Cool Card Design of the Day10/9/2013 - Absorb 1 proved too powerful to use as a common keyword. Absorb X-1 is clearly absurd, so let's put it on a rare. And just in case that's not scary enough, we'll throw trample on too. 'Cause that's how rares roll nowadays.
I'm thinking if you cost it as a weaker indestructible it'd be safe.
ReplyDeleteThis gives me an idea for a blue combat keyword though:
Domesticate (Whenever a creature blocks or becomes blocked by this creature, it gets -1/-0 until end of turn)
A smaller flanking that can be used on block. Does it seem reasonable?
I like the idea of this, making group blocks more effective, and I like how it's generally more useful on defense for a blue keyword.
DeleteWhy not?
DeleteDomesticate (Whenever ~ blocks or becomes blocked, it gets +0/+1 until end of turn)
Or?
+0/+1
Unless your 1/3 domesticate and a 2/3 double block a 3/3. Does that come up often enough to be worth it? Maybe, but probably not.
DeleteGiving other creatures -1/-0 feels more exciting to me than giving my own +0/+1, and I'd imagine it'd be the same for others, but I can't be sure. And as James mentioned it's more powerful for both being double blocked while attacking and for two Domesticate creatures double blocking. Is that a good thing? I don't know.
DeleteI think triggered abilities are always worded with the "whenever" (or if, as, when, etc.) first. So it could be: "If a source would deal damage to ~, prevent all but one of that damage".
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think the ability is interesting, but maybe it feels to much like indestructible, and "weird to be weird". (But maybe I'm ovethinking: I'm always the one who loves overly simple, elegant [often boring...] designs)
As worded, Karl can be taken down by four creatures, is it intended?
Being taken down by four creatures is exactly what I intended.
DeleteI'm feelin' mono green on this guy... I feel it would be better that way.
ReplyDeleteMono green works. I think better too.
DeleteAlternative text box:
ReplyDeleteCARDNAME can't be blocked.
Interactive removal spells can't kill CARDNAME.
OK, that's overly harsh, but I want to point this out: the design is good in a vacuum, but it discourages players from doing a lot of things that we normally would want to encourage (attacking, blocking, fighting, casting direct-damage spells). More interesting as a 8/2 or similar, maybe?
I''m okay with any criticism that is less true of this than it is of indestructible.
DeleteExcept that indestructible also stops unconditional stuff like Wrath and Doom Blade. The thing about "prevent all but 1 damage" on a high-toughness creature is that it turns off only the 'interesting' ways of dealing with a creature. I don't think that's a place design wants to be.
DeleteI don't mean to be overly critical. As AlexC said, this would be better at 3 toughness-- then it's more feasible (and less painful) to triple-block this, double-block and Shock it, double-block with a double-striker, etc. That would definitely create interesting play decisions. At 4 toughness, though, almost any 'honest' way of dealing with Karl results in you getting 3-for-1'd or worse.
DeleteOne cannot be overly critical of a design or idea. One can be overly critical of a person, but there was no personal critique here. So keep it coming!
DeleteI'm not convinced that this ability should be printed on a non-white card, but green would certainly be my second choice. It's also interesting as an enchantment:
ReplyDeleteRepresentative Government {4}{W}{W}
Enchantment (R)
If a source would deal 2 or more damage to a creature or player, it deals 1 damage to that creature or player instead.
Heh, it's Equal Treatment but more so.
DeleteReminds me of Ogre Enforcer, though it's kind of the opposite. I agree it'd probably be better at 2 or 3 toughness.
ReplyDeleteI love this!
ReplyDelete