Cool Card Design of the Day 9/6/2016 - Today for Ooze Week, we've got a sort of reverse-Necroplasm. I'm pretty pleased with this concept, though we may be better off removing 'nonbasic' from the list.
If we don't put 'up to one' then the ability won't trigger at all if it can't. We could make the second half a separate trigger, but then how does it reference the first?
I think we just clarify "If you do destroy one" so it's clear that destroying zero doesn't count as doing anything (which I'm not sure it does, but clarity is good.)
Seems like I wouldn't really care enough about the ooze to destroy my own artifacts, enchantments, or nonbasic lands...
If I may, what about something like this:
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player sacrifices an artifact, an enchantment, or a nonbasic land. If they do, put a +1/+1 counter on Ravenous Mass. If they can't, sacrifice it instead.
Nope, that was just what I was going for! Less repeatable pinpoint-accuracy destructive, more rapid chaotic consumption -- and it gets big twice as fast (and more, in multiplayer).
I still don't think I get the original, though. If it means what I think it means, it seems too easy to just destroy all the artifacts & enchantments you want to destroy, then have one yourself that you just... don't destroy, because you have no reason to.
(My interpretation is "destroy 0 or 1. if you destroy 1, get a +1/+1 counter. if there are no available targets, sacrifice the ooze.")
Cool Card Design of the Day
It says "destroy up to one" and also "If you can't", which don't really seem to be... um, compatible.
ReplyDeleteIf we don't put 'up to one' then the ability won't trigger at all if it can't. We could make the second half a separate trigger, but then how does it reference the first?
DeleteI think we just clarify "If you do destroy one" so it's clear that destroying zero doesn't count as doing anything (which I'm not sure it does, but clarity is good.)
Removing 'target' is also an option, but not a great one.
DeleteDo we want to go full on gilded drake and add a 'can't be fizzled' clause? Could get ugly.
DeleteNot eating basics seems absolutely correct.
I misspoke: We may be better off removing (nonbasic) land from the list of edible targets.
DeleteSeems like I wouldn't really care enough about the ooze to destroy my own artifacts, enchantments, or nonbasic lands...
DeleteIf I may, what about something like this:
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player sacrifices an artifact, an enchantment, or a nonbasic land. If they do, put a +1/+1 counter on Ravenous Mass. If they can't, sacrifice it instead.
Did you mean to switch 'player' for 'opponent?' Your text just speeds up the rate Mass kills your own stuff and runs out of fuel.
DeleteNope, that was just what I was going for! Less repeatable pinpoint-accuracy destructive, more rapid chaotic consumption -- and it gets big twice as fast (and more, in multiplayer).
DeleteI still don't think I get the original, though. If it means what I think it means, it seems too easy to just destroy all the artifacts & enchantments you want to destroy, then have one yourself that you just... don't destroy, because you have no reason to.
(My interpretation is "destroy 0 or 1. if you destroy 1, get a +1/+1 counter. if there are no available targets, sacrifice the ooze.")
Your interpretation is correct.
DeleteMaybe:
ReplyDelete"At the beginning of your end step, destroy target artifact, creature, or nonbasic land. If you do, put two +1/+1 counters on CARDNAME.
At the beginning of your upkeep, remove a +1/+1 counter from CARDNAME. If you can't, sacrifice it."
Slightly different functionality, though still on-flavor - it can live off its stored fat before it dies outright!
Less ravenous, but not bad at all.
Delete