This Is Draft: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity
Skeleton

CardName: Powerpuff Blast Cost: 2W Type: Sorcery Pow/Tgh: / Rules Text: Destroy target enchantment. Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain vigilance until end of turn. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: This Is Draft Common

Powerpuff Blast
{2}{w}
 
 C 
Sorcery
Destroy target enchantment.

Creatures you control get +1/+1 and gain vigilance until end of turn.
Updated on 05 Jul 2015 by ChargingBadger

Code: CW09

History: [-]

2015-03-31 05:11:58: ChargingBadger created the card Powerpuff Blast

Why would it not be destroyed? If the spell isn't countered, that means the enchantment hasn't gone away or gained hexproof or protection. Are regenerating or indestructible enchantments really going to be so major a theme of this set that you want a common to specifically call them out with a weird clause?

It does add clarity to a two-clause spell that if the first clause fails (target invalid) so does the second clause.

Which, frankly, does need explaining on a common. (Or, you know, better; don't put that much complexity on a common)

No, no, no, it doesn't do that. This is setting new rules for this one card, not reminder text. This is the opposite of teaching players that that's what happens: this teaches players to think that that doesn't normally happen because "otherwise why would the card say that in this case and not in any other case?"

I thought if a spells target was invalid, the spell was countered?

It does also add that special case for indestructible, though.

Yes. If a spell's target is invalid, the whole spell is countered. Even without a clause like this card has. Spells generally shouldn't have a clause like this card has because we want new players to come to understand that if a spell's target is invalid, the whole spell is countered.

I mentioned in my first comment that regenerating enchantments (Reknit) or indestructible enchantments (Heliod, God of the Sun) are the only situations where the "If an enchantment is destroyed this way" clause would make any difference at all. And I really don't think it's worth the confusion and controversy even if the set happens to have one or other of those as a big theme.

fixed - removed clause

2015-04-01 00:54:09: ChargingBadger edited Powerpuff Blast
2015-04-02 02:53:25: ChargingBadger edited Powerpuff Blast
2015-07-05 20:01:35: ChargingBadger edited Powerpuff Blast

Add your comments:


(formatting help)
Enter mana symbols like this: {2}{U}{U/R}{PR}, {T} becomes {2}{u}{u/r}{pr}, {t}
You can use Markdown such as _italic_, **bold**, ## headings ##
Link to [[[Official Magic card]]] or (((Card in Multiverse)))
Include [[image of official card]] or ((image or mockup of card in Multiverse))
Make hyperlinks like this: [text to show](destination url)
How much damage does this card deal? Lightning Blast
(Signed-in users don't get captchas and can edit their comments)