| Libelone: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Skeleton |
|
CardName: Silvio, Bloody Star Cost: {5}(B}{B}{B} Type: Legendary Creature - Vampire Musician Pow/Tgh: 6/6 Rules Text: Maestro {1}{B} (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, if it's not a Maestro, you may pay {1}{B}. If you do, put a +1/+1 on it and it becomes a Maestro.) At the beginning of each end step, target opponent sacrifices a creature. If Silvio, Bloody Star is a Maestro, that player sacrifices a creature of your choice instead. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Libelone Mythic
Silvio, Bloody Star
 ( } Maestro
 (Whenever this creature becomes the target of a spell or ability, if it's not a Maestro, you may pay . If you do, put a +1/+1 on it and it becomes a Maestro.)
At the beginning of each end step, target opponent sacrifices a creature. If Silvio, Bloody Star is a Maestro, that player sacrifices a creature of your choice instead. 6/6
|
History: [-] Add your comments: |
Cheesy Lestat card.
"your endstep" to each. I was thinking of Sheoldred, and as a mythic black legendary, this just didn't compare as it previously was. On each endstep, the ability is much more threatening, even when Silvio isn't a Maestro.
Having the ability target is weird. You always need to choose both targets, whether or not it's a maestro. It infringes on Sheoldred a bit, but maybe rewrite it as
> At the beginning of each opponent's upkeep, that player sacrifices a creature. If ~ is a maestro, you may destroy up to one target creature an opponent controls instead.
I tried to take some cues from dude1818. I still am determined to keep the ability at the endstep though. An opponent shouldn't have targeting restrictions. Does that create issues for the instead portion?
Now it's ambiguous which opponent needs to sac a creature. Maybe
> At the beginning of each end step, target opponent sacrifices a creature. If ~ is a Maestro, that player sacrifices a creature of your choice instead.
Keeps the end step part, and is marginally upside to get around indestructible, hexproof, etc
IO gues that works. Targeting the creature to be sac'd looks weird, but I guess that's just a wording bug. I did briefly consider saying "Choose an opponent, that opponent sacs" but idk if that would have had issues or not, but was intended to at least sound less ambiguous.
Used dude1818's wording