This Is Draft: Recent Activity
| This Is Draft: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recent updates to This Is Draft: (Generated at 2025-05-01 07:25:52)
| This Is Draft: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Skeleton |
Recent updates to This Is Draft: (Generated at 2025-05-01 07:25:52)
fixed - removed clause
Yes. If a spell's target is invalid, the whole spell is countered. Even without a clause like this card has. Spells generally shouldn't have a clause like this card has because we want new players to come to understand that if a spell's target is invalid, the whole spell is countered.
I mentioned in my first comment that regenerating enchantments (Reknit) or indestructible enchantments (Heliod, God of the Sun) are the only situations where the "If an enchantment is destroyed this way" clause would make any difference at all. And I really don't think it's worth the confusion and controversy even if the set happens to have one or other of those as a big theme.
I thought if a spells target was invalid, the spell was countered?
It does also add that special case for indestructible, though.
No, no, no, it doesn't do that. This is setting new rules for this one card, not reminder text. This is the opposite of teaching players that that's what happens: this teaches players to think that that doesn't normally happen because "otherwise why would the card say that in this case and not in any other case?"
It does add clarity to a two-clause spell that if the first clause fails (target invalid) so does the second clause.
Which, frankly, does need explaining on a common. (Or, you know, better; don't put that much complexity on a common)
Why would it not be destroyed? If the spell isn't countered, that means the enchantment hasn't gone away or gained hexproof or protection. Are regenerating or indestructible enchantments really going to be so major a theme of this set that you want a common to specifically call them out with a weird clause?
Seems more like a red card than a white card.