Another crucial element that might not be self-evident, yet significant in my developments:
One of the very first keywords I ever made was a keyword called Militance;
Militance(This creature can't ne destroyed by lethal damage and its power and toughness can't be reduced below its original value.)
It was a more interactive form of indestructibility, that aimed to act as a heatsink from over-usage of the indestructible keyword (preserving its quality and uniqueness). It provided one of the most fundamental elements (death prevention), but was restricted to the domain of 'lethal damage' for grace and good-measure. Creatures with Militance remained open to the influence of all 'destroy' effects—but the keyword also provided that power/toughness reducing (previously the only check and balance to indestructible effects)—lost domain influence and now had a check and balance of its own.
Another one of the major elements to Militance was to prolong interactivity in combat—and battlefield position. Militance creatures could attack with non-Militant creatures, and the overall effort would see damage control, and retention of battlefield resources (it would not normally have) when the Militance creatures remain standing at the end of combat. The keyword was never implemented to be provided by an equipment or aura—and was never intended to be. It was a very resolute decision of mine that only select creatures would have this capability naturally—and it would not be easily adapted unnaturally.
In a world where this keyword exists, the Necromancer's ability sees even less domain influence, and falls greatly in balance of power.
The defense of "I'm designing for a theoretically format filled with exclusively cards designed by me for a format explicitly controlled by me" is strange but fairly OK for set design but not individual cards. If your cards are only meant to interaxt in a nonexistant format with only cards you deem acceptable then you aren't designing magic cards. You are designing cards that look like magic cards. Those are very popular but not what this site is for.
The defense of "I'm designing for a theoretical format filled with exclusive cards designed by me for a format explicitly controlled by me" is strange but fairly OK for set design but not individual cards. If your cards are only meant to interact in a nonexistent format with only cards you deem acceptable then you aren't designing magic cards. You are designing cards that look like magic cards. Those are very popular but not what this site is for.
My developments need to neglect their own world-building parameters?
This is just irrational and unfair.
You're suggesting that someone's design isn't relevant to its own world, although it's been created in and among that world (and its parameters).
I hope this helps you see things in a greater light.
The defense of "I'm designing for a theoretical format filled with exclusive cards designed by me for a format explicitly controlled by me" is strange but fairly OK for set design but not individual cards. If your cards are only meant to interact in a nonexistent format with only cards you deem acceptable then you aren't designing magic cards. You are designing cards that look like magic cards. Those are very popular but not what this site is for.
My developments need to neglect their own world-building parameters?
This is just irrational and unfair.
You're suggesting that someone's design isn't relevant to its own world, although it's been created in and among that world (and its parameters).
I hope this helps you see things in a greater light.
As usual, the point sails right over your head.
If you want to design cards for your own format, go ahead. Knock yourself out.
However, if you show people a single card out of that format with no context for what interactions it has with other cards you've imagined, you are going to get feedback for how the card works in actual reality rather than your imagined version of reality where you're the only one who knows all the rules you've added and the bizarre keywords you made up.
The defense of "I'm designing for a theoretical format filled with exclusive cards designed by me for a format explicitly controlled by me" is strange but fairly OK for set design
My developments need to neglect their own world-building parameters?
This is just irrational and unfair.
You're suggesting that someone's design isn't relevant to its own world, although it's been created in and among that world (and its parameters).
I hope this helps you see things in a greater light.
I keep forgetting I need to talk to you like one of my students.
Ok reap, its nice that you want to design cards for a custom format/set. We have a subforum specifically for that. If you could post your future cards in thet location you would benefit from less critique about how your cards don't fit modern magic and have the advantage of your previous designs to reference when making new designs. Posting in that subforum would greatly benefit you.
Why are you referencing Lightning Greaves? Do you think that your card effect is somehow stopped by shroud/hexproof in spite of not containing the word "target"?
Is that what we're dealing with now?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
One of the very first keywords I ever made was a keyword called Militance;
Militance (This creature can't ne destroyed by lethal damage and its power and toughness can't be reduced below its original value.)
It was a more interactive form of indestructibility, that aimed to act as a heatsink from over-usage of the indestructible keyword (preserving its quality and uniqueness). It provided one of the most fundamental elements (death prevention), but was restricted to the domain of 'lethal damage' for grace and good-measure. Creatures with Militance remained open to the influence of all 'destroy' effects—but the keyword also provided that power/toughness reducing (previously the only check and balance to indestructible effects)—lost domain influence and now had a check and balance of its own.
Another one of the major elements to Militance was to prolong interactivity in combat—and battlefield position. Militance creatures could attack with non-Militant creatures, and the overall effort would see damage control, and retention of battlefield resources (it would not normally have) when the Militance creatures remain standing at the end of combat. The keyword was never implemented to be provided by an equipment or aura—and was never intended to be. It was a very resolute decision of mine that only select creatures would have this capability naturally—and it would not be easily adapted unnaturally.
In a world where this keyword exists, the Necromancer's ability sees even less domain influence, and falls greatly in balance of power.
My developments need to neglect their own world-building parameters?
This is just irrational and unfair.
You're suggesting that someone's design isn't relevant to its own world, although it's been created in and among that world (and its parameters).
I hope this helps you see things in a greater light.
As usual, the point sails right over your head.
If you want to design cards for your own format, go ahead. Knock yourself out.
However, if you show people a single card out of that format with no context for what interactions it has with other cards you've imagined, you are going to get feedback for how the card works in actual reality rather than your imagined version of reality where you're the only one who knows all the rules you've added and the bizarre keywords you made up.
Ok reap, its nice that you want to design cards for a custom format/set. We have a subforum specifically for that. If you could post your future cards in thet location you would benefit from less critique about how your cards don't fit modern magic and have the advantage of your previous designs to reference when making new designs. Posting in that subforum would greatly benefit you.
For the record, even if my parameters were ignored.
The Necromancer is just a good mythic, and still not entirely broken.
You seem intent to ignore everyone else, so I guess it balances out.
Wait a moment... wait a moment... wait a moment
Why are you referencing Lightning Greaves? Do you think that your card effect is somehow stopped by shroud/hexproof in spite of not containing the word "target"?
Is that what we're dealing with now?