temporary storage: Recent Activity
| temporary storage: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Search | Recent activity |
| Mechanics | Cult World references | Aerial vs. Aquatic mechanical ideas | Clan Lore and Individuals | Katonah's Plane Tests & Details |
Recent updates to temporary storage: (Generated at 2025-07-04 22:58:51)
See Aggravated Rattler.
See Brainblast.
See Memento Mori test v2. Memento Mori test number 3. Now Memento Mori is based on Thero's Bestow.
This version comes across more as mourning jewelry than memento mori though.
Memento Mori as a mechanic that triggers whenever a creature you control dies. Still not a fan.
I wanted some planeswalker hate (I always do). I also had considered planeswalking being some part of Cortraevas that keeps the plane running.
The first ability is intended to function similarly to Vorinclex, Monstrous Raider. I may not have the wording correct, however. Planeswalkers can still use + loyalty abilities even if they already have two loyalty counters on them. The abilities will still be activated, ~ just prevents the counters from increasing past two.
I actually really like the idea of doing a hybrid planeswalker again. I would change the ultimate to that later tbh.,
Originally I wanted to make the first ability something that made the next spell your opponent cast that targeted a creature hit a random creature instead, but I couldn't find a reasonable-sized wording for that ability.
I also considered this walker at 5cmc starting loyalty 5 and the ultimate costing 8.
That's fair. It's clear to me, but I've seen players get tripped up by Haunt.
I don't think I'd remove the spell trigger, but maybe writing "commit heresy" first and then "or a spell causes..." after might make things more clear, especially with SecretInfiltrator's suggestion wording structure having "Heresy" be the name of the ability.
With this particular card, I'd worry that people will think the life loss from the first line will trigger the second line. As currently written, it won't, because a creature on the battlefield is not a spell, but a bunch of players won't realise that. (I'm not 100% sure whether you intended the lifeloss from the first line to trigger the second line.) I'd suggest changing one or the other so they're not so confusingly parallel.
Saying Commit heresy after the activated ability works for me if you think it helps. I think this suggestion solves your second issue as well.
I was thinking Heresy as something the color would due to another player but instead doing to itself. Doing the opposite of the color is interesting, and I'm interested to see how this is. Oddly, I was likely to use creature sacrifice for green, as it's something green does, but usually to reap something benefit (drawing cards or putting out another creature).
I wonder how much easier the concept was to grokk if the activated ability line read just "
: You lose 2 life. Commit heresy."
The current wording implies that the nature of the activated ability is changed.
Here a note though about something that I consider definitely not intuitive design:
> "When that ability is activated, the creature has committed Heresy, and the second ability will trigger."
So one trigger condition is on life loss (happens during resolution of the spell), but the other is on activating an ability. In consequence condition will cause the ability to enter the stack after the spell/ability has finished resolving and the other will trigger with the spell/ability still on the stack and no life lost.
A benefit of putting "commit heresy" straight into the activated ability's effect would be a more consistent timing.
"Heresy" sounds like the effect should be something violating/threatening the color's beliefs. I don't know the other cult abilities, but maybe you could play on them; I'll just play on abilities that technically any color can use (as a cost, usually), but usually don't, but that directly tax a resource the color usually wants to have around e. g.
I'd expect that to feel more like heresy from within the mechanical default frame of thinking MtG provides.
Heresy is a tricky concept to implement. I will break it down because I am aware that my thought processes and intentions may not be clear from this card alone.
Heresy will always involve the creature tapping to activate an ability that will generally have negative consequences for the creature's controller. When that ability is activated, the creature has committed Heresy, and the second ability will trigger.
Each Heresy is not the same. A blue creature may have its controller mill three cards as Heresy or a red creature's Heresy may deal damage to a creature the player controllers. I cannot figure out any Heresy abilities for white that seem logical (and green's seem like forced bends). This worries me that Heresy would not be viable. As a. note, I should mention the other mechanics intended for this set do restrict themselves by color. While I considered making a unique mechanic for each of the five cults, that would be too many mechanics for the set, as the set needs mechanics for the theme of color identity.
This card also grants its controller the trigger from committing Heresy when a similar act occurs. This was added onto this card to just be more versatile in general. While not every card would have a similar clause, it likely would not be hard to include (e.g. the aforementioned red example having "Whenever a or creature you control deals damage to a creature you control or you commit Heresy, do X thing.)
See Persecute Example#1.
Persecute gets a benefit from blocking or being blocked by a creature that doesn't share a color with the creature that has persecute. Maybe green can have a 4/4 deathtouch for 3G with no loopholes. This was just a test to show what Persecute would look like, I will include a second card that has a more inspired Persecute ability.
I had been hoping to avoid a keyword so that the ability could be more generally reusable, and thus avoid the fate of Totem Armor, but if it must be so, then it must be so.
forgot last part of what SecretInfiltrator suggested
Used Keyword like SecretInfiltrator suggested (though changed the name to fit match what I was looking for)
I feel you'd be best served with a keyword ability.
The rules around Auras were written in a kinda convoluted and created to replicate the functionality local enchantments used to have before introduction of the type. We are left with a grokkable enchantment type that has gameplay issues, because it lacks the inherent value of Equipment.
One way to handle this is to make it Equipment-like:
> Enduring (This is no Aura and loses enchant while unattached.)
: Attach ~ to target creature. Activate this aility only any time you could cast a sorcery.
Or to be closer to what you want:
> Enduring (If this would be put into the graveyard for being unattached, you may attach it to a creature you control instead.)
It might be beneficial to have "enchant creature you control" instead not "enchant creature" that way you have the flexibility of "enduring" always mimicking the restriction of the enchant ability.
For NE American Indian plane. I for one want to keep auras around. Colored equipment being recurring unnerves me, and auras that benefit your own creatures need a way to survive.
See ((C121570))
See Pursuit Hound.
See Greeting Hound Droid. | V | E | R | T | I | C | A| L | |
| D | O | G |
| C | Y | C | L | E |
See Slag Serpent.
See Santos's Grasp. Originally wanted this as an uncommon. Doesn't like an uncommon, so it'll need to be melted down.