Name That Card: Recent Activity
Name That Card: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Name That Card: (Generated at 2024-05-03 11:58:17)
Name That Card: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
Recent updates to Name That Card: (Generated at 2024-05-03 11:58:17)
Yeah it's working on my end but it wasn't when I first tried, so idk lol
BTW, is it bad that I first expected Keeper of the Rolls to mean 'toilet paper rolls' lmao. That's peak early 2020 humor right there.
Ah, the link doesn't appear to be working, but the "Crossed_Thanatos.PNG" part of the link gave me a good idea what we're dealing with. XD
Oh, and the more ideas you got, the better as far as I'm concerned Jack. I'm a fan of filling the voting sheet with many options. ;)
UnCard? Time for an anime reference!
New Mana Cost:
Name: Transcendental Reaper
New Evasion Keyword: Unblockable
Creature Type: ??? ???
Art:https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/kono-yuusha-ga-ore-tueee/images/d/dc/Crossed_Thanatos.PNG/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/350?cb=20191204175800
Last one for now, promise.
Green
Katamari Damacy
Creature -- Ooze Berserker
Flying -> Trample (and probably size and cost brought closer together)
Black
Baron Sengir II, Sengir Harder
Creature - Vampire
Sorry for spam! This unlocked several ideas. It's really pretty when you find a concept like this that feels like the mechanics could have come from it, instead of vice versa. It's not quite the same, a card which got a +1/+1 for hitting an opponent would be better, but I think people remember Sengir fondly, while it not being that good to play, so is a good choice for callbacks.
Blue
Sardine Collective
Creature - Sardine Fish
Art: An adventurer is peering into a wardrobe. Two fish swimming in the air grab him and pull him inside. "Join us!"
Keeper of the Rolls
Creature - Human Priest
Art: Two sombre white-hooded-robed figures are watching someone die in battle. In the foreground is a parchment inscribed with rows for names. [If we mess with the art this would ideally turn into rows for signing] Scattered on the side of the parchment are some dice [pun!]
Huh. This is the kind of card that exists in a lot of single-player computer games, where there's some kind of tournament bracket structure. It works a lot less well if there might be a league involved. Arranging it to be your finisher is kind of fiddly in magic too - since you have all your attackers at once, rather than one at a time.
As for name - some kind of revenant seems fitting. Avenging deaths, and such. So creature type spirit and named... hmm. Something to do with steamrolling and picking up speed as it goes. Heh. Magic already has it - and it is reprinted surprisingly recently. But we can asusme it died sometime since 2015 and came back as a spirit. Jugernaut Revenent. (A typo nearly made it Juggernaut which, what; steamrollers in spaaaaaace? I mean, it does fly...)
Oh, one more note: This card does not need to be white, nor does it need to fly. If you would rather make it another color and change the keyword mechanic because it fits a naming convention or a fun idea in your head, feel free to do so.
Welcome back! If it's not clear, (((NTC #091))) is bound for silver bordered land. As such, it doesn't need to strictly follow the rules, or anything approaching game balance. That said, I don't think this card starts getting good in modern magic, until you've killed four players with it. But it starts getting absurd when you've killed six players with it. Since it's silver-bordered, there's simply going to be a time when your friends ask you not to play with this card anymore. Which should probably be fine for most players. If I owned this card, I would mostly only want to hit a new opponents once with it, and never again.
What happens when a person concedes before you can deal lethal damage? Well, that person is not a good person to play casual Magic with. You should consider not playing silver bordered cards at all against that player. But I'll add one extra rule in the silver-bordered errata:
If a player would have lost the game due to potential incoming damage from NTC #091 and they concede, treat that player as having lost via NTC #091 dealing lethal damage to them.
It's not perfect, but silver-bordered often doesn't come with perfect errata.
But what is this card's name? And what is it's creature type?
Ah! No, I have read Dune a few times, but a while ago, I didn't remember that reference specifically (although it might have been where it first stuck in my mind :) I don't know).
Jack wins this week! I wonder if he had been reading Dune due to the movie's recent release? I always thought the 'Wheels within wheels' reference in the final fight to be the height of silliness in that book. XD
See everybody in (((NTC #091)))!
Voting is up! Click here to choose your favorite name!
Wheels within Wheels
ETA: I wanted something with a sense of a complicated ongoing plot eventually coming to fruition. I think wheels within wheels isn't quite right, but otoh, does reflect the cycling nature.
That flavor text needs the Novellamental-treatment across about half a dozen versions of this card.
Ok this is a really cool card. Wish it wasn't so expensive to activate the ultimate, but I see why it is.
Here's my idea:
Name: Eternal Archives
Flavor Text (doesn't really fit on the card, so imagine this as maybe some sort of a lore summary for this card, if it were used as a featured card on their website, or something): Scholars traveling the planes sometimes find themselves lost in a small pocket in the Blind Eternities. This pocket has been called the Eternal Archives, and is said to hold ancient truths of the Multiverse. Some have labored to find it's exact location, but it seems to be everchanging. Recently, long-lost records have been found from ancient planeswalkers that date back to before Dominaria was the Nexus. What truths could be hidden in this place that seems to come from the source of time?
Changed the enchantment so it now puts three cards into your hand that's been exiled by any card named NTC #090. That allows you to not have to track which cards are being exiled by which NTC #090, freeing players to not have to make decisions about which NTC #090 they want to activate each activation, just in case their opponent is packing enchantment destruction.
Welcom back to name that card! I thought I was being a little clever, but this is admittedly some Bane Alley Broker territory, with a little Compulsion mashed with a card draw spell. It still needs a name, though. Who's that Pokemon?
I wrote a bunch, but then I deleted it, because I don't think it was as helpful as just responding generally. I think I see where your confusion is zzo. You're asking if 'every target' means 'every target at all times'. Or in other words, does the spell just keep targeting everything it can up through resolution. No, it's intended to target every available target when it is cast. It doesn't readjust as the board state changes. For example, if a creature is flashed into play before the spell resolves, it won't suddenly get targeted by this spell. Targeting only happens during the targeting step.
A lot of your other questions seem to be answered by looking at any other red spell that has multiple targets. Treat this spell in the same way you would treat a Cone of Flame. If a creature is no longer a valid target for Cone of Flame, then it isn't affected, and the rest of the spell goes off. Same here.
I thought "Each target" was already in the wording?
Maybe I was thinking of "Each opponent" or "Each creature"?
From your bullet list, this is apparently way more complicated than it needs to be. This definitely sounds like a problem with MTG rules...
I mean... I only play casual kitchen table magic, but when I target stuff I never think of anything besides "Can I target this?" and "Please don't counter me..."
What kind of reason is it for there to be so many rules. is it because of some old cards that they won't functionally errata, and thus make the whole game more annoying over?
totally weird to me that 'every target / each target' is not clear wording... then again, I'm not a game developer, so maybe this complexity actually matters a lot of the time, but i have no idea how...
seems totally unfun :shrug:
I think the rules about valid/invalid/etc (and other rules relating to targeting) isn't really that confusing; they seem clear enough to me. However, this seems to be a special case. For example:
Does it automatically target all damageables that it can target?
Is it like "any number of target damageables" but restricted so that during the targeting step you must select all valid targets (or the maximum number, if some targets are somehow mutually exclusive)?
Are its targets continuously all valid targets, to change as soon as the set of valid targets changes, adding and/or removing?
Does it not target but find everything it could target as it resolves, not affecting anything that would not be a valid target?
Or all of the above are wrong and it is something else?
What happens in combination with division among targets?
Other things?
Such things like the above would answer many kind of questions (including effects that change targets). Even that might not solve everything, though. When inventing new rules, it is necessary to consider such things.
Rules about whether a target becomes valid/invalid before it resolves and whether the card gets countered or can't be cast without valid targets is confusing despite this card. That's just 'the rules of targeting being confusing'.
The fact that the rules don't define 'every target' just means we add that to the rule book.
The real question is whether this needs reminder text, because you're right zzo38, this is confusing. I decided against it. If Lightning Bolt can read "Deal 3 damage to any target" and not require reminder text at common, then I think "Deal 3 damage to every target" is just as reasonable at uncommon. To me, this isn't a matter of whether the ability is confusing so much so that the rules themselves are confusing, and the reminder text wouldn't be explaining what the card does so much as how the rules of Magic work. But I totally understand how another person would come to a completely different conclusion. It's quite possible this card or something like it will see print some day, so I guess we get a chance to see what happens when Wizards gets around to it.
The rules do not define "every target" and does not make it clear what it should mean. (The rules define "any target", but it isn't clear what is the relation between "any target" and "every target".) Even if it means what the comment says (which doesn't seem at all obvious to me), it should be made more clear, and even the comment isn't clear enough e.g. does it target them, or if a target becomes valid or invalid before it resolves, etc?
Hurray I won! Also, cool addition to the flavor text :)
Also, how is every target not clear wording, zzo?