Oh no, I'm sorry, please don't add MORE words to the card. I meant it when I said you shouldn't worry about it yet. I'd suggest using "When Dominant Doppelganger enters the battlefield or at the start of your upkeep, you may have Dominant Doppelganger copy any creature on the battlefield, except it is still named Dominant Doppelganger, then gain control of that creature until you copy another creature." or some variation: I think that avoid problems and is reasonably clear, though you'll probably have to reword it at some point.
Added a rider clause reminding that previously copied creatures are no longer copied which should solve some of the ambiguity. Need to find a way to reword this economically as its word count is WAY too high at moment.
I agree it's completely intuitive and will definitely work with the rules 95% of the time; it's just the sort of thing that trips my "this may be ambiguous in weird rules interactions", eg. if it copies something else, does the previous copy effect stop, or merely become irrelevant, and if it's still there, does the current wording end the gain control effect? Or what if, you apply another copy effect from mirrorweave before retargeting? I don't think any of these are fundamental problems (they may already work with the wording as is) and that there's no need to worry about how to template it until you've finished playtesting, but it's something to bear in mind for later.
I will keep looking/testing. So far we have had no issues with the "as long as its being copied" text. Not too much different from "As long as....remains tapped" which is where I got the idea from.
Have made the text change. I tried to design this so that it would seem OK but once you had played with it, you would see the use. Great if you can get 3 different named cards that, whatever way target opponent chooses, will still end up with you getting a game breaker.
I think the flavour's interesting, especially if it's reflecting a specific part of the story. I guess the "as long as its being copied" wording works, although it might be safer to avoid it if there's an easy way to do it. I think it's clearer if the two abilities are combined into one. It may be easier to template if instead of having it retarget, you have it return to hand.
Nice simple graveyard removal spell for common, with a minor upside that might almost make it usable in Limited (but not quite, unless there's a lot of graveyard action in the set).
The first ability does indeed work, but it's just the same as Sakashima the Impostor. However, the steal-as-well is fascinating. I'm not sure if the rules currently handle "as long as it is being copied by", but I don't think it should be a problem.
What if it was just a mountain INSTEAD of its other types?
Oh no, I'm sorry, please don't add MORE words to the card. I meant it when I said you shouldn't worry about it yet. I'd suggest using "When Dominant Doppelganger enters the battlefield or at the start of your upkeep, you may have Dominant Doppelganger copy any creature on the battlefield, except it is still named Dominant Doppelganger, then gain control of that creature until you copy another creature." or some variation: I think that avoid problems and is reasonably clear, though you'll probably have to reword it at some point.
Added a rider clause reminding that previously copied creatures are no longer copied which should solve some of the ambiguity. Need to find a way to reword this economically as its word count is WAY too high at moment.
I agree it's completely intuitive and will definitely work with the rules 95% of the time; it's just the sort of thing that trips my "this may be ambiguous in weird rules interactions", eg. if it copies something else, does the previous copy effect stop, or merely become irrelevant, and if it's still there, does the current wording end the gain control effect? Or what if, you apply another copy effect from mirrorweave before retargeting? I don't think any of these are fundamental problems (they may already work with the wording as is) and that there's no need to worry about how to template it until you've finished playtesting, but it's something to bear in mind for later.
I will keep looking/testing. So far we have had no issues with the "as long as its being copied" text. Not too much different from "As long as....remains tapped" which is where I got the idea from.
Gave it a small upside that can help Red players by enabling mountainwalk.
The set does indeed have graveyard action. The Block even more so :)
Have made the text change. I tried to design this so that it would seem OK but once you had played with it, you would see the use. Great if you can get 3 different named cards that, whatever way target opponent chooses, will still end up with you getting a game breaker.
I think the flavour's interesting, especially if it's reflecting a specific part of the story. I guess the "as long as its being copied" wording works, although it might be safer to avoid it if there's an easy way to do it. I think it's clearer if the two abilities are combined into one. It may be easier to template if instead of having it retarget, you have it return to hand.
Thanks.
This card is meant to represent a key player in what is going on. SPOILER ALERT
One of these guys is responsible for the decline of the Valurian Empire, having dominated/impersonated the last 5 emperors
This is now Psychic Venom, or Pooling Venom without the extra ability.
Nice simple graveyard removal spell for common, with a minor upside that might almost make it usable in Limited (but not quite, unless there's a lot of graveyard action in the set).
Needs to be "three cards with different names", as on Gifts Ungiven. Doesn't immediately seem that powerful, but could be breakable.
The first ability does indeed work, but it's just the same as Sakashima the Impostor. However, the steal-as-well is fascinating. I'm not sure if the rules currently handle "as long as it is being copied by", but I don't think it should be a problem.