Harrenswich: Recent Activity
Harrenswich: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Skeleton | Harrenswich Map | Lore Notes |
Recent updates to Harrenswich: (Generated at 2024-05-18 13:48:26)
Harrenswich: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Mechanics | Skeleton | Harrenswich Map | Lore Notes |
Recent updates to Harrenswich: (Generated at 2024-05-18 13:48:26)
I know why cycles exist. They tie cards together and make them easier to think/talk about and can emphasize themes, similarities and differences between colors etc.
But what purpose does this cycle (or the individual cards in it) serve? Is the tapped vs. untapped theme something broken down along color boundaries? Do green and white like untapped and black and red like tapped? Because then a five-color cycle of cards punishing tapped creatures seems weird.
Except white already is among the oath-taking colors, so it likes the tapped state.
Isn't receiving the combat damage already punishment. Wouldn't punishing controlling an untapped creature but failing to block with it be a more interesting situation to punish?
The best part about the design for Explore was that worst-case you still got a chance to draw into a land from the cantrip. Now this certainly has improved upon the original IIRC, but that part is still missing.
The "You may" in the beginning is important, so you opponent doesn't need a third party to confirm if you don't have a land.
Updated to dude1818's wording.
Just say "You may put a land card from your hand ...". Calling out Forest in the first sentence doesn't say anything
Still forest or another land, but draw from forest instead of basic.
This template is weird. "Put a Forest into play, or actually ignore that, any land works too."
Was "Put a basic land or forest from your hand onto the battlefield tapped, then draw a card." now different.
Yes, i had the cycle in temporary storage.
There was no great purpose with this cycle other than a loose flavor purpose. I suppose I should ask why cycles exist in Magic, so why do they exist?
I envisioned this cycle representing some mean enforcers of the law in parts of the plane. I felt like having an opponent have a tapped creature and having dealt that opponent damage made it seem like a dominance over the weakene, downtrodden opponent who was stuck in a little bit of confusion.
You haven't? I recall seeing the whole cycle at some point. Maybe in a card repository...
Well, the question is what these are supposed to be and why they are that in all colors.
This makes sense in white since white punishes tapped creatures habitually every now and then, but that's not the idea here.
Having no idea why the cycle exists means I have no idea what is salvageable about it. I assume the easiest fix that keeps things functionally similar is using a triggered ability. These don't have 0 toughness, so they'd usually survive that window.
Compares quite unfavorably to Explore.
Regarding the flavor text. I guess, you either are missing a 'between' or or accidentally typed 'and' rather than 'over'.
Less about Oaths specifically and more about the general tapped vs. untapped theme I wanted to include. How would you simplify the ability? FWIW, I made a cycle of these Deputies, I just didn't put them all into the set yet.
That ability reads so unwieldy... And what do deputies have against taking an oath?
After hearing your thoughts, I was convinced that ransoming from zones other than the battlefield would become confusing. While land ransom would be cruel and probably not worth the effort to balance, I figured there would probably at least one card that could ransom planeswalkers, and ransoming artifacts or enchantments shouldn't be off the table. The current reminder text was designed so I could I wouldn't have to write it out every time and just use reminder text from the mechanic section. I avoided "it" because of the fear of unclear antecedents, though I don't know how much Magic cares about those.
using controller instead of owner was a genuine mess up with rules understanding on my part.
missing "more" and p/t
Intervening if is definitely the way to go. The reminder text could be polished somewhat. "Exile that permanent. Its owner may pay to etc." You can't actually use target as a noun, except in the specific case of dealing damage to "any target." I've asked Eli, the rules manager, about the validity of "that target," and he says it's too confusing
I favor the current wording for its use of intervening if-clause - which has special rules meaning and is generally a good idea for intuitive game play.
It also seems weird to add a mana parameter, but remove the card type parameter. It seems quite important to not allow willy-nilly ransom of lands.
I wonder whether the reminder text could be changed to "(Exile <it> until its <controller/owner> pays to return it.)" Do you only ransom permanents? I seem to recall ransom of cards in hand. It is noteworthy, because cards in exile have no controller and neither have cards in exile.
Ransom is a cool idea but you might want to find an easier way to word it.
When CARDNAME ETBs, ransom 2 only if you control two or more other white creatures (Exile target permanent, its controller may pay to return that creature to the battlefield under their control)
I reccomend putting a number parameter next to the ransom ability so better creatures may ransom targets in the later game for "More money".