3
Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »I think you guys are misinterpreting the context "one-up".
I mean, a design that does the exact opposite, or counter-balances the effect of another.
3
1
Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »No—it can't enchant other permanents if copies an Aura because those targets are chosen while it's on the stack.
It would require an "As ~ enters the battlefield" function, as was suggested and explained earlier (so that it becomes the enchantment before it enters the battlefield—and you can effectively make those choices). The functionality it currently has sees it become the enchantment after it enters the battlefield, which is too late to make the 'enchant parameter' selections.
I don't think it's healthy to have that functionality at this level, and this place on the mana curve.
1
1
Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »Quote from ashrog »
Also, Destiny Bond is not a great name, since the majority of people are going to link it to Pokemon.
People like links like that.
Throwbacks and tributes.
2
You never want rulings to do the work of card text. If the intent was to mess with cards that look at card names then the effect needs to be written out. Otherwise, you run the problem of making people think that Conspiracy and its ilk make all lords affect the creature type you choose. There is little benefit to trying to roll that effect into that text and there is obvious and immediate downside to do such.Quote from ReapThaWhirlwind »
The object here was to suggest that the ruling for this function should change the name and effects that reference names, without requiring additional text to explain that. As for game-breaking effects like Extirpate, that is what the restricted and banned list is for. One shouldn't be wary of using those, so long as they're not getting carried away and abusing them either. With good balance, they're a technician's friend.
1
1
The issue wasn’t that non-creatures couldn’t have subtypes, but rather that each subtype is specific to one card type (or to instants and sorceries as though they were a type). For whatever reason, the rules manager at the time decided that a tribal had to be type that uses the creature type list, likely because effects that change other types would interact weirdly if it were a super type.
1
1
1
You card requires no additional cards to generate mana for you. Both chrome mox and mox diamond require a specific type of card in hand to be able to utilize their fast mana, while paying 1 life for a free mana is a negligible cost. Giving your opponent access to the same mana generation is also a negligible risk, as your deck will be focused on maximizing the fast mana to combo and win while their deck likley cannot capitalize in the same way should you fail to kill them on the turn you play the Coin.
Further, the idea of "tricking your opponent into spending life" is, frankly, utterly divorced from reality or common sense. If you are - for some dumb reason - playing this in a deck that cannot win the turn it is played, your opponent will use the mana as it benefits them like at were a pain land. No one is "tricked" when they put Battlefield Forge or City of Brass in a deck, they just spend on resource to get another when it is beneficial and the same is true here.
You are basing you designs on how you want people to make gameplay decisions, not how they actually play Magic. In you imaginary world I'm sure they are just peachy cards, but they wouldn't be used that way in actual reality where all the people actually playing the game are.
1
As a judge, I can confirm that, in fact, your ability does not work within the rules. This is obvious because no other card in the game functions in the way you have created this text.
By definition, an ability must be either a activated, triggered, or static ability. Unless you actively create a new rule for this that creates a new special action (like morph), you cannot have an optional action that is not an activated ability.
You have not created a new rules section to support your hypothetical text, and there is no value in doing so when you can use existing templates to accomplish what you want the card to do already.
1
1
2
This is trying to do a lot, and I'm not sure the payoff is worth the complexity. Its one of those mechanics that seems like it creates more design space but really isn't as wide as you'd want. I could see this more as a cycle like the Defilers than a full on keyword.
2
You’re spiraling reap. Your version 1 was effective, on color, well costed, and straightforward. Your version 2 made it out of color by putting deathtouch in mono-blue and this version 3 replaced it with a different non-blue keyword and Addis a static ability that doesn’t actually work, because it requires a choice without actually defining when or how you get to make that choice, what happens when the chosen creature leave play, etc.
You went from good to bad to worse. It’s like you took the positive feedback I gave earlier as a challenge for you to prove me wrong.
1
Also, if this is a cycle or multiple cards with the ability, getting to stack verse counters from multiple sagas makes the later ones you cast both stronger and less appealing for your opponents to participate in.
I'd suggest changing the last ability to:
III - Remove all verse counters you own. For every two verse counters removed in this way, draw a card.