MTG Cardsmith Community Forums
Settling an argument.
So I commented on a card about how there was extra "wording" in the ability which I pointed out that could be fixed or taken out. and a user named Lujikul decided to comment in reply to mine about how im not understanding the ability and a bunch of other things that had nothing to do with my comment. posted bellow is My comment and the replies. Please me what you think. Before i forget the Card name is Treeord, King of Nature by, Elderzi
My Comment.
"remove the ( ) and the If / and its perfect"
Lujikul's reply
"Not really. It doesn't have a condition for giving the +1/+1 counters, has off color double strike, and is incredibly powerful, winning the game from the command zone. All you need to do is swing with one elf. After that, you'll rapidly spin out of control. It requires some balancing and most likely an increased cmc as well."
Me
"What are you talking bout? I understand the ability perfectly. Im talking about how the ( ) and the If / doesnt need to be in the ability. It SHOULD go. Eminence- As long as. NOT Eminence - (if/ as long as"
Him
"The second ability gives counters at... some point, I guess, and it doesn't change the fact that the eminence ability is painfully overpowered. You seem to have an issue where you get so hung up on wording and grammar that you tend to miss bigger picture things."
and so on. I posted two comments in response if you want to view the card to check if im lying about what was said.
Tell me what you all think!
My Comment.
"remove the ( ) and the If / and its perfect"
Lujikul's reply
"Not really. It doesn't have a condition for giving the +1/+1 counters, has off color double strike, and is incredibly powerful, winning the game from the command zone. All you need to do is swing with one elf. After that, you'll rapidly spin out of control. It requires some balancing and most likely an increased cmc as well."
Me
"What are you talking bout? I understand the ability perfectly. Im talking about how the ( ) and the If / doesnt need to be in the ability. It SHOULD go. Eminence- As long as. NOT Eminence - (if/ as long as"
Him
"The second ability gives counters at... some point, I guess, and it doesn't change the fact that the eminence ability is painfully overpowered. You seem to have an issue where you get so hung up on wording and grammar that you tend to miss bigger picture things."
and so on. I posted two comments in response if you want to view the card to check if im lying about what was said.
Tell me what you all think!
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://mtgcardsmith.com/view/treeord-king-of-nature
It's true that ability word doesn't need (), and "If /" should be removed. But still the card is far from perfect^^; It's incredibly OP, has many wording mistakes and the last ability's wording doesn't work. I think Lujikul knows all issues, and disagreed with your "and it's perfect."
Eminence cards are difficult to balance because they are like 0 mana indestructible permanent. If I would fix the card..
--------
Treeord, King of Nature {3}{g}{g}
Eminence - Whenever a nontoken Elf creature you control attacks, if Treeord, King of Nature is in the command zone or on the battlefield, you may pay {g}. If you do, create a 1/1 green Elf Warrior creature token.
Vigilance, reach, trample
Whenever another Elf creature enters the battlefield, you may put a +1/+1 counter on it.
[3/5]
--------
*Original eminence was very op, so I nerfed it. It still might be op though.
*I removed double strike because it's not green ability.
*Only the first keyword is capitalized.
*It doesn't need period after the last keyword.
*Cards' subtypes are always capitalized.
*Original wording doesn't say when elves can get +1/+1 counters, but it seemed very op. Also green usually doesn't interact with your nonbasic lands. So I changed the last ability too.
Although I are right about rewording it