This is something that has always confused me. How do I know whether to use "it" or the card's name when referring to itself in its text? So far, I've been able to figure it out by looking at existing cards, but that is often time-consuming and not always conclusive. Is there a specific set of rules I can use?
Thank you for the links, but these are very specific questions unanswerable by something such as those. I already use many of those resources to an extensive degree.
Also, what's wrong with banding? It isn't that hard to understand, and there's lots of design space. I don't have to worry about turning new players away, so the complexity isn't an issue.
This is a seriously fledgling project, all I have so far is the keywords and a couple card ideas. No setting, no lore, no set/plane name, etc. Just the keywords.
Speaking of, here they are!
Morph is technically a returning keyword, but I'm not considering it such since I will be using it in an entirely new way. Morph would appear on instants and sorceries. In order to make it not break the game, my playgroup has edited the comp. rules to state that any time an instant or sorcery is on the battlefield for any reason, its controller casts it from the battlefield without paying its mana cost as an SBA. If for some reason this isn't possible (Eidolon of Rhetoric), it is instead put into its owner's graveyard, also as an SBA. Putting this in the rules also allows me to save space on cards as I needn't write it as an ability on each card. I might put it in morph's reminder text though.
At the moment, it will only appear on U and R cards, as this is really Izzet's jam. Does anybody think this could fit into other colors flavorfully? Other thoughts/ideas?
Banding is the returning keyword for the set. At the moment, it will stay in its native colors of W, G, and R. I'm not going to put banding on B cards for sure, and if I put it on anything :blue:, it will most likely be multicolored, and there won't be more than one or two.
Any thoughts/ideas on this?
This is the set's real "new" keyword. At the moment, it will be exclusive to G and perhaps multicolor with G, but that may change if somebody provides a good argument otherwise.
Terraform <mana> (You may play this as a colorless land with "t: Add <mana> to your mana pool.")
Now, here's my question: I don't want a terraformed creature to be able to attack or block, but I would like it to retain its other abilities. Does this wording function this way? If not, how could I change it to make it work?
The biggest problem here is that I haven't been able to squeeze :black: in here anywhere. Does anybody have an idea where it could fit? I really like this set of abilities, but I feel I should probably represent all the colors, even if one isn't quite as fleshed out as the others.
I didn't design the card in question so I have no idea what the creator had in mind, but I assume what they were trying to get at is that its power and toughness values can't be anything except what's printed on the card. So if you gave it to a Tarmogoyf it would become a 0/1 until it lost the ability. I could be wrong, however.
Really all I needed to know was the damage bit, since that was what the dispute was over. I thought that the ability made it impervious to damage.
This is quite amazing, but unfortunately it does not work. Clone does not enter the battlefield with Gideon Jura's loyalty counters. Not sure where the actual rule is, but Cloning effects copy what is printed on the chosen card, nothing else.
Hmm. Well, that seems somewhat superior to the one I have in a couple of ways.
1) It's more concise. As-is, mine takes up an entire card with reminder text.
2) The pseudo-haste effect is quite relevant.
However, I think I would want auras and equipment to fall off. How could I do this?
Edit: How's this: (You may cast this card on a <name> you control for its evolve cost. If you do, unattach all auras and equipment attached to that creature and that creature becomes this card.)
I'm trying to make a Pokémon themed set, and one of the main mechanics is, of course, evolving Pokémon. The first bit of the ability I have sorted out.
Evolve <name>—<cost> (You may pay <cost> and sacrifice a creature named <name> rather than pay this card's mana cost.)
But there's another mechanic I want to mesh in here. Another theme is the Pokémon gaining experience as they fight, in the form of +1/+1 counters. I want to have those counters transfer to the new Pokémon from the old so that you aren't losing progress (and it doesn't make sense flavor-wise not to). Currently I have this.
Evolve <name>—<cost> (You may pay <cost> and sacrifice a creature named <name> rather than pay this card's mana cost. If you do, move all +1/+1 counters from the sacrificed creature onto this creature.)
But I feel like once the creature is sacrificed, its counters would cease to exist. Does my wording work, or should I do something else?
The Sun2R Creature-Elemental (C)
Sunshine 2 (When ~ enters the battlefield, you lose all nonsun, nonpoison counters. Then you get two sun counters. As long as you have a sun counter, all red creatures get +1/+0. At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose a sun counter.)
1/2
As it is, having multiple creatures with sunshine would make you lose that many sun counters on your upkeep. How can I word this so that no matter how many creatures you have with sunshine, you only lose 1 counter on your upkeep? One thing that would sort of work would be saying "lose target sun counter" instead of "lose a sun counter", since you could have all abilities target the same counter, and then all but one would fizzle, but I don't think you can target counters. Any ideas?
@Silvercut: Out of color (for my set at least), but from a flavor perspective I think you're probably right. Anyway, the "no longer monstrous" was what I was looking for, and I will add in the removing counters bit as well.
I concede for the reminder text. My last point still stands, however. Cumulative upkeep and nebula are going to remain two distinct things.
I purposely meant it to be scry 1 for each, and I knew what it meant that way, though thinking about it, it's probably not too powerful your way either given the fact you have to pay so much to get it up to where it really matters. The ability is somewhat limiting from a design standpoint, yes. But the nebula concept is deeply rooted in flavor. I may make other cumulative upkeep-related abilities and I won't use nebula for those (I'm probably going to make near-functional reprints of Magmatic Core and Snowfall, for instance), but my inner Vorthos isn't letting me part with the keyword.
Lastly, exiling was again part of the flavor of the thing, since stars are just plain old gone when they die. All they leave is a supermassive black hole (and that only in some cases), and that's difficult to represent in M:tG. I suppose losing the trigger to a Scavenging Ooze would be pretty lame though, so I think I might switch it around so you get the bonus first, then exile it. The whole point was simply to prevent you from reanimating the star, which would make no sense.
Normally, I would agree with you. But as this is a custom set (meaning it won't be played with by new players), and cumulative upkeep has been a major keyword at least twice now (not sure if there's anything outside Ice Age and Coldsnap), I think that leaving cumulative upkeep with no reminder text is probably not an egregious offense. If I were bringing back phasing or cipher or something like that, I would absolutely use reminder text, but cumulative upkeep is both intuitive and well-known, so I don't think it's necessary.
On a slightly different note, I would still leave the abilities separate if I were to use reminder text for the upkeep. Two distinct, manageable abilities are easier to keep track of than one complex multilayered one.
It wasn't the trigger itself. It was cramming the upkeep cost and the sac effect into one ability. It wasn't confusing, necessarily, but using an established keyword in conjunction with a new one is easier to grasp than an entirely new ability that's really an old ability and a new one at the same time.
It's Occam's Razor. Using cumulative upkeep allows you to omit the text of half of Thought Criminal's incarnation, thus saving 2-3 lines of text on a card, and making it less overwhelming for players new to the set. It's also more aesthetically pleasing.
I misspoke when I said "death trigger". I meant sac, and if you look at Thought Criminal's ability, it's not a death trigger either. It only occurs if you don't pay the upkeep for Nebula, which is narrower, and therefore requires you to read more carefully, than both my original and current versions.
Look at the two renders below and tell me which one looks closer to a realistic card. Keep in mind these are commons as well, which are supposed to be as simple as possible.
Also, what's wrong with banding? It isn't that hard to understand, and there's lots of design space. I don't have to worry about turning new players away, so the complexity isn't an issue.
Speaking of, here they are!
Morph is technically a returning keyword, but I'm not considering it such since I will be using it in an entirely new way. Morph would appear on instants and sorceries. In order to make it not break the game, my playgroup has edited the comp. rules to state that any time an instant or sorcery is on the battlefield for any reason, its controller casts it from the battlefield without paying its mana cost as an SBA. If for some reason this isn't possible (Eidolon of Rhetoric), it is instead put into its owner's graveyard, also as an SBA. Putting this in the rules also allows me to save space on cards as I needn't write it as an ability on each card. I might put it in morph's reminder text though.
At the moment, it will only appear on U and R cards, as this is really Izzet's jam. Does anybody think this could fit into other colors flavorfully? Other thoughts/ideas?
Banding is the returning keyword for the set. At the moment, it will stay in its native colors of W, G, and R. I'm not going to put banding on B cards for sure, and if I put it on anything :blue:, it will most likely be multicolored, and there won't be more than one or two.
Any thoughts/ideas on this?
This is the set's real "new" keyword. At the moment, it will be exclusive to G and perhaps multicolor with G, but that may change if somebody provides a good argument otherwise.
Terraform <mana> (You may play this as a colorless land with "t: Add <mana> to your mana pool.")
Now, here's my question: I don't want a terraformed creature to be able to attack or block, but I would like it to retain its other abilities. Does this wording function this way? If not, how could I change it to make it work?
The biggest problem here is that I haven't been able to squeeze :black: in here anywhere. Does anybody have an idea where it could fit? I really like this set of abilities, but I feel I should probably represent all the colors, even if one isn't quite as fleshed out as the others.
Really all I needed to know was the damage bit, since that was what the dispute was over. I thought that the ability made it impervious to damage.
Tough Guy 2G
Creature-Human Soldier
~'s power and toughness can't change.
2/2
What happens when he's blocked by a 3/2?
1) It's more concise. As-is, mine takes up an entire card with reminder text.
2) The pseudo-haste effect is quite relevant.
However, I think I would want auras and equipment to fall off. How could I do this?
Edit: How's this: (You may cast this card on a <name> you control for its evolve cost. If you do, unattach all auras and equipment attached to that creature and that creature becomes this card.)
Evolve <name>—<cost> (You may pay <cost> and sacrifice a creature named <name> rather than pay this card's mana cost.)
But there's another mechanic I want to mesh in here. Another theme is the Pokémon gaining experience as they fight, in the form of +1/+1 counters. I want to have those counters transfer to the new Pokémon from the old so that you aren't losing progress (and it doesn't make sense flavor-wise not to). Currently I have this.
Evolve <name>—<cost> (You may pay <cost> and sacrifice a creature named <name> rather than pay this card's mana cost. If you do, move all +1/+1 counters from the sacrificed creature onto this creature.)
But I feel like once the creature is sacrificed, its counters would cease to exist. Does my wording work, or should I do something else?
The Sun 2R
Creature-Elemental (C)
Sunshine 2 (When ~ enters the battlefield, you lose all nonsun, nonpoison counters. Then you get two sun counters. As long as you have a sun counter, all red creatures get +1/+0. At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose a sun counter.)
1/2
As it is, having multiple creatures with sunshine would make you lose that many sun counters on your upkeep. How can I word this so that no matter how many creatures you have with sunshine, you only lose 1 counter on your upkeep? One thing that would sort of work would be saying "lose target sun counter" instead of "lose a sun counter", since you could have all abilities target the same counter, and then all but one would fizzle, but I don't think you can target counters. Any ideas?
I purposely meant it to be scry 1 for each, and I knew what it meant that way, though thinking about it, it's probably not too powerful your way either given the fact you have to pay so much to get it up to where it really matters. The ability is somewhat limiting from a design standpoint, yes. But the nebula concept is deeply rooted in flavor. I may make other cumulative upkeep-related abilities and I won't use nebula for those (I'm probably going to make near-functional reprints of Magmatic Core and Snowfall, for instance), but my inner Vorthos isn't letting me part with the keyword.
Lastly, exiling was again part of the flavor of the thing, since stars are just plain old gone when they die. All they leave is a supermassive black hole (and that only in some cases), and that's difficult to represent in M:tG. I suppose losing the trigger to a Scavenging Ooze would be pretty lame though, so I think I might switch it around so you get the bonus first, then exile it. The whole point was simply to prevent you from reanimating the star, which would make no sense.
On a slightly different note, I would still leave the abilities separate if I were to use reminder text for the upkeep. Two distinct, manageable abilities are easier to keep track of than one complex multilayered one.
It's Occam's Razor. Using cumulative upkeep allows you to omit the text of half of Thought Criminal's incarnation, thus saving 2-3 lines of text on a card, and making it less overwhelming for players new to the set. It's also more aesthetically pleasing.
I misspoke when I said "death trigger". I meant sac, and if you look at Thought Criminal's ability, it's not a death trigger either. It only occurs if you don't pay the upkeep for Nebula, which is narrower, and therefore requires you to read more carefully, than both my original and current versions.
Look at the two renders below and tell me which one looks closer to a realistic card. Keep in mind these are commons as well, which are supposed to be as simple as possible.