> 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.
I definitely didn't get that the ability is a property of the Aura token itself, and I still don't get that from reading the reminder text. So the Aura would be what it is and if it was moved to some creature without fortitude, it would still work fine... right?
My suggestion for that would be:
> Fortitude (This [creature] enters [the battlefield] enchanted by a/an [colorless] Aura token with "If enchanted permanent would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and destroy this Aura.")
No, Tahazzar is right, it's ambiguous. With the wording the way it is, I couldn't tell you what happens when the aura is moved, since I can't tell if the ability is attached to the aura or to the creature with the Fortitude mechanic. My best guess, as written, is that the aura 'shuts off' if it isn't on a permanent with Fortitude.
I would suggest "An aura token with the ability 'If enchanted permanent would be destroyed...'"
It's also possible that this card, if printed, would include the words "...enters the battlefield with an Aura token attached to it with the ability 'Enchant creature. If enchanted..." But since reminder text doesn't technically need to include everything, maybe Wizards would do what you did too, and shorthand how auras work.
I also find it funny to think that this could be a dreaded nesting mechanic inside a mechanic if you wrote it that way. "...Aura token with the ability totem armor.'" I wouldn't suggest that. But if I was in development and this floated in front of me, I'd question why we needed the Fortitude keyword when we could just make a bunch of creatures that put Totem Armor tokens on permanents. We wouldn't even need to restrict that to enter the battlefield effects.
You know, sometimes I come off as being critical when all I'm trying to do is be helpful. Sorry. This is a good mechanic. I'm just trying to lay out options.
> So 'divine armor' from heartstone? I've seen this being suggested plenty of times - usually they tend to use some kind of a counter. I could see some kind of a token being slightly better.
Yeah, among other things. I'm also inspired by Palladia-Mors, the Ruiner etc. But the base idea was answering the question: "What's an Aura that is so simple that it could be used as a token, but not interchangable with a +1/+1 or -1/-1 counter?"
And I came up with the same answer as WotC: an enchant ability and totem armor.
> This does some raise some questions though. What I get here is that the effect is tied to that specific Aura. What if an Aura token was moved from another fortitude dude to this? Would it been able to survive three hits before dying since it has two Auras? Or is the second moved Aura token ignored by the fortitude ability?
I don't know how you can "get [...] that the effect is tied to that specific Aura" and still have those questions. The effect is tied to the Aura token created by the ability. If another Aura token is moved to this that Aura token has whatever effect the ability creating that token has granted it i. e. if it's also a token created by toughness, then yes, this will work exactly like two Auras with totem armor are supposed to work.
> ... Wait, hold on a moment. Does that 'enchanted permanent' refer to any permanent that's enchanted? Like, if some other dude was Mind Controlled and were to die, this would destroy the Aura instead..? That wording is ambiguous if you ask me.
No, "enchanted permanent" refers to the permanent that is enchanted by that specific Aura - it's the exact same wording totem armor and Pacifism use. Pacifism does not stop all creatures that are enchanted from attacking and blocking.
The wording you are thinking about is used on e. g. the Magemark cycle (e. g. Beastmaster's Magemark). If I wanted that I would use "any permanent that is enchanted" rather than "enchanted permanent".
If you think this wording is ambiguous, then you must think the wording of every single Aura is ambiguous. The very least this would need to say to even remotely imply your reading would be "an enchanted permanent" which would mean there could be multiples - the current wording is an established MtG-template refering to the single well-defined object an Aura is attached to.
So 'divine armor' from heartstone? I've seen this being suggested plenty of times - usually they tend to use some kind of a counter. I could see some kind of a token being slightly better.
This does some raise some questions though. What I get here is that the effect is tied to that specific Aura. What if an Aura token was moved from another fortitude dude to this? Would it been able to survive three hits before dying since it has two Auras? Or is the second moved Aura token ignored by the fortitude ability?
... Wait, hold on a moment. Does that 'enchanted permanent' refer to any permanent that's enchanted? Like, if some other dude was Mind Controlled and were to die, this would destroy the Aura instead..? That wording is ambiguous if you ask me.
Yeah, Law originally was introduced for rule setting enchantments like the one you mentioned. The issue with using artifact tokens is that I feel it violates the distinction between enchantment and artifact. Artifact tokens get to be Equipments, Vehicles and stuff that taps to activate abilities in my book, Clues get grandfathered in.
But this effect clearly is a reference to existing enchantments, so I'm going to have to figure out what kind of magic Hieromancer's Cage is - maybe it justifies a new enchantment type, but I'd prefer a shorter term for it than "Imprisonment". Maybe "Arrest"?
A very good one if not already in use actually would be the mechanically distinct "Seal" for Seal of Fire etc.
Is this like an ETB ability or..? Flavor wise this doesn't really jell IMO. How are the laws themselves banishing the creature? I would imagine cards with the type 'law' would be more like Rule of Law. Ie. global effects. For this particular card I could see artifact enchantment 'Shackle' tokens - or something to that effect.
Law is one of the established enchantment types I have lined up, but I could also see myself introducing a new type for this like Jail or Prison. I just feel like these are better suited for tangible card types like artifact or land.
Speaking of: With the difference in artifacts and enchantments when it comes to removability, should I opt for artifact tokens here?
I'm so happy I predicted the first (noncopy) Aura token correctly. Really, the only reason this doesn't outright say totem armor is that I avoid nesting keywords.
> 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)
I definitely didn't get that the ability is a property of the Aura token itself, and I still don't get that from reading the reminder text. So the Aura would be what it is and if it was moved to some creature without fortitude, it would still work fine... right?
My suggestion for that would be:
> Fortitude (This [creature] enters [the battlefield] enchanted by a/an [colorless] Aura token with "If enchanted permanent would be destroyed, instead remove all damage from it and destroy this Aura.")
No, Tahazzar is right, it's ambiguous. With the wording the way it is, I couldn't tell you what happens when the aura is moved, since I can't tell if the ability is attached to the aura or to the creature with the Fortitude mechanic. My best guess, as written, is that the aura 'shuts off' if it isn't on a permanent with Fortitude.
I would suggest "An aura token with the ability 'If enchanted permanent would be destroyed...'"
It's also possible that this card, if printed, would include the words "...enters the battlefield with an Aura token attached to it with the ability 'Enchant creature. If enchanted..." But since reminder text doesn't technically need to include everything, maybe Wizards would do what you did too, and shorthand how auras work.
I also find it funny to think that this could be a dreaded nesting mechanic inside a mechanic if you wrote it that way. "...Aura token with the ability totem armor.'" I wouldn't suggest that. But if I was in development and this floated in front of me, I'd question why we needed the Fortitude keyword when we could just make a bunch of creatures that put Totem Armor tokens on permanents. We wouldn't even need to restrict that to enter the battlefield effects.
You know, sometimes I come off as being critical when all I'm trying to do is be helpful. Sorry. This is a good mechanic. I'm just trying to lay out options.
> So 'divine armor' from heartstone? I've seen this being suggested plenty of times - usually they tend to use some kind of a counter. I could see some kind of a token being slightly better.
Yeah, among other things. I'm also inspired by Palladia-Mors, the Ruiner etc. But the base idea was answering the question: "What's an Aura that is so simple that it could be used as a token, but not interchangable with a +1/+1 or -1/-1 counter?"
And I came up with the same answer as WotC: an enchant ability and totem armor. > This does some raise some questions though. What I get here is that the effect is tied to that specific Aura. What if an Aura token was moved from another fortitude dude to this? Would it been able to survive three hits before dying since it has two Auras? Or is the second moved Aura token ignored by the fortitude ability?
I don't know how you can "get [...] that the effect is tied to that specific Aura" and still have those questions. The effect is tied to the Aura token created by the ability. If another Aura token is moved to this that Aura token has whatever effect the ability creating that token has granted it i. e. if it's also a token created by toughness, then yes, this will work exactly like two Auras with totem armor are supposed to work.
> ... Wait, hold on a moment. Does that 'enchanted permanent' refer to any permanent that's enchanted? Like, if some other dude was Mind Controlled and were to die, this would destroy the Aura instead..? That wording is ambiguous if you ask me.
No, "enchanted permanent" refers to the permanent that is enchanted by that specific Aura - it's the exact same wording totem armor and Pacifism use. Pacifism does not stop all creatures that are enchanted from attacking and blocking.
The wording you are thinking about is used on e. g. the Magemark cycle (e. g. Beastmaster's Magemark). If I wanted that I would use "any permanent that is enchanted" rather than "enchanted permanent".
If you think this wording is ambiguous, then you must think the wording of every single Aura is ambiguous. The very least this would need to say to even remotely imply your reading would be "an enchanted permanent" which would mean there could be multiples - the current wording is an established MtG-template refering to the single well-defined object an Aura is attached to.
So 'divine armor' from heartstone? I've seen this being suggested plenty of times - usually they tend to use some kind of a counter. I could see some kind of a token being slightly better.
This does some raise some questions though. What I get here is that the effect is tied to that specific Aura. What if an Aura token was moved from another fortitude dude to this? Would it been able to survive three hits before dying since it has two Auras? Or is the second moved Aura token ignored by the fortitude ability?
... Wait, hold on a moment. Does that 'enchanted permanent' refer to any permanent that's enchanted? Like, if some other dude was Mind Controlled and were to die, this would destroy the Aura instead..? That wording is ambiguous if you ask me.
Yeah, Law originally was introduced for rule setting enchantments like the one you mentioned. The issue with using artifact tokens is that I feel it violates the distinction between enchantment and artifact. Artifact tokens get to be Equipments, Vehicles and stuff that taps to activate abilities in my book, Clues get grandfathered in.
But this effect clearly is a reference to existing enchantments, so I'm going to have to figure out what kind of magic Hieromancer's Cage is - maybe it justifies a new enchantment type, but I'd prefer a shorter term for it than "Imprisonment". Maybe "Arrest"?
A very good one if not already in use actually would be the mechanically distinct "Seal" for Seal of Fire etc.
added: "When ~ enters the battlefield, "
Is this like an ETB ability or..? Flavor wise this doesn't really jell IMO. How are the laws themselves banishing the creature? I would imagine cards with the type 'law' would be more like Rule of Law. Ie. global effects. For this particular card I could see artifact enchantment 'Shackle' tokens - or something to that effect.
Law is one of the established enchantment types I have lined up, but I could also see myself introducing a new type for this like Jail or Prison. I just feel like these are better suited for tangible card types like artifact or land.
Speaking of: With the difference in artifacts and enchantments when it comes to removability, should I opt for artifact tokens here?
Well, I didn't expect this cardname to never get used on an official card, but it's been a week until Nesting Dragon.
On theme!
Spoiler
I'm so happy I predicted the first (noncopy) Aura token correctly. Really, the only reason this doesn't outright say totem armor is that I avoid nesting keywords.
See Yaina's Rootcleaner and Rustsludge Disposer.
Sneak attacking keyword tribal.
Based on Magewright's Stone and Mystical Teachings