Effects like Arbor Armament see print a lot, so R&D must have considered this at some point. Maybe they know something I don't? I wouldn't be surprised if they decided the stacked stat bonuses were too confusing. (I added "an additional" as a way to prevent misunderstanding. It wouldn't be part of the rules text normally.)
Is this wording any better?
Or is it worse because it requires more memory? How much does it matter that this creates a non-intuitive "shields down" moment where the creature shrinks back to its original size before getting the counter?
The first example seems a lot cleaner to me. The wording you used makes it clearer, and I think memory issues and the vulnerability window you mentioned are a larger burden.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I wouldn't be surprised if too many people still misread the card at first glance. Because it mentions +1/+1 twice, I could imagine people may naturally add 'counter' in their head on the second mention as well.
Good points.
DeleteThe one other option I was considering was to make it an Aura-- flash, enchant creature, gives +1/+1, and has an ETB trigger to give another +1/+1 until end of turn. Less ambiguous, but it's 6+ lines of rules text so I wouldn't want to put it on a common.
I think giving +1/+1 per counter might read better but also might be too strong.
ReplyDeleteAs in "Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. It gets +X/+X until end of turn where X is the number of +1/+1 counters on it"?
DeleteThat's a cool idea. Not every set would want it, but if there was already a +1/+1 counter theme I'd totally buy it.
That was my thought too while I was reading the design. Also, all cards discussed here belong to a +1/+1 maters set.
DeleteI would say a Mirrodin set but that is now New Phyrexia, which is about -1/-1. I guess it could be with evolve/simic.
Delete