Madoka Magi-ka: Recent Activity
| Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2025-06-28 13:02:06)
| Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics |
Recent updates to Madoka Magi-ka: (Generated at 2025-06-28 13:02:06)
Edited reminder text.
sure we can assume whatever we want. nevertheless, such rules must need be clarified to the full extent of being viable and clear. that is why, for instance, WotC officially discontinued unblockable and indestructible even if they are easily understood by the laymen. However, such terms have no official rules authority. Unblockable has been replaced by a more official text (can't be blocked), and indestructible became a keyword with explicit rules.
Die in this case has the same issues like bury back in the day. Bury has been discontinued for 20 years and they never looked back.
The comp rules say >700.4. The term dies means "is put into a graveyard from the battlefield."
If this was to be an official ability, I'm sure the comp rules would have >700.4a. The phrase "don't/doesn't die" means "aren't/isn't put into a graveyard from the battlefield," respectively.
would be appended. Since this is a fan set, you can assume the comp rules are adjusted however you need. Basically, if it sounds "right," use it.
Dying is a conditional check, not an action. While the grammar in English sounds fine, however, to die is not an official rules action (yet). So, "don't die" should be replaced with "aren't put into the graveyard".
Templating based on infect is precisely the way to do it. So your wording, "deals damage to players in the form of putting cards from the top of that player's library into his or her graveyard", is completely fine. You could perhaps say "putting that many cards from the top etc", if you wanted, but I think it's fine without "that many".
I think it's much clearer to say "(Any positive amount of damage destroys it)" than to try to mention 0 explicitly in the reminder text.
Reminder text doesn't have to be precisely the rules text; if it was, we wouldn't have the comprules, and cards would all be be the size of desks.
Infect doesn't spell out exactly what "damage in the form of" is either, I think it's fine. "Works like infect" is pretty obviously one-card-per-damage.
It's kinda an interesting ability - very powerful against creatures; very weak against players. Sadly, means "This creature is a blocker" - so be worried about ground stalls.
Alright. I guess the second ability checks out. But how about reminder text like this. (A source cannot deal 0 or less damage.) or (0 damage is not damage.) or (Any amount of damage greater than 0 still destroys creatures with 0 toughness normally.)
But I'm still not sure I've worded Erode correctly. I was trying to template it after Infect, but that may have been a little too cute. I feel like it needs to say something about the amount of cards put into that player's graveyard.
Maybe something like, "This creature deals damage to creatures in the form of -1/-1 counters and to players in the form of putting a number of cards from the top of that player’s library equal to this creature's power into his or her graveyard." But that's really wordy... Any suggestions?
Cool. I remember seeing things like Erode discussed in a few places. It was being proposed over on the Wizards forum as a potential evergreen keyword for blue. There's not very many cards on Multiverse that I can find with it, which surprises me somewhat given how often I've seen it in other parts of the custom card internet, but Psychic Tim does something similar.
We discussed the second ability a bit over on ((C4603)) and Shimmering Glory. My reminder text for the second ability was "(Any positive amount of damage destroys it.)" Thankfully the rules say that 0 damage is no damage at all, but obviously 1 damage will kill anything like this (assuming the natural rules tweak to 704.5g).
Seem fine to me, albeit really unusual. I think dealing 0 damage to this might kill it; which is an odd side effect. But maybe not problematically odd.
I could use some rules templating help on both of these abilities. Thanks.
Yes, that's a good wording. Good job.
The absurd quote from Ryuk is great icing on the cake too.
Changed text to magic-style wording.
@dude1818 Awesome. Thanks.
"If an activated or triggered ability from a Demon source would cause you to sacrifice one or more permanents, you may sacrifice ~ instead." I also think the name needs to be a little less generic. Maybe "Demongift Apple" or something along those lines?
Hmm... Something like:
> If you would sacrifice one or more permanents [or pay life?] for an ability of a Demon, you may sacrifice Apple instead.
?
That does make for a bit of a silly turn 1 Demon of Death's Gate, but I assume that's deliberate. (Delraich would work too except it's a Horror, not a Demon.)
(Or maybe it wouldn't let you cheat out a DoDG, actually. My wording uses the somewhat woolly phrase "for an ability", and DoDG's alternate casting cost is more to do with casting the Demon spell itself than "an ability" of the Demon, though the text granting that cost is technically an ability itself.)
I need a lot of help with this ability. I hope my intent is clear, but here's the gist. Demons, both yours and your opponent's are always making you sacrifice stuff. I was thinking that this could be used as a one-time substitute for paying a sacrifice cost of a demon. Is there a more elegant / Magic-template style way of conveying this?
Changed second ability. No more life recovery and now Time Ebb's a tapped creature instead of any old creature.
Added art. Changed the second ability from bounce to put on top of library. Changed the first ability to +1, reduced the ultimate to -4.
Changed the second ability because it was too similar to Chandra Ablaze's second ability.
Corrected a mistake in the second ability.
Updated art...again.
Added art.
I'm somewhat against it being able to take Planeswalkers and Enchantments both for power and color pie reasons but also for flavor reasons. This character is covetous, but only because she's lost a lot--lost material things. She's all about finding a home, friends and toys--not frivolous things like new ideas. She's actually been hurt by her own magic, so I think it makes better flavor sense for her to stay away from enchantments, as much as that would streamline and power-up the ultimate, which I already think is pretty strong (four turn timer to steal almost everything and use it as your own plaything sounds pretty nice to me).