CardName: Hufflepuff's Cup
Cost:
Type: Artifact
Pow/Tgh: /
Rules Text: {t}: Prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to target
creature this turn.
Flavour Text:
Set/Rarity: Multiverse Design Challenge None
Hufflepuff's Cup
Artifact
: Prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to target creature this turn.
I think the card wants the prevention to be repeatable, fairly large and directable to any creature, but that does mean it might need to be more expensive. What's a fair cost?
That's... a really good question. We haven't seen an artifact that straight up prevents damage for a while. And one that only prevents damage to players even less so.
Conservator is one of the closest cards to what you're doing, but it's old, and was pretty bad even in the 20th century. Next.
Panacea... you know, cards with variable costs are usually hard to gauge. But this one is easy: Panacea is bad. 1.7 stars bad. Paying every turn to prevent 3 damage is silly. At least Shield of the Ages doesn't tap to do its thing.
Pentagram of the Ages--Much better. This card goes well above 3 damage... but it gives us an understanding that there's an upper cap to how much damage can be prevented before the amount you spend is meaningless.
Pearl Shard is probably our best analog. I'm guessing roughly translates to . If that's the case, maybe and to activate? (Keeping in mind that Pearl Shard also prevents damage to creatures) Otherwise, Orbs of Warding are making me think that isn't such a bad cost for this card, if the activation is simply . Just how valuable is hexproof on a player, though? And how much value can you wring out of giving yourself Absorb 1? Maybe this just has to be . Or with , ?
Thank you. FWIW, remember this only protects creatures (so could also be compared with activated +0/+3 or regenerate), I'm not sure if that makes a difference.
Oh, foolish me. I don't know how my mind made this an artifact that only protects players. To be honest, I'm not sure if that makes a difference either. Proabably? Preventing damage to players is a lot more universal... but it also doesn't help gain control of the game...
What did I end up concluding on Drood of Rantist in my Cube According to Gatherer article? That +2/+1 until end of turn was like an artifact that cost or that activated for , ? I'm not being very consistent in my evaluations. Why are there so few modern day artifacts that do this?
I assume wizards avoid it because it adds a lot of complexity, being able to choose which creatures to use it on after opponent attacks or blocks, and needing to be costed comparatively expensively so it looks bad if you don't use that flexibility. But I'm not sure.
: Prevent the next 3 damage that would be dealt to target creature this turn.
See Challenge # 073.
I think the card wants the prevention to be repeatable, fairly large and directable to any creature, but that does mean it might need to be more expensive. What's a fair cost?
I wanted this to be "Helga's" but that didn't fit with the others.
That's... a really good question. We haven't seen an artifact that straight up prevents damage for a while. And one that only prevents damage to players even less so.
Some thoughts:
Hahaha! Forcefield is insane! Moving on...
Conservator is one of the closest cards to what you're doing, but it's old, and was pretty bad even in the 20th century. Next.
Panacea... you know, cards with variable costs are usually hard to gauge. But this one is easy: Panacea is bad. 1.7 stars bad. Paying
every turn to prevent 3 damage is silly. At least Shield of the Ages doesn't tap to do its thing.
Pentagram of the Ages--Much better. This card goes well above 3 damage... but it gives us an understanding that there's an upper cap to how much damage can be prevented before the amount you spend is meaningless.
Pearl Shard is probably our best analog. I'm guessing
roughly translates to 
. If that's the case, maybe 
and 
to activate? (Keeping in mind that Pearl Shard also prevents damage to creatures) Otherwise, Orbs of Warding are making me think that 
isn't such a bad cost for this card, if the activation is simply 
. Just how valuable is hexproof on a player, though? And how much value can you wring out of giving yourself Absorb 1? Maybe this just has to be 
. Or 
with 
, 
?
Oh yes! Also Rakalite! That card is just as laughable as Forcefield, for the exact opposite reason!
Thank you. FWIW, remember this only protects creatures (so could also be compared with activated +0/+3 or regenerate), I'm not sure if that makes a difference.
Oh, foolish me. I don't know how my mind made this an artifact that only protects players. To be honest, I'm not sure if that makes a difference either. Proabably? Preventing damage to players is a lot more universal... but it also doesn't help gain control of the game...
That's last comment is exactly what I was thinking, I couldn't decide if it was better or not...
What did I end up concluding on Drood of Rantist in my Cube According to Gatherer article? That +2/+1 until end of turn was like an artifact that cost
or 
that activated for 
, 
? I'm not being very consistent in my evaluations. Why are there so few modern day artifacts that do this?
I assume wizards avoid it because it adds a lot of complexity, being able to choose which creatures to use it on after opponent attacks or blocks, and needing to be costed comparatively expensively so it looks bad if you don't use that flexibility. But I'm not sure.