Obviously doesn't work as in the title. (Because of how protection works.) So...
If a spell or ability would destroy all creatures, ~ isn't destroyed.
I figured it should be worded, though odd, like regenerate, meaning that the emphasis is on the "isn't." Otherwise, the other idea I had in mind was;
If a spell or ability would destroy all creatures, destroy each other creature instead.
Obviously this is functionally different, since it prohibits you from saving two copies of this card (though in all fairness, it would probably be legendary.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never ever create a card without taking the extra minute to double check it.
If a spell or ability would cause all creatures to be destroyed, destroy all creatures except for ~ instead.
Whenever all creatures are destroyed, if ~ was destroyed this way, return ~ from your graveyard to play.
The weird thing about these wordings is that they mean the creature can't be Terrored if it's the only creature in play, or Hexed if it's one of exactly six creatures in play. For the first one, you also might need some reminder text to indicate that things like Earthquake don't cause creatures to be destroyed directly.
An alternate approach, more specific to true Wrath effects, is:
All instances of "destroy all creatures" in the text of a spell or permanent are replaced with with "destroy all creatures except for ~."
I just made up the template for doing this as a static ability; to the best of my knowledge, everything that's done this so far has been a one-shot effect like Mind Bend.
Explain to me how this effect is supposed to work with Solar Tide! Now tell me whether the board position influences the ability and how! Find rules to prove your reasoning!
Can't? Then you are doing it wrong.
The if clause asks a simple question: "Would all creatures be destroyed?"
I will in my infinite mercy suggest a simple line full of wisdom and grace:
~ can't be destroyed by spells or abilities that have no target.
It may not cover every case and every card (well, neither could yours - if it worked at all), but at least it works under the rules and doesn't use stinky replacement effects that so few people really understand.
Creatures aren't destroyed by spells or abilities.
This differences between this and plain old indestructibility are so negligible I'd say it's not worth doing.
Actually, they're quite considerable. Indestructibility makes something really hard to kill. This just makes something really hard to kill with global removal; it still dies to targeted spells, combat damage, and the like.
The first versions seem to fit my first attempt at making the card, except like you said - technically they evade solo-terror or hexa-Hex. Which is odd, but I don't know if I hate it, since it makes the card less narrowly useful.
The second has the same issue my second did; It works perfectly, unless there are two copies of the creature. (Meaning, if it's non-legendary.) You can't replace "Destroy all creatures except ~" with "Destroy all creatures except ~ and ~ and ~", so it would only work for one of them.
I have to agree with Kraj; What do you mean, spells and abilities don't destroy creatures? What causes a creature to die from Terror? Perhaps it's a nuance I don't understand, but it doesn't seem to instantly make sense.
Valros' might work too, though it still seems odd, but it does evade most of the problems other takes of it have.
Sorry for pitching some a weird, quirky question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Never ever create a card without taking the extra minute to double check it.
The "destroy" action word doesn't have a source. Things are just destroyed. (I guess you could make the argument from the game grammar that players destroy things, but I wouldn't try to make any cards out of it.) Sacred Ground doesn't quite illustrate this principle, but it's the closest card example extant. Actually, we might want to use that wording here.
The first versions seem to fit my first attempt at making the card, except like you said - technically they evade solo-terror or hexa-Hex. Which is odd, but I don't know if I hate it, since it makes the card less narrowly useful.
The biggest problem I have with this is that it's not immediately obvious to players. My gut tells me the triggered version is better here for some reason.
The second has the same issue my second did; It works perfectly, unless there are two copies of the creature. (Meaning, if it's non-legendary.) You can't replace "Destroy all creatures except ~" with "Destroy all creatures except ~ and ~ and ~", so it would only work for one of them.
Any replacement ability is going to have this problem. The triggered version of the first ability was an attempt at getting around it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The "destroy" action word doesn't have a source. Things are just destroyed. (I guess you could make the argument from the game grammar that players destroy things, but I wouldn't try to make any cards out of it.) Sacred Ground doesn't quite illustrate this principle, but it's the closest card example extant. Actually, we might want to use that wording here.
Sacred Ground has a more general wording so that it stops even Epicenter and other creativity.
'destroying' happens. It's like a verb without a subject - something that Human language can't accommodate, but our formulaic logic tells us should make sense.
When Karmic Justice says what it says, it really means if the spell or ability causes something to incur destruction. The game knows what causes what, and something 'being destroyed' is a what, so we're good.
Now I think a big problem here is that the event of 'all creatures being destroyed', or anything like that, is ill-defined, for replacement effect purposes. I think there'ss a very good reason not to go there. My intuition, I'm not gonna lie, comes entirely from the fact that with such events added to the mix, I don't know how you could handle replacement effects with a computer program anymore.
See, an event is something that is more explicit. It has a less flexible 'type' than something like 'all creatures being destroyed'. What about when there are no creatures? Isn't there an "all creatures being destroyed" happening there, all the time? It just gets messy. And I think this points to how allowing such things is crossing a line that's really there, and shouldn't be crossed.
Now as for a trigger...
When ~ is put into a graveyard from play, [do something] if there are no creatures in play.
It's not perfect. But it's pretty good. You just make the 'do something' into a resurrect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I think what you are trying to say is that a sentence like this requries a subject, a verb, and a direct object of the verb: "I threw a ball." That the subject "you" is implied in an imperative like "Destroy all creatures." And finally
that the subject (you called it "source") is what "does" the action.
You are right, Magic does not use that concept even though players have tried to read it that way for years. It's why the Wild Growth template has been errata'ed probably more than any other, trying to make it clear exactly where the mana comes from - the land, the enchantment, or the player. It just changed again.
And it still isn't consistent. Either the player (the implied "you"), or the source of the effect, can be considered to be the "do-er" (or "source" as you called it) of the effect. Even if the effect is "destroy."
So if I understand this correctly... everyone is right? Blinking Spirit is correct, but the rules are ambiguous enough about the source of a "destroy" effect that the originally proposed wording ("If a spell of ability would destroy [...]") would be acceptable. Yes?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Sacred Ground has a more general wording so that it stops even Epicenter and other creativity.
'destroying' happens. It's like a verb without a subject - something that Human language can't accommodate, but our formulaic logic tells us should make sense.
When Karmic Justice says what it says, it really means if the spell or ability causes something to incur destruction. The game knows what causes what, and something 'being destroyed' is a what, so we're good.
Okay, if Wizards can live with that, I can live with that.
If a spell or ability would destroy all creatures, ~ isn't destroyed.
I figured it should be worded, though odd, like regenerate, meaning that the emphasis is on the "isn't." Otherwise, the other idea I had in mind was;
If a spell or ability would destroy all creatures, destroy each other creature instead.
Obviously this is functionally different, since it prohibits you from saving two copies of this card (though in all fairness, it would probably be legendary.)
An alternate approach, more specific to true Wrath effects, is:
I just made up the template for doing this as a static ability; to the best of my knowledge, everything that's done this so far has been a one-shot effect like Mind Bend.
EDIT:
The if clause asks a simple question: "Would all creatures be destroyed?"
Creatures aren't destroyed by spells or abilities.
Actually, they're quite considerable. Indestructibility makes something really hard to kill. This just makes something really hard to kill with global removal; it still dies to targeted spells, combat damage, and the like.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Please to explain.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
"Destroy" effects don't destroy it -> "Destroy all creatures" effects don't destroy it.
Although this is only an expansion of the reminder text, which is a simplified version of the rules for indestructibility...
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
The first versions seem to fit my first attempt at making the card, except like you said - technically they evade solo-terror or hexa-Hex. Which is odd, but I don't know if I hate it, since it makes the card less narrowly useful.
The second has the same issue my second did; It works perfectly, unless there are two copies of the creature. (Meaning, if it's non-legendary.) You can't replace "Destroy all creatures except ~" with "Destroy all creatures except ~ and ~ and ~", so it would only work for one of them.
I have to agree with Kraj; What do you mean, spells and abilities don't destroy creatures? What causes a creature to die from Terror? Perhaps it's a nuance I don't understand, but it doesn't seem to instantly make sense.
Valros' might work too, though it still seems odd, but it does evade most of the problems other takes of it have.
Sorry for pitching some a weird, quirky question.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
The "destroy" action word doesn't have a source. Things are just destroyed. (I guess you could make the argument from the game grammar that players destroy things, but I wouldn't try to make any cards out of it.) Sacred Ground doesn't quite illustrate this principle, but it's the closest card example extant. Actually, we might want to use that wording here.
The biggest problem I have with this is that it's not immediately obvious to players. My gut tells me the triggered version is better here for some reason.
Any replacement ability is going to have this problem. The triggered version of the first ability was an attempt at getting around it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Karmic Justice.
Sacred Ground has a more general wording so that it stops even Epicenter and other creativity.
'destroying' happens. It's like a verb without a subject - something that Human language can't accommodate, but our formulaic logic tells us should make sense.
When Karmic Justice says what it says, it really means if the spell or ability causes something to incur destruction. The game knows what causes what, and something 'being destroyed' is a what, so we're good.
Now I think a big problem here is that the event of 'all creatures being destroyed', or anything like that, is ill-defined, for replacement effect purposes. I think there'ss a very good reason not to go there. My intuition, I'm not gonna lie, comes entirely from the fact that with such events added to the mix, I don't know how you could handle replacement effects with a computer program anymore.
See, an event is something that is more explicit. It has a less flexible 'type' than something like 'all creatures being destroyed'. What about when there are no creatures? Isn't there an "all creatures being destroyed" happening there, all the time? It just gets messy. And I think this points to how allowing such things is crossing a line that's really there, and shouldn't be crossed.
Now as for a trigger...
When ~ is put into a graveyard from play, [do something] if there are no creatures in play.
It's not perfect. But it's pretty good. You just make the 'do something' into a resurrect.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I think what you are trying to say is that a sentence like this requries a subject, a verb, and a direct object of the verb: "I threw a ball." That the subject "you" is implied in an imperative like "Destroy all creatures." And finally
that the subject (you called it "source") is what "does" the action.
You are right, Magic does not use that concept even though players have tried to read it that way for years. It's why the Wild Growth template has been errata'ed probably more than any other, trying to make it clear exactly where the mana comes from - the land, the enchantment, or the player. It just changed again.
And it still isn't consistent. Either the player (the implied "you"), or the source of the effect, can be considered to be the "do-er" (or "source" as you called it) of the effect. Even if the effect is "destroy."
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
...
Damn.
There are just too many cards these days...
Okay, if Wizards can live with that, I can live with that.
Makes a lot of sense, but why aren't you using the "intervening 'if' clause"?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.