Multiverse: My Universe, My Rules: Recent Activity

2011-01-27 11:05:37: Vitenka edited Mana Eater

2011-01-27 11:04:55: Vitenka commented on Mana Eater

As you say, 'that would target' means it's too late to unmorph it as a surprise counter. Which kinda removes the point of it.

2011-01-27 11:04:18: Alex commented on Four Ecks

Yikes, " {x} is {4} " is very different to "X is 4". The former only affects mana. Don't do that.

2011-01-27 11:02:46: Vitenka edited Mana Eater

2011-01-27 11:02:10: Vitenka edited Four Ecks

2011-01-27 11:01:52: Vitenka edited Four Ecks

2011-01-27 11:01:44: Vitenka commented on Four Ecks

Cleaer, but less fun. The reminder/flavour text covers it, I think.

2011-01-27 11:01:15: Vitenka edited Barely Controlled Anger

2011-01-27 11:01:14: Alex commented on Bandersnap

Something like "If ~ is blocked but there are no creatures blocking it, ~ has +4/+4 and trample" would work, because that's just a static effect that's continually updated. It's not the kind of thing Wizards normally do, but it works.

2011-01-27 11:00:43: Vitenka edited Mana Engine

2011-01-27 11:00:34: Vitenka edited Mana Engine

2011-01-27 11:00:12: Vitenka edited Quest for Forgiveness

2011-01-27 10:59:35: Alex commented on Bandersnap

"Creature Land - Plains"? And that ability needs to read " {t} : Add {w} to your mana pool." Old-style wording like Firebreathing's " {r} : +1/+0" doesn't work any more. (In fact, since it's a Plains, it can have that ability in reminder text, like on Mistveil Plains.)

The last ability is the most interesting one, and needs to be phrased quite carefully because it doesn't want to be something that only triggers at declare blockers. I'll have a go at finding a phrasing.

2011-01-27 10:59:34: Vitenka commented on Quest for Forgiveness

Rarity didn't exist when it was written :)

2011-01-27 10:58:46: Vitenka commented on Kill it

Simplest - just make it "You may instead" - you may allow it to be countered if you like. (The cases where you'd like that to happen are vanishingly rare)

2011-01-27 10:58:06: Vitenka edited Kill it

2011-01-27 10:57:12: Vitenka commented on Simplification

Giving up on the complex version - this one just makes all creatures equally mighty, and simple.

2011-01-27 10:56:43: Vitenka edited Simplification

2011-01-27 10:55:15: Vitenka edited Obstinate Lurker

2011-01-27 10:51:05: Vitenka edited Kill it

2011-01-27 10:50:06: Alex commented on Flight into Shadows

Aka Chaosphere.

2011-01-27 10:49:03: Vitenka created the card Bandersnap

2011-01-27 10:45:45: Vitenka created the card Flight into Shadows

2011-01-27 10:44:42: Vitenka created the card Mana Dingus

2011-01-27 10:21:02: Vitenka edited Mana Assassin

2011-01-27 10:14:07: Vitenka created the card Mana Assassin

2011-01-27 09:57:50: Vitenka edited Mana Dragon

2011-01-27 09:46:54: Vitenka created the card Mana Dragon

2011-01-11 16:09:50: Jack V commented on Kill it

I think the ability probably should be "If ~ would be countered by a spell or ability, instead choose a different target for it". If you target a Mogg Fanatic, you probably deserve to have it fizzle :)

Retargeting on fizzled resolution is trickier because (a) it has to be optional so you don't get an infinite loop if there's no legal target and (b) you have to back up to before it started resolving.

2011-01-11 16:04:07: Jack V commented on Obstinate Lurker

How about just "~ is unaffected by all spells and abilities unless their controller pays 2"? The problem is whether what counts as "affecting" it is well defined in players intuition and in the rules, and if those agree -- but do they? Would everyone agree that "gains flying" or "must block" or "can't be blocked" is an effect, but "number of creatures in play" isn't? The tricky thing is it harks back to the problems with the earliest versions of "protect": if effects refer to it without DOING anything to it, like "creatures you control can't be the target of spells and abilities" -- would that effect apply to this? I think it clearly wouldn't unless you pay. I'm not sure, and it's probably still "un" anyway, but I think it I think it may be clear enough.