending on inital card cost) is broken, its a a deck like 10-land stompy. They can remove far more creatures than an opponents and just push through a rediculously large creature the turn this comes into play.
Need some templating help. Is it necessary to put "Remove a card in your library from the game" or is it implied with the "Reveal your library" part? I also want the opponent to shuffle only if they've searched (successfully or not).
On top of that, I think I've seen it before, but do cards with the card name in it ever shorten the cardname in order to fit the text in the box? I thought I've seen it before, but I can't find any proof.
For example, Akroma, Angel of Wrath is a long name. If she had an ability that referenced herself, could they just shorten it to Akroma? Have they ever done that with other cards before? Recently?
":0mana:: Search your library for a card, reveal it, and remove it from the game. If a card is removed this way, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. Any other player may search his or her library for a card of the same card type, reveal it, and remove it from the game to counter this ability. Each player who searches their library this way shuffles their library."
It's vastly overpowered: Consider this, one or two hardy creatures, and the rest of your deck land. Or run this in an all-artifact deck: your opponent isn't likely to be playing with more than ten or so artifacts (except in affinity), so it basically reads: Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature for each card in your library. Then swing and win.
Also, you want to limit putting the counter on only if you actually remove a card; otherwise, Leveller + this = instawin, as your opponent can't counter it by removing a card (since nothing will match a non-existent type).
As for the legends question, the short answer is that yes, they do that from time to time.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Well if you only have one or two hardy creatures and about 50-something land, then how good can the deck be? It's running 50-something land. Not only will you have to draw the creature you need, but it will have to go uncountered and undestroyed.
As for the limit, which is understandable, I'd figure that the only way you can remove a card is if there a card to remove. Things removed in groups remove the group entirely, regardless of whether or not there are any objects in that group- for example, Wit's End on an opponent without any hand. However, in my original card's case, you have to remove a card from the game as part of the cost, as in Wild Mongrel's case (you can't keep discarding cards if there are no cards to discard).
As for the ability, it's not on target creature, but on the creature with the ability, and the creature is 3-colors. As for "countering the ability" and running it in an all artifact deck, I think I can change it so the card they remove only has to share a type with the removed card- for example, you remove an artifact creature or artifact land from the game, and they only have to remove an artifact or a land, or an artifact or a creature.
I thought so as well, unless of course it says "face-down".
Edit: Yeah, that's right.
Yes. You also have the problem that (rule 409.1h) costs can be paid in any order. So you you can shuffle it before you reveal it.
This really doesn't work as a cost. If you really want that function (like, if you want to be able to respond to the type of card removed), you'll need some more work. Also, IMO the revealing part makes this much harder to word, and I don't see the point. So I'm going to change it.
No problem: 0: You may search your library for a card and remove it from the game. If you do, shuffle it and then put a +1/+1 counter on ~ unless any opponent searches his or her library for a card of the same type, removes it from the game, and shuffles his or her library.
Legendary cards do it if they use their name twice. Arashi, the Sky Asunder is the first I found alphabetically. Recent enough?
[Edit]
That works for your wording, where it was a cost, and mine, where I said "you may." (You can't choose to do it if it is impossible.)
Reasonable; then you'd say "that shares a type with" in the ability.
[Second Edit]
You can get a "cost-like" funciton, and maybe make it easier to word with the reveal, if you make it two abilities:
0: You may [reveal] search your library for any card, and remove it from the game. If you do, shuffle your library.
When you remove a card frm the game with ~, put a +1/+1 counter on ~ unless any opponent searches his or her library for a card of the same type, removes it from the game, and shuffles his or her library.
Um, you have to counter an ability before it starts to resolve. You can't don't know what type of card to do at that time.
That was one reason why it was a cost originally. You changed that part it so that it didn't work right.
It's not a land deck where this effect (depending on inital card cost) is broken, its a a deck like 10-land stompy. They can remove far more creatures than an opponents and just push through a rediculously large creature the turn this comes into play.
I'd love input and advice!