Guard Against Cards Not Cast - Great Idea
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Aug. 26, 2016, 7:11 a.m. by jcris25
Guys, this is very viable seriously. Tell me what you think. What kind of card could this be? Enchantment, Artifact, Wizard creature. You tell me! I want to hear your thoughts.
If a permanent would be placed on, or enter the battlefield and was not cast, if it is not the first card this turn to enter the battlefield this way, it gains suspend 1. Each card that enters the battlefield this way in succession of the first, gains an additional suspend counter. (example: the 2ed card entering this way gains suspend 1, the 3rd card entering this way gains suspend 2 etc...)
Wording, off, and I see your aim. But real question. Is it better than Containment Priest
August 26, 2016 7:46 a.m.
Seems like an over-the-top Containment Priest, aside from desperately needing some template fixes.
August 26, 2016 7:47 a.m.
Wording:
If a nontoken permanent would enter the battlefield and it wasn't cast, it gains suspend X, where X is the number of other nontoken permanents that entered the battlefield this turn.
I believe this is maybe a correct way to write it.
Furthermore, I don't understand why you would want souch an effect? Why not just play the creature already mentioned?
August 26, 2016 8:58 a.m.
EddCrawley says... #7
I would say this sounds like an Enchantment card, with Flash;
Should any card be cast from anywhere other than a players hand, it gains Suspend X, where X is the number of cards suspended this way this turn.
August 26, 2016 9 a.m. Edited.
August 26, 2016 9:39 a.m.
How can it sound like an over the top Containment Priest? That is literally a laughable comment. I am talking about suspend here not exile and furthermore a 2/2 creature for 2cmc oh yeah and with flash! This card is an alternative to cards like that. I am thinking either blue or a mana ability artifact.
August 26, 2016 9:49 a.m.
If a nontoken permanent would enter the battlefield and it wasn't cast, exile it instead. If it's exiled this way, put X time counters on it, where X is the number of other nontoken permanents exiled with ~ this turn. If it doesn't have suspend, it gains suspend.
Better?
I'm a little confused on how to integrate the "not first" part...
August 26, 2016 9:58 a.m.
jcris25 - It's over the top because it's just too wordy and needlessly complicated. Containmaint priest and others do it in about 2 and a half lines of text. What you suggested would need lines and lines of text because it's full of intervening "if" clauses.
August 26, 2016 10:02 a.m.
ducttapedeckbox says... #12
What happens if a permanent gets Suspend 0? Does it immediately ETB or need to wait for your next upkeep?
This is wordy/too complicated for an ability that already exists. 9/10 times Containment Priest is going to be more useful unless you're playing a chaos or group hug-ish deck. It's a custom card so whatever..
August 26, 2016 10:09 a.m. Edited.
TheRedMage says... #13
@The_Raven - I see your issue. This card is kind of a templating challenge, because it's clearly designed with the idea in mind that permanents enter the battlefield one at the time, where usually Magic cards are worded in such a way to account for the idea that multiple permanents can enter the battlefield at the same time.
In order to provide accurate templating for this card we need jcris25 to let us know what the intended behavior is exactly. I suspect the best way to implement the "except the first one" clause is with counter technology:
If a nontoken permanent would enter the battlefield and it wasn't cast, exile it unless [This Card] has no safety counters on it. If you do, put X Time counters on that permanent, where X is the number of Safety counters on [This Card], then put a Safety Counter on [This Card]. Otherwise, put that card onto the battlefield and put a Safety counter on [This Card]. If a card exiled this way doesn't have Suspend, it gains Suspend.
At the beginning of each upkeep, remove all Safety counters from [This Card]
Notice that with this wording the card behaves weirdly with cards like Tooth and Nail. Specifically, if you put two creatures on the battlefield at the same time, neither of them will be exiled and this will accrue two counters (at least I think it works that way), which I am sure is not an intended feature, but templating it in such a way that the first creature gets in and the second gets suspended is even dicier.it's not that it can't be done - anything can be templated if you throw enough words at it - but this card is already a templating nightmare and fitting all the additional text that that would cause on the small space that a Magic card offers is going to start becoming challenging.
August 26, 2016 3:38 p.m.
The_Raven I'm no templates master, but I see this.
"Whenever a nonland, nontoken permanent enters the battlefield, if that card wasn't cast, exile it with X time counters, where X is the number of other nonland, nontoken permanents that entered the battlefield this way this turn. If it doesn't have suspend, it gains suspend.
Still too clunky for words, but I tried.
Question: how does this work with Shahrazad?
August 26, 2016 4:01 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #15
Why overcomplicate things with the scaling suspend times? Simplicity is usually better.
"Whenever a nonland card would enter the battlefield, if it wasn't cast, exile it with one time counter on it. If it doesn't have suspend, it gains suspend."
Also, as an observation, you don't encourage feedback if you start off claiming that this is a "great idea" and that any valid criticism is "literally laughable."
jcris25 says... #2
I have tried to edit and update "in succession of the second" to "in succession of the first" but the edit is not reflecting the change accurately. It may be my computer but that's what I meant to say. Thanks.
August 26, 2016 7:24 a.m.