[Card Dump] Tahazzar's Designs: Recent Activity
[Card Dump] Tahazzar's Designs: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics |
Recent updates to [Card Dump] Tahazzar's Designs: (Generated at 2024-05-03 20:14:31)
Is the gardnepath sentence intentional?
So... No targeting on the last effect and we're all good?
"up to one target" -> "an"
Yes, it does. If you choose a target (even if its optional) you need to know at the time you put the ability on the stack whether the target is legal. (If its optional you have to be able to look into the future to determine whether you can take the option.)
To illustrate. Your text is equivalent to:
> Whenever Raving Wright deals combat damage to a player, choose up to one target artifact card with converted mana cost less than sacrificed artifact's converted mana cost in your graveyard. Sacrifice an artifact. If you do, return the targeted artifact to the battlefield.
Functionally identical, but no longer obfuscating the order of operations. Whether you sacrifice an artifact or another (or none at all if all your artifacts including Raving Wright are removed in response to the ability) does influence the later operation on whether you can return an artifact and which, but every time you use the word "target" the conditions also have to be checked long (as in priority is passed between events even if real-life it can be less than a second) before the ability starts resolving.
TWO STEP CHECKLIST: 1. If you use information that is not available until an effect resolves you cannot require choices based on that information before the effect resolves. 2. All targets are chosen before a spell/ability starts resolving.
Always. That's the whole point of targets. It's so your opponent can Lightning Bolt in response to your Giant Growth and you cannot switch around to your other Grizzly Bears. You are committed, but you always need to know what you can commit to.
That's why sometimes cards have weird wording to make certain information that is usually only collected during resolution is checked in earlier during casting already: Jaws of Stone has these last six words, because the number of Mountains in other similar spells (that always affect only a single target) is counted during resolution. But since the number also affects the number of targets during casting it needs to be taken from another point of time.
There are at least two solutions - both make functional changes, obv:
(NOTE: I noticed that I used "cast" rather than "put the ability on the stack" once and corrected it; the ability was so complex that I sometimes forgot it was not a spell like Shape Anew, but more like Shape Anew on a stick. If I missed an instance of using cast incorrectly in this way, please mentally correct it. :))
Don't think so, no. Now it's just a weird enabler for artifacts with ETB effects.
I don't think there are many of ... oh shit. Modular. BAN!
That goes somewhat over my head. Does this still apply to this "if you do" variant that I changed this into 4 hours ago?
Oh, sorry, I assumed you'd get this one since I make this reference a lot to describe this kind of mistake.
Scenario:
Now, what happens?
The rules covere choosing an illegal target and want you to roll back to before casting the spell - tournament rules might have something to say here as well about maintaining the game state.
Even if rolling back the game state was a solution information has been made public (over your opponent's Shatter, but imagine the added complexity if they (or you) had used Shape Anew).
p.s. A general rule of thumb is that in addition to working through a text in order every instance of "target <foo> [with <characteristics>]" means that you have to be able to start your ability by writing down "choose target <foo> [with <characteristics>]" at the beginning of the ability without creating a time paradox.
, then return ... -> . If you do, return
up to one target artifact...
Oh yeah...
> Also a fun fact: You need time travel owers to resolve this ability.
Is this another issue you are referring to, but not telling us outright?
Fun fact: If you don't have an Ornithopter or similar 0cmc artifact in your graveyard and this is the only artifact you control and it deals combat damage to a player, you don't need to sacrifice it.
Since the triggered ability has no legal target it is never put on the stack.
Also a fun fact: You need time travel owers to resolve this ability.
#EvilDesignsThatDontWork
Cool design. Might need the "if you do..." rider checking the sacrifice, just so you dont get awkward questions when you sacrifice nothing.
So sweet! Pauvre pauvre minipony.
Ah yes, I recall quite well how I made this card. I was listening to this piece of music, as one does, when I got inspired enough by it (and the presented art) to start making some kind of Unicorn card with a theme of innocence. There's a crap ton of variations on the card - some of which were legendaries called "Pia, the Little One".
Adorable and likely to die. :(
Lots of (minor?) bending here.
Either way, your deck has to be able to produce , , or some mix of the two.
Other notes:
+lifelink
"for as long as ~ remains on" -> "until ~ leaves"
from tap ability to "you may tap"
removed trample and lifelink; added vigilance; changed "whenever ~ attacks" -> ": Put... Activate only if attacking"
removed deathtouch because it doesn't work well here + weird interaction with trample
lurk on its own line and added trample as well to make it a bit more
added deathtouch and lifelink for that extra 'oomph'