MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Pro Team Contest - (Cardsmith Compliation) - #2
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
You're close. It would work like you stated, however, it doesn't specify that the creatures have to be untapped. You can "tap" already tapped creatures. Therefore, if you had 6 creatures in play (three of which had "instruct" abilities) you could tap 3 of them 3 times granting each all benefits from the "instructors".
"You can "tap" already tapped creatures."
But that's not possible to activate stuff, is it? That would be weird with the Crew mechanic in Kaladesh.
Unless specified, you may always tap something that is already tapped. Of course, you can't activate an ability on a creature with {t} unless you manage to tap it while it was untapped, but that is a totally different situation.
117.3. A player can’t pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can’t pay a cost of 2 life, and a permanent that’s already tapped can’t be tapped to pay a cost.
So either we've been playing convoke all wrong, or @Faiths_Guide owes @squee an apology or two.
XD
I do agree it's counter-intuitive though
Jul, Adaptation Mentor
4GU
Legendary Creature - Human Shaman
3/5
Hexproof
Instruct (T: Tap any number of untapped creatures you control to instruct them.)
Whenever you instruct a creature, put a +1/+1 counter on it.
Or something along those lines?
[ That way a creature can "attend multiple seminars" by tapping, but they couldn't tap to accomplish something else (ie. attack) and "still make it to class on time". ]
I highly recommend that all those among you that are curious refer to the discussion between @DomriKade and I on Jult's page - http://mtgcardsmith.com/view/adaptation-mentor It should clear everything up!
XD
> It doesn't matter if creatures get tapped before by attacking, they will be considered tapped by an instruct ability even if they're already tapped, therefore creating the "I attack but still arrive on time for the class" situation you wanted to avoid
> Additionally, the very fact that there is a debate around how this work is a strong indication that you need to reword it. You literally put it on a forum and got 3 different interpretations, that's the definition of failing the complexity test for a keyword XD
Then again, you're the one who decide for your cards, I don't want to flood Trippleboggey's topic (sorry ^^"), I'll be waiting to see what's your final decision on this!
Therefore, to get the bonus from instruct you must first have been untapped and become tapped by it. From then on, you can continue to receive bonuses from other "instruction".
I hope this clears things up, but I agree it must be a little on the "too complex" side if it's befuddled this many already!
JUDGE!
Now that... may be a valid point...
"So... I've been thinking about this because this is a really clever ability. Bear with me.
'Instruct' as it currently stands isn't a keyword. It's an ability word which means it has no rules text. Therefore, 'tapped by an instruct ability' has no rules meaning. I think the way it's worded is clear but it doesn't function within MtG rules. It may be correct to be keyworded and have Instruct be '{t}: Tap any number of creatures you control.' Then the effect would be, 'Whenever this creature instructs, effect each creature you control tapped by an instruct ability this turn effect.'"
Resulting in:
Instruct ({t}: Tap any number of creatures you control.)
Afterwards they would specify additional effects in this format:
Whenever this creature instructs, [effect] each creature you control tapped by an instruct ability this turn [effect].
Maybe you can actually shorten it also?
Instruct ({t}: Tap any number of untapped creatures you control to instruct them.)
Whenever this creature instructs, [effect] each creature you instructed this turn [effect].
Nice! Thanks for the input!
Only thing is that, before, if you were in a mirror match your opponent could instruct his creatures and get the benefits of your instructing as well. I actually thought that was kindof cool (though it could become even more difficult to keep track of).
I suppose the revision would be as simple as:
Whenever this creature instructs, [effect] each creature instructed this turn [effect].
Instruct ({t}: Tap any number of untapped creatures you control. They become instructed until end of turn.)
Whenever this creature instructs, [effect] each instructed creature [effect].
It's like renowned or monstrous but temporary.
So, new question. Can a creature be passively monstrous or renowned?
Towering Automaton {6}
Creature - Construct
Reach
Towering Automaton is monstrous.
When Towering Automaton dies, it deals 1
damage to each creature without flying.
[ 4 / 5 ]
702.111b "...Only permanents can be or become renowned..."
I think you can all see where I'm going with this...
So yes, it's possible, but I don't see why I would want Towering Automaton over this for instance:
But if the question is "Should we do a creature that's always instructed?" then yes that would be a super cool uncommon! Maybe even put it in the creature type? I don't know if that would work that way?
Enchantment-Aura
As long as enchanted creature is shirtless, it gains +1/+1 and menace."
Also, quick team update for @TrippleBoggey3. We are doing great! We finalized the mechanic (I think, we may make a change possibly but we are pretty happy with what we have so far). It's gonna be super cool, and I cannot wait to spoil some cards!
As you know, you're going after a mechanic that got shut down for complexity issues, while also being one of the first evergreen mechanic of early Magic with a lot of weird and interesting design space like "Band with others". So this is a real risk as you could end up in the same complexity creeps that killed the mechanics 19 years ago, but if you manage to find some whole new design space for the mechanic it could be extremely rewarding! I'm really looking forward to what you're going to propose with Banding, this is gonna be very interesting
To be fair, as he doesn't have reminder text, he should no longer be the spoiler card...
"Wouldn't it be a shame for harm to befall the newest pupils?"
Another reason I was thinking of something being passively monstrous was this:
Slayer by @Fury59:
Slayer (Whenever this creature blocks or is blocked by monstrous creature or legendary creature, this creature gets +2/+0 and gains first strike until end of turn.)
But I think it's a matter of design space. If you refrain to make cards that care about creatures being Monstruous, it means you can create a similar mechanic that's called Renown and can have Enshrouding Mist caring about it because it's less flashy but happen earlier in the game and more often, so it needs it more than Monstruous. Mechanics that uses +1/+1 counters to signify a permanent has changed is something that has a huge design space, it's probably for the best that they compartimentalize it and make multiple mechanics with focused flavour instead of a Giant mechanic that eats all the design space and becomes flavourless. It really reminds me of the debate about Kicker actually.
@Faiths_Guide Well Slayer has an obvious problem: it's a mechanic that is parasitic in the worst way possible, as it needs *your opponent* to play a very specific subset of cards. I mean, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that your opponent plays none to only a couple of Legendaries/Monstruous creatures in his or her entire deck. It's an absolute veto. This mechanic would do absolutely nothing in most games