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 2024-05-08 03:54:21)
| kauefr's cards: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Color Pie Slices |
Recent updates to kauefr's cards: (Generated at 2024-05-08 03:54:21)
The reminder text and that rules text don't fit like this. Since "can't" trumps "can" an ability that uses "can" cannot overrule a restriction (which by definition uses "can't").
You could however have rules text that lift the restrictions specifically by ignoring individual or all restrictions - which means this card blocks as though there are no restrictions (though there would be weird questions to be considered e. g. regarding Silent Arbiter and Mirri, Weatherlight Duelist with multiple of these).
My favorite way to word this ability was "~ may block as though no other permanent has abilities." but that doesn't cover already existing continuous effects of triggered/activated abilities.
You could instead of saying "can't block" with jmg's suggestion put in a timing restriction, "activate this ability before the declare blockers step."
Something that definitely works:
Green Wall
: Target creature attacking you or a planeswalker you control becomes blocked by Green Wall. (This ability works on creatures that can't be blocked.)
Creature - Wall
Defender
Green Wall can't block.
0/5
There's a little bit of precedent with Trap Runner. I should point out that this doesn't work with hexproof creatures but... I don't see that as being a problem. That's kind of the point of hexproof.
Also, you can remove the line about Green Wall not being able to block creatures. That's there to prevent the Wall from double-blocking. But maybe double-blocking is fine.
I've seen related designs before, and I like them, and I'm not sure if the simplest way. Maybe an activated ability which says this blocks target creature with reminder text that it ignores evasion? I've also seen "this creature can block any creature as though it had no abilities" but I'm not sure that works
If it works that way; this is gonna be incredibly confusing.
Perhaps simpler to understand would be something like: 
: Target attacking creature is blocked, and fights ~.
The goal here is to avoid rule 509.1b
> The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it’s affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can’t block, or that it can’t block unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal.
> A restriction may be created by an evasion ability (a static ability an attacking creature has that restricts what can block it). If an attacking creature gains or loses an evasion ability after a legal block has been declared, it doesn’t affect that block. Different evasion abilities are cumulative.
Counters on lands is a problem; no joke. I found that out when I tested my Frozen Delta cycle. Sounded great in principle. Became a gigantic annoyance in practice.
As far as I'm concerned it can be worth it. Legendary is definitely the way to go with this. In retrospect, I think pushing the abilities to only work within certain archetypes is probably important too, so you don't feel like you always need to play with them. For example, working with auras, or Soldier tribal.
@Link:
You didn't ever playtest with them? To me it seems a bit too much busywork for just managing the mana base: crazy amounts of counters on lands (which can get irritating really fast), leaving blockers up, multi-choice abilities on each land, etc. If you have five of those on the field it might get hard to even remember if you have activated one or not.
Aww. Loyalty lands :)
I made a ton of these at one point. I still don't know if they're a good idea.
I don't understand why you would even want these to be attackable, Kauefr. I'd hate for my opponent to be able to tap his Grizzly Bears to destroy my land. I presume that would cause some players to not play Athens no matter how good the abilities are.
Why not just accumulate counters and use them for abilities? The land already comes with a drawback: You can only use it during your turn.
Admittedly, if that's the plan, then the second two abilities need to be more expensive...
Ah, I remember this concept as "Sanctuary" from "Paiura block". That was waay back. It can be hard to find examples of those since that thread is so old, but the main difference was that they didn't have abilities similar to those of planeswalkers, but instead had static enchantment like abilities. They also could be attacked similarly to those of 'walkers. So they only used that starting "loyalty" or whatever it's called for these. One interesting concept was a land that produced any color untapped, but could be attacked since it was a sanctuary.
Also, it's probably worth of note that Garfield originally came up with the walker concept, but he had flavored them as structures. Later on, WotC turned that mechanical concept into the planeswalkers as we known them in Lorwyn. They were intended to be released in Future Sight before it was realized they needed further polish. Some random trivia for y'all.
legendary
This uses +1/+1 counters. I don't expect it to appear in the same environment as the most important poison cards, those with infect, due to them using -1/-1 counters. Hence this is more about experience counters, energy counters etc.
Well, there's like one really crappy one. Point still stands though.
Still; it would be nice if it could suck up positive things like energy.
There are intentionally no ways to remove poison counters, though.
"permanent or player"?
If I could make Unleash work it'd be a nice addition to Brasilia, with it's counters-matters themes.
Seems pretty crazy for a common. Compare Wakedancer.
--CF
Ooo. O-Ring minus Journey to Nowhere. Leonin Relic-Warder plus planeswalker hate. Nice.
Nice powerful card to remove planeswalkers have versatility.
You don't necessarily know whether the deck you are facing is creatureless or completely independent of them - even by turn 5. Plus, if they aren't playing any creatures, dropping this at those times might look like a good idea since you are seemingly ahead in tempo and can afford to do that.
Meaning, that in that case one design is a dead card and the other just plain stupid. So, mildly disappointing vs overwhelmingly irritating.