Madoka Magi-ka: Recent Activity
| Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-05 23:22:17)
| Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2024-05-05 23:22:17)
Well, yeah. Most cards come off looking bad when you compare them to 4.4 star cards. Not every card can be a Vampire Nighthawk. Maybe Alexander wants a Vampire Nighthawk, though?
This comes away looking like an expensive, sorcery-speed, black Path to Exile.
It doesn't absolutely require the reminder text, but it's a nice thing to have.
Ah! Good to know. I suppose that means that part definitely should be in the reminder text.
Gaining a basic land type does overwrite all other abilities, which is why hate cards like Blood Moon are popular.
Well, the first thing that needs to be done is that it needs to turn the permanent into a "swamp land", since swamp is a sub-type. After that, I think you can get away with saying "(It's no longer a creature.)"
Becoming a Swamp, by the way, would not remove its other abilities, so that shouldn't be a part of the reminder text. You could remove all of the card's abilities, then make it a swamp in the text of the card, though, if that's what you're going for. If you don't, however, this becomes a very versatile card... I would use it, for example, to protect my Archivist in response to your Shock. That would waste your kill spell (which would be countered by the rules) and give me a really hard to kill Archivist.
Need some help with the reminder text. Thanks in advance.
That is tricky. As it stands right now, you could probably get away with a casting cost of
. Or, to put it another way, I'd rather have Pyroclasm in my deck. The times this does work should be explosive, though. And I suppose multiplayer should love this thing.
Though, if you want this card to work more often, you could just change the line to "and 1 damage to each other creature". 3,2,1 is nice and all, but I don't think the functionally easier to cast version is less interesting.
I think the wording you have here is about right.
That is, assuming you want to require it to have all six targets. Which seems quite a harsh restriction; at that point you're pretty much Hex.
Six different target creatures take 3, 2, 2, 1, 1 and 1 damage respectively.
It aint normal wording, but it seems to fit the situation. And to be a really difficult effect to use effectively.
Ok. I want this spell to deal 3 damage to one creature, 2 damage to two different creatures, neither of which are the first creature and then 1 damage to each of three different creatures, neither of which are the first three creatures that received 3 or 2 damage. Is there an elegant way to word that or have I reached the limit of what Magic is capable of describing through rules text?
Yeah, yeah. I know -0/-1 counters aren't exactly kosher.
I had a bit of inspiration to try and do for artifacts what Bestow did for auras.
The last clause on ride, "Riding creatures can only attack or block with this creature" is there for flavor, but lets all remember that a Squadron Hawk is capable of going into battle wearing Slagwurm Armor, so flavor might have to take a backseat to utility.
This is a more complicated version that envisions the Vehicle as a creature.
Well, I don't think it works to have creatures all over the board riding one vehicle. It'd be too hard to remember which are in it (and there's no way of getting them out of it). However, you could do, banding-but-fixed, say that everything in the vehicle has to attack or block together -- that would be more interesting too, though it may be too complicated.
I'd also have some sort of stipulation that only allows one creature to ride one vehicle at a time. One, because it makes sense flavor wise. But, two, because it helps ease on board confusion.
That's the kind of thing I was thinking.
As for whether it's worth it? Not for a oneoff. If this is going to be an evergreen card type, supported in all sets going forward, then I'd say so. Or if it's a major theme in the set where it debuts, then that could be worth it too. Not for just a handful of them, though, no.
Something like this then? I mean, gosh... I put a lot of common English in the reminder text, but I think it works, right? Sort of like how the reminder text for Obsidian Fireheart takes a few liberties with rules text.
But is it really worth it to have a whole different artifact subtype just to have equipment that can be attached to any number of creatures?
Changed type from Equipment to Vehicle. Changed Equip to Ride.
I think this can be made to work within the rules, yes. It'll currently conflict with bits of the definitions of Equip, but it'd be perfectly natural to edit those rules with the release of the set this was published in.
Since the reminder text for Equip will be different for cards with Vehicle I'd suggest you spell out the reminder text.
Also, writing this comment makes me realise that "cards with Vehicle" is a fiddly way of saying "Vehicles", so maybe you could make Vehicle a new artifact subtype, instead of or as well as Equipment, and then include the reminder text as a first line on its own, like on the first hybrid cards like Privileged Position and friends.
Does this work within the rules?
Also, does anyone have a suggestion for a keyword better than "Vehicle"?
Yep, this should work fine.
Indeed, Petals of Insight or similar are the things to follow. And yes, remember Searing Touch was five to buy back. See also Hanabi Blast.
"~ deals one damage to target creature or player, then return ~ to your hand." I would also make this an uncommon sorcery instead of a common instant.
I modeled the ability after the reminder text for buyback. Is there a simpler way to word this card that doesn't sound so rules-technical?
I decided to go in a less complicated direction with this card. Because you're technically "casting" when you evoke a creature, does reducing the cost to evoke a creature work within the rules like this?
Completely changed the card's text.