Another Dimir Legend for my Lovecraftian themed set.
Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare3UUBB
Legendary Creature - Elder Horror
Flying
When Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare enters the battlefield, target opponent exiles their graveyard. For the rest of the game, you may play cards exiled this way once per turn, and spend mana of any color to cast spells exiled this way. Creatures that enter the battlefield this way are Nightmares in addition to their other types.
6/6
This seems rather absurd. The mana cost is at the right place but the fact that you can keep casting the cards without Ni'thyk and the repeatability of the cards you cast going the graveyard for you to get all over again with another copy feels excessive.
If may need "cast only one a turn" to keep it from being too oppressive. Mind you this almost certainly isn't broken due to the cost and only hitting opponents but as it stands it feels overly oppressive.
From a rules standpoint, your Nightmare clause will need to either only affect creatures or make non-creature cards Tribal - Nightmares in addition to their other types. Its inconvenient, but a non-creature cannot be given a creature type without also being given the Tribal supertype. That said, you are probably better off just making only the creatures Nightmares.
I'm on the fence about user's observation, but I'm leaning towards agreement. A limitation on how many spells can be cast per turn from the exiled cards would be a reasonable limitation.
The creature itself, however, reasonably could be buffed. A mythic legendary 6/6 for 7 that doesn't impact the board directly is very expensive. I could see this getting flying and/or menace easily at that cost.
Okay I will limit it to a single spell per turn, give it Flying, and edit it to make only the creatures be nightmares.
The main reason why I didn't buff the actual creature was because I thought it was scary as his. It has no abilities because it literally uses whatever is in the grave.
Thief of Sanity is a good template to use as a base to word this.
Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare 3UUBB
Legendary Creature - Elder Horror
Flying
When Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare enters the battlefield, target opponent exiles their graveyard. Each turn you may play one of those cards for as long as they remain exiled, and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast those spells. Creatures cast this way are Nightmares in addition to their other types.
6/6
Thief of Sanity is a good template to use as a base to word this.
Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare 3UUBB
Legendary Creature - Elder Horror
Flying
When Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare enters the battlefield, target opponent exiles their graveyard. Each turn you may play one of those cards for as long as they remain exiled, and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast those spells. Creatures cast this way are Nightmares in addition to their other types.
6/6
Thank you!
I love my design and I'm happy we could make it viable. Wouldn't this be a fun commander to build around??
"For the rest of the game, once per turn you may play a card exiled this way, and cast it as though it was colorless."
The way you have written this, the spell would be colorless (like how Devoid makes spells colorless) without removing the requirement to pay colored mana in the cost. That is why allthecardsinthegamethat already have an effect like this are written as it was previously.
"For the rest of the game, once per turn you may play a card exiled this way, and cast it as though it was colorless."
Because that doesn't work the way he intended it to work ssince you would still need to pay the colored costs that way even though they are colorless.
The context of "Casting a spell as though it was colorless" implies that the cost is colorless as well.
You're referring to the act of casting a spell, including all dynamics of the spell (including mana cost); effectively saying, "cast it as a colorless spell with a colorless cost". From there it's up to comprehensive rulings to determine if colored mana in the casting cost becomes colorless mana symbols, or if the entire cost is boiled down into a pure colorless pool.
The context of "Casting a spell as though it was colorless" implies that the cost is colorless as well.
You're referring to the act of casting a spell, including all dynamics of the spell (including mana cost); effectively saying, "cast it as a colorless spell with a colorless cost". From there it's up to comprehensive rulings to determine if colored mana in the casting cost becomes colorless mana symbols, or if the entire cost is boiled down into a pure colorless pool.
Don't you guys understand context at all?
The problem isn't not understanding context, what you meant was perfectly clear. The problem is that rules text has to be precise and relying on context doesn't work when you need effects to be unambiguous.
As you have repeatedly stated you don't like how Magic works, haven't played in a decade, and refuse to engage with the actual game or its players, stop trying to "fix" rules templates. You're wasting your time and everyone else's.
"For the rest of the game, once per turn you may play a card exiled this way, and cast it as though it has a colorless mana cost."
Now you still have a conflict of context with the advent of colorless mana symbols —only I would suggest it's even more confusing this way.
If you insist, I'd suggest adding the word 'classic' to colorless mana cost to denote ye olde vintage numbers.
Except noone suggested that which as you saw yourself doesn't work. The ruling that was suggested was "you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast those spells" which doesn't have that issue at all and works as intended since there are Cards that already do it that way.
"For the rest of the game, once per turn you may play a card exiled this way, and cast it as though it has a colorless mana cost."
Now you still have a conflict of context with the advent of colorless mana symbols —only I would suggest it's even more confusing this way.
If you insist, I'd suggest adding the word 'classic' to colorless mana cost to denote ye olde vintage numbers.
Except noone suggested that which as you saw yourself doesn't work. The ruling that was suggested was "you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast those spells" which doesn't have that issue at all and works as intended since there are Cards that already do it that way.
My wording was a brush-up on the original, which I felt was uncomfortably jumbled.
My wording was a brush-up on the original, which I felt was uncomfortably jumbled.
Fair enough that you feel this way but afaik the wording on cards like Thief of Sanity is already the least jumbled way to achieve this without breaking the rules and/or having weird/unregulated rulings.
My wording was a brush-up on the original, which I felt was uncomfortably jumbled.
Fair enough that you feel this way but afaik the wording on cards like Thief of Sanity is already the least jumbled way to achieve this without breaking the rules and/or having weird/unregulated rulings.
You mean without pioneering?
Improvisation and ingenuity are the markers of talent.
Improvisation and ingenuity are the markers of talent.
If you can improve on the current wording without leaving out weird cornercases or rewrite the whole ruleset be my guest i'd love to see it.
Also what does that have to do with pioneering?
Improvisation and ingenuity are the markers of talent.
You seem to believe that new/creative equals better, but a hallmark of improvisation is that it occasionally succeeds but often fails. Here, yes you improvised a new idea, but it is worse that the original which already works. Rather than trying to come up with a new idea, you are following the adage of "If its not broken, fix it until it is."
Improvisation and ingenuity are the markers of talent.
You seem to believe that new/creative equals better, but a hallmark of improvisation is that it occasionally succeeds but often fails. Here, yes you improvised a new idea, but it is worse that the original which already works. Rather than trying to come up with a new idea, you are following the adage of "If its not broken, fix it until it is."
This wasn't improvising, this was pioneering and ingenuity, devising a new means entirely (wording and functionality), and not tweeking the existing means.
There's no relativity between the two effects. They read entirely different, and the one I presented is far more clean and coherent.
That's what you want in game-text. Good aesthetics. Clean, clear, flush, coherent. Easy on the eyes. Reads easily and comprehends well.
This wasn't improvising, this was pioneering and ingenuity, devising a new means entirely (wording and functionality), and not tweeking the existing means.
There's no relativity between the two effects. They read entirely different, and the one I presented is far more jumbled and incoherent.
That's what you want in game-text. Good aesthetics. Clean, clear, flush, coherent. Easy on the eyes. Reads easily and comprehends well.
Let's consider calling this 'feel-good text'.
Fixed your misspelling for you. Also pioneering into uncharted territory when there is in fact a well-established map to the destination isn't usually considered a good idea. Occasionally it works out but most of the time it ends with lots of dead people. Also when it works out it works out over a veritable mountain of corpses.
Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare 3UUBB
Legendary Creature - Elder Horror
Flying
When Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare enters the battlefield, target opponent exiles their graveyard. For the rest of the game, you may play cards exiled this way once per turn, and spend mana of any color to cast spells exiled this way. Creatures that enter the battlefield this way are Nightmares in addition to their other types.
6/6
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
If may need "cast only one a turn" to keep it from being too oppressive. Mind you this almost certainly isn't broken due to the cost and only hitting opponents but as it stands it feels overly oppressive.
I'm on the fence about user's observation, but I'm leaning towards agreement. A limitation on how many spells can be cast per turn from the exiled cards would be a reasonable limitation.
The creature itself, however, reasonably could be buffed. A mythic legendary 6/6 for 7 that doesn't impact the board directly is very expensive. I could see this getting flying and/or menace easily at that cost.
The main reason why I didn't buff the actual creature was because I thought it was scary as his. It has no abilities because it literally uses whatever is in the grave.
Hopefully I can get this wording right.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare 3UUBB
Legendary Creature - Elder Horror
Flying
When Ni'thyk, Unending Nightmare enters the battlefield, target opponent exiles their graveyard. Each turn you may play one of those cards for as long as they remain exiled, and you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast those spells. Creatures cast this way are Nightmares in addition to their other types.
6/6
Thank you!
I love my design and I'm happy we could make it viable. Wouldn't this be a fun commander to build around??
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries
"For the rest of the game, once per turn you may play a card exiled this way, and cast it as though it was colorless."
Because that doesn't work the way he intended it to work ssince you would still need to pay the colored costs that way even though they are colorless.
The way you have written this, the spell would be colorless (like how Devoid makes spells colorless) without removing the requirement to pay colored mana in the cost. That is why all the cards in the game that already have an effect like this are written as it was previously.
The context of "Casting a spell as though it was colorless" implies that the cost is colorless as well.
You're referring to the act of casting a spell, including all dynamics of the spell (including mana cost); effectively saying, "cast it as a colorless spell with a colorless cost". From there it's up to comprehensive rulings to determine if colored mana in the casting cost becomes colorless mana symbols, or if the entire cost is boiled down into a pure colorless pool.
Don't you guys understand context at all?
The problem isn't not understanding context, what you meant was perfectly clear. The problem is that rules text has to be precise and relying on context doesn't work when you need effects to be unambiguous.
In this instance, for example, there are plenty of colorless spells that have colored mana in their casting cost, colored spells that don't need colored mana, and colorless spells that care of colored mana is spent on them, and abilities that care if a spell is colorless without mattering if colored mana was spent on it.
As you have repeatedly stated you don't like how Magic works, haven't played in a decade, and refuse to engage with the actual game or its players, stop trying to "fix" rules templates. You're wasting your time and everyone else's.
for coherence though—even if you put:
"For the rest of the game, once per turn you may play a card exiled this way, and cast it as though it has a colorless mana cost."
Now you still have a conflict of context with the advent of colorless mana symbols —only I would suggest it's even more confusing this way.
If you insist, I'd suggest adding the word 'classic' to colorless mana cost to denote ye olde vintage numbers.
Except noone suggested that which as you saw yourself doesn't work. The ruling that was suggested was "you may spend mana as though it were mana of any type to cast those spells" which doesn't have that issue at all and works as intended since there are Cards that already do it that way.
My wording was a brush-up on the original, which I felt was uncomfortably jumbled.
Fair enough that you feel this way but afaik the wording on cards like Thief of Sanity is already the least jumbled way to achieve this without breaking the rules and/or having weird/unregulated rulings.
You mean without pioneering?
Improvisation and ingenuity are the markers of talent.
If you can improve on the current wording without leaving out weird cornercases or rewrite the whole ruleset be my guest i'd love to see it.
Also what does that have to do with pioneering?
You seem to believe that new/creative equals better, but a hallmark of improvisation is that it occasionally succeeds but often fails. Here, yes you improvised a new idea, but it is worse that the original which already works. Rather than trying to come up with a new idea, you are following the adage of "If its not broken, fix it until it is."
This wasn't improvising, this was pioneering and ingenuity, devising a new means entirely (wording and functionality), and not tweeking the existing means.
There's no relativity between the two effects. They read entirely different, and the one I presented is far more clean and coherent.
That's what you want in game-text. Good aesthetics. Clean, clear, flush, coherent. Easy on the eyes. Reads easily and comprehends well.
Let's consider calling this 'feel-good text'.
Dunes of Zairo
SHANDALAR
Innistrad - The Darkest Night
~THE RAVNICAN CONSORTIUM~
A Community Set
Commander: Allies & Adversaries