[Assorted] Card Repository: Recent Activity
| [Assorted] Card Repository: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Card Cycles | Factions | Planeswalker Profiles | Color Combinations | Cardset Overview | Related Cards | Fragmented Permanents | Planeswalker's Guide |
Recent updates to [Assorted] Card Repository: (Generated at 2019-04-24 00:45:15)
Page 1 - Older activity
Page 1 - Older activity
"+" >> "plus"
See Urborg's Unrest.
Precedence for a flexible wording in custom sets. Amass defaults on two parameters:
See Llanowar Contingent.
Precedence for a flexible wording in custom sets. Amass defaults on two parameters:
Precedence for a flexible wording in custom sets. Amass defaults on two parameters:
Planeswalkers with static abilities.
Teferi, Temporal Archmage is one already, but let's try for something that's most relevant on the battlefield.
added: ultimate
Planeswalkers with static abilities.
Teferi, Temporal Archmage is one already, but let's try for something that's most relevant on the battlefield.
So if I have to write new entries into the comp. rules, why couldn't I write them for the phrasing I use as well? I actually considered your wording, but rejected it because no matter the entry in the comp. rules, players would not unambiguously be able to tell the source of the ability and which planeswalker uses up their use of a loyalty ability. And really if I wanted the functionality you suggest (which only applies to the cost and no other aspect of the ability), then I have two easier alternatives from the top of my head:
So I wouldn't even go for a special wording, but just do the second one. My goal though is to allow the ability to be activated multiple times - once for each planeswalker.
Possible, but requires the use of a four ability frame and is functionally different - especially the second ability changes its Math considerably if it can be passed around like that, so I want to be more selective.
What would be wrong about a comprehensive rules entry like this:
?
BTW: If this solution wouldn't work it's entirely possible to type out "Each planeswalker you control has '[+1]: Each opponent loses 2 life.'" This wording tries to preserves aesthetics and text box real estate.
Alternate wording would be a sentence before the activated abilities. Something along the lines of "As long as Liliana of the Gatewatch is on the battlefield, all planeswalkers you control have all of her activated abilities."
Loyalty abilities are activated abilities, so you can't put the static ability inside it like you do for the +1. It might be possible to word it like Deadly Designs, but for walkers. "+1: yada yada. You may activate this ability for any planeswalker you control." It would need to be written out in the comp rules, but that sensibly translates to "you can activate this ability using a different walkers one use per turn and the loyalty cost applies to that other one, but Liliana is the one causing the life loss." That last detail matters for targeted effects and protection
Putting a few "Go, Team Gatewatch!"-abilities on a planeswalker. This is a hypothetical future/alternate reality version of Liliana that returns to the Gatewatch over-eager to prove herself and get into their good graces.
The reformed bonds of the Gatewatch are based on sharing responsibilities and cooperation. A hard lesson to learn for her, but it's a distant very hypothetical future. ;)
Her ultimate represents her attempt to resurrect the trust/tolerance the other four members of the core five had to offer her.
To be cycled as " of the Gatewatch" in a team brawl similar to War of the Sparks.
slight rewording
Loosely based on the "waning" planeswalkers here.
Shade lord #N
See Abyssal Strider.
See here.
See here.
See here.
Addendum: In the most recent edit I also changed the trigger from a land entering the battlefield to a player playing a land to conserve text space.
reminder text: added
Making tribute even more political.
Concept for gods based on (a variant of) tribute rather than devotion. "This demands tribute N from a player" means "that player may place N +1/+1 counters on this to pay tribute to it".
Main features of tribute here are:
See Bountiful Hydra.
Musings on rummaging.
See Dungeon Invasion.
Yeah, my hope is to get away with simple abilities: Token creation, life gain, card draw, scry, looting etc. More Jace, Ingenious Mind-Mage than Jace, Architect of Thought.
The flavor is that you employ a team of planeswalkers and each member can contribute their own abilities; they are strongly loyal to each other, but with limited loyalty to you.
So if one of them likes working with you (using plus abilities) and the other doesn't (using minus abilties, getting damaged) they might compromise working for you until their overall loyalty is used up and then their loyalty to each other means they both take off in search for greener pastures together.
It really doesn't have to be a tight flavor - after all there is limited thematic consistency in Chandra being more loyal to a player that wants her to make small fires than to a player who allows her to unleash an inferno... :)
Only with a very small text size. The text box is about twice as large as fits without getting shrunk down.
A custom card frame (that can spread the 'you get to use each half' text across both sides) probably would let this work. You won't be able to make any really complex abilities; but lots of interesting pairs of abilities should make up for that.
I'm not really sure on the flavour here though. One planeswalker is powering up the other one? In either direction?
Not according to my test right here. The four ability version would work on a split card as demonstrated right here.
With an adequate custom frame a five-ability version seems feasible, though there would be restrictions on the text. I'd keep to four abilities on most cards.
It feels like you need much larger cards for this to work.
This is a cool concept.
The original concept for this tried hard on potential card advantage, but with most of that removed or more niche (enchantment removal) the cost can come down a bit.
The text space would be a lot less of an issue, but the static/reminder text on this frame takes extra much space...
Should I eshew reminder text?