temporary storage: Recent Activity
| temporary storage: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Cult World references | Aerial vs. Aquatic mechanical ideas | Clan Lore and Individuals | Katonah's Plane Tests & Details |
Recent updates to temporary storage: (Generated at 2025-09-05 15:08:37)
I'm not opposed using +1/+1 counters.
Oh! That's an interesting mechanic.
I think you'd want corruption counters to implement it; but that's probably fine.
See Corrupt Octopus.
This is an attempt at a more straightforward corrupt design at common.
If the ability has appeared once before at rare, then it's probably not feasible to do at common. This idea is scrapped.
I think it's worth noting that there's a reason Wizards decided to write Shaman en-Kor the way it is written. But I also recognize that there are problems with that implementation too, so I couldn't begin to pretend to know what the 'best way' to do an ability like this is.
The order of replacement effects matters, so each source of damage is redirected to a single creature with allegiance.
Yes, allegiance is intended to divert the total amount of damage from a single source from an untapped creature to the creature with allegiance.
I just now realized that my current wording makes allegiance mandatory and also doesn't specify that the untapped creature must be yours. Under the current wording, both creatures with allegiance would die. Neither the 3/4 deathtouch nor the 2/4 vigilance creature would die. Since the current wording is mandatory, damage from the blocking deathtouch creature would be dealt to both of these creatures. The defending player could choose to have all 3 damage from the blocking deathtouch creature go to one copy of this allegiance creature, while the other copy of the allegiance creature receives no damage, in which case only the allegiance creature dealt damage would die. Since all damage the 3/4 deathtouch creature would deal is diverted away from the 2/4 vigilance creature, the 2/4 vigilance creature would receive no damage from the deathtouch creature, so the 2/4 vigilance creature will not die due to damage from a creature with deathtouch.
In order to make the effection optional instead of mandatory and remove the drawback of having to have a player's allegiance creature receive damage that would be dealt to an opponent's creature, I would like to change the wording to "You may redirect damage that would be dealt to an untapped creature you control to this creature instead."
If you believe this ability should target, then I would change the proposed wording to "You may redirect damage that would be dealt to target untapped creature you control to this creature instead."
> If I understand trample correctly
I think it's likely from above explanations that you don't understand trample correctly (at least its nuances): Excess damage from a creature with trample doesn't automatically "go through" - the controller of the source has a say in it.
So one thing I notice that I really didn't expect before and that becomes actually relevant in other examples is... you want this to redirect all damage from an untapped creature to the creature with allegiance at once?
Example: If a 3/4 with deathtouch blocks a 2/4 with vigilance you control while you control two of these... how many of your creatures are going to die?
If two copies of this were to redirect damage from a single target to them, the damage would be divided by the player controlling the source assigning damage as normal.
To continue using the trample example, a 7/7 trample's damage is redirected to two copies of this creature. If no buffs occurred, that's 7 damage split between two copies of this one toughness creature. If I understand trample correctly, 5 damage should go through to the defending player, since five should be the excess damage after the combined total 2 toughness of these two 1 toughness creatures.
If two of copies of this creature redirected damage from a single creature that had a power of 1/3 to them, then one of those copies would not receive damage? If two creatures block a single source, but only damage is being dealt, that 1 damage can't be split to any lower number, right?
Okay, hypothetical number two. What if you have 2 of these in play? Where does the damage go?
Damage from one trampler could be dealt to this creature instead. This creature does because, assuming this creature isn't buffed, this creature has one toughness and is being dealt seven damage. Six of that seven damage will go through to you, like normal trample, because this creature's toughness is one.
Wait, you said each of the 7/7s is blocked by two 3/3s. In that case, after the controller of the attacking creatures has assigned the order in which your blockers are dealt damage, you may choose this creature to take the damage that would be dealt to one of those blockers. So, assuming no buff occur, the 7/7 deals 3 damage to one 3/3 blocker (blocker A for reference) and 4 to the other 3/3 blocker (Blocker B for reference) , you may choose to have this creature take the 4 damage that would be dealt to Blocker B. Blocker A dies because 3 damage will kill a 3/3 and this creature dies because 4 damage will kill a 2/1. Applying trample, 3 damage will go through to you. If this creature took the 3 damage for Blocker A, then a total of 3 damage would go through to you from trample, 2 from trampling this creature that was dealt 3 damage, and 1 from Blocker B who was dealt 4 damage.
Okay, okay, slow down. To find out what the wording does, let's see how you want it to work.
Let's say your opponent attacks with two 7/7 tramplers and each of them is blocked by two 3/3s. How is damage asignment supposed to work?
If this could mechanically function, should it appear in multiple instances to the point it becomes a mechanic?
Well, "Brashborough" is way too long and is taking up too much of the name line; and.. I don't get it. "Brash" suggests loud and exciting. The effect is indeed "Do absolutely nothing, get bennies", which is like the exact opposite.
You're probably right about wanting a reverse-revolt, since it discourages everything beyond draw-go.
A creature becoming all colors would I think be wanted for a set where having multiple colors would be desired (which is an entirely different set I plan to do). I'm not saying that's bad, but it's not a theme in looking for for the plane.
I wouldn't be opposed to giving vogue some kind of associated associated meaning, I never thought enough to realize there probably should be one. I only know I wanted vogue to be a state that wasn't permanent.
Yeah, the same could be said about tapped, face down, detained, renowned, phased in, and flipped etc. or attacking and unblocked etc. or colorless, red and/or monocolored etc.
But all of those statuses convey a meaning beyond that.
Detaining a creature doesn't just set a marker for other cards to care about (I'm actually quite sure there aren't even any that do), but it changes the way basic game actions influence the permanent.
Becoming monstrous/renowned isn't just something that Enshrouding Mist can care about, but is a side effect of a keyword ability that itself cares about the status when it is activated/triggered (similar to how flying needs to be a keyword, because it checks for flying on other creatures, but menace could be a keyword or not and work either way these statuses are inherent to the ability).
Now the last line in my comment above (suggesting "in vogue" makes a creature all colors) is not just a question about your intent, but also a challenge: Why do you choose to not attribute that meaning to "in vogue"? Wouldn't this creat for more ways to design cards that interact with "in vogue", but also have interactions beyond the microcosm of these few A/B?
Wouldn't it make people care to go back and dust off their Might of the Nephilim?
Vogue is a state of the creature, an "is" or "isn't". (A creature is either in vogue or it isn't.) I guess would be first iteration of how the reminder text would look.
It was coincidence I based off of the creatures' abilities. The first card I initially designed with corrupt (not in temporary storage) was ((C61763)).
I was going of the idea that a creature is pure in it's monocolored form and then corrupted by the color gained, rather than corruption being anything evil
This feels like a drawback. Why isn't it optional?
Regarding the wording: It's a good idea to start your triggered ability with the trigger condition. The only time it's not done AFAIK is when its a delayed trigger created as part of a larger ability - and even that only happens if the wording would be awkward otherwise.
Be careful about mechanics that favor a static gamestate over a changing gamestate. You create reverse revolt, but do you really want to have a mechanic that disincentivises everything revolt incentivises e. g. attacking?
Do you recall the really real keyword ability substance that actually was a reall thing once?
It was never printed on a Magic card and has no official reminder text, but its entry in the comprehensive rules was IIRC:
> Substance is a static ability with no effect.
I just mentionn it here, because... in vogue has no effect.
There exist mechanics in two parts that need each other in an environment to be good e. g. ingest/Processor and madness/Spellshapers. But usually they just enhance each other to a level of good gameplay rather than not doing anything at all by themselves.
And that's a issue. Words that have an effect can appear on cards without reminder text and players will either understand them because the words describe how they change the card they are on (e. g. "~ becomes colorless until end of turn" clearly describes that it inflluences the color and I can imagine how this interacts with protection from red) or they will wonder whether they ar missing something (e. g. "~ is in vogue until end of turn" might have secret hidden rules meaning - or it might be an iteration of Substance and be just something that is true about my card, but has no effect).
So, either way not providing reminder text is a bad idea.
Which is it though? "(That creature is all colors until end of turn)"?
Note also that the mechanic is having only a minimum of flavor.
"This effect lasts indefinitely." is real reminder text that is actually used - also if other reminder text is already present (see Ageless Sentinels).
You have already decided you want point out the effect is supposed to last indefinitely in your initial comment on a card. I don't see why you have not yet added a disclaimer of duration to the reminder text.
> ": This permanent indefinitely becomes in addition to its other colors."
That seems short and straightforward to me.
Are all creatures with corrupt supposed to be Assasins? Dissident Assassin being a green-white Assassin has no other explanation for that unusual color/subtype combination, but with a second example for the mechanic at least there is a possible pattern now.
See Dissident Assassin. I removed corrupt and uncorrupt from the reminder text.
Corrupt should be indefinite once activated, hence the lack of UEOT in the reminder text. I would like to think the color used in the corruption cost is intuitive to what color the creature will gain after being corrupted. However, I guess this could be somewhat limiting or potentially confusing if there were corruptions to grant more than one additional color (ex. Corrupt
(
: this creature becomes green and white in addition to its other colors). I have no intention of using corrupt to grant more than one color, but it's something I figure is worth noting.
What's more troubling is that I think this ability will be harder to pull off at common. I think the card needs something to denote the card in its normal color, then gain the benefit from another. Here black grants menace. Adding blue to the creature allows the creature to exile-mill on combat damage. As a rare, I think this is fine, but unfortunately those layers would be a bit much for common, barring perhaps green (where the creature's body and cmc could be enough to identify the creature as green before gaining another color and ability from being that color).
See Permanent Spotlight.
Maybe use "en vogue" over "in vogue"? Not sure how much vogue will be in the set. It's at an odd place where it could be a feelbad rare, but maybe too worrisome at uncommon if players were likely to get multiple copies of it.
Some of my designs have vogue being permanent while others it's UEOT, with one granting vogue only during a certain phase. I don't think vogue being a permanent state fits with the flavor. UEOT would probably be easier to remember. I'm not opposed to vogue being granted for time less than that (see Boxing Star), but that may be harder to keep track of. Because vogue is intended to be a temporary state there's no good way to represent that physically, which I think makes vogue harder to keep track for a time shorter than UEOT.
See Caniri Elite.