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 2025-07-03 04:56:53)
While I don't like it in white, the more condemning factor is that I just don't see the ability to add mana only during combat as a mechanic that I'd really want to use often enough to keyword it.
Regarding off-colour, I actually did try that out with Insolent Urulóki which is pretty neat as a black dragon that produces
, though I eventually moved it to the second set and I'll likely drop it from there eventually. In the third set, Glaurung, First of Urulóki also has a similar off-color activation at the moment but that just off-topic.
Heh. Maybe "add
until end of combat"?
White is the army colour; while this does feel more red, I can see this existing as a
mechanic. (Presumably making 
for red creatures.)
Naming the colour it makes, rather than making the same as the card already is, feels wrong. Though it does offer the potential for making off-colour mana at some future point.
Is it intended that you can only use that mana for combat since it will be lost quite quickly? That isn't that obvious for some people. It would need clauses like Conduit of Storms or Savage Ventmaw otherwise depending on how you want it to work.
Also, color pie wise I would say that this is
as indicated by the two cards I liked to + Hardened Berserker among other things. 
has no tendency towards mana producing mechanics at all. I would place it the dead last in that category. 
> 
> 
specifically.
Personally I used a similar mechanic that only added mana on attack for
rebels in this Silmarillion fan set. Son of Anarchy for example.
Or should the reminder text read "Add
whenever this creature blocks."? Maybe the ability should be add 
whenever the creature attacks or blocks, since it'd give the player more control. Yes, I will change that now.
The ability name is generic. I wanted something elementally for white.
Ignoring all the discussion about how to call the mechanic, I think it's a bit weird to call the Octopus "Corrupt" in its name if it actually is not yet corrupt as it is cast.
Perhaps you should also look up the definitions of denotation and connotation while your over there. If aomeone tells you the issue is connotation and another mentions negative associations, then citing a definition is kinda missing the point.
Citing a (single) dictionary definition (out of many) is also kinda iffy. I usually use another dictionary, so let me try. I'll use the first definition from your source (Miriam-Webster) for both the intransitive and transitive version rather than cherry-pick one definition; usually definitions are sorted so the lower numbers are more commonly used forms - which are hence more relevant for connotation (which influences how the keyword will feel to your players).
transitive 1.a: > to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions
intransitive 1.a: > to become tainted or rotten
I will also point out that the definition you provide comes with an example: "The file was corrupted." What connotations does this example evoke?
If you want a value-neutral term here you don't have to look any farther than the definition you have brought up: alter.
Now I personally don't think corruption necessarily means from "towards evil", but certainly implies "towards bad" in the sense of "towards a lessened state", "losing (its original) value".
"Change" is a scary thing, because it is not always good and not always in our control, actually more often than not in someone elses control (which is why corrupt is (also) a transitive verb). And while change also can be for the better, we tend to call change that we disapprove of "corruption".
Now there is nothing wrong with using corrupt, but then I would make sure the thematic treatment acknowledges the connotations.
One could set up a corrupt vs. pure theme (listed as antonym to the adjective definition on Miiam-Webster). What would corrupt be? Multicolored? Having a mismatch between your color(s) and your 'base color(s)'?
I think you are throwing away a lot of potential when you go with definition 4, but ignoring the part that says "to alter from [...] correct form or version"
Perhaps citing a definition from Merriam-Webster will defend my stance: "to alter from the original or correct form or version."
From this I learned of "vitiate," a word I was unfamiliar with. That word would suffice.
Tint works.
Even "taint" has negative associations. Maybe "influence"? "tint"? "distort"? In a world like Eldritch Moon where there's something warping all colours, it could work.
That's not the connotation of that word in English, though. Corruption will always be read as evil or malicious
I'm not going for corrupt as in evil, but instead trying to suggest being mono-color is the creature's pure state. The creature taking on a second color, become multicolor, is a corruption to the creature's initial state.
Corrupt is very much a black concept. The ability could be any color, but the name isn't right
Now includes the +1/+1 counter as a hopeful way for players to remember if the creature is or isn't corrupted.
Entering tapped because of Disorder? I mean, I suppose Disorder could be optional. I think making it optional would require removing Disorder to check for tapped creatures. Then Disorder would become "You may choose to have this creature ETB tapped." which I guess makes things simpler.
I'm not opposed using +1/+1 counters.
Oh! That's an interesting mechanic.
I think you'd want corruption counters to implement it; but that's probably fine.
See Corrupt Octopus.
This is an attempt at a more straightforward corrupt design at common.
If the ability has appeared once before at rare, then it's probably not feasible to do at common. This idea is scrapped.
I think it's worth noting that there's a reason Wizards decided to write Shaman en-Kor the way it is written. But I also recognize that there are problems with that implementation too, so I couldn't begin to pretend to know what the 'best way' to do an ability like this is.
The order of replacement effects matters, so each source of damage is redirected to a single creature with allegiance.
Yes, allegiance is intended to divert the total amount of damage from a single source from an untapped creature to the creature with allegiance.
I just now realized that my current wording makes allegiance mandatory and also doesn't specify that the untapped creature must be yours. Under the current wording, both creatures with allegiance would die. Neither the 3/4 deathtouch nor the 2/4 vigilance creature would die. Since the current wording is mandatory, damage from the blocking deathtouch creature would be dealt to both of these creatures. The defending player could choose to have all 3 damage from the blocking deathtouch creature go to one copy of this allegiance creature, while the other copy of the allegiance creature receives no damage, in which case only the allegiance creature dealt damage would die. Since all damage the 3/4 deathtouch creature would deal is diverted away from the 2/4 vigilance creature, the 2/4 vigilance creature would receive no damage from the deathtouch creature, so the 2/4 vigilance creature will not die due to damage from a creature with deathtouch.
In order to make the effection optional instead of mandatory and remove the drawback of having to have a player's allegiance creature receive damage that would be dealt to an opponent's creature, I would like to change the wording to "You may redirect damage that would be dealt to an untapped creature you control to this creature instead."
If you believe this ability should target, then I would change the proposed wording to "You may redirect damage that would be dealt to target untapped creature you control to this creature instead."
> If I understand trample correctly
I think it's likely from above explanations that you don't understand trample correctly (at least its nuances): Excess damage from a creature with trample doesn't automatically "go through" - the controller of the source has a say in it.
So one thing I notice that I really didn't expect before and that becomes actually relevant in other examples is... you want this to redirect all damage from an untapped creature to the creature with allegiance at once?
Example: If a 3/4 with deathtouch blocks a 2/4 with vigilance you control while you control two of these... how many of your creatures are going to die?
If two copies of this were to redirect damage from a single target to them, the damage would be divided by the player controlling the source assigning damage as normal.
To continue using the trample example, a 7/7 trample's damage is redirected to two copies of this creature. If no buffs occurred, that's 7 damage split between two copies of this one toughness creature. If I understand trample correctly, 5 damage should go through to the defending player, since five should be the excess damage after the combined total 2 toughness of these two 1 toughness creatures.
If two of copies of this creature redirected damage from a single creature that had a power of 1/3 to them, then one of those copies would not receive damage? If two creatures block a single source, but only damage is being dealt, that 1 damage can't be split to any lower number, right?
Okay, hypothetical number two. What if you have 2 of these in play? Where does the damage go?