This conversation starts on Passion Rouser.

Which brings us to card number three. Getting bonus abilities to go off because you don't have any creatures in play seem wrong with cards like this. We're supposed to be rewarding people for getting in there... not for playing creatureless decks. So this card has an added restriction that you must have a creature in play... which I kind of don't like, but it seems better than the alternative.

Adding extra targets is a bad idea when the toggle condition can change between casting and resolution. This might be better as a "If... , ~ deals 3 damage to that artifact's controller."

The wording of the condition is currently quite ugly. Just trying out some alternatives for my own interest:

1. "If you control no untapped creatures and at least one tapped creature, ..."

2. "If you control a tapped creature and no untapped creatures, ..."

3. "If you control no untapped creatures and at least one creature..."

4. "If you control a creature but no untapped creatures, ..."

I think I prefer 1.

Hmm... the toggle condition didn't seem to bother me. It does tell the opponent which artifact I think is better. I suppose if we're concerned about players asking for unneeded information just to gauge how their opponents value their artifacts... yeah... I can see that.

Number 1., to me, is uglier than the way it is currently worded. "Control no untapped" is counter-intuitive. I accept it might be the better option for a lot of reasons, but not for aesthetic purposes.

That sounded a bit abrasive... and I don't mean it to be. I'm sure you understand that I'm not actually trying to be argumentative, and am in fact talking about my opinions on the design of a bunch of imaginary cards. :)

Yes, I'm certainly not going to take any offence :)

I think it's generally worth avoiding making players choose an irrelevant target. This falls into the category of card which will normally work fine, but when played casually will require people to be more cautious than they want to. "I destroy that and that." "Which way round?" "Ooh! You mean you have a surprise instant untapper in hand?!" "...Maaaybe..."

I think mechanic-wise counting or excluding "no creatures" would be fine, the important thing is to avoid being ambiguous. I know some of these spells would go into a creatureless deck, but I think that's ok as long as they don't all do.

So, I would vote for whatever sounds best and is unambiguous (which I think is currently "if you control no untapped creatures", though I'd be happy with the opposite solution if there's a good wording)

You could alternatively reverse it and say "if you control at least 3 tapped creatures" or similar, but I prefer the current approach.

Regarding this spell, what about copping out and adding "as you cast this" to "control no untapped creatures"? Or making an uncommon/rare version that destroys an artifact for each tapped creature you control (not unreasonable given shatterstorm and [[[creeping corrosion])? How do the rules work if you say "destroy target artifact. If you.... destroy two target artifacts instead", does that let you choose which target goes away on resolution?

If we have to we, can always keyword the condition, although I agree that doesn't help much since it'd still have to be clear.

It may not be worth it for double shatter. I like that card, but Alex is right about overthinking, and while we could force the card to check when the card is being cast, many players will ignore what is written and do what sounds right in their heads... which is the way it is worded now. It's probably not worth fighting player expectations on a common.

It's funny. I found a way to 'solve' both problems with:

Put a 2/2 red Elemental token creature onto the battlefield tapped. Then, if all creatures you control are tapped, destroy target artifact.

Which is a funny work around solution, by giving you a creature first, so you can talk about all the creatures you control. I don't know how many sorceries we'd want to do this to... but I don't know how many sorceries we would plan to print with this mechanic, either...