Custom Keywords

continued...
Sat, 2012-04-14 19:51
setharoth
setharoth's picture

I'm not sure what kind of cards you are talking about Jeske Couriano about auras that move around. Could you give an example?

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:07
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:18
Timespiraled
Timespiraled's picture

I still see nothing complicated in simply defining the effects of the Equipment being on two creatures.

Siege Weapon
Siege Weapon is a keyworded ability present on Equipments.
Siege Weapon means: Two creatures may both equip this equipment. Both of them are considered equipped creatures. If an effect would equip another creature onto an Equipment with Siege Weapon, that equipment's controller choses which of the two previous equipped creatures becomes unequipped.

And really, sometimes it seems dumb to scrap expanding ideas because of four cards that are not part of your set.

Something powered this way comes.

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:24
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

cinematt) Those four cards are extant in the game pool, and two of them are not that old (Kor Outfitter is from Zendikar; Brass Squire's from Mirrodin Besieged). Believe it or not, Wizards does have to take into account the existing cardpool when designing a set - they aren't just looking at Standard or Extended, they're looking at the whole cardpool. If a card has the potential to pose *any* kind of rules or balancing problem with what they're designing, they're obliged to take it into account.

Magnetic Theft, in particular, poses a major problem in that it can cause a Siege Engine card to be equipped to creatures controlled by different players, even if temporarily.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:33
Timespiraled
Timespiraled's picture

I'm well aware of Wizards design. I follow every article on the motherpage.

What I'm saying is that, sometimes, when we're designing our own sets, we understand that Wizards has to do this, but we ourselves don't necessarily have to scrap ideas because of a few cards Wizard made.

This is one of the reasons I feel MTG Editor should make Community Core Sets and have our own following of cards to base on.

It's not the first time I've seen ideas being shot down because of a card Wizards made.

On this site, and in this situation, that's like saying a certain card doesn't work because of a card you made in one of your sets.

Wizards cards should be used for balance design, wording issues and understanding how cards are made, but they should not LIMIT the creative design of the people on this site.

And in this case, yes, Magnetic Theft would do that. And? Then congratulations to that player for having his creature equipped to the card. Perhaps he'll gain some power from it if it gives bonuses, or in the case of Tesla Pulsecannon it only serves to trigger it's ability, which the equipment's controller still controls.

I do agree that we should have a level of seriousness when designing sets, as well as an understanding of how cards are made, I don't think we need to know every card in the MTG Gatherer and have to scrap ideas because out of the thousands out there, a couple cause problems.

As well, Wizards are far from perfect. You can't go and say "Be like Wizards and base your cards on every set" and then "Don't do like Wizards and make Blue mana symbol cards like Isochron Scepter and things like Affinity because they're broken."

So let's ease up a bit and accept that we also can design new rules and come up with broader ideas.

EDIT: Wizards also has a Banned/Restricted list. What's to stop me from simply stating that my Sets run with certain restrictions as well and have our own Community Ban list?

Something powered this way comes.

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:38
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

I'm not saying "Be like Wizards". I'm saying "Think of how your ideas interact with the cardpool, the Comprehensive Rules, and the board state."

When playtesting, the odds are better than 90% you're going to be playtesting against existing cards. Making cards that disregard the cardpool (unforeseen interactions with cards your opponent uses), Comprehensive Rules (Potentially cause an infinite loop by playing the card as intended), or the board state (Make being able to assess just what the current situation is difficult if not impossible) is going to end up torquing your playtesters off and force you back to the drawing board for a more substantial revision.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:37
Timespiraled
Timespiraled's picture

The current Standard cardpool is what I base myself on and that leaves Brass Squire. Which I've taken into account.

Something powered this way comes.

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:41
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

cinematt) Then you're willfully blind to the other three and are going to have a hard time playtesting your cards well, especially since Standard changes every October. What was balanced by Innistrad/Scars standard may end up broken because of Ravnica II/Innistrad standard.

This is why you always test, even if cursory, in Extended at the very least, if not Legacy/Vintage.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:48
Timespiraled
Timespiraled's picture

Jeske, that's an even worse argument. That's like saying stop designing cards now, because they might make something to break your set.

We can only look at the past when designing as we know nothing of the future sets Wizards makes.

We make cards for fun, and I base my current sets off Wizards Standard set when the set is being designed. Scars/2012/Inn does not break any of my cards.

In any case as I mentioned above, I'm making my own Core Set and when that's done with, I will continue basing my cards on the present Standard and my past sets.

To conclude, I see no reason why a Dual Equipment would be disastrous to the game environment. What if Wizards makes them in 2-3 years any ways? I mean, they have Soulbond now and from what I recall, someone else on this forum has had an idea similar to it.

EDIT: Even with all the Equipment Redirect cards, the Dual Equipments still work.

Something powered this way comes.

Sat, 2012-04-14 20:52
Pichoro
Pichoro's picture

setharoth - To use your own example, lets say you had an regular one creature Aura on a creature. If that creature is black, you can't Doom Blade it. If it isn't black, you can. What if it was on a creature a player really didn't want to bother with because it was too weak? They might not use their removal even if they had to.

But, if you use one of these double-enchant Auras on two creatures, unless you're playing monoblack, you've increased the chances that you will enchant a non-black creature, giving your opponent more openings to Doom Blade a creature to get rid of the Aura. In addition, you're increasing the chances you'll attach the Aura to a creature that they'll want to kill anyway, provoking them to use their removal.

Either way, you're out a creature and an Aura, but you're giving your opponent more choices about what to kill to achieve the desired effect, and that's what increases the chance that they'll take the opening you're giving them.


Jeske - I'm looking over these cards you're pointing to, and these don't seem like insurmountable problems.

I'm not going to do this in rules speak, as I've been out of it for too long, but something like this:

  • If a card instructs you to attach an Aura or Equipment that's currently attached to two creatures to a different target creature, choose one of the two creatures it's currently attached to, unattach it from the chosen creature, and attach it to the new target creature.
  • If an Equipment is attached to two creatures controlled by different opponents, it becomes unattached from both creatures.

I started off with a big list, expecting lots of changes, but honestly, I feel like that covers it Jeske.

This creates a kind of situation where you can envision Auras and Equipment as having "hooks" or "attachment points" or something where they fasten to creatures. Regular Auras and Equipment have single attachment points and can move around freely. These dual Auras and dual Equipments have two attachment points that can be moved individually by choosing which creature to unattach it from. It's not that bad, and it's not that unintuitive.

I think it's kinda cool, myself. A happy smile

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:07
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

cinematt) You're referring to Supernova504's Bind ability, which is only similar in that it pairs two creatures together. Bind is far weaker because killing the bound permanent also wipes out the creature with Bind (somewhat like an Aura), and most Bind cards, from what I've seen (I'm reviewing the set) have no relevant secondary effects. Bind, however, plays within the Comprehensive Rules as written. Yours does not.

And my argument is not "stop designing cards or Wizards will break your set come October", my argument is "Expand what you test against so that it's less likely Wizards will break your set come October." Remember that Wizards reprints and functionally-reprints cards quite frequently, so testing in Extended or Legacy/Vintage will mean that your cards are better prepared for the new Standard environment.

Pichoro) I'm more concerned that it plays havoc with the Comprehensive Rules. I firmly believe that we shouldn't be trying to rewrite them except to add keywords, primarily to avoid running into conflicts with later rulesets Wizards puts out.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:11
Pichoro
Pichoro's picture

But sometimes, if you want a more interesting effect, parts of the rules may need re-written or expanded upon. And certainly, that is a tool at WotC's disposal. A happy smile

There are sections that shouldn't be touched, absolutely. But then, there are sections that are a little more flexible, and don't cause any real harm if you alter them a bit. Hence my initial question about the matter - does altering 704 cause any real damage to the rules structure? Good catch on those cards, I'd forgotten about them. But they really aren't so bad to work around a little.

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:16
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

704 contains all the state-based actions. Outright abolition is not an option.

However, in this case Rule 704 is not the issue here; it's rules 301.5c and 303.4d, which I will quote:

Magic Comprehensive Rules wrote:
301.5c An Equipment that's also a creature can't equip a creature. An Equipment that loses the subtype "Equipment" can't equip a creature. An Equipment can't equip itself. An Equipment that equips an illegal or nonexistent permanent becomes unattached from that permanent but remains on the battlefield. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.) An Equipment can't equip more than one creature. If a spell or ability would cause an Equipment to equip more than one creature, the Equipment's controller chooses which creature it equips.

[...]

303.4d An Aura can't enchant itself. If this occurs somehow, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard. An Aura that's also a creature can't enchant anything. If this occurs somehow, the Aura becomes unattached, then is put into its owner's graveyard. (These are state-based actions. See rule 704.) An Aura can't enchant more than one object or player. If a spell or ability would cause an Aura to become attached to more than one object or player, the Aura's controller chooses which object or player it becomes attached to.

Rules 301.5 and 303.4 deal with Equipment and Aurae, respectively. Any "dual" enchant or Equip would need to modify them to remove the last two statements in each, which is what I'm objecting to.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:14
Timespiraled
Timespiraled's picture

@ Jeske) In any case, the Siege Weapon keyword functions... as pichoro said, and as I said previously, all I would have added was that Equipment with Siege Weapon can:

a) be equipped to two creatures
b) when forced to equip another creature, the equipment's controller chooses which one falls off.

That seems fair and rather intuitive.

I do on the other hand understand your point on playtesting. I'm fine as I read the Gatherer but many others may not want to have to consult the thousands of cards. May I suggest a smaller database where we can keep a list of cards that MAY cause problems for set design instead?

I'll be back later gentlemen. Love these chats.

Something powered this way comes.

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:17
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Cinematt) I'll see what I can do before and after work tonight.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:20
Pichoro
Pichoro's picture

Forgive me Jeske - I'm going off of your quote. I didn't realize 704 contained all of the SBA's, surely you realize I wouldn't propose disposing of all of those. A happy smile You know me better than that after all these years.

Anyway, I disagree. The problem is that particular SBA in 704; 301.5c and 303.4d are simply quoting that SBA, right?

And I do not feel like it is a huge matter to alter that SBA an ever so small amount to permit two permanents.

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:25
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

No, the sentences that are standing in the way are not SBAs and thus not contained in 704. (If I had said so previously, then I erred.) Note that the last two sentences come after the parenthetical. They prevent an Aura or Equipment from attaching to two objects simultaneously, and force the player to pick one if a situation comes up where it could do so.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sat, 2012-04-14 21:32
Pichoro
Pichoro's picture

My mistake - I see now. I thought those last two statements were quotations from the SBA's.

However, to me, that's even better. Now you don't need to mess with the SBA's at all to do this.

I'm not going to re-write those two rules entries for you and cinematt and setharoth; I'm sure I'll get a wording wrong and I won't have it resulting in a battle over semantics. But surely you can see that it's not insurmountable to alter those two little rules to allow this.

It's not that bad, Jeske. A happy smile

Sat, 2012-04-14 22:52
CCGNick
CCGNick's picture

You could very easily change 301.5c and 303.4d to say that auras cannot be attached to more than one permanent, unless otherwise specified, and add a clause about how to treat that. Wizards themselves change things like that all the time, when they have an issue with a new keyword charting uncharted waters, that weren't forbidden because they were fundamental to the game, but instead were in the rules to clarify things in a simple way.

Sat, 2012-04-14 23:58
Timespiraled
Timespiraled's picture

Then my problem is solved. Thank you all for this excellent debate on meta-Magic legislation

Something powered this way comes.

Mon, 2012-04-16 15:44
Hat Dude
Hat Dude's picture

Hi

I have a big hat

Sun, 2012-04-15 01:08
Guitarweeps
Friendly MSE Designer
Guitarweeps's picture

Actually, I am quite certain that no wording changes need to be done to the rules at all for either the aura or the equipment (well, maybe the aura). The golden rule is if the text contradicts the rules, the card terxt wins. If the rules say you can only attach an equipment to one creature, but the card says you can attach it to two, then you can. It is no different than the rule that says you lose when you are at zero or less life or lose the game for drawing into an empty library. They don't rewrite the rules to print Lich's Mirror, Laboratory Maniac, or Platinum Angel. I think that going through the game with -15 life is a lot crazier than attaching your equipment to two creatures. You just do what the card says. Don't mistake this for times when legitimate rule updates need to be made. Here I think wizards would do this if so inclined, and I don't think they would need to change the rules to do so.

This discussion reminds me of when I was trying to make psuedo creature-equipment. I was told that it could never work in the rules to attach a creature to another creature. After arguing forever about how I could make it work this way and that, I finally gave up because nobody agreed. And what happens now?

Avacyn Restored
Soulbond! Does pretty much exactly what I wanted (except the ETB) after being told it could NEVER work.

Check out my updated set hub.

Sun, 2012-04-15 03:13
Timespiraled
Timespiraled's picture

Glad to see we've got this going.

So are we agreed that when my next Set after Phenomena appears, Siege Weapon will not be bashed on a second time

But to be fair, Jeske has a good point when dealing with balancing card sets which I will now take to heart.

Something powered this way comes.

Sun, 2012-04-15 05:52
CCGNick
CCGNick's picture

Guitarweeps, there are two reasons I think this would merit a subruling: It has certain interactions that need to be clearly spelled out (How reequipping works when you are only moving one of the equipped creatures), and it is presumably going to be on multiple cards, meaning that it's not a one-off thing.

Sun, 2012-04-15 07:01
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Guitarweeps) The problem is that keywords have their own sections in the comprehensive rules. The reminder text is just a rehash of what's in there. (This is why each of the keywords on the first post are followed up by spoilered comp-rules text; it's the way the ability would appear in the comprehensive rules.)

Also, Soulbond does not attach a creature to another creature. Note that before we were even aware of Soulbond, I didn't try to slam Supernova504 for his Bind ability (which I suspected would be used in a way similar to a creature-Aura, a suspicion which was immediately confirmed when I started assessing the set).

Hat Dude) As an ability, though, it's too limited to be useful and makes no sense flavorwise as red does not actively attempt to screw over green or black (its allies). This would be better suited as the effect of a spell, not as a keyword.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sun, 2012-04-15 10:54
Guitarweeps
Friendly MSE Designer
Guitarweeps's picture

Yes... reminder text... good point.

Although soulbond doesn't physically attach it does pretty much the exact same thing as attaching, they just call it pair instead. Fundamentaly, it is exactly the same as attaching. Players are going to physically move their cards around to represent who is paired to whom. I say call a spade a spade.

Check out my updated set hub.

Mon, 2012-04-16 00:06
setharoth
setharoth's picture

Well, I've been following this conversation (I'm no expert in rulings, so I didn't say anything), but I think with the proper rulings edited Dual Enchant would be workable. So, this is how I think it would work out:
Dual Enchant - This aura comes into play enchanting up to two creatures.
As for rulings, it can be enchanted to two creatures, but unless the card states otherwise the enchanted targets cannot be moved or added onto. So, for instance, I couldn't enchant only one creature when I play it, and then enchant another one later. If I play it enchanting one, it can only be one unless I have an effect that allows me to change this.
Think of this like, as said previously, "hooks". Each "hook" can attach itself to a creature. If one of the "hooks" is empty, then it works as a placeholder. So, if we used something like Aura Finesse to move the attachment, this would change the target of a "hook". As another ruling, you can change the target of the "hook" even if the hook has no current target. So, if I play the aura and enchant it to one creature, I can later enchant it to another by using something like Aura Graft.
Also, an aura card only becomes invalid and is discarded if both of it's hooks are empty.
When an aura with dual enchant is put onto the stack, both enchantment actions should probably be counted as simultaneous, if you are indeed targeting two creatures at once. This way, removing the first target won't automatically make the aura invalid.

I think that should cover everything...

The only problem I have with this is that my two ideas I came up with already become pointless, so the other idea I came up with was the idea of a second subtype, a "bond" (It would read as Enchantment - Aura Bond). Bonds, when played, must enchant two creatures when they are played, and must have both of their attachment hooks filled or they become invalid.

Thoughts? As I said, I'm no rulings master, but let me know how this sounds. Oh, and I also thought "Dual Enchant" sounded kind of lame, so if anybody has an idea for a more flavorful name, that would be awesome.

Mon, 2012-04-16 15:43
Hat Dude
Hat Dude's picture

Death afterlife (when this creature is put into your graveyard put two 2/2 black zombie creature tokens on the field under your control)

I have a big hat

Mon, 2012-04-16 15:48
Hat Dude
Hat Dude's picture

Life after death (when this creature is put into the graveyard put two 2/2 angel creature tokens with flying)

I have a big hat

Mon, 2012-04-16 17:15
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Hat Dude) A lot less limited, but the wording leaves a lot to be desired and the power level seems to me to be too high. Why do they spawn two tokens apiece?

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Mon, 2012-04-16 19:57
elmdor
elmdor's picture

Keyword suggestions:

- Infiltrate (This creature can't be blocked except by creatures with defender.)

- <foo> channeling (If a creature you control is attacking, you may return a <foo> you control to its owner's hand rather than paying this spell's mana cost.)
(<foo> is usually a land type here) (it needs a better name, as channel is already used)

- Afterlife (When this creature dies, put a 1/1 white Spirit creature token with flying onto the battlefield.)
(not my original idea)

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting." [Ernest Ruthenford]
"In man we all pray!" [Tony Hadley]

Tue, 2012-04-17 00:26
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Infiltrate) I have a keyword almost identical to this one. I prefer your wording, however, and will likely credit you for what you have here.

Channeling)

Quote:
<foo> animus (If a creature you control is attacking, you may cast this spell without paying its mana cost by returning a <foo> you control to its owner's hand.)

Afterlife) This was actually brought up a page or two ago. Exact same effect; I suggested Afterlife for it (because of the existence of the card of the same name).

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Tue, 2012-04-17 11:27
Icarael
Icarael's picture

Jeske, if Dominion would be reworded, how would you do it?

For reference:

Quote:
Dominion over [name]— As long as you control the most number of [name] among all players, [effect].

-------

Rebuild X (You may cast this card from your graveyard by discarding any number of cards with a total converted mana cost of X or more from your hand instead of paying its mana cost.)

Is this worded correctly?

"Take the bridge, men! Victory! Victory is ou - Retreat! RETREAT!"

Tue, 2012-04-17 15:36
Hat Dude
Hat Dude's picture

i feel like a 1/1 creature wouldn't relate well to high for example a 6/6 creature turning into a 1/1 that's just strange and why two tockens well i really don't know Frustrated

I have a big hat

Tue, 2012-04-17 19:35
elmdor
elmdor's picture

Animus) I like the name, but does "Island animus" make sense? It doesn't feel right...

Afterlife) I proposed it because I saw it somewhere, I didn't remember it was in this discussion! Stick out your tongue

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting." [Ernest Ruthenford]
"In man we all pray!" [Tony Hadley]

Tue, 2012-04-17 20:18
Hat Dude
Hat Dude's picture

Blind (This Creature can only deal damage to white creatures)

I have a big hat

Wed, 2012-04-18 08:33
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Hat Dude)

Blind) YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE: Total Logical Disconnect

There is no logic, let alone flavor reason, for white creatures to fear the blind.

Token-gen Abilities) In general, fatties don't generate tokens in the first place except as a secondary effect while on the battlefield. A player should not be punished for removing a legitimate threat by having two more lesser threats pop up. Conversely, this would reward decks relying on sac-engines disproportionately, since those creatures become self-replacing fuel.

Icarael)

Quote:
Dominion over <foo>--As long as you control the most <foo> permanents, <effect>

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Wed, 2012-04-18 11:53
Carn13
Carn13's picture

Hat Dude: In addition to Jeske's comment, Blind is far too limited to use as a keyword, and is only-downside, so it shouldn't be. An upside and less limited version could look something like:

Favored enemy <type> (This creature deals double damage to <type> creatures.)

Like Blind in that it deals damage to a specific type, but the type can be set by the creature it's being used on and it's an upside (more damage) rather than a downside (next to no damage).

Sat, 2012-04-21 17:58
Icarael
Icarael's picture

Uncover X (To uncover X, look at the bottom X cards of your library. Put any number of them on top of your library in any order and the rest on the bottom in any order.)

The wording is probably OK (it's based off scry), but is the flavor right?

"Take the bridge, men! Victory! Victory is ou - Retreat! RETREAT!"

Sun, 2012-04-22 06:06
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

I'm not sure what the flavor for looking at long-forgotten (and potentially C'thulhuian) scrolls are. Stick out your tongue

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Sun, 2012-04-22 11:16
Icarael
Icarael's picture

I was thinking more along the lines of digging into the earth and finding cool stuff, like artifacts. But I don't know what sort of mechanic would represent that.

Maybe something like:

Quote:
Excavate for [type] (Exile cards from the top of your library until you exile a [type] card that costs less than this card's converted mana cost. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom in a random order.)

So you can have something like:

Drilling Apparatus Artifact Mana for MTG ExtraArtifact Mana for MTG Extra
Artifact Blue mana symbol
(Artifact Mana for MTG Extra can be paid with 2 mana symbol or by tapping an untapped, unequipped artifact you control. This card's converted mana cost is 4.)
2 mana symbol, Tap symbol: Excavate for artifacts. (To excavate, exile cards from the top of your library until you exile an artifact card that costs less than this card's converted mana cost. You may cast it without paying its mana cost. Put the exiled cards on the bottom in a random order.)

I don't know how unbalanced this is, or if the wording is right, but Cascade was pretty powerful (see Bloodbraid Elf) so this might have to be limited somewhat.

"Take the bridge, men! Victory! Victory is ou - Retreat! RETREAT!"

Sun, 2012-04-22 20:52
Kiku
Creative Direction Award
Kiku's picture

Excavate seems like a totally viable mechanic, though you are right that it is on the high end of the power spectrum. I think you will want to avoid cards that can continuously excavate (like the one you posted). I think for that card to be balanced, you would need to pay equal to or greater than the CMC of card to trigger the excavate effect. Paying two mana to get a free artifact that could cost up to 3 mana seems really strong.

My Hub
I really hate Mythic Rares...
TRUE WEEB ANIME OR NO ANIME AT ALL
NO TOLERANCE FOR WIMPY FALSE ANIME
School Days taught me everything I need to know about relationships

Mon, 2012-04-23 14:44
Icarael
Icarael's picture

Seems fair. I think most excavate cards can stand to be a one-shot/ETB/sacrificial deal anyway. Perhaps the rare excavators can be used repeatedly, but can only dig up small stuff, like 2- to 3-mana artifacts.

-----

Quote:
Rebuild X (You may cast this card from your graveyard by discarding any number of cards with a total converted mana cost of X or more from your hand instead of paying its mana cost.)

I know this can be broken with the proper graveyard tutoring. Any ideas on how to balance this?

-----

EDIT:

Inspired by this thread, I created a new keyword to represent giant robot suits:

Quote:
Armorize (Target a creature you control as you cast this. This enters the battlefield attached to that creature, and its power and toughness become this card's power and toughness. When this leaves the battlefield, sacrifice armorized creature.)

An example of this keyword in action:

Marauder Armor 5 mana symbol
Artifact-- Armor Blue mana symbol
Armorize (Target a creature you control as you cast this. This enters the battlefield attached to that creature, and its power and toughness become this card's power and toughness. When this leaves the battlefield, sacrifice armorized creature.)
Armorized creature has "2 mana symbol: This creature has flying until end of turn."
3/3

"Take the bridge, men! Victory! Victory is ou - Retreat! RETREAT!"

Mon, 2012-04-23 17:52
Styrofoamking
Styrofoamking's picture

You have the "3/3" on it, while "creature" is not in the card type. That's a bit confusing. Would it work if you said, "you may" to the to Armorize rule, letting you cast it as a 3/3 instead?

Tangent Artists present: CRIT! One of three webcomics that updates every weekend!

Spoiler:

Mon, 2012-04-23 18:44
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Icarael) Only creatures have printed P/T.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Mon, 2012-04-23 23:19
Trisky
Trisky's picture

Entropy - At the beginning of your upkeep remove a loyalty counter from ~.

Methinks this is the only simple keyword I've made - ever. (For planeswalkers only.) Opinions?

Emptiness of Hett: Cancelled.

Tue, 2012-04-24 00:48
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Don't bother keywording negative abilities. Ever.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!

Tue, 2012-04-24 17:26
Icarael
Icarael's picture

I renamed "Rebuild" to "Reconstruct", and now I have two ideas for it.

Reconstruct X (You may cast this card from your graveyard by discarding any number of creature or artifact cards with a total converted mana cost of X or more from your hand instead of paying its mana cost.)

Or

Reconstruct X (You may cast this card from your graveyard by sacrificing any number of permanents you control with a total converted mana cost of X or more instead of paying its mana cost.)

Which is less broken/more flavorful?

"Take the bridge, men! Victory! Victory is ou - Retreat! RETREAT!"

Fri, 2012-04-27 19:33
agentelrond
agentelrond's picture

I've got a few keywords to toss out here, but honestly I'm a bit afraid to taking into consideration the hostility and closed-mindedness of a lot of the posters in this thread.

I design my sets around two formats - block constructed and cube draft, and I, for all intents and purposes, ignore the existing card pool. I do this because, in all practicality, these are the only two formats that my set will see play in, and balancing around eternal formats is extremely difficult to do with any sort of success as a primarily one-man team, and WotC certainly isn't going to take into consideration my custom set when designing any future sets. I'm afraid to toss out any mechanic ideas because I'm afraid they'd be shot down out of hand based on someone's personal design philosophy.

Note, I don't say this to be hostile - I freakin' love this website and for the most part the posters here are extremely helfpul. Just saying that having such a narrow view of things does at times stifle creativity.

Sat, 2012-04-28 07:04
Jéské Couriano
Jéské Couriano's picture

Ignoring the existing card pool is a bad idea, since if you have friends willing to playtest your deck, you're going to run into decks that are, if not Standard, then Extended or Modern, or even Leg/Vint.

Also, I will note that I mainly only flat-out shoot down ideas if they require any fudging of the Comprehensive Rules aside from the (practically mandatory) section in Rule 702 (Keywords), as all reminder text for the keyword is derived from that. This is why I've shot down any ability attaching creatures to other permanents, preventing 0-toughness creatures from being destroyed, and why there was such a rhubarb over Dual Equip and Siege Engine. As far as I am concerned, toying with the Comp Rules in such a way is Wizards' purview alone.

Ceterum censeo Bolasinem esse delendam.
Accepting new types for S:tC!
Custom Keywords!