Well, to me it seems that you're still iterating on Blessed Soldier. What I mean by wrong direction is that it started out as a fairly simple keyword with 4-line reminder text in Soldier. Now with this it has become a keyword with 3-line reminder + activated ability with 3 lines. Then there's this concept of "+1/+1 Aura token of all colors" that sounds kinda vague and waggy. The activated ability also seems like a thing you have to read 2+ times to get properly. The "the next time this would die, it doesn't" seems more meaningful than "the first time targeted, counter" as well.
The initial concept seems like it could even have evergreen capabilities (ie. Divine Shield from heartstone) while this new with countering and activated abilities is teetering more on the side of "nonsense design" IMO that I would hard time including in a set of mine. It uses a lot of design tools to achieve relative little, which is a bad sign.
This whole experiment seems like it's moving in the wrong direction. These variations are becoming more and more complex instead of more simpler and/or elegant. Shouldn't it all be about "What is the absolute minimum version that will create the intended gameplay?"
Oh, blessed would just mean "enters with an Aura token" if I use it as an ability word - the individual token would be dependent on the card e. g. the totem armor token is an alternative Aura.
I wonder whether the ability that I've written out (or a shorter variant) would be worth a keyword similar to totem armor.
The idea is to weaken hexproof to address problems. Obviously this mechanical space is not evergreen worth.
Once again: using tokens and counters cannot be hidden in the rules for something like this since tokens and counters can be manipulated and the interaction needs to be apparent. Hence morph and embalm using overlays and such rather than counters.
Mm, sure. This is a good argument for just using hexproof instead.
The full horrendous thing can live in the comprules (e.g. "Use a token to represent this") but the long rules are currently more than a card full. Which kinda makes this not a mechanic you can splash onto too many cards; which suggests it doesn't really need to be a full mechanic.
> Vitenka: "Blessing (Counter the first spell that targets ~)"
The proposed wording masks funtionally relevant information: The ability must remain recognizable as triggered ability.
The proposed wording also does not provide a marker and hence has memory issues over multiple turns.
The proposed wording further comes with a nonobvious drawback and can be a hindrance. In a hexproof world, would I want the shroud variant of the ability?
.
I'm trying to find an actual wording not a line to scribble on a playtest card to remember the idea.
There is no reminder text. And there is no "blessing".
Fun (loosely related) Fact: 1/5th for e. g. the seconf ability would be about this long: "When enchanted creature is" and that's contentless drivel and doesn' account for the other half of the text not being shortened at all.
If I replaced the ability word with a keyword following the (rejected by others) simplified wording, I'd use:
> Grace (this enters the battlefield with an Aura. When a spell targets enchanted creature, sacrifice the Aura to counter the spell.)
which is still more than half the length (and sacrifices some functionality that is not strictly necessary). Can you imagine going even shorter?
I think adding two words is within the parameters. The issue is obviously that the text length approaches the absolute limit you would want in a keyword.
So my solution here was to make the token inherent to the keyword. Would the mechanic be better if this was more of a "theme token" like it's been done now on Estrid, the Masked? Similar to how Treasures were theme tokens?
Options:
Current: Fortitude (This enters the battlefield with an Aura token. If enchanted permanent would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and destroy the Aura.)
Clarified: Fortitude (This enters the battlefield enchanted by an Aura token with "If enchanted permanent would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and destroy the Aura.")
Estrid-ified: As ~ enters the battlefield, create a colorless Aura enchantment token attached to it with enchant permanent and "If enchanted permanent would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and destroy this Aura."
Estrid-ified and returning totem armor: As ~ enters the battlefield, create a colorless Aura enchantment token attached to it with enchant permanent and totem armor. (If enchanted permanent would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and destroy the Aura.)
Note: I wouldn't necessarily include "colorless" in reminder text - decision against precedent, but something I consider.
See Whisper Campaign.
rarity: uncommon >> rare
Replicate-variant
Kinda like Haphazard Bombardment but not so superfluous and more compact.
+"nonland"
Red-white answers (as in variants, not cards you play to invalidate it) to Assassin's Trophy are currently popular.
Well, to me it seems that you're still iterating on Blessed Soldier. What I mean by wrong direction is that it started out as a fairly simple keyword with 4-line reminder text in Soldier. Now with this it has become a keyword with 3-line reminder + activated ability with 3 lines. Then there's this concept of "+1/+1 Aura token of all colors" that sounds kinda vague and waggy. The activated ability also seems like a thing you have to read 2+ times to get properly. The "the next time this would die, it doesn't" seems more meaningful than "the first time targeted, counter" as well.
The initial concept seems like it could even have evergreen capabilities (ie. Divine Shield from heartstone) while this new with countering and activated abilities is teetering more on the side of "nonsense design" IMO that I would hard time including in a set of mine. It uses a lot of design tools to achieve relative little, which is a bad sign.
Is an Aura that grants +1/1 more complex that an Aura that grants 1-shot hexproof? What is the intended gameplayb to you?
I ask because your comment seems to try to be helpful, but I cannot figure what the critical thought is.
This whole experiment seems like it's moving in the wrong direction. These variations are becoming more and more complex instead of more simpler and/or elegant. Shouldn't it all be about "What is the absolute minimum version that will create the intended gameplay?"
See Blessed Beast.
Oh, blessed would just mean "enters with an Aura token" if I use it as an ability word - the individual token would be dependent on the card e. g. the totem armor token is an alternative Aura.
I wonder whether the ability that I've written out (or a shorter variant) would be worth a keyword similar to totem armor.
The idea is to weaken hexproof to address problems. Obviously this mechanical space is not evergreen worth.
Once again: using tokens and counters cannot be hidden in the rules for something like this since tokens and counters can be manipulated and the interaction needs to be apparent. Hence morph and embalm using overlays and such rather than counters.
Variant: Graceful Gargantuan
Mm, sure. This is a good argument for just using hexproof instead.
The full horrendous thing can live in the comprules (e.g. "Use a token to represent this") but the long rules are currently more than a card full. Which kinda makes this not a mechanic you can splash onto too many cards; which suggests it doesn't really need to be a full mechanic.
> Vitenka: "Blessing (Counter the first spell that targets ~)"
The proposed wording masks funtionally relevant information: The ability must remain recognizable as triggered ability.
The proposed wording also does not provide a marker and hence has memory issues over multiple turns.
The proposed wording further comes with a nonobvious drawback and can be a hindrance. In a hexproof world, would I want the shroud variant of the ability?
.
I'm trying to find an actual wording not a line to scribble on a playtest card to remember the idea.
Blessing (Counter the first spell that targets ~)
The whole 'having an aura token' thinkg is the complexity.
Or you can do as another set tried, and put all the complex wording on the token; but that has other nastiness which I dislike.
There is no reminder text. And there is no "blessing".
Fun (loosely related) Fact: 1/5th for e. g. the seconf ability would be about this long: "When enchanted creature is" and that's contentless drivel and doesn' account for the other half of the text not being shortened at all.
If I replaced the ability word with a keyword following the (rejected by others) simplified wording, I'd use:
> Grace (this enters the battlefield with an Aura. When a spell targets enchanted creature, sacrifice the Aura to counter the spell.)
which is still more than half the length (and sacrifices some functionality that is not strictly necessary). Can you imagine going even shorter?
I really think you need the reminder text for blessing to be about 1/5th the current length.
This is an annoyingly solid creature, seems perfectly legit.
See Blessed Soldier.
Iterating.
I think adding two words is within the parameters. The issue is obviously that the text length approaches the absolute limit you would want in a keyword.
So my solution here was to make the token inherent to the keyword. Would the mechanic be better if this was more of a "theme token" like it's been done now on Estrid, the Masked? Similar to how Treasures were theme tokens?
Options:
Note: I wouldn't necessarily include "colorless" in reminder text - decision against precedent, but something I consider.
I like all the words being there, but maybe for realsies the wording could be shortened a lot?
Fortitude (Enters play with a totem aura)
Fortitude (Can regenerate once)