kauefr's cards: Recent Activity
| kauefr's cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Color Pie Slices |
Recent updates to kauefr's cards: (Generated at 2024-04-27 05:16:07)
| kauefr's cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Color Pie Slices |
Recent updates to kauefr's cards: (Generated at 2024-04-27 05:16:07)
I get the flavour but I think the execution is a bit off. Playing this t2 isn't really when you're catching up. Later in the game the flavor works though, kudos to that
Is this the right/best way to template this ability?
ETBs
What's a counterspell if not just a super kill spell anyway?
Forgot Flash. I wanted to write "counter target spell that targets you or a spell or permanent you control" but the end result was clunkier than just giving hexproof
Another one in the "breaking blue's monopoly on counterspells" series.
White counters trade the element of surprise for the ability to invest mana early. Also, the tax provide the opponent a fair way out.
I feel Sagas with negative effects fit well into black's flavor.
silly card
Flavor
A living battlefield, pick your battles carefully.
Expected play patterns
Provide the choice between mana producing lands and new abilities, act as a late game pseudo mana sink. Different Fronts should be useful in different situations. Both a single advanced Front and multiple Fronts should be viable.
Rulings
116.2i Advancing and retreating a Front are special actions. See rule 305.10.
305.10 Some lands have the subtype "Front". A Front can be in one of two states: retreated and advanced. It enters the battlefield in the retreated state.
305.10a Any time the active player has priority and the stack is empty, but only during a main phase of their turn, that player may advance a retreated Front or retreat from an advanced Front, changing its current state. Advancing a Front costs a player
for each already advanced Front they control. A player cannot both advance and retreat the same Front in a single turn. These are special actions and don’t use the stack.
305.10b A player can normally advance up to one Front and retreat from up to one Front during their turn; however, continuous effects may increase these numbers.
305.10c Each Front card has a striated text box and a "Advance" symbol. An advance symbol is a keyword ability that represents a static ability. Any abilities printed within the same text box striation as an advance symbol are part of its static ability. "{Advance} [Abilities]" means "As long as this Front is advanced, it has [abilities] and loses any other abilities not contained in this text box striation, including mana abilities".
Allowing a parameter in this way is something I had considered for a few keyword abilities (including haunt, in the same way you have done; but also mutate).
Haunt only means "When this permanent dies, exile it haunting target creature." (the nonstandard parameter allows it to target something else, such as a land in the case of this card). It is now "haunting" that creature (or other object). It does not mean "If gains, when ~ dies, {whatever}"; the rules say no such thing. The card that has haunt might have an ability that cares when the haunted creature dies, or that might affect it in other ways, but it does not mean such a thing by itself.
This is incorrect. The second part is entirely optional, which is why it's written as rules text and not reminder text. As long as you use it only on permanents and if you tweak the rules to allow a parameter (the same way hideaway and echo were tweaked) there is no issue.
In fact, the example of hideaway shows that WotC actually would be willing to tweak a mechanic that has a nonoptional mechanical part by retro-actively making it optional (ETBT in hideaway's case). It just so happens that the part is already optional in haunt's case.
The changes to make this work as desired are all within the ballpark of things we've seen. And there are a lot of custom card designers that have desired them. It's just a matter of WotC figuring they want to do the same thing for a set.
It's everyone's guess as to whether that's a "when" or an "if". But MaRo has stated again and again that the biggest issue they have identified with the mechanic is that it works differently on permanent cards and nonpermanent cards - I say usingit only on permanent cards henceforth (or even for a given set) solves that issue already.
Placeholder Front card, will explain later.
exile it -> you may exile it
It could be. I wonder why they didn't make more of it.
Ah. It's because the second part of haunt is not optional.
The haunt mechanic is actually:
"When ~ goes to the graveyard, exile it haunting target. If gains, when ~ dies, {whatever}"
So yeah. Haunt is basically useless. This is a much better version. (It still has difficulties mind you - it's fiddly, it leaves your cards under your opponents cards, you have to let something of yours die)
Haunt is one of the most underused mechanic IMO. And with some tweaks it could be a major mechanic in a set.
Trying some loose reminder text. Actual rulings would be something like Leonin Arbiter.
Huh. Yeah, I like it.
One of older
designs had a similar spin where instead of dying the card was returned to hand and then a random discard was caused. Thread of "Red cards: 5 to 1".
I like the use of the concept here. Reminds me somewhat of dash and of Archwing Dragon and its Viashino precedents.
your → her owner's
Top down "find the lady".
I could see a variant in white, more than in green, myself.
Mister M at MTG Salvation suggested this same design, but with the name 'Patience' and the mana cost
.
> https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/662374-preemptive-kill-spells-i-e-counterspells-in-green?comment=11
That tickles my brain.