Is the ability to attack artifacts (and enchantments with the related card) implied? I really would not call this useful if it didn't give an inherent way to use its capabilities.

Rusttouch would have been my go to.

It's a common that has deathtouch+ vs. artifacts. An uncommon or rare could do more with the ability.

99.5% of the time this is "Deathtouch versus artifact creatures". Which is fine. It doesn't excite me, but it's fine.

But! What does excite me is "Deathtouch versus X." I'm always happy to see a whole new vein of mechanics open up using existing words that's immediately grokkable. A sword that grants "Deathtouch versus Dragons" is pretty cool. I'm down for a cleric with a shining holy relic with the text "Deathtouch versus black creatures".

So I guess I'm saying that if this card read "Deathtouch versus artifact creatures" and nothing else, I'd give it a thumbs up. I don't think you could stick that on more than a few cards... but the fact that you're using deathtouch instead of a whole new keyword ability means you don't have to.

There are three issues here.

One: This is bascially specialized deathtouch on this card, but you still have to carry along the reminder text that isn't deathtouch on this french vanilla, which is a price in lines of text you pay unnecessarily, so "deathtouch against artifacts" might be a better on that axis - and the designs you propose don't capitalize on the potential of this not being a specialized deathtouch, so you haven't sold me on the potential being worth the cost.

Two: You use the static ability that is not a replacment effect correctly for the "deathtouch against artifacts" part. This part not being a replacement effect is important for many interactions deathtouch has and this ability wants to preserve.

But than you incorrectly and unnecessarily word the second part as a replacement effect and replace targeting of all things. Instead you should use "An ability of this targeting an artifact, destroys that artifact." and live with the consequences.

Either way (and this would be its own issue if I hadn't solved half of issue two for your above already) this will unintuitively mean that "artifact breaker" becomes a drawback because the targeted abilities will not resolve against artifacts if they get destroyed and hence become illegal targets. That's a whole lot of potential complexity that the ability is packaging there - once again the lack of more complex design proposals means there is no design space explored where this isn't a problem - a major one.

Three: One of the two cards you propose is Rippling Void and "deathtouch against enchantments" is a far tougher sell than "deathtouch against artifacts".

p.s.: Secret sneaky four: "breaker" seems like it won't turn out to be a well-chosen name. It's already questionable for enchantments, but we'll see.

You're completely right, of course. I've not been very involved with Magic lately. I just jotted down an idea that popped into my head while I was here. I didn't think heavily about the name or effect, including whether it was useful or if it would even work. I definitely didn't put much thought into the name. I appreciate how much you seem to care, though, and thank you for the extended commentary. I used to crave that kind of analysis back with I designed more cards.