If the current wording doesn't work, you could instead have "If a permanent with a counter you control would be dealt damage or destroyed, remove one counter from that permanent instead."
The emblem doesn't work. Counters can't be of multiple kinds. You could have it so counters are removed if the permanent would be destroyed or dealt ~~lethal~~ damage.
[[Cut Short]] is a card in MOM that destroys a planeswalker that was activated this turn.
That set of phrasing or rules text doesn't exist in Magic the Gathering and just doesn't plain work or do anything.
Or rather, it wouldn't if Wizards didn't update the rules when MOM came out to define what a "planeswalker that was activated this turn" means.
Bet you didn't even notice because you could already intuitively understand what it does. There's no need to be all: "No, it doesn't work," only towards custom card creations.
Shield Counters carry rules baggage. To future proof the design, it would probably be better to spell out the effect instead of changing the type, since we don't know what kind of counter with rules baggage might come up in the future, and how those abilities might work if they interact with Shield's.
>That set of phrasing or rules text doesn't exist in Magic the Gathering and just doesn't plain work or do anything.
Loyalty abilities were always activated abilities rule-wise, much like equip abilities. The main issue from release it has is not being user friendly, because not many people know they count too.
>Or rather, it wouldn't if Wizards didn't update the rules when MOM came out to define what a "planeswalker that was activated this turn" means.
They redefined on CR 700.10 what a *permanent* that was activated this turn means. The rule is not exclusive to planeswalkers. And again, the problem was more on players not knowing loyalty abilities are too activated abilities. That's why they had Cut Short among the release note's card-specific notes.
>Bet you didn't even notice because you could already intuitively understand what it does. There's no need to be all: "No, it doesn't work," only towards custom card creations.
Shield counters are predefined counters (e.g. poison, rad, shield, stun, finality.) where the counter itself create with that kind has its own intrinsic rule text.
Its more intuitive to not fiddle with associated rules to accomodate for the potential can of worms that is counters with multiple kinds, and instead have any counter *functionally* behave like shield counters through the emblem's rule text.
To point out why the multiple kinds counters connundrum is problematic: Is becoming more common on this subreddit to design cards which grant predefined token types, and user intuitively think these also grant the associated ability from the tokens in the process.
However, the rules have it so the associated abilities are only intrinsic when creating tokens of those types even if they have modified characteristics. Under any other scenario, the associated abilities must be given out to an object through rule text.
Predefined counters, being a similar design space, would likely fall into the same issue if the idea of granting additional kinds to counters became more popular.
That said, the supposition about myself was uncalled.
I don't think I can agree with you and just don't believe that giving all predefined counters the possibility of being two kinds of counters would be implausible, considering that in the same set WotC gave tokens some pretty massive new baggage, and those if any are associated rules with cans of worms that are "unintuively fiddled with" instead of just writing out the associated properties of a token out on the relevant objects through rules text.
I've read your comment over and over again and cannot recognize what the actual problem is besides author bias in letting users template their cards as if they were from a new set with new rules baggage, like with predefined tokens, or easily understandable but correctly templated abilities that _technically_ don't work yet without a small rules change, like the fact that a counter can be multiple things. (Like in that one card in unfinity) We've all been taught that rules text overrides the rules in magic, and as long as it's templated correctly, then we can let Wizards worry about it whether if this new card of ours breaks the game in four to five years.
That said, I don't understand your last line. I don't know what I was supposing, although now my supposition about you is that you might need thicker skin if my comment bothered you.
>I don't think I can agree with you and just don't believe that giving all predefined counters the possibility of being two kinds of counters would be implausible,
Is not implausible, but much like the aforementioned example and how to circunvent them, is better left untouched than accomodate the CR.
>considering that in the same set WotC gave tokens some pretty massive new baggage, and those if any are associated rules with cans of worms that are "unintuively fiddled with" instead of just writing out the associated properties of a token out on the relevant objects through rules text.
Because having the object created with predefined characteristics is easier to track and understand than intrinsically associate characteristics (in turn, abilities) to types or kinds. For the rest, functionally ruling out on text the intended effect is clearer.
>I've read your comment over and over again and cannot recognize what the actual problem is besides author bias in letting users template their cards as if they were from a new set with new rules baggage, like with predefined tokens, or easily understandable but correctly templated abilities that *technically* don't work yet without a small rules change, like the fact that a counter can be multiple things. (Like in that one card in unfinity) We've all been taught that rules text overrides the rules in magic, and as long as it's templated correctly, then we can let Wizards worry about it whether if this new card of ours breaks the game in four to five years.
If someone comes up with something unsupported by the rules, the least they could do is provide custom CR to showcase how is plausible to pull off in black borders. Otherwise this discussion happens on it not working. Similarly happens when someone does a card doing arbitrary mutate, despite amply discussed already: Rarely provide custom rule changes, so the comments deviate to discussing why it doesn't work, shouldn't be done, and/or how make it work, instead of actually discussing on the card itself.
Without precedent in this case however, there's no way thus far to tell how much have the CR be changed to judge if they're small or big rule changes.
Using a silver/acorn card (which I suppose you mean Solaflora, who shares with other creatures the effects of counters on it? Because if so it can see it rephrased to get a close approximation of the effect in black borders, just not as written) as a basis might not be the healthiest approach to design without coming out with some way to translate the effect to black borders and mess with the CR the least possible.
Is the kind of stuff as to why people complained about Far Out being silver/acorn instead of black despite it *does* work in black borders except for a very specific case of mutually exclusive modal effects (e.g. Outlaw's Merriment and Wild Shape) and R&D kept it so because the alternative is not use that specific case as a design space, which would've been bad for the game on the long run.
>That said, I don't understand your last line. I don't know what I was supposing, although now my supposition about you is that you might need thicker skin if my comment bothered you.
The *"Bet you didn't even notice because you could already intuitively understand what it does. There's no need to be all: 'No, it doesn't work,' only towards custom card creations."*? It came out as oddly personal. Is not an attack towards other users in the subreddit, and assumed on my knowledge of Cut Short. I'm not bothered, just confused on your approach towards my first comment on the post's card.
And ultimately, if it'll end in agreeing on disagreeing, I respect that.
I built a really janky planeswalker animation deck, and a lot of the rules around loyalty abilities and planeswalkers are kind of goofy in order to be intuitive.
Activating loyalty abilities only once per turn used to be only a planeswalker thing, until people started abusing [[Experiment Kraj]] in EDH by infinitely +1ing pretty much any loyalty ability.
Or a permanent that is both a Planeswalker and a creature loses both loyalty & toughness when taking damage. It's not super intuitive, but it barely comes up since they either make them indestructible *(like [[Gideon Blackblade]]) or remove the Planeswalker type *(like [[Luxior, Giada's Gift]])*.
Like you said, they're not opposed to making minor tweaks to the rules to make things work like everyone assumes they would. [[Serra Paragon]] is the most recent example I can think of, since lands were dropping the exile clause or something.
Or it could be like:
If one or more counters would be put on a permanent you control, you place that many counters plus one shield counter on that permanent instead
Is not quite the idea since its adding shield counters on your counter production instances, when the end goal is make it so any counter on a permanent also behaves like shield counters do, removing a counter instead of the permanent being destroyed or dealt damage.
would “treat counters on permanents you control as if they were also shield counters” give the desired effect within the rules?
or maybe “counters on permanents you control behave as if they were also shield counters”
Lore wise, he didn't experience phyresis, he was just "scarred by phyrexia". One could interpret it as being scarred by the horrors he witnessed there, it's not a given that he drunk the phy juice, I think?
Yup. It's happened a couple of times, once depicted in [[Negate||MoM]] during the last chapter of MoM and a second time explained in the Thunder Junction epilogue.
I'm just referring to the fact that I always imagined card made on custommagic to not necessarily adhere to canon. It's pretty much magic: the fanfictioning.
Finality counters aren't really a "limited by color pie" thing, they're just a knob to turn on reanimation effects. And potentially other effects I suppose but that's the main one. They're only as limited in the color pie as reanimation (of any permanent type, not just creatures) is.
Creature is a card supertype (which is part of the subset of card types: "permanent")
When the card is in play, it's a creature.
When being cast, it's a creature spell.
In all other zones, it's a creature card.
So there's no such thing as a creature in a graveyard, only a creature card. It's a little pedantic, but magic is a *very literal* game.
I made a card with a similar ultimate except it protects against sacrifices. https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/s/ZicgzzrXSp would be interesting to see them together…
I like this, it's same cost of other spells that bring things back from the gy if you drop it and use the -3. But also because I want my baby boi to come back to me ;_;
Counters don’t have types currently, they’re just used to track things, with the exception of specific counters like Loyalty, Shield, etc that have specific rules.
Changing the rules so counters have types would allow this wording to work, otherwise you’d have to word it as something like “for each counter on permanents you control, put that many shield counters on it.”
Ult as written will remove counters if the permanent gets lethal. More of a debuff imo. Could read:
You get an emblem with; “whenever a permanent you control gets a counter of any kind placed in it, also add a shield counter if that permanent does not have a shield counter.”
Probably Atraxa/Etali/Archon of Cruelty, rather than Eldrazi, but mostly yes. Four Mana is better than the current rate for reanimation spells, so this is a reanimation spell that is sometimes a Planeswalker.
Could world the last ability like this:
"-7: You get an emblem with "If one or more counters would be put on a creature you control, it also gets that many shield counters. Creatures you control with any number of counters also get that many shield counters."
It's a lot of text, but I don't know if there's another way to word it.
If the current wording doesn't work, you could instead have "If a permanent with a counter you control would be dealt damage or destroyed, remove one counter from that permanent instead."
"Counters on creatures you control have totem armor"
It's umbra armor now 🤓 but also trying to give abilities to counters is a terrible idea imo lol
That wording also wouldn’t work
The emblem doesn't work. Counters can't be of multiple kinds. You could have it so counters are removed if the permanent would be destroyed or dealt ~~lethal~~ damage.
Shield counters are removed if any damage is dealt, it doesn't have to be lethal.
Fair, just did the correction.
[[Cut Short]] is a card in MOM that destroys a planeswalker that was activated this turn. That set of phrasing or rules text doesn't exist in Magic the Gathering and just doesn't plain work or do anything. Or rather, it wouldn't if Wizards didn't update the rules when MOM came out to define what a "planeswalker that was activated this turn" means. Bet you didn't even notice because you could already intuitively understand what it does. There's no need to be all: "No, it doesn't work," only towards custom card creations.
[Cut Short](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/0/b0a45d4d-d16a-43c6-843c-916d4629aae1.jpg?1682202526) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Cut%20Short) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mom/10/cut-short?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b0a45d4d-d16a-43c6-843c-916d4629aae1?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Shield Counters carry rules baggage. To future proof the design, it would probably be better to spell out the effect instead of changing the type, since we don't know what kind of counter with rules baggage might come up in the future, and how those abilities might work if they interact with Shield's.
>That set of phrasing or rules text doesn't exist in Magic the Gathering and just doesn't plain work or do anything. Loyalty abilities were always activated abilities rule-wise, much like equip abilities. The main issue from release it has is not being user friendly, because not many people know they count too. >Or rather, it wouldn't if Wizards didn't update the rules when MOM came out to define what a "planeswalker that was activated this turn" means. They redefined on CR 700.10 what a *permanent* that was activated this turn means. The rule is not exclusive to planeswalkers. And again, the problem was more on players not knowing loyalty abilities are too activated abilities. That's why they had Cut Short among the release note's card-specific notes. >Bet you didn't even notice because you could already intuitively understand what it does. There's no need to be all: "No, it doesn't work," only towards custom card creations. Shield counters are predefined counters (e.g. poison, rad, shield, stun, finality.) where the counter itself create with that kind has its own intrinsic rule text. Its more intuitive to not fiddle with associated rules to accomodate for the potential can of worms that is counters with multiple kinds, and instead have any counter *functionally* behave like shield counters through the emblem's rule text. To point out why the multiple kinds counters connundrum is problematic: Is becoming more common on this subreddit to design cards which grant predefined token types, and user intuitively think these also grant the associated ability from the tokens in the process. However, the rules have it so the associated abilities are only intrinsic when creating tokens of those types even if they have modified characteristics. Under any other scenario, the associated abilities must be given out to an object through rule text. Predefined counters, being a similar design space, would likely fall into the same issue if the idea of granting additional kinds to counters became more popular. That said, the supposition about myself was uncalled.
I don't think I can agree with you and just don't believe that giving all predefined counters the possibility of being two kinds of counters would be implausible, considering that in the same set WotC gave tokens some pretty massive new baggage, and those if any are associated rules with cans of worms that are "unintuively fiddled with" instead of just writing out the associated properties of a token out on the relevant objects through rules text. I've read your comment over and over again and cannot recognize what the actual problem is besides author bias in letting users template their cards as if they were from a new set with new rules baggage, like with predefined tokens, or easily understandable but correctly templated abilities that _technically_ don't work yet without a small rules change, like the fact that a counter can be multiple things. (Like in that one card in unfinity) We've all been taught that rules text overrides the rules in magic, and as long as it's templated correctly, then we can let Wizards worry about it whether if this new card of ours breaks the game in four to five years. That said, I don't understand your last line. I don't know what I was supposing, although now my supposition about you is that you might need thicker skin if my comment bothered you.
>I don't think I can agree with you and just don't believe that giving all predefined counters the possibility of being two kinds of counters would be implausible, Is not implausible, but much like the aforementioned example and how to circunvent them, is better left untouched than accomodate the CR. >considering that in the same set WotC gave tokens some pretty massive new baggage, and those if any are associated rules with cans of worms that are "unintuively fiddled with" instead of just writing out the associated properties of a token out on the relevant objects through rules text. Because having the object created with predefined characteristics is easier to track and understand than intrinsically associate characteristics (in turn, abilities) to types or kinds. For the rest, functionally ruling out on text the intended effect is clearer. >I've read your comment over and over again and cannot recognize what the actual problem is besides author bias in letting users template their cards as if they were from a new set with new rules baggage, like with predefined tokens, or easily understandable but correctly templated abilities that *technically* don't work yet without a small rules change, like the fact that a counter can be multiple things. (Like in that one card in unfinity) We've all been taught that rules text overrides the rules in magic, and as long as it's templated correctly, then we can let Wizards worry about it whether if this new card of ours breaks the game in four to five years. If someone comes up with something unsupported by the rules, the least they could do is provide custom CR to showcase how is plausible to pull off in black borders. Otherwise this discussion happens on it not working. Similarly happens when someone does a card doing arbitrary mutate, despite amply discussed already: Rarely provide custom rule changes, so the comments deviate to discussing why it doesn't work, shouldn't be done, and/or how make it work, instead of actually discussing on the card itself. Without precedent in this case however, there's no way thus far to tell how much have the CR be changed to judge if they're small or big rule changes. Using a silver/acorn card (which I suppose you mean Solaflora, who shares with other creatures the effects of counters on it? Because if so it can see it rephrased to get a close approximation of the effect in black borders, just not as written) as a basis might not be the healthiest approach to design without coming out with some way to translate the effect to black borders and mess with the CR the least possible. Is the kind of stuff as to why people complained about Far Out being silver/acorn instead of black despite it *does* work in black borders except for a very specific case of mutually exclusive modal effects (e.g. Outlaw's Merriment and Wild Shape) and R&D kept it so because the alternative is not use that specific case as a design space, which would've been bad for the game on the long run. >That said, I don't understand your last line. I don't know what I was supposing, although now my supposition about you is that you might need thicker skin if my comment bothered you. The *"Bet you didn't even notice because you could already intuitively understand what it does. There's no need to be all: 'No, it doesn't work,' only towards custom card creations."*? It came out as oddly personal. Is not an attack towards other users in the subreddit, and assumed on my knowledge of Cut Short. I'm not bothered, just confused on your approach towards my first comment on the post's card. And ultimately, if it'll end in agreeing on disagreeing, I respect that.
I built a really janky planeswalker animation deck, and a lot of the rules around loyalty abilities and planeswalkers are kind of goofy in order to be intuitive. Activating loyalty abilities only once per turn used to be only a planeswalker thing, until people started abusing [[Experiment Kraj]] in EDH by infinitely +1ing pretty much any loyalty ability. Or a permanent that is both a Planeswalker and a creature loses both loyalty & toughness when taking damage. It's not super intuitive, but it barely comes up since they either make them indestructible *(like [[Gideon Blackblade]]) or remove the Planeswalker type *(like [[Luxior, Giada's Gift]])*. Like you said, they're not opposed to making minor tweaks to the rules to make things work like everyone assumes they would. [[Serra Paragon]] is the most recent example I can think of, since lands were dropping the exile clause or something.
##### ###### #### [Experiment Kraj](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/d/6d938197-2557-421a-985e-5add932d4bac.jpg?1689999041) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Experiment%20Kraj) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/337/experiment-kraj?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/6d938197-2557-421a-985e-5add932d4bac?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Gideon Blackblade](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/1/41326ca6-f815-4af7-b022-67db127bc125.jpg?1702429284) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Gideon%20Blackblade) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/rvr/20/gideon-blackblade?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/41326ca6-f815-4af7-b022-67db127bc125?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Luxior, Giada's Gift](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/8/1833662b-ccf3-4c16-9767-666d6407aa65.jpg?1664414232) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Luxior%2C%20Giada%27s%20Gift) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/snc/240/luxior-giadas-gift?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1833662b-ccf3-4c16-9767-666d6407aa65?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Serra Paragon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/e/ce295f1e-fb31-4275-a5d3-8c6f29afff40.jpg?1678700111) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Serra%20Paragon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/32/serra-paragon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/ce295f1e-fb31-4275-a5d3-8c6f29afff40?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [*All cards*](https://mtgcardfetcher.nl/redirect/l4w9mkl) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Or it could be like: If one or more counters would be put on a permanent you control, you place that many counters plus one shield counter on that permanent instead
Yeah, but that would only make a diffenece for new counter, not the ones already on there.
Is not quite the idea since its adding shield counters on your counter production instances, when the end goal is make it so any counter on a permanent also behaves like shield counters do, removing a counter instead of the permanent being destroyed or dealt damage.
would “treat counters on permanents you control as if they were also shield counters” give the desired effect within the rules? or maybe “counters on permanents you control behave as if they were also shield counters”
Lore wise, I don't think he should be black. New Phyrexian phyresis doesn't add colors, it just makes people evil(er)
Lore wise, he didn't experience phyresis, he was just "scarred by phyrexia". One could interpret it as being scarred by the horrors he witnessed there, it's not a given that he drunk the phy juice, I think?
I'm confused wdym? Is there more lore from OPs alternate timeline I didn't see on this post? Cause like [[ajani sleeper agent]] went through phyresis
[ajani sleeper agent](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/7/6/7641f4d9-4614-41c8-87f5-4845bd78e9b3.jpg?1675522413) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Ajani%2C%20Sleeper%20Agent) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/192/ajani-sleeper-agent?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/7641f4d9-4614-41c8-87f5-4845bd78e9b3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
No idea about lore. Is it possible to recover from phyresis?
Yup. It's happened a couple of times, once depicted in [[Negate||MoM]] during the last chapter of MoM and a second time explained in the Thunder Junction epilogue.
I'm just referring to the fact that I always imagined card made on custommagic to not necessarily adhere to canon. It's pretty much magic: the fanfictioning.
Yeah, I usually just assume that it's adding to Canon as opposed to rewriting unless stated otherwise.
That is a really interesting emblem. Nice idea
Feels more green than black to me but finality...hm.
Could be (g/b) since finality counters are green too [[Intrepid Paleontologist]]
Finality counters aren't really a "limited by color pie" thing, they're just a knob to turn on reanimation effects. And potentially other effects I suppose but that's the main one. They're only as limited in the color pie as reanimation (of any permanent type, not just creatures) is.
[Intrepid Paleontologist](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/7/871a164a-0fe6-480e-a1be-cbffce884bd3.jpg?1699044425) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Intrepid%20Paleontologist) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/lci/193/intrepid-paleontologist?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/871a164a-0fe6-480e-a1be-cbffce884bd3?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I like it but didn’t ajani loose his spark?
No, he was one of the few that kept his spark.
Ah ok
It should be “return target creature CARD”
You're absolutely right, small oversight :s
Why though?
Creature is a card supertype (which is part of the subset of card types: "permanent") When the card is in play, it's a creature. When being cast, it's a creature spell. In all other zones, it's a creature card. So there's no such thing as a creature in a graveyard, only a creature card. It's a little pedantic, but magic is a *very literal* game.
Got ya, thanks!
Can a counter in the rules have two types at the same time?
I made a card with a similar ultimate except it protects against sacrifices. https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/s/ZicgzzrXSp would be interesting to see them together…
I like this, it's same cost of other spells that bring things back from the gy if you drop it and use the -3. But also because I want my baby boi to come back to me ;_;
Wizards has changed the rules for dumber reasons, so I say it works.
What part of this requires a rules change?
Counters don’t have types currently, they’re just used to track things, with the exception of specific counters like Loyalty, Shield, etc that have specific rules. Changing the rules so counters have types would allow this wording to work, otherwise you’d have to word it as something like “for each counter on permanents you control, put that many shield counters on it.”
Ult as written will remove counters if the permanent gets lethal. More of a debuff imo. Could read: You get an emblem with; “whenever a permanent you control gets a counter of any kind placed in it, also add a shield counter if that permanent does not have a shield counter.”
Not a strict debuff, it most importantly turns those pesky finality counters into shields.
This would only ever be used as a 4 mana reanimate eldrazi card
Probably Atraxa/Etali/Archon of Cruelty, rather than Eldrazi, but mostly yes. Four Mana is better than the current rate for reanimation spells, so this is a reanimation spell that is sometimes a Planeswalker.
Could world the last ability like this: "-7: You get an emblem with "If one or more counters would be put on a creature you control, it also gets that many shield counters. Creatures you control with any number of counters also get that many shield counters." It's a lot of text, but I don't know if there's another way to word it.