Necronomicon: Recent Activity
| Necronomicon: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Necronomicon: (Generated at 2024-05-02 19:00:05)
| Necronomicon: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Necronomicon: (Generated at 2024-05-02 19:00:05)
Not sure what this was referencing anymore. Turn Aside seems like it would be an acceptable white counterspell. (Note this originally only protected spells, not permanents.)
As would something trinket text like:
: ~ cannot be blocked UEOT.
I feel like "can't block" would really be appropriate here.
Should probably have cycling or some modal aspect due to its narrow nature unless the set has a ton of counter-magic.
Narrow cards should be tailored to their limited environments. Most limited decks will play few instants, however if a set has a lot of good instant speed removal or instant speed token generation, Dispel is a slightly less narrow card.
Annul showed up in Theros and Saga which were both enchantment heavy sets and in Mirrodin which was very artifact heavy, meaning they would frequently have targets. In other sets, it would have been far worse.
Narrow cards should have a payoff as an insensitive to playing them.
Ancient Grudge is extremely efficient despite only destroying artifacts. Cards like Bant Charm, Dimir Charm], and Urgent Exorcism are narrow but still playable due to their versatile nature. One of their modes are likely to find a target. Appetite for the Unnatural and Artisan's Sorrow are wider but provide a lesser payoff, gaining life and scrying respectively. They were also both in sets with a lot of artifacts and enchantments respectively, making them good in limited.
Yeah, this needs to be costed like Zombify.
This card is broken. Putting creatures into your graveyard is easy as is exiling them (Delve). In practise this a just a one mana reanimation spell.
I still think this leads to the whole problem of Shadow.
Still, I can't begrudge you wanting to be able to do SOMETHING about the proliferation of unblockable creatures. It seems more common than flying, these days.
Ha! Take that Comp. Rules!
just made unblockable a keyword so as not to have to deal with it
Comp rule update: Unblockable (This creature can't be blocked.)
Landwalk (Whenever this creature attacks, it gains unblockable until end of combat if defending player controls a land.)
What other abilities reference unblockability, I'll fix them too!
Oy vey. For more on this subject, see Knight of the Periphery. The end result of that discussion that eventually went on the message boards is that 'unblockable' isn't really something you can call out in the rules. It also causes headaches when one thinks of the fact that Anaconda is 'unblockable' if your opponent controls a Swamp (it says so right in the reminder text). Oh, and is an unblockable creature really unblockable when it isn't attacking, during your turn? Are the rest of your creatures during your opponent's turn 'unblockable' by virtue of the fact that they can't attack, and therefore can't be blocked?
So, yeah, it gets weird. Personally, I think this sort of interaction should be allowed to happen, but it does require an overhaul of the rules on the subject (turning 'unblockable' into a proper keyword. They should probably do that with indestructible, too, and stop being so cute about 'words that act like keywords but is just proper grammar').
I'm pretty sure this actually wants to have, as its entire rules-text:
"Shadow"
And then I'm equally sure that shadow was a bad idea.
Dunno, but "and can block creatures as though they could be blocked" sounds redundant if it can already block unblockable creatures. Maybe make it "can only block unblockable creatures as if they weren't unblockable."
Yep, Vitenka's just wrong here (sorry). If this went infinite then so would Furnace of Rath, Doubling Season, and more or less every replacement-effect enchantment.
>614.5. A replacement effect doesn't invoke itself repeatedly; it gets only one opportunity to affect an event or any modified events that may replace it.
>Example: A player controls two permanents, each with an ability that reads "If a creature you control would deal damage to a creature or player, it deals double that damage to that creature or player instead." A creature that normally deals 2 damage will deal 8 damage -- not just 4, and not an infinite amount.
Oh, ok. Still looks like it needs it to me.
I thought we determined on Paradox Machine that replacement effects don't check their replacement for replacements.