I have the source linked above. The discussion concerned only the application of the color pie to mechanics with activated costs/alternate casting costs or similar.
I could see the tokens losing bifurcate anyway if testing comes up showing its a problem - just uses up even more text space.
At first I was like "WTF WotC?!", but after further thinking it's right around the limit what I would expect them to try to pull off.
It looks to me like this is their flagship flavor mechanic so they are willing to go a bit further with it. You can pretty much use the card itself when it's in that "state" - maybe with some kind of marker on it. The obvious problem being the potential mixup with +1/+1 counters and such which they are attempting to address.
So was mechanic made to prove a point about that specifically or something? Ie. you just running with the concept? The problem still remains the multiple tokens, so the rise in complexity is like "n2" compared to the new spoiled mechanic's "n" complexity.
Obviously you can do whatever you want, although using that excuse does sound like it could end up being a slippery slope.
I imagine if I pick up this mechanic for a set it would feature on about ten cards - mostly vanillas and french vanillas. Something as straightforward as Scion of the Wild could be rare.
p.s.: If you are okay with reading potential spoilers for an upcoming canon product, I suggest checking out this. Apparently Wizards is willing to go even further than me with the tokens... though adittedly they don't plan on growing the numbers the same way.
I feel okay about pushing the envelope just a little bit further considering that as a custom card product designer I will likely be personally present for more than half the gameplay these cards will experience and can provide token support. :)
You two up there are aware that I mentioned another common that is just this plus morph in the first comment? I think Kin-Tree Warden provides appropriate context.
@Tahazzar:
Both the old thread of yours and the card you link to are about a card that has ": ~ gets +1/+1 UEOT." in addition to regeneration/activated indestructibility. I'm not certain I understand why you use these references.
Also you quote someone elses comment on one of your designs without indicating whether you agree or don't. :confused:
For whatever it's worth I have no strong preference for either wording and due to a shift in mechanics/answers over the last decade (both in canon sets as in custom sets) I do not consider indestructible inherently more powerful. At the very least there is recourse.
Well since I derped this comment I might as well quote (not my comment) something related from an old thread of mine (from 2013):
> "Instead I'd rather talk about the indestructible at common. Losing regenerate and adding indestructible (a more powerful effect) in it's place seems to achieve nothing. This card now comes across as overpowered and has pretty much the same complexity as it would have if it regenerated."
Source
Source
Source
Source
I have the source linked above. The discussion concerned only the application of the color pie to mechanics with activated costs/alternate casting costs or similar.
I could see the tokens losing bifurcate anyway if testing comes up showing its a problem - just uses up even more text space.
At first I was like "WTF WotC?!", but after further thinking it's right around the limit what I would expect them to try to pull off.
It looks to me like this is their flagship flavor mechanic so they are willing to go a bit further with it. You can pretty much use the card itself when it's in that "state" - maybe with some kind of marker on it. The obvious problem being the potential mixup with +1/+1 counters and such which they are attempting to address.
So was mechanic made to prove a point about that specifically or something? Ie. you just running with the concept? The problem still remains the multiple tokens, so the rise in complexity is like "n2" compared to the new spoiled mechanic's "n" complexity.
Obviously you can do whatever you want, although using that excuse does sound like it could end up being a slippery slope.
I imagine if I pick up this mechanic for a set it would feature on about ten cards - mostly vanillas and french vanillas. Something as straightforward as Scion of the Wild could be rare.
p.s.: If you are okay with reading potential spoilers for an upcoming canon product, I suggest checking out this. Apparently Wizards is willing to go even further than me with the tokens... though adittedly they don't plan on growing the numbers the same way.
I feel okay about pushing the envelope just a little bit further considering that as a custom card product designer I will likely be personally present for more than half the gameplay these cards will experience and can provide token support. :)
You two up there are aware that I mentioned another common that is just this plus morph in the first comment? I think Kin-Tree Warden provides appropriate context.
@Tahazzar: Both the old thread of yours and the card you link to are about a card that has "
: ~ gets +1/+1 UEOT." in addition to regeneration/activated indestructibility. I'm not certain I understand why you use these references.
Also you quote someone elses comment on one of your designs without indicating whether you agree or don't. :confused:
For whatever it's worth I have no strong preference for either wording and due to a shift in mechanics/answers over the last decade (both in canon sets as in custom sets) I do not consider indestructible inherently more powerful. At the very least there is recourse.
Can create stalls, I would add "Can't block" or something like that.
derp (didn't notice your initial comment)
Well since I derped this comment I might as well quote (not my comment) something related from an old thread of mine (from 2013):
> "Instead I'd rather talk about the indestructible at common. Losing regenerate and adding indestructible (a more powerful effect) in it's place seems to achieve nothing. This card now comes across as overpowered and has pretty much the same complexity as it would have if it regenerated."
:p
Darkling Stalker at common sounds pretty busted though.