Another difference between the two abilities: Multiple instances of lucidity (with counters) won't stack. Multiple instances of celerity (without counters) will stack, allowing a creature to perform multiple tappiness during the same turn.
Now you made the mechanic even stronger. During the two subsequent turns you may use the ability three times, but with counters only two times.
Moreover depletion counters exist in Magic long time.
That's true, but "depletion counters" have become obsolete to those lands that "don't untap during your next untap phase"
Personally, I think it is best to avoid the use of counters whenever possible.
Is there a way to circumvent the drawback of making it too powerful by allowing it to tap thrice yet still avoid the use of counters?
How about this: Celerity (Whenever this creature becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it. It cannot not untap this way until your next untap phase.)
It's horribly clunky this way, any other ideas?
Again, I'm working under my own preference that "Celerity" sounds better. If "lucidity" is moreso preferred a la the creator, then so be it.
And finally, abilities stacking isn't a bad thing. In the case of flying or trample or first strike, non-stacking tends to be flavourful. However, multiple instances of abilities such as this are never bad, just different.
That's true, but "depletion counters" have become obsolete to those lands that "don't untap during your next untap phase"
Personally, I think it is best to avoid the use of counters whenever possible.
Is there a way to circumvent the drawback of making it too powerful by allowing it to tap thrice yet still avoid the use of counters?
I think, even when counters may appear as trouble to some, they are the best way to catch the flavor of Celerity. The thing with it is simply "slightly faster" and more useful than the thing without it. If we wanted at all costs to avoid counters, we would be forced to put a drawback virtually on each card with Celerity, which is IMO considered as a mechanic flaw.
How about this: Celerity (Whenever this creature becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it. It cannot not untap this way until your next untap phase.)
It's horribly clunky this way, any other ideas?
This goes IMO against the flavor when something with Celerity reads it cannot untap... And as you imply, it's not intuitive enough.
Again, I'm working under my own preference that "Celerity" sounds better. If "lucidity" is moreso preferred a la the creator, then so be it.
I vote for "Celerity" too
And finally, abilities stacking isn't a bad thing. In the case of flying or trample or first strike, non-stacking tends to be flavourful. However, multiple instances of abilities such as this are never bad, just different.
My preference is this ability couldn't stack - otherwise there would be dangerous space to break it (Put Celerity Aura on Celerity creature etc.)
On the other hand we can make cards that interact with depletion counters on Celerity permaments (imagine a card that moves depletion counters from one Celerity permanent to another )
I started a thread ... using this mechanic, and I want to post it here to see what you think:
[color=blue]Obscure (This isn't affected by instants, sorceries or abilities that don't target it) [/color] - Used to be called 'Blanch'[/color]
You will have trouble defining what "affected by" means. For example, does Blessed Reversal "affect" it? Do you mean just activated and triggered abilities (I hope so), and not static abilities like Glorious Anthem, or Aura's on it? What about Sneak Attack - does it have Haste? Does it get sacrificed?" You need to narrow your concept, I think. "Can't be damaged or destroyed by effects that don't target it" or something. Look at indestructible for how to word it. You might even make it a replacement.
After rules started to confuse, it got changed to this:
[color=blue]Obscure (Whenever a player plays an instant, sorcery or activated ability that doesn't target this, remove this from the game. Return it to play at end of turn)[/color]
No, that widened it way too much. Instants that wouldn't care at all about it will remove it from the game.
Unfortunately, that is still ambiguous. Does it cover "Each creature you control?" "Each creature with power >2," Blessed Reversal (which does say "each creature"), "Red creatures get +1/+0," etc.? The problem with YMTC texts is that the terms used have to be defined, even if you think it should be obvious what is intended. Most of the rules problems stem from assuming eveybody else will see it the way you want. That's a bad assumption.
Come on all, you're supposed to be discussing the mechanic currently being discussed... Read the rules...
Quote from charmer »
My preference is this ability couldn't stack - otherwise there would be dangerous space to break it (Put Celerity Aura on Celerity creature etc.)
On the other hand we can make cards that interact with depletion counters on Celerity permaments (imagine a card that moves depletion counters from one Celerity permanent to another )
Celerity just seems so specific that one cannot do much with the counters as much as say, a "charge" counter or something... It'll effectively be as narrow as making a mechanic around "ki" counters...
There would be a flavorful reason for the ability to stack. Modular stacks, soulshift stacks, why not celerity?
In any case, if stacking is the only problem, you can just add a clause in the rules saying multiple instances are redundant.
I still think using no counters would be best as it would remove needless micromanaging and just produce a doubletapping creature... Which is effectively what this mechanic is trying to do...
Celerity 1(Whenever ~ becomes tapped, if there are no depletion counters on it, untap it and put a depletion counter on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove all depletion counters from ~.)
--This allows just one free untapping over two turns which was the initial idea...
Celerity 2 (Whenever this permanent becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it)
--This one stacks and allows a free untap each turn.
I will add another:
Celerity 3(0: Untap ~. Play this ability only once each turn.)
--Doesn't stack, one free untap each turn, doesn't untap automatically.
and finally:
Celerity 4(0: Untap ~. ~ loses this ability until your next turn.)
--One free untap over two turns, doesn't untap automatically.
Which one do you prefer?
@Condor: If you want to impartially point out problematic parts AND propose solutions for update without modifying the mechanics too badly or implying that we're just a bunch of amaterus, it should be fine. Just restrain from discussing mechanics further ahead in the queue.
Ok (but, and no offense intended, if you word your rules like a bunch of amateurs, you come off like ones whether you think I'm pointing that out or not. These suggestions could look sharp, and all it takes to do that is to not ignore constructive criticism):
Critical State and Distress (nitpick): You need to be clear whether the name of the ability is Critical, Critical State, or Distress. As worded, CRSc makes no sense.
I know Threshold does it, but you may not need to say that these texts apply only in certain zones. The text itself should make it clear what zones it works in. You may have abilities you'd like in other zones. Why restrict them artificially, just because WotC did that with Threshold?
Growing: You don't need to say "in play." That is a redundancy that is never used. The "in other zone" is used for other zones because it is required to break the defaults.
Guile: Since they say MAY, GUIc and GUId are unneeded. Rule GUIb covers the situations already. I know you copied the Trample rule - but Trample does similar things in a mandatory way, without "may." You must assign damage to the player if it has no blockers. I'd suggest removing the "may," and combining the rules.
Manifest is broken. Since it uses "unless," it means "The next time this permanent would leave play this turn, instead you may sacrifice it. If you don't, it remains in play." It needs to be "The next time this permanent would leave play this turn except to being sacrificed, it remains in play instead."
Reserve has a siginificant problem: What happens if you are putting a card into play from your library? It should be a trigger, not a replacement effect. Works just like the Nightmares.
RESb and RESc don't need to be rules. RESd should not be.
On Celerity:
Celerity 3 and 4 are broken - they let you untap things being held tapped by "does not untap" effects. Celerity 4 is very broken - it can be used in response to itself.
Thread readers should be familiar with the first three posts of this thread: we discuss mechanics in order. It's a pleasant way of keeping things orderly; if we tried to discuss eight mechanics at once, we'd simply have a conversational knot.
This does require some patience. Thoroughly discussing a mechanic might take several days, and with eight mechanics in the queue, this means it will take a while before we reach yours. Feel free to comment on the current mechanic. Never fear, though; ever mechanic in the queue comes under consideration.
If you'd like to discuss mechanics yet to come up in the queue (or feel something's been overlooked after we move on from a mechanic -- see the second post in this thread), please PM Le Chat.
.
Stacking or non-stacking isn't really an issue with Le Chat. Some abilities should be able, some shouldn't, and we can handle it on a case-by-case basis rather than making blanket statements.
.
Counters or not? With counters, we can "celerize" creatures, giving them advantages or drawbacks only active as long as they have a celerity counter on them. Without counters, the wording may be more concise, but there are memory issues involved, especially if creatures have their own 'tap' ability, plus can be tapped as part of the cost or effect of other abilities and spells.
Ultimately, this would be resolved in the larger context of set development: if a large number of lucid creatures exist, counters may be more worthwhile than if only a few creatures receive the mechanic.
There's nothing wrong, however, with splitting the mechanic into two: lucidity (which uses counters) and celerity (which doesn't).
Celerity v. 2's wording is off. Shimmering Glasskite and its cousin use "for the first time in a turn," rather than this turn. "This" turn sounds like a single, specific turn, as opposed to "each turn" (which is what is meant).
Celerity v. 3 closely resembles Instill Energy, which Le Chat feels is an auspicious ancestor. The difference between this and v. 4 is rather small: after being used, it can't be copied with Quicksilver Elemental. Hypothetical cards which care about the number of abilities a card has might get a kick out of it, too. Since v3's wording already appears on numerous MtG cards, we should go with that.
Celerity v.4's "Loses this ability" should be part of the cost, not of the effect.
Celerity (~ gains 0: Untap ~. This ability may be used only once until your next untap phase.)
Celerity (~ gains 0: Untap ~. This ability may be used only once until the next turn's untap phase.)
Celerity X (~ gains X: Untap ~. This ability may be used..........)
This is my suggestion for what the creator originally inteded Celerity to be. Basically a built in Instill Energy ability. Remember though, even instill energy costs G and a card and so it would be an extremely powerful mechanic except on vanilla critters which would limit it, and thus decrease the amount of fun with the mechanic. So, you can even build in mana limitations and maybe pay life requirements for X so that it won't be so broken in certain cases where you want to add another nice ability. Remember that it gives it a chance return to blocking position as well as use any ability requiring T: .
Sunspire Vampire 3BW
Celerity 3 life (~ gains pay 3 life: Untap ~. This ability may be used only once until your next untap phase.) Flying.
BW,T: ~ deals 2 damage to target attacking or blocking creature and you gain 2 life.
3/3
Now that's a pretty sweet card.
This idea really doesn't work. "Until" implies a starting time of some sort - usually when the effect resolves. So what this says is that after the first "untap" resolves, you have until some next time to use it once again.
It also isn't clear what "~ gains" in "~ gains 0: Untap ..." means. I think you just mean it "has" that ability, in which case you can leave the "~ gains" out completely. Writing the text means it has the ability.
Making Celerity an activated ability has side effects; like being able to use it in response, and being able (or not, once the ability is lost) to copy it with Quicksilver Elemental. Some people think that "creativity" means allowing as many strange and game-changing interactions like this as possible. But it is generally a bad idea, because it detracts from the flavor of the mechanism itself, replacing it with the pure mechanics of rules-lawyering (Madness, anyone? ). It takes more creative energy to make a mechanic work in a simple, but in-flavor, way.
That is not always possible, but it is in this case. The original thought works fine as a trigger (Celerity 1 or 2), and minimizes these distracting interactions. You could even simplify it: "When ~ becomes tapped, if it hasn't untapped this way since your last untap step, untap it."
Celerity works best as a triggered ability, allowing for some trickyness, but preventing the insane. If someone really wanted to make it an activated ability the could.
Pay 3 life: ~ gains Celerity, Play this ability only once each turn.
Hmm, Condor's last version looks pretty good, but doesn't work with Celerity 2.
Well, you could make the "intervening if" clause be "if it hasn't untapped this way this turn," but Celerity 2 is not the same as the original intent. I think the only reason it is on the list, is because it was a simpler wording than Celerity 1.
While I may be dense, I really can't see what the big debate is. We want to make an ability that "ignores" one tapping per turn. Why oh why can't it just be:
<cost>: untap this permanent. Play this ability only once each turn.
(the cost may or may not be :0mana:)
No intervening-if issues, no brokenness, no headaches, and does exactly what is intended. Please tell me why this can't work.
The idea was to "stop" a tapping, rather than untap it once. Not quite the same thing. Also, that one can untap each turn, as opposed to once every other turn, which is the intent.
Regarding the intent of lucidity: Look at the original submission. "Whenever this becomes tapped, put a lucid counter on it, untap it." It doesn't stop it from becoming tapped; it does something when that permanent becomes tapped.
We have two branches for the ability -- one that uses counters, and one that doesn't. Since we're not talking much about the counter version any more, let's polish that up.
Lucidity(When this becomes tapped, if there are no lucid counters on it, put a lucid counter on it and untap it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove all lucid counters from it.)
This does have one remaining weirdness: What happens if it becomes tapped after the untap step but before its "remove counter" ability has resolved? That being said, let's consider this branch complete.
This leaves us with the non-counter-using versions; one an activated ability and one a triggered ability:
Celerity {cost} ({Cost}: Untap this permanent. Play this ability only once each turn.)
Celerity(When this becomes tapped for the first time in a turn, untap it.)
ahh... I see. Well the best thing I can think of is:
Celerity (Whenever this becomes tapped for the first time in a turn, it doesn't becomed tapped instead.)
That's elegant, and it's what I can imagine Wizards printing.
Well, change "Whenever this becomes tapped" to "If this would become tapped" to make it a replacement effect; but that doesn't work. If it never actually becomes tapped, then the next time you would tap it is still "the first time it would become tapped."
Quote from Le Chat »
Regarding the intent of lucidity: Look at the original submission. "Whenever this becomes tapped, put a ludic counter on it, untap it." It doesn't stop it from becoming tapped; it does something when that permanent becomes tapped.
Yes, and you know as well as I that the "flavor intent" of that is to have the first tapping not make it remain tapped. Hence "'stop' tapping," with "stop" put in quotes to indicate a not-quite literal meaning of the word. If you would like this thread to remain "pleasant," please show some consideration yourself.
We have two branches for the ability -- one that uses counters, and one that doesn't. Since we're not talking much about the counter version any more, let's polish that up.
There are two reasons why one version may not be discussed - it is "finished," or it isn't as good as th other and should be dropped. I vote for dropping that one, due to the lenght of the text and the weirdness you mention. It is out of the intended flavor, even if it was the original suggestion.
This leaves us with the non-counter-using versions; one an activated ability and one a triggered ability:
Celerity {cost} ({Cost}: Untap this permanent. Play this ability only once each turn.)
Celerity(When this becomes tapped for the first time in a turn, untap it.)
That is the inferior form, since it untaps each turn instead of each round of turns. And you are still ignoring the superior version of the trigger wording. "When ~ becomes tapped, if it hasn't untapped this way since your last untap step, untap it."
Well, to sum this up, we may peacefully vote for final version:
we have counterless wording for original idea by Condor, which provides one free untap over two turns which applies to first thing that taps the permanent:
Celerity AWhen ~ becomes tapped, if it hasn't untapped this way since your last untap step, untap it.
Then we have costed version, which gets you one untap each turn for a price and you trigger it:
Celerity B {cost}( {cost}: Untap this permanent. Play this ability only once each turn.)
There's no need to vote, as we can develop all three implementations.
This is one area where online-dom differs greatly from printed Magic: WotC would, almost by force, need to choose one and use that one exclusively (even with greatly differing names). There's just too much chance of confusing, and thereby alienating, players when too many too-similar mechanics are made.
We, however, aren't bound by the laws of print (or serving an audience). One player may wish to use lucidity with counters, because their set is focused on counters; another may prefer the triggered ability, and a third the replacement effect. Given enough time, even if we settled on one implementation, the other variant would likely be submitted again.
So, best to get them all done, and over with. Le Chat is short on time to create a CR-worthy entry for them; since we seem fairly in agreement with how the three implementations might each look, let's move on to the next mechanic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
And that mechanic is Blur(For each mana symbol in this spell's mana cost, if you control a basic land that produces mana of that color, you may pay Blur cost plus this spell's converted mana cost instead of paying its mana cost.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now you made the mechanic even stronger. During the two subsequent turns you may use the ability three times, but with counters only two times.
Moreover depletion counters exist in Magic long time.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
That's true, but "depletion counters" have become obsolete to those lands that "don't untap during your next untap phase"
Personally, I think it is best to avoid the use of counters whenever possible.
Is there a way to circumvent the drawback of making it too powerful by allowing it to tap thrice yet still avoid the use of counters?
How about this:
Celerity (Whenever this creature becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it. It cannot not untap this way until your next untap phase.)
It's horribly clunky this way, any other ideas?
Again, I'm working under my own preference that "Celerity" sounds better. If "lucidity" is moreso preferred a la the creator, then so be it.
And finally, abilities stacking isn't a bad thing. In the case of flying or trample or first strike, non-stacking tends to be flavourful. However, multiple instances of abilities such as this are never bad, just different.
I think, even when counters may appear as trouble to some, they are the best way to catch the flavor of Celerity. The thing with it is simply "slightly faster" and more useful than the thing without it. If we wanted at all costs to avoid counters, we would be forced to put a drawback virtually on each card with Celerity, which is IMO considered as a mechanic flaw.
This goes IMO against the flavor when something with Celerity reads it cannot untap... And as you imply, it's not intuitive enough.
I vote for "Celerity" too
My preference is this ability couldn't stack - otherwise there would be dangerous space to break it (Put Celerity Aura on Celerity creature etc.)
On the other hand we can make cards that interact with depletion counters on Celerity permaments (imagine a card that moves depletion counters from one Celerity permanent to another )
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
No, that widened it way too much. Instants that wouldn't care at all about it will remove it from the game.
Celerity just seems so specific that one cannot do much with the counters as much as say, a "charge" counter or something... It'll effectively be as narrow as making a mechanic around "ki" counters...
There would be a flavorful reason for the ability to stack. Modular stacks, soulshift stacks, why not celerity?
In any case, if stacking is the only problem, you can just add a clause in the rules saying multiple instances are redundant.
I still think using no counters would be best as it would remove needless micromanaging and just produce a doubletapping creature... Which is effectively what this mechanic is trying to do...
But looking at the front page for the first, many of your rules are broken. But I susppose you don't want to hear that any more?
So now we have two possible versions of Celerity:
Celerity 1 (Whenever ~ becomes tapped, if there are no depletion counters on it, untap it and put a depletion counter on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove all depletion counters from ~.)
--This allows just one free untapping over two turns which was the initial idea...
Celerity 2 (Whenever this permanent becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it)
--This one stacks and allows a free untap each turn.
I will add another:
Celerity 3 (0: Untap ~. Play this ability only once each turn.)
--Doesn't stack, one free untap each turn, doesn't untap automatically.
and finally:
Celerity 4 (0: Untap ~. ~ loses this ability until your next turn.)
--One free untap over two turns, doesn't untap automatically.
Which one do you prefer?
@Condor: If you want to impartially point out problematic parts AND propose solutions for update without modifying the mechanics too badly or implying that we're just a bunch of amaterus, it should be fine. Just restrain from discussing mechanics further ahead in the queue.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Critical State and Distress (nitpick): You need to be clear whether the name of the ability is Critical, Critical State, or Distress. As worded, CRSc makes no sense.
I know Threshold does it, but you may not need to say that these texts apply only in certain zones. The text itself should make it clear what zones it works in. You may have abilities you'd like in other zones. Why restrict them artificially, just because WotC did that with Threshold?
Growing: You don't need to say "in play." That is a redundancy that is never used. The "in other zone" is used for other zones because it is required to break the defaults.
Guile: Since they say MAY, GUIc and GUId are unneeded. Rule GUIb covers the situations already. I know you copied the Trample rule - but Trample does similar things in a mandatory way, without "may." You must assign damage to the player if it has no blockers. I'd suggest removing the "may," and combining the rules.
Manifest is broken. Since it uses "unless," it means "The next time this permanent would leave play this turn, instead you may sacrifice it. If you don't, it remains in play." It needs to be "The next time this permanent would leave play this turn except to being sacrificed, it remains in play instead."
Reserve has a siginificant problem: What happens if you are putting a card into play from your library? It should be a trigger, not a replacement effect. Works just like the Nightmares.
RESb and RESc don't need to be rules. RESd should not be.
On Celerity:
Celerity 3 and 4 are broken - they let you untap things being held tapped by "does not untap" effects. Celerity 4 is very broken - it can be used in response to itself.
This does require some patience. Thoroughly discussing a mechanic might take several days, and with eight mechanics in the queue, this means it will take a while before we reach yours. Feel free to comment on the current mechanic. Never fear, though; ever mechanic in the queue comes under consideration.
If you'd like to discuss mechanics yet to come up in the queue (or feel something's been overlooked after we move on from a mechanic -- see the second post in this thread), please PM Le Chat.
.
Stacking or non-stacking isn't really an issue with Le Chat. Some abilities should be able, some shouldn't, and we can handle it on a case-by-case basis rather than making blanket statements.
.
Counters or not? With counters, we can "celerize" creatures, giving them advantages or drawbacks only active as long as they have a celerity counter on them. Without counters, the wording may be more concise, but there are memory issues involved, especially if creatures have their own 'tap' ability, plus can be tapped as part of the cost or effect of other abilities and spells.
Ultimately, this would be resolved in the larger context of set development: if a large number of lucid creatures exist, counters may be more worthwhile than if only a few creatures receive the mechanic.
There's nothing wrong, however, with splitting the mechanic into two: lucidity (which uses counters) and celerity (which doesn't).
Celerity v. 2's wording is off. Shimmering Glasskite and its cousin use "for the first time in a turn," rather than this turn. "This" turn sounds like a single, specific turn, as opposed to "each turn" (which is what is meant).
Celerity v. 3 closely resembles Instill Energy, which Le Chat feels is an auspicious ancestor. The difference between this and v. 4 is rather small: after being used, it can't be copied with Quicksilver Elemental. Hypothetical cards which care about the number of abilities a card has might get a kick out of it, too. Since v3's wording already appears on numerous MtG cards, we should go with that.
Celerity v.4's "Loses this ability" should be part of the cost, not of the effect.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Celerity (~ gains 0: Untap ~. This ability may be used only once until the next turn's untap phase.)
Celerity X (~ gains X: Untap ~. This ability may be used..........)
This is my suggestion for what the creator originally inteded Celerity to be. Basically a built in Instill Energy ability. Remember though, even instill energy costs G and a card and so it would be an extremely powerful mechanic except on vanilla critters which would limit it, and thus decrease the amount of fun with the mechanic. So, you can even build in mana limitations and maybe pay life requirements for X so that it won't be so broken in certain cases where you want to add another nice ability. Remember that it gives it a chance return to blocking position as well as use any ability requiring T: .
Sunspire Vampire 3BW
Celerity 3 life (~ gains pay 3 life: Untap ~. This ability may be used only once until your next untap phase.)
Flying.
BW,T: ~ deals 2 damage to target attacking or blocking creature and you gain 2 life.
3/3
Now that's a pretty sweet card.
It also isn't clear what "~ gains" in "~ gains 0: Untap ..." means. I think you just mean it "has" that ability, in which case you can leave the "~ gains" out completely. Writing the text means it has the ability.
Making Celerity an activated ability has side effects; like being able to use it in response, and being able (or not, once the ability is lost) to copy it with Quicksilver Elemental. Some people think that "creativity" means allowing as many strange and game-changing interactions like this as possible. But it is generally a bad idea, because it detracts from the flavor of the mechanism itself, replacing it with the pure mechanics of rules-lawyering (Madness, anyone? ). It takes more creative energy to make a mechanic work in a simple, but in-flavor, way.
That is not always possible, but it is in this case. The original thought works fine as a trigger (Celerity 1 or 2), and minimizes these distracting interactions. You could even simplify it: "When ~ becomes tapped, if it hasn't untapped this way since your last untap step, untap it."
Pay 3 life: ~ gains Celerity, Play this ability only once each turn.
Hmm, Condor's last version looks pretty good, but doesn't work with Celerity 2.
<cost>: untap this permanent. Play this ability only once each turn.
(the cost may or may not be :0mana:)
No intervening-if issues, no brokenness, no headaches, and does exactly what is intended. Please tell me why this can't work.
We have two branches for the ability -- one that uses counters, and one that doesn't. Since we're not talking much about the counter version any more, let's polish that up.
Lucidity (When this becomes tapped, if there are no lucid counters on it, put a lucid counter on it and untap it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove all lucid counters from it.)
This does have one remaining weirdness: What happens if it becomes tapped after the untap step but before its "remove counter" ability has resolved? That being said, let's consider this branch complete.
This leaves us with the non-counter-using versions; one an activated ability and one a triggered ability:
Celerity {cost} ({Cost}: Untap this permanent. Play this ability only once each turn.)
Celerity (When this becomes tapped for the first time in a turn, untap it.)
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Yes, and you know as well as I that the "flavor intent" of that is to have the first tapping not make it remain tapped. Hence "'stop' tapping," with "stop" put in quotes to indicate a not-quite literal meaning of the word. If you would like this thread to remain "pleasant," please show some consideration yourself.
There are two reasons why one version may not be discussed - it is "finished," or it isn't as good as th other and should be dropped. I vote for dropping that one, due to the lenght of the text and the weirdness you mention. It is out of the intended flavor, even if it was the original suggestion.
That is the inferior form, since it untaps each turn instead of each round of turns. And you are still ignoring the superior version of the trigger wording. "When ~ becomes tapped, if it hasn't untapped this way since your last untap step, untap it."
we have counterless wording for original idea by Condor, which provides one free untap over two turns which applies to first thing that taps the permanent:
Celerity A When ~ becomes tapped, if it hasn't untapped this way since your last untap step, untap it.
Then we have costed version, which gets you one untap each turn for a price and you trigger it:
Celerity B {cost} ( {cost}: Untap this permanent. Play this ability only once each turn.)
My vote goes to A.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
This is one area where online-dom differs greatly from printed Magic: WotC would, almost by force, need to choose one and use that one exclusively (even with greatly differing names). There's just too much chance of confusing, and thereby alienating, players when too many too-similar mechanics are made.
We, however, aren't bound by the laws of print (or serving an audience). One player may wish to use lucidity with counters, because their set is focused on counters; another may prefer the triggered ability, and a third the replacement effect. Given enough time, even if we settled on one implementation, the other variant would likely be submitted again.
So, best to get them all done, and over with. Le Chat is short on time to create a CR-worthy entry for them; since we seem fairly in agreement with how the three implementations might each look, let's move on to the next mechanic.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.