Infinite Potential Well: Recent Activity
| Infinite Potential Well: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Planets and Gravity | Merge Gates | Madness |
Recent updates to Infinite Potential Well: (Generated at 2024-04-19 04:18:41)
Archaeological Dig, Abandoned Outpost (cycle), Forsaken City, Transguild Promenade...
Heck, If this has existed back in Unlimited; it would be an actual question whether to run this instead of some of the true dual lands.
That's true, actually - it does rather obsolete Rupture Spire, Grand Coliseum, and probably more.
It's nice; but it's, at least, an ETB penta-land. Which is a bit too good even before Link's objections come into it.
I like this effect. I had it on an equipment in my "cares about card types" set: Uniscape Bracers.
Eek. Seems very powerful. It's searchable by the entire Scalding Tarn/Flooded Strand cycle, as well as Farseek, which makes the next two points a bit more frightening: It's another post for Cloudpost, bringing the total up to 16 or 20 (!). It enables Urza's Tower, Urza's Mine, or Urza's Power Plant without the need of both others. I'm not too worried about it being a Desert or a gate.
This does seem like a "wow, that's powerful" type of card, which would be enjoyed by Timmies and potentially Johnnies.
Looks good to me. The "greater power or toughness" criterion is slightly fiddly, and the only bit I might suggest changing.
Potential submission for YMtC4. I'd like a little feedback before I submit it.
Whoops. Edited because I was wrong.
It's pretty much strictly better than those, because it also has a couple other uses: tapping for mana then letting it die (if you really need to cast that spell this turn), or tapping it for mana then bouncing or flickering it. It's obviously still fine power-level-wise, but it might be more confusing than the printed version.
Pretty basic tweak on Rupture Spire/Transguild Promenade. This can be played as one of those, or to filter
->C on the turn you play it.
"Lethal damage" is not a value. You can't deal "lethal damage". It's actually a condition that is checked when state-base actions are checked. That's why deathtouch works: it basically just turns on this condition.
Go with Jack V's suggestion: "deal damage to each creature equal to its toughness".
Or it could just be blasphemous act...
I realised Blasphemous Act kills almost everything, but looking at gatherer, the only creatures with a listed toughness of >13 are Autochthon Wurm, Worldspine Wurm (where killing it doesn't help much) and Emrakul, the Aeons Torn (where the amount of damage doesn't matter because it has protection). There will be a few more X/X creatures and boosted creatures, but I hadn't realised how close 13 was to infinity (other than for stuffy doll).
Or you could just say "deathtouch; deal 1 damage to each creature" but that feels more black.
I think it works like, you can assign any amount of damage to the first creature, but only once it's assigned lethal damage can you assign damage to the second creature. So you normally assign exactly lethal damage to the first creature, but you don't have to.
So the natural meaning of "deal lethal damage" would be "the minimum amount of damage that would be lethal". And the rules could be tweaked to say that, but I'm not sure if that would cause problems or not.
When I first saw it, I thought it might be like deathtouch, defining a smaller amount of damage to count as lethal, even though that doesn't quite make sense.
Alternately, it could say "deal damage to each creature equal to its toughness".
I think it is defined, isn't it? When working out how much damage you have to use up on the first defending, before you get to hit the next one / trample though.
"Lethal damage" is a very imprecise term; it's defined in the rules as "damage greater than or equal to a creature's toughness". So if an effect says it's dealing "lethal damage" to a Trained Armodon, all you can say with certainty is that it's trying to deal an amount of damage in the range [3, inf). Does Healing Salve prevent enough to save it? You don't know! (But with probability 1, the answer is no.)
I know R&D said they want to bring more nondeterminism to the game, but this would be ridiculous.
No, I think Healing Salve works. This isn't aware of any prevention abilities when it determines what's "lethal damage".
I suppose Healing Salve still stops this? Hmm... maybe not. It's doing lethal damage... not damage equal to toughness. So if I have a Serra, and cast Healing Salve on it, Relentless Flames will now deal 7 damage to that creature (3 of which will be prevented). Tricky.
Probably would need a FAQ for things that care about how much damage they've been dealt - but deathtouch works, so I don't see why this can't.
Red's sweepers are differentiated from white's and black's by being damage based. Even Blasphemous Act, which kills almost everything a Wrath of God does, still technically deals damage.
I'm not sure if this wording is legal, but I love the aesthetics of it. If it dealt "a lethal amount of damage," it would work, but I don't like that.