I'm exploring options for ways to potentially tweak my mythic rare incarnation cycle
Is there any easy way to make it so the graveyard effect doesn't stack with other copies of Peace?
Peace5WW
Creature - Incarnation (M)
Dreamwalk (This creature can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Tapped creatures can block it.)
Other creatures you control get +2/+2.
As long as Peace is in your graveyard and you control a plains, creatures you control get +1/+1.
6/6
I don't think it can be done without being extremely difficult to read and understand. What are some of your reasons for not wanting them to be cumulative? Power level? Memory issues?
My first weird thought is make it legendary and "graveyard legendary", combining in elements of Dread:
Peace 5WW
Legendary Creature - Incarnation (M)
Dreamwalk (This creature can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Tapped creatures can block it.)
Other creatures you control get +2/+2.
As long as Peace is in your graveyard and you control a plains, creatures you control get +1/+1.
If two or more cards named Peace are in your graveyard, choose one of them and shuffle the rest into your library.
6/6
That might be too wordy. Although, since it is mythic, you could drop the dreamwalk reminder text to help with space.
A more tame control might be something like:
At the beginning of your upkeep, exile Peace from your graveyard unless you pay 1W.
As long as ~ is in your graveyard and you control a Plains, creatures you control get +1/+1. A creature can't have its power and toughness modified by more than one card named Peace this way.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
How would you word it then? I can't think of a more elegant way to word it.
This is one of those cases where you really have to ask whether you want elegance or accuracy of the intended effect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
My opinion is, this is one of those cases were you don't do it. Trying to limit the effect to one card organically seems impossible to do elegantly, so the best solution IMO is to simply not limit it or do so in a more indirect manner (as long as that manner fits naturally).
My opinion is, this is one of those cases were you don't do it. Trying to limit the effect to one card organically seems impossible to do elegantly, so the best solution IMO is to simply not limit it or do so in a more indirect manner (as long as that manner fits naturally).
Whether the mechanic looks feasible or not is irrelevant to how one would word that mechanic. My question still stands: if you were concerned only with the wording of the mechanic and not its feasibility, how would you word the mechanic as elegantly as possible? ("I wouldn't because of the reasons I've stated" doesn't suffice as an answer, because that involves considering feasibility.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
So what you are saying is, "you think it's irrelevant but what would be the best way to do this?" Yeah, I don't care.
No need to be so rude. This is the custom card rulings section. I wasn't asking about if the design was good or should be done. I was asking if it is possible to word it. Your not helping or adding to the discussion here.
Thanks silvercut and Thought Criminal, I'm probably not going to end up using the non stacking graveyard clause but its certainly an interesting space to explore to allow for more powerful Incarnations.
@Thought Criminal I'm assuming there is no precedent for this kind of wording? (Not that I wouldn't use it even if there isn't.)
I would consider using a variant of the Eldrazi shuffle (When ~ is put into your graveyard, shuffle each other card in your graveyard into your library) for silvercut's end-run around the problem; then you get at most one Incarnation effect and they don't stack across color either, plus it's a bit more dramatic.
You could do something ugly like, "Creatures you control have anthem (A creature with anthem has +1/+1.)" and define anthem as non-stacking in the CR, but that's pretty strange.
@Doombringer.
I am not being rude, at least, not intentionally. Tone is something that doesn't translate to text, so that's why I added the emotes, to indicate a casual and not pointed tone. It's not exactly very clear, so maybe I should have worded that a bit differently.
Anyway. what I was saying was that the wording of the particular effect was not doable in any clear and elegant way. It's not directly related to the rules, but I at least would say that elegance of wording is a rules relevant issue. My point was that it doesn't matter to me how to word it, as I think it is not an effect that can be done clearly. The rules are quite malleable, so elegance has to be a consideration in the rules or else arguments lose significance.
Is there any easy way to make it so the graveyard effect doesn't stack with other copies of Peace?
Peace 5WW
Creature - Incarnation (M)
Dreamwalk (This creature can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Tapped creatures can block it.)
Other creatures you control get +2/+2.
As long as Peace is in your graveyard and you control a plains, creatures you control get +1/+1.
6/6
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
I'm Mike, from The Mana Pool.
Check out my Tapped Out profile and comment on my decks!
Legendary Creature - Incarnation (M)
Dreamwalk (This creature can't be blocked by untapped creatures. Tapped creatures can block it.)
Other creatures you control get +2/+2.
As long as Peace is in your graveyard and you control a plains, creatures you control get +1/+1.
If two or more cards named Peace are in your graveyard, choose one of them and shuffle the rest into your library.
6/6
That might be too wordy. Although, since it is mythic, you could drop the dreamwalk reminder text to help with space.
A more tame control might be something like:
As long as ~ is in your graveyard and you control a Plains, creatures you control get +1/+1. A creature can't have its power and toughness modified by more than one card named Peace this way.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
No. That's very inelegant.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
How would you word it then? I can't think of a more elegant way to word it.
This is one of those cases where you really have to ask whether you want elegance or accuracy of the intended effect.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Whether the mechanic looks feasible or not is irrelevant to how one would word that mechanic. My question still stands: if you were concerned only with the wording of the mechanic and not its feasibility, how would you word the mechanic as elegantly as possible? ("I wouldn't because of the reasons I've stated" doesn't suffice as an answer, because that involves considering feasibility.)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
No need to be so rude. This is the custom card rulings section. I wasn't asking about if the design was good or should be done. I was asking if it is possible to word it. Your not helping or adding to the discussion here.
Thanks silvercut and Thought Criminal, I'm probably not going to end up using the non stacking graveyard clause but its certainly an interesting space to explore to allow for more powerful Incarnations.
@Thought Criminal I'm assuming there is no precedent for this kind of wording? (Not that I wouldn't use it even if there isn't.)
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD
You could do something ugly like, "Creatures you control have anthem (A creature with anthem has +1/+1.)" and define anthem as non-stacking in the CR, but that's pretty strange.
I am not being rude, at least, not intentionally. Tone is something that doesn't translate to text, so that's why I added the emotes, to indicate a casual and not pointed tone. It's not exactly very clear, so maybe I should have worded that a bit differently.
Anyway. what I was saying was that the wording of the particular effect was not doable in any clear and elegant way. It's not directly related to the rules, but I at least would say that elegance of wording is a rules relevant issue. My point was that it doesn't matter to me how to word it, as I think it is not an effect that can be done clearly. The rules are quite malleable, so elegance has to be a consideration in the rules or else arguments lose significance.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Unique - <ability> (Only one unique ability from the same name applies at any one time.)
........................
Are you designing commons? Check out my primer on NWO.
Interested in making a custom set? Check out my Set skeleton and archetype primer.
I also write articles about getting started with custom card creation.
Go and PLAYTEST your designs, you will learn more in a single playtests than a dozen discussions.
My custom sets:
Dreamscape
Coins of Mercalis [COMPLETE]
Exodus of Zendikar - ON HOLD