In Custody {W} Enchantment-Aura (cmn) Enchant creature Enchanted creature can't attack or block, and its activated abilities can't be activated. Whenever you have fewer than two creatures, sacrifice ~.
Also, I think this would be cleaner if you didn't sacrifice it, and instead it just turned off when you didn't have two or more creatures. "If you control two or more creatures, enchanted creature can't attack or block."
If you control a Beast, enchanted creature can't attack. If you control a Human, enchanted creature can't block. If you control a Wizard, enchanted creature's activated abilities can't be activated. If you control a Homarid, sacrifice ~.
Impel, or, To Leave with No Options {R} Enchantment - Aura Enchant creature If you control two or more creatures, you choose how enchanted creature attacks or blocks.
APNAP? But I'm sure there's a barrier (though low) for players figuring that out. You could imagine, after this threshold is passed, this becoming a staple in red's nondamage retinue.
That's for sure confusing and would require revision to the rules, but maybe worth it. I think APNAP doesn't work here since it is backawards on attack and blocks.
You might be able to say on the card "after that player has chosen" and be fairly clear.
The other big downside to giving this effect to Red is that it is strictly better than Pacifism, and Red shouldn't be getting effects like that.
This absolutely. I knew this rule, but I bet a lot of players do not. Also, the constant checking of conditions, along with peculiar interactions (f.e. you can Giant Growth the enchanted creature to make the aura fall off, and even adding creature at instant speed won't save the aura, since it's a SBA), makes your first design an uncommon.
Cool Card Design of the Day
For the no-math crowd:
ReplyDeleteIn Custody {W}
Enchantment-Aura (cmn)
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature can't attack or block, and its activated abilities can't be activated.
Whenever you have fewer than two creatures, sacrifice ~.
I'm not anti-math, it is what I do for a living.
DeleteAlso, I think this would be cleaner if you didn't sacrifice it, and instead it just turned off when you didn't have two or more creatures. "If you control two or more creatures, enchanted creature can't attack or block."
I considered that, but it made less flavor sense, and increases board complexity.
DeleteIf you control a Beast, enchanted creature can't attack.
DeleteIf you control a Human, enchanted creature can't block.
If you control a Wizard, enchanted creature's activated abilities can't be activated.
If you control a Homarid, sacrifice ~.
But you could change the flavour so it works, like "cowardly" instead of "in custody" or something?
DeleteTrue. I'd put that in red, then.
DeleteImpel, or, To Leave with No Options {R}
DeleteEnchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
If you control two or more creatures, you choose how enchanted creature attacks or blocks.
Awesome but messy. Who decides in what order if you decide for one of their creatures and they decide for two?
DeleteAPNAP? But I'm sure there's a barrier (though low) for players figuring that out. You could imagine, after this threshold is passed, this becoming a staple in red's nondamage retinue.
DeleteThat's for sure confusing and would require revision to the rules, but maybe worth it. I think APNAP doesn't work here since it is backawards on attack and blocks.
DeleteYou might be able to say on the card "after that player has chosen" and be fairly clear.
The other big downside to giving this effect to Red is that it is strictly better than Pacifism, and Red shouldn't be getting effects like that.
Enchant creature conditions are checked both when casting and as a state-based thing. We could add reminder text.
ReplyDeleteThis absolutely. I knew this rule, but I bet a lot of players do not.
DeleteAlso, the constant checking of conditions, along with peculiar interactions (f.e. you can Giant Growth the enchanted creature to make the aura fall off, and even adding creature at instant speed won't save the aura, since it's a SBA), makes your first design an uncommon.