Which is kind of inelegant. Was that really the intent of the challenge?
To prevent us from designing things that have the possibilty of damaging the player?
Or was it to make us look for drawbacks other than life as a cost?
The latter. Losing life or taking damage from the thing you're casting is generally a knee-jerk reaction when designing cards, so I tried to remove that desire. Also, I came up with the challenges last minute because I'm a horrible procrastinator.
I'm assuming that, for a planeswalker card in Round 2, "loyalty ability that hurts you in addition to doing other stuff" counts as a drawback even though it's completely voluntary to use?
As long as the ability that hurts you is either the + ability (or, potentially, the ultimate) I'd say yes.
Tonight is game night, so I went ahead and posted round two, otherwise it won't happen until around noon tomorrow. I still have to go in and add who advanced, so if you don't see yourself and you know you advanced, don't freak out.
I think in the future, the challenge could be "Design a card that keeps spells from resolving." That would include Mindbreak Trap andVenser, Shaper Savant.
That's a good idea, but in that case stuff like Mizzium Skin would fulfill the challenge as well, even though it's only indirectly preventing the spell from resolving.
But yes, a rewording is probably the best solution. I don't mind you being literal, Moss. It keeps me on my toes.
EDIT: Also, looking at the rulings for Venser, Shaper Savant gives us a pretty solid answer in your favor.
Quote from Gatherer Card Rulings »
5/1/2007: If a spell is returned to its owner's hand, it's removed from the stack and thus will not resolve. The spell isn't countered; it just no longer exists.
I talked to VikingIrishman about whether spells that exiles target spell would be acceptable, and, for this round, they are. I will go on record that I disagree with this in that you can use Mindbreak Trap to exile a spell that normally can't be countered, so, it's my opinion that they're not the same.
That's an interesting and valid point. I've already allowed it this round, but I'd like to actually open the discussion to the other regulars.
I'm of a mind that anything that directly prevents a spell from resolving is essentially a counterspell, but Moss's point that exiling a spell gets around "can't be countered" clauses is a bit of a dagger in that idea's back. What do you guys think?
On a related note, I'm going to start keeping a record of these discrepancies so that in the future, should a problem arise again, we have an easy reference for what we have decided is the proper answer as a community.
Also, how the hell did I end up awarding three of you 22s? Madness, I say.
EDIT: Players added.
But yes, a rewording is probably the best solution. I don't mind you being literal, Moss. It keeps me on my toes.
EDIT: Also, looking at the rulings for Venser, Shaper Savant gives us a pretty solid answer in your favor.
I'm of a mind that anything that directly prevents a spell from resolving is essentially a counterspell, but Moss's point that exiling a spell gets around "can't be countered" clauses is a bit of a dagger in that idea's back. What do you guys think?
On a related note, I'm going to start keeping a record of these discrepancies so that in the future, should a problem arise again, we have an easy reference for what we have decided is the proper answer as a community.
I'm procrastinating my NaNoWriMo project right now, so don't expect my judgings any time soon.
Grats, doom!