Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Everything is kicker! That does not mean everything should be kicker!
I especially love all edited card images in that article, they really drive home the point that kicker is too broad a mechanic.
General Custom Cards: The Lab
- Thread starter anotak
- Start date
I especially love all edited card images in that article, they really drive home the point that kicker is too broad a mechanic.
One could argue that everything is kicker. I had that thought myself last millenia.
However there is no functional difference here so simply giving it a name is not really enough. At least don’t take credit for it then
There has to be something unique to swarm in order for it to pass my judgement as a new mechanic.
As always I have to add: In a contained area, everything is fine. If you can make it work and has fun doing so, there really is no issue.
However there is no functional difference here so simply giving it a name is not really enough. At least don’t take credit for it then
There has to be something unique to swarm in order for it to pass my judgement as a new mechanic.
As always I have to add: In a contained area, everything is fine. If you can make it work and has fun doing so, there really is no issue.
Consider this mechanic
Tome of the Necromancer - 2BB
Empower (When you cast this spell, you may exile a card from your hand that shares a color with this card.)
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, if it was empowered, search your library for a creature card and put it into your graveyard. Then shuffle your library.
1B, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
——
Empower is kicker. But it has a different flavor! But it won’t pass the test because it’s exactly kicker.
I believe your swarm is multikicker and not a new enough variant in order to pass the test. How is it different from multikicker? I am ready to be proven wrong because I always want to learn and I might be missing something.
Tome of the Necromancer - 2BB
Empower (When you cast this spell, you may exile a card from your hand that shares a color with this card.)
When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, if it was empowered, search your library for a creature card and put it into your graveyard. Then shuffle your library.
1B, T: Return target creature card from your graveyard to the battlefield.
——
Empower is kicker. But it has a different flavor! But it won’t pass the test because it’s exactly kicker.
I believe your swarm is multikicker and not a new enough variant in order to pass the test. How is it different from multikicker? I am ready to be proven wrong because I always want to learn and I might be missing something.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Really, what is there to add? If you believe a mechanic isn't new because it can be worded as kicker or multikicker I really can't help you. But, I'll try anyway.
Swarm, for one, should be a new mechanic so that people can talk about it. My intention was to design a mechanic that could see print on multiple cards in a block, otherwise there wouldn't be a need to keyword it. If you word it as multikicker you would have to refer to this set of cards as "those multikicker cards that create token copies of themselves for each time they're kicked". If, however, you use a new keyword for it, you can refer to them as "the swarm cards", or even "swarms". You are therefore actively hindering discourse over these cards by stubbornly applying a mechanic that's already, in Wotc's own words, too broad.
Moreover, swarm is an on cast trigger, which partly lets it get around counterspells. Sure, you could use multikicker on an on cast trigger, but then you'ld diversify what multikicker does even more, since that keyword isn't currently used like that.
Ooo, ooo, I've got this hot off the press article! It's a great read, that I have to assume you haven't undertaken based on the above posts. Here's the link again just in case: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/latest-developments/magnificence-kicker-2007-06-15
Wizards uses subset mechanics of Kicker to, I quote:
keep the design focused, give the set some identity, and make talking about a subset of cards much easier.
Onder is literally three for three on this; a great execution imo.
If exiling cards from your hand was a set theme and they made the empower mechanic, they'd 100% make the actual mechanic "Empower", and not use kicker.
Wizards uses subset mechanics of Kicker to, I quote:
keep the design focused, give the set some identity, and make talking about a subset of cards much easier.
Onder is literally three for three on this; a great execution imo.
If exiling cards from your hand was a set theme and they made the empower mechanic, they'd 100% make the actual mechanic "Empower", and not use kicker.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Whelp, and I thought I was being a bit snarky Sorry Velrun, no hard feelings! The linked article (which is the same article I linked to) explains the value of packaging subsets of kicker into a new mechanic pretty well, the crux of it is quoted by sigh above.
Sorry Velrun, no hard feelings! The linked article (which is the same article I linked to) explains the value of packaging subsets of kicker into a new mechanic pretty well, the crux of it is quoted by sigh above.It’s not about ‘helping me’ as you put it.
I was trying to inform you that swarm would not be accepted as a new mechanic in today’s day. Perhaps ten years ago when the article was written which was before Planeswalkers, before NWO and before M15 template. It’s just not a new mechanic but the same mechanic as we had before with a new name and thus a new flavor. We have come a long way since 2007.
Don’t “Sorry Velrun” me just because you are two guys who found the same article I still remember reading when it came out on my birthday in 2007
You can make swarm if you want. It’s very fine to make swarm in your own little environment. As long as you know it’s not an original thought, not a new mechanic and also wouldn’t be accepted in 2017. I was not trying to be your enemy.
To be fair: I made the same mechanic in 2013 and called it Nesting. It was exactly the same mechanic except my flavor was that only birds, trolls and reptiles could nest. It was my third custom set and I was still learning.
I hope I am still learning today and this site has given me so (SO!!) much and I want to thank you all. When it comes to cube design, this site is by far the superior. Not only because this site has so many users with so many creative ideas but also because you guys are so excellent at sharing those design ideas with the rest of us. And for that I thank you.
Edit: I hope we can move forward now. I have personally nothing against swarm. It’s exactly like a mechanic I made myself only sleightly more advanced because of the on-cast trigger and not on ETBF trigger that I had. Enjoy swarm with your fellow cube players
I was trying to inform you that swarm would not be accepted as a new mechanic in today’s day. Perhaps ten years ago when the article was written which was before Planeswalkers, before NWO and before M15 template. It’s just not a new mechanic but the same mechanic as we had before with a new name and thus a new flavor. We have come a long way since 2007.
Don’t “Sorry Velrun” me just because you are two guys who found the same article I still remember reading when it came out on my birthday in 2007
You can make swarm if you want. It’s very fine to make swarm in your own little environment. As long as you know it’s not an original thought, not a new mechanic and also wouldn’t be accepted in 2017. I was not trying to be your enemy.
To be fair: I made the same mechanic in 2013 and called it Nesting. It was exactly the same mechanic except my flavor was that only birds, trolls and reptiles could nest. It was my third custom set and I was still learning.
I hope I am still learning today and this site has given me so (SO!!) much and I want to thank you all. When it comes to cube design, this site is by far the superior. Not only because this site has so many users with so many creative ideas but also because you guys are so excellent at sharing those design ideas with the rest of us. And for that I thank you.
Edit: I hope we can move forward now. I have personally nothing against swarm. It’s exactly like a mechanic I made myself only sleightly more advanced because of the on-cast trigger and not on ETBF trigger that I had. Enjoy swarm with your fellow cube players
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
So, I see all the smilies in your post, but the tone of it is still putting me off a bit (though the edit certainly helps), so let me get this off my chest.
First, I never claimed I came up with an original idea, I even stated I used an existing keyword (replicate) as direct inspiration. Second, I don't get why you feel the need to reiterate that it's not an original thought, because how is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Kudos for coming up with the same idea four years ago in your third custom set (though, was that another attempt to prove my idea wasn't original?), but why would that imply the idea is bad or couldn't see print in the present day? Not every idea you have as a fledgling designer should be discarded just because you were "inexperienced" when you thought of it. The word "nesting" gets across the concept of creating token creatures much better than "multikicker" ever would, and I'm guessing it fit the flavor of the world you designed your custom set in much better as well (because really, what flavor does multikicker evoke anyway?).
Moreover, do you really think Wizards' stance on kicker and multikicker has changed so much over the last 10 years? If yes, let me give you some counterexamples.
These are all fairly recent cards (at least much more recent than the article) that did not use kicker, even though they could have. The fact that the article we linked to is 10 years old does not diminish its wisdom. I am fully convinced that, should WotC decide to make an equivalent of replicate for creatures, they would not use multikicker for the exact reasons mentioned back then. The examples above show Wizards still likes to use new mechanics that are a subset of kicker rather than reuse kicker in modern times, so why would swarm be any different? As the article mentions, if you have a set of cards that all have the same kind of kicker, even if you could use kicker, it's beneficial to use a new mechanic because it makes these cards stand out more, makes them easier to talk about as a group, and gives more identity to the set. This has not become less true in modern design. I'm not saying kicker never is the answer, but in the case of swarm it's very clearly not in my opinion.
Now, there are other problems with using swarm in large quantities, because the mechanic naturally leads to clogged boardstates, making combat in limited more complicated and drawn out. The cost of swarm and the environment would have to be tweaked so as to not make limited a completely wretched experience. To be honest, I'm not even sure I'm going to use it in my own cube, though I do like the design. The real reason I posted it was so people who did like it could steal it for their own cube, much how like scrolls have been adopted by you yourself, but instead I got into an argument about whether swarm should or should not be multikicker and whether it could see play in today's sets
PS. I'm really bad at walking away from an argument if I still think there's room to better explain my side of the argument or to better understand the other side of the argument. This is definitely a flaw at times, so I'm sincerely sorry if I am wearing you out on my quest for understanding. If we really must agree to disagree, so be it. I do think I've pretty much exhausted my options to elaborate on my side of the argument
First, I never claimed I came up with an original idea, I even stated I used an existing keyword (replicate) as direct inspiration. Second, I don't get why you feel the need to reiterate that it's not an original thought, because how is that relevant to the discussion at hand? Kudos for coming up with the same idea four years ago in your third custom set (though, was that another attempt to prove my idea wasn't original?), but why would that imply the idea is bad or couldn't see print in the present day? Not every idea you have as a fledgling designer should be discarded just because you were "inexperienced" when you thought of it. The word "nesting" gets across the concept of creating token creatures much better than "multikicker" ever would, and I'm guessing it fit the flavor of the world you designed your custom set in much better as well (because really, what flavor does multikicker evoke anyway?).
Moreover, do you really think Wizards' stance on kicker and multikicker has changed so much over the last 10 years? If yes, let me give you some counterexamples.
These are all fairly recent cards (at least much more recent than the article) that did not use kicker, even though they could have. The fact that the article we linked to is 10 years old does not diminish its wisdom. I am fully convinced that, should WotC decide to make an equivalent of replicate for creatures, they would not use multikicker for the exact reasons mentioned back then. The examples above show Wizards still likes to use new mechanics that are a subset of kicker rather than reuse kicker in modern times, so why would swarm be any different? As the article mentions, if you have a set of cards that all have the same kind of kicker, even if you could use kicker, it's beneficial to use a new mechanic because it makes these cards stand out more, makes them easier to talk about as a group, and gives more identity to the set. This has not become less true in modern design. I'm not saying kicker never is the answer, but in the case of swarm it's very clearly not in my opinion.
Now, there are other problems with using swarm in large quantities, because the mechanic naturally leads to clogged boardstates, making combat in limited more complicated and drawn out. The cost of swarm and the environment would have to be tweaked so as to not make limited a completely wretched experience. To be honest, I'm not even sure I'm going to use it in my own cube, though I do like the design. The real reason I posted it was so people who did like it could steal it for their own cube, much how like scrolls have been adopted by you yourself, but instead I got into an argument about whether swarm should or should not be multikicker and whether it could see play in today's sets
PS. I'm really bad at walking away from an argument if I still think there's room to better explain my side of the argument or to better understand the other side of the argument. This is definitely a flaw at times, so I'm sincerely sorry if I am wearing you out on my quest for understanding. If we really must agree to disagree, so be it. I do think I've pretty much exhausted my options to elaborate on my side of the argument
Grillo_Parlante
Contributor
Its not multi-kicker. Multi-kicker is more of an awkward way to do ETB effects, while this creates clones of the actual creature, which multi-kicker does not do. Swarm is a creature specific version of replicate.
If we're going to say WOTC wouldn't allow this to exist, we have to explain how WOTC allowed replictate to exist.
If we're going to say WOTC wouldn't allow this to exist, we have to explain how WOTC allowed replictate to exist.
Chris Taylor
Contributor
That treasure cruise makes me laugh
Wizards grew smarter over the last 11 years since Guildpact in the original Ravnica: City of Guilds block in 2006. That was before Planeswalkers and before New World Order.
Ondezeeboot I will agree with you, however, because I cannot claim to be inside Wizards’ heads and of course this mechanic could potentually see print if they decide it so.
I guess I am, in the future, going to have to claim that something or someone made me design ‘X’ and that I am very happy with the result I came up with and expect no one to question it oven debate it. I am not exactly sure what tilted you and made you comment with all those exclamation marks. I guess it must have been my first comment to your design that it was multikicker? You certainly got annoyed and I am sorry that I’ve cause such feelings.
Now I want you to show me a custom designed set (it can be a small one) with swarm as one of the two mechanics
What can you come up with?
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Aw There's exactly zero exclamation marks in my long-winded post. There's a lot of question marks though. I mean, I don't mind an open discussion, and questioning custom mechanics is great, but you weren't even reacting to my (and sigh's) arguments, nor did you discuss the underlying mechanics and implications of swarm. You literally say:
In the next two posts me and sigh post arguments for why swarm should be its own mechanic, and you completely ignore these arguments, reiterating your statement that it is not a new or original mechanic multiple times. I guess I just got annoyed by your angle? The only (passing) thought you give to our argument is that the 2007 article we post is so old that it basically doesn't count anymore. This is an opinion I feel is misguided, because the broad design of kicker still bites them today. To wit:
April 07, 2014: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/81972358654/maro-i-thought-you-said-you-disliked-kicker-like
June 28, 2016: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/146587955018/isnt-escalate-just-the-same-as-entwine-yeah
There's some much more recent quotes from Blogatog to show that the 2007 article is still relevant. As far as I can tell, your only quarrel with swarm as a mechanic is that it's multikicker and that it therefore wouldn't be accepted in 2017, and I still disagree with both observations for all the reasons I (and others) already stated. Refusing to use subsets of kicker and multikicker as their own mechanics just detracts from the flavor of your cards and sets, and refusing to design mechanics that are too close to kicker means you're effectively narrowing design space, which... why? As I have showed, WotC themselves still prints kicker-like mechanics. Your assertion that kicker-like mechanics are a relic of the past simply doesn't hold up, yet you seem to stick to it, and I don't get why.
As for the homework you've given me, I'ld honestly rather spend my time on other things. Designing custom sets is extremely time-consuming, and I have no desire to prove that swarm can carry a set this way.
Anyway, I do appreciate the apologies. Text is known to be a poor medium for getting across your intentions, and I do believe you didn't intend to annoy me. Sorry I got triggered!
There's exactly zero exclamation marks in my long-winded post. There's a lot of question marks though. I mean, I don't mind an open discussion, and questioning custom mechanics is great, but you weren't even reacting to my (and sigh's) arguments, nor did you discuss the underlying mechanics and implications of swarm. You literally say:In the next two posts me and sigh post arguments for why swarm should be its own mechanic, and you completely ignore these arguments, reiterating your statement that it is not a new or original mechanic multiple times. I guess I just got annoyed by your angle? The only (passing) thought you give to our argument is that the 2007 article we post is so old that it basically doesn't count anymore. This is an opinion I feel is misguided, because the broad design of kicker still bites them today. To wit:
April 07, 2014: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/81972358654/maro-i-thought-you-said-you-disliked-kicker-like
June 28, 2016: http://markrosewater.tumblr.com/post/146587955018/isnt-escalate-just-the-same-as-entwine-yeah
There's some much more recent quotes from Blogatog to show that the 2007 article is still relevant. As far as I can tell, your only quarrel with swarm as a mechanic is that it's multikicker and that it therefore wouldn't be accepted in 2017, and I still disagree with both observations for all the reasons I (and others) already stated. Refusing to use subsets of kicker and multikicker as their own mechanics just detracts from the flavor of your cards and sets, and refusing to design mechanics that are too close to kicker means you're effectively narrowing design space, which... why? As I have showed, WotC themselves still prints kicker-like mechanics. Your assertion that kicker-like mechanics are a relic of the past simply doesn't hold up, yet you seem to stick to it, and I don't get why.
As for the homework you've given me, I'ld honestly rather spend my time on other things. Designing custom sets is extremely time-consuming, and I have no desire to prove that swarm can carry a set this way.
Anyway, I do appreciate the apologies. Text is known to be a poor medium for getting across your intentions, and I do believe you didn't intend to annoy me. Sorry I got triggered!
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Some more cards for your consideration. Another swarm card (that reuses old art because it's impossible to find appropriate fantasy art with multiple angels online that hasn't already been used on a Magic card), the avatar lifebond mechanic, and the resilience ability word. I'm just exploring possibilities here because it's fun cooking up new cards.
I realized the good thing about swarm is that it's a good mana sink (which, duh, multikicker was as well).
I'm aware these are not all uncommons, but I dislike the holofoil stamp and couldn't be bothered to remove it from this MSE installation
Edit: Maybe avatar should be called familiar. I think this mechanic works much better with (base) smaller creatures, and those don't really feel like an avatar of the player. Besides, the player is still there! The flavor works better with familiars as magical extensions of yourself, that are ultimately bound to your life total so to speak.
Edit2: I changed avatar to lifebond to make the keyword less specific, and made the cards I already familiars to tie them together thematically (they're small animals with the lifebond ability that do something when they deals combat damage to a creature).
Edit3: Cards changed based on Velrun's suggestions, the most important change being lifebond now redirects combat damage only, instead of all damage.
I realized the good thing about swarm is that it's a good mana sink (which, duh, multikicker was as well).
I'm aware these are not all uncommons, but I dislike the holofoil stamp and couldn't be bothered to remove it from this MSE installation
Edit: Maybe avatar should be called familiar. I think this mechanic works much better with (base) smaller creatures, and those don't really feel like an avatar of the player. Besides, the player is still there! The flavor works better with familiars as magical extensions of yourself, that are ultimately bound to your life total so to speak.
Edit2: I changed avatar to lifebond to make the keyword less specific, and made the cards I already familiars to tie them together thematically (they're small animals with the lifebond ability that do something when they deals combat damage to a creature).
Edit3: Cards changed based on Velrun's suggestions, the most important change being lifebond now redirects combat damage only, instead of all damage.
Interesting!
So first impression is that Avatar (now Lifebond) is dangerous. It is like indestructible but with a 'minor' drawback. I guess that's fine but we gotta be careful with such a mechanic. The redirect mechanic from Tempest was a dread for Standard and I believe too many Avatar/Lifebond creatures could get suppressive. But I like it because it's genuine, original and is doing something interesting. Not like scrolls of course but nothing beat scrolls!
I would maybe consider letting Lifebond only trigger upon combat damage.
What I really like about your swarm: You can use it for soooo many different things. The ping upon ETBF is cool, the lifegain upon ETBF is cool. I guess you could go through all parts of the colorpie and make all sorts of cards like a white knight that can block any number of creatures. Giving that swarm can lead to a very, very annoying defensive gameplan but a board state that can be defeated slowly over time. Maybe a blue scrying bird or a green with the "All creatures must block this creature if able" effect etc. The potentials are almost endless (can anything be almost infinite?)
In this regard I really, really like swarm. And as you said, it's a mana sink.
On the specific cards:
- Host of Light: Very cool. Elegant design. I have no critique.
- Chillwing Harrier: Dangerous because it's almost un-killable. I feel like there is no connection between the abilities (Flying makes the creature difficult to block but it has a 'I want to face-off against other creatures' on it. The Lifebond is not connected very well to the other effect as well. But the card 100 % passes my test still Wizards make tons of cards where the mechanics are not connected in any way and this is, still, connected a little bit. The name is perfect!
- Anima of Growth: This is your 'worst' design of the four if you ask me. It's not terrible. Or maybe I misunderstand because as it reads, you will not be putting counters on Anima of Growth but on the creature damaging Anima of Growth. If you want Anima of Growth to grow bigger over time you will need to word it like this: "Whenever CARDNAME deals combat damage to a creature, put a +1/+1 counter on CARDNAME." See Algae Gharial for reference. It could also say "this creature" instead of CARDNAME. You can also turn the effect around and let it trigger upon being damaged instead like Fungusaur. In this way it will also help you with your enrage plan that you have had since Ixalan. It will actually just be the enrage mechanic. Still a very dangerous design because creatures that can't die can lead to very oppressive board states if you ask me.
- Nantuko Blightspeaker. A remnant of the older times If that was intended I would support giving it an additional creature type because all Nantukos had several creature types.
Link to all Nantukos:
https://scryfall.com/search?q=nantuko
A very cool bunch of cards. I might ask you to design a card for my cube if you're up for it. Obviously it should either be a scroll or have swarm We gotta keep the tension alive.
So first impression is that Avatar (now Lifebond) is dangerous. It is like indestructible but with a 'minor' drawback. I guess that's fine but we gotta be careful with such a mechanic. The redirect mechanic from Tempest was a dread for Standard and I believe too many Avatar/Lifebond creatures could get suppressive. But I like it because it's genuine, original and is doing something interesting. Not like scrolls of course but nothing beat scrolls!
I would maybe consider letting Lifebond only trigger upon combat damage.
What I really like about your swarm: You can use it for soooo many different things. The ping upon ETBF is cool, the lifegain upon ETBF is cool. I guess you could go through all parts of the colorpie and make all sorts of cards like a white knight that can block any number of creatures. Giving that swarm can lead to a very, very annoying defensive gameplan but a board state that can be defeated slowly over time. Maybe a blue scrying bird or a green with the "All creatures must block this creature if able" effect etc. The potentials are almost endless (can anything be almost infinite?)
In this regard I really, really like swarm. And as you said, it's a mana sink.
On the specific cards:
- Host of Light: Very cool. Elegant design. I have no critique.
- Chillwing Harrier: Dangerous because it's almost un-killable. I feel like there is no connection between the abilities (Flying makes the creature difficult to block but it has a 'I want to face-off against other creatures' on it. The Lifebond is not connected very well to the other effect as well. But the card 100 % passes my test still
Wizards make tons of cards where the mechanics are not connected in any way and this is, still, connected a little bit. The name is perfect!- Anima of Growth: This is your 'worst' design of the four if you ask me. It's not terrible. Or maybe I misunderstand because as it reads, you will not be putting counters on Anima of Growth but on the creature damaging Anima of Growth. If you want Anima of Growth to grow bigger over time you will need to word it like this: "Whenever CARDNAME deals combat damage to a creature, put a +1/+1 counter on CARDNAME." See Algae Gharial for reference. It could also say "this creature" instead of CARDNAME. You can also turn the effect around and let it trigger upon being damaged instead like Fungusaur. In this way it will also help you with your enrage plan that you have had since Ixalan. It will actually just be the enrage mechanic. Still a very dangerous design because creatures that can't die can lead to very oppressive board states if you ask me.
- Nantuko Blightspeaker. A remnant of the older times
If that was intended I would support giving it an additional creature type because all Nantukos had several creature types.Link to all Nantukos:
https://scryfall.com/search?q=nantuko
A very cool bunch of cards. I might ask you to design a card for my cube if you're up for it. Obviously it should either be a scroll or have swarm
We gotta keep the tension alive.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Good suggestions all, except putting counters on Anima of Growth when it's damage, because lifebond
You can do fun things with swarm indeed
Edit: I do think lifebond is a good bit weaker than indestructible (especially now that it only redirects combat damage). It can be destroyed by normal means besides combat damage, it can't shield you from damage, and it can't just attack without risk, since you're still receiving damage when they block. No matter the amount of lifebound creatures a player has, the other player can still push through damage, effectively turning a bunch of lifebond creatures into a sort of Reciprocate, which was a pretty mediocre removal spell.
Edit2: Ooh! Ooh! I "came up" with another keyword. As in, I wondered what splice onto Arcane would look like on creatures. Splice onto Arcane has been "condemned" by MaRo as being too narrow, that is to say, in hindsight he wished it would just have been splice onto instants and sorceries to make it less parasitic.
You can do fun things with swarm indeed
Edit: I do think lifebond is a good bit weaker than indestructible (especially now that it only redirects combat damage). It can be destroyed by normal means besides combat damage, it can't shield you from damage, and it can't just attack without risk, since you're still receiving damage when they block. No matter the amount of lifebound creatures a player has, the other player can still push through damage, effectively turning a bunch of lifebond creatures into a sort of Reciprocate, which was a pretty mediocre removal spell.
Edit2: Ooh! Ooh! I "came up" with another keyword. As in, I wondered what splice onto Arcane would look like on creatures. Splice onto Arcane has been "condemned" by MaRo as being too narrow, that is to say, in hindsight he wished it would just have been splice onto instants and sorceries to make it less parasitic.
I like the wyrm a lot. Seems like it would be fun to chain with a failing storm deck.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
A very cool bunch of cards. I might ask you to design a card for my cube if you're up for it. Obviously it should either be a scroll or have swarm
Designing individual cards is a lot less time-consuming than designing a whole set, I'm happy to give it a try
Also, here's two more swarm cards to demonstrate the design space for this mechanic.
Legion looks like it would be a lot of fun!Designing individual cards is a lot less time-consuming than designing a whole set, I'm happy to give it a try
Also, here's two more swarm cards to demonstrate the design space for this mechanic.
View attachment 1571 View attachment 1569
I'm happy to give it a try
Stay tuned
Chris Taylor
Contributor
Spells can block!
So it's effectively shroud plus immunity to damage from non-targeted spells and abilities?
Hah, when I finally can afford a copy of for patch for patch to my cube, I guess I'll fix the reminder text.
Yeah, I guess that's all it is, which is not actually very interesting. That's called bad design (just makes the card harder to grok). Though this makes it sort of color pie legal. And protects from red sweepers.
Yeah, I guess that's all it is, which is not actually very interesting. That's called bad design (just makes the card harder to grok). Though this makes it sort of color pie legal. And protects from red sweepers.
Onderzeeboot
Ecstatic Orb
Spells can block!
Technically the card Fog Patch does not block the creature, it just states that the creature becomes blocked. As Fog Patch works perfectly fine on a creature with protection from green, protection from spells and abilities definitely does not protect against it either. There's no need to update the reminder text.
Bonus fact: Even spells and abilities creating a blocking token can result in legal blocks that would be illegal to declare. See for example the rulings on http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=212577 and http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=107264.
Bonus bonus fact: You can even block creatures with the "<CARDNAME> can't be blocked" text with all these cards!