This is a rules nightmare, you have meshed together dozens of abilities into two keywords. Though it sounds interesting.
What is the mechanical reason for having these not be creatures? If you use creatures then Noncorporeal only makes it so that they don't die for having 0 or less toughness. It would also be used as a marker for the secondary mechanic.
Are you willing to forego the more complicated portions of these to make them function? Specifically, the independent action. Other portions can be changed to be more general rules. If you remove the independent action it becomes more reasonable. It can be written as one ability that has a state change with some hidden rules. The ability combines all of the noncorporeal creatures and the state allows you to scapegoat individual pieces. (You may combine this creature and another creature with noncorporeal, the new creature is treated as having the combined characteristics of all cards in the combination.) (If a combined creature would leave the battlefield, instead remove all damage from it and exile one of the creatures in its combination.)
This might make it stronger than you wanted but it lays out clearer rules. There are certainly more problems that aren't covered here but that could be sorted out as you go along.
Orchid, Soratami Legend, is a one card hard lock. If it resolves and doesn't eat removal then for the rest of the game your opponent doesn't get to play magic. This is terrible design.
Lily, Mermaid Legend, caring about noninstant spells is weird. Entirely due-able but weird. Putting a land into your hand vs untapping a permanent is strange, it targets when it triggers but you don't know if the target is relevant until it resolves, and if the target is illegal then the trigger is countered even if the target wouldn't have mattered.
Flowers, Psionic Legend, the wording on the second ability is a mess, it needs to be two abilities, the one that exiles and one that allows casting from exile.
Banishing Blight, this is interesting but well above the power curve. Each of these effects are 3 mana to get both at 4 is too cheap.
No, you would be unable to cast Abrupt Decay in this scenario. The split second from Word doesn't stop the cascade trigger, so you do go through your deck till you find something, but it does stop you from casting the spell. So all of the revealed cards go to the bottom of your library.
You mentioned slowing down the game by giving too many options, but the random element will end up slowing games far more than a flat choice. As is, it seems there is rarely a plethora of choices for your cards. The ability reads as a more complicated Imprint. The problem of too much control over the effect is actually something you probably want. If the effects are too strong when they have complete control then you should probably scale back the effects not remove the control.
This problem could be fixed, I believe, by changing Amalgam's p/t setting ability to a persistant +n/+n effect: "Amalgam gets +X/+Y, where X is the total power among cards in graveyards and Y is their total toughness." That puts both abilities in the same layer.
Unfortunately, this also does not work. Even though you shift the Amalgam effect from layer 7a to layer 7c, the relative order of application between Amalgam's P/T-modification ability and its activated ability's effect is still the same. This is because the activated ability has a later timestamp than Amalgam's ability.
This does fix the problem, the Amalgam's ability would be dependent on the other so timestamp wouldn't apply.
As a player who returned to magic because dinos, i am really disapointed. I was hopping for better dinos cards. Something great like Carnage, Alpha, Ripjaw.
Some human who gives dinos +1/+1 and to cost 1 more less or to give trample or vigilance.
And ascend is too slow. 10 pernaments?? 5-7 would be real deal.
5-7 would make it far more consistent, almost guaranteed. Making it an inherently bad mechanic. 10 is an achievable number, easily for some decks, while still difficult enough so that it feels like an accomplishment when its done.
Player A will gain life. Player A controls the enchantment so the 'you' in the 'you gain 2 life' is referring to them. The awkward wording is for multiplayer where if you had players A, B, C and D. If A put this one B, then C and D both attack B; then A, C and D will gain 2 life.
The death ability definitely pushes this to mythic, without it skits a line where its fine to be either. Its hits almost every note of a mythic, very large, very expensive, very splashy, complicated; the only thing that could make it more mythic would be making it legendary or more colors(only in a nonmulticolor set).
Why use doom counters? Why use the convoluted idea of 'dooming' something, thus encouraging them to attack or otherwise use it up before the turn ends. A Sheoldred like ability could be fine but there is no need to make it complicated. In fact a copy paste of Sheoldred would be a flavor home run, and having it on the back half of a card could make it a lot cheaper.
The rules are permissive in nature(as in they define what is allowed rather than what isn't allowed[technically nothing can be done without the rules permission]), and while all of the aura rules limit what they can enchant there isn't a rule that allows them to attach to anything other than the ones that restrict.
So who won? Looks like Merfolk took the Sun and ran off with it, while Vampires conquered the land, Pirates took all the treasure, and Dinos are dead.
They are doing a "pick your own ending" adventure book thing where between geocaching and a future social media votes, one of the faction will win. Creative has written all four 4 ending and until we know who got the most "points" we won't know who takes the city.
I don't know if I've said this before, but think it would have been cool if they had us choose a faction for our DCI number and had us duke it out at FNM. The better you do on the tables the better your faction does. Fire Emblem Heroes does popularity polls this way (though it has no standing toward the game's story).
That would be really cool to be honest.
Hopefully someone at Wizards is reading and they can use the idea when we have a Phyrexian war or something. I think that it would be a neat way to get those who aren't into the story into it and those who care about the story to FNM.
Didn't they do something like this for Ravnica with the guilds? They had them ranked based on players wins. I don't think it had anything story related to it but it was interesting seeing each guild ranked, I think one guild(izzet?) led the majority of the time.
That was awsome, and if they did the same for the factions with the city at stakes it would have been cool too, but might have made people feel forced to go play when they don't want to or their voice won't be heard. Or that their voice won't be heard due to being too weak.
but this thread is mine and it was about "+1 -1 clarifications".
After what i learned here i faced the situation i asked, that's why i posted again here.
So basically the undying dies (forever) cause it happens in the same time of adding the -1 counters.
In other words he dies before the +1 counters die.
Technically at the same time, but functionally yes, it dies before the counters are removed.
UP!
I was discussing with friends.
After this thread i ended up in thinking that an undying creature (already "returned" from graveyard) is immortal against a wither attack cause that attack should leave the undying creature with "no counters" and so it will return again and again.
They said that the undying dies.
After reading the rules in this thread about counters i'm sure they are wrong, but i'm gonna ask here again..
You should normally start a new thread when asking a new question unless it requires information from the previous question.
+1/+1 and -1/-1 counters remove each other as a statebase action. But creatures are also put into the graveyard in this same action. So if an undying creature, say Geralf's Messenger has already come back and is a 4/3(3/2 with a +1/+1 counter), gets in a fight with a sufficiently large wither creature, say Hateflayer. The messenger will end up a -1/-2(3/2 with a +1/+1 counter and five -1/-1 counters) it will be put into the graveyard at the same time its +1/+1 counter would be removed, so the game sees that it had a +1/+1 counter the last time it was on the battlefield so Undying won't trigger.
The ability Mikaeus has that kills humans is a trigger which is exactly what Beckett Brass has. So, all triggers go onto the stack at the same time. The Mikaeus triggers (there are 3 of them) will resolve first but that doesn't matter. While all triggers are on the stack (or, at least, before the trigger killing Beckett Brass is on the Stack), you can Exile and Return Becket Brass.
This will not affect either trigger in that they will both resolve. However, the Beckett Brass that is now on the battlefield is not the same one that dealt damage to Mikaeus and is not the one Mikeaus is looking for so it will survive. Then, Beckett Brass's trigger resolves and you gain control of the Scarab God you targeted.
Admiral Beckett Brass doesn't trigger until the end step. Which is why saving it with the Ruse is so important.
Ixalan's Binding doesn't attach to anything and has no "as this card enters the battlefield" ability. Ixalan's Binding has a "When this ETB" which is very different. The first is a replacement effect, which modifies how the permanent enters the battlefield the second is a trigger that goes off when the permanent enters the battlefield. Compare with Adaptive Automaton.
So, the assumed events are Binding has resolved, is on the field, and its triggered ability is on the stack targeting the horse. With that on the stack, opp unsummons the horse, so Binding's ability is countered on resolution. This has no baring on whether the Binding stays on the field, enchantments are permanent spells that upon resolution stay on the battlefield. The result is, your Binding is on the field not preventing anything from being cast, because there is no exiled spell for the second ability to reference.
What is the mechanical reason for having these not be creatures? If you use creatures then Noncorporeal only makes it so that they don't die for having 0 or less toughness. It would also be used as a marker for the secondary mechanic.
Are you willing to forego the more complicated portions of these to make them function? Specifically, the independent action. Other portions can be changed to be more general rules. If you remove the independent action it becomes more reasonable. It can be written as one ability that has a state change with some hidden rules. The ability combines all of the noncorporeal creatures and the state allows you to scapegoat individual pieces. (You may combine this creature and another creature with noncorporeal, the new creature is treated as having the combined characteristics of all cards in the combination.) (If a combined creature would leave the battlefield, instead remove all damage from it and exile one of the creatures in its combination.)
This might make it stronger than you wanted but it lays out clearer rules. There are certainly more problems that aren't covered here but that could be sorted out as you go along.
Lily, Mermaid Legend, caring about noninstant spells is weird. Entirely due-able but weird. Putting a land into your hand vs untapping a permanent is strange, it targets when it triggers but you don't know if the target is relevant until it resolves, and if the target is illegal then the trigger is countered even if the target wouldn't have mattered.
Flowers, Psionic Legend, the wording on the second ability is a mess, it needs to be two abilities, the one that exiles and one that allows casting from exile.
Banishing Blight, this is interesting but well above the power curve. Each of these effects are 3 mana to get both at 4 is too cheap.
That was awsome, and if they did the same for the factions with the city at stakes it would have been cool too, but might have made people feel forced to go play when they don't want to or their voice won't be heard. Or that their voice won't be heard due to being too weak.
+1/+1 and -1/-1 counters remove each other as a statebase action. But creatures are also put into the graveyard in this same action. So if an undying creature, say Geralf's Messenger has already come back and is a 4/3(3/2 with a +1/+1 counter), gets in a fight with a sufficiently large wither creature, say Hateflayer. The messenger will end up a -1/-2(3/2 with a +1/+1 counter and five -1/-1 counters) it will be put into the graveyard at the same time its +1/+1 counter would be removed, so the game sees that it had a +1/+1 counter the last time it was on the battlefield so Undying won't trigger.
So, the assumed events are Binding has resolved, is on the field, and its triggered ability is on the stack targeting the horse. With that on the stack, opp unsummons the horse, so Binding's ability is countered on resolution. This has no baring on whether the Binding stays on the field, enchantments are permanent spells that upon resolution stay on the battlefield. The result is, your Binding is on the field not preventing anything from being cast, because there is no exiled spell for the second ability to reference.