How to save a life
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Oct. 19, 2015, 3:12 p.m. by tyforthevenom
Cost: 
Type: Enchantment
Effects: players can't lose the game from being 0 or less life
All instants and sorceries have life link
All creatures have lifelink
If a player has 100 or more life they win the game
Epochalyptik says... #3
You should change it to "If a source you control would deal damage, instead prevent that damage and you gain that much life." Or even "would deal damage to a player." Otherwise this just turns into an endless wet noodle fight.
October 19, 2015 3:29 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #5
After submitting this I thought of the Forbidden Orchard Blasphemous Act interaction
October 19, 2015 3:38 p.m.
zyphermage says... #6
It is costed decently I suppose, could maybe use some red too. This sure is a lot of abilities on 1 card though for sure. The middle 2 clauses alone make this thing playable. Maybe leave the first 3 and remove the 100 life auto win. You ought to be winning with those anyways no need for a win button.
October 19, 2015 4:04 p.m.
asasinater13 says... #7
I like the win button and that it's entirely symetrical. No one dies, Everyone gains life, everyone can win from having their life.
I wonder if "Permanents and spells have lifelink" works rules-text wise. I know lifelink wouldn't do anything for a creature that's on the stack, but it could be good. Just to make it more elegant in the wording, of course.
wet noodle fight I think is better for this, because then there would be less complexity in attacking. it would just be "whoever has bigger creatures auto-wins".
October 19, 2015 4:10 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #8
When it stops you losing normally it needs a replacement wincondition
asasinater13 it's a constant effect so once it hits it gives every creature lifelink the moment they hit the battlefield
October 19, 2015 4:13 p.m.
asasinater13 says... #9
I know what it does, I'm wondering at whether it can be written more elegantly/succinctly. I don't think it needs two separate lines, either "creatures, instants, and sorceries have lifelink" or "permanents and spells have lifelink" I'm not sure the second works rules-wise, but I like the idea of wording the two abilities on one line.
the last line was responding to epochalyptik, Just sharing that I believe that creatures being able to deal damage is still good. if there was going to be a damage replacement I think the only way it works is if you only replace damage to a player along the lines of "If a source would deal damage to a player, prevent that damage, that source's controller gains life equal to the amount of damage prevented this way" (the to a player was mentioned by epoch, to be fair) Also in Epoch's wording it loses the symmetrical part of the effect which is kind of important to the card. Makes it much more interesting and feeling even more white than it already does.
October 19, 2015 4:22 p.m.
zyphermage says... #10
I guess my first impression was misunderstood of the intent of the card. It's trying to turn the 0 life game into first to a 100 to win. In that case I think the final clause should be checked on upkeep. That way you don't just win in some step of any phase. That also gives the opponent time to react instead of relying on split second to stop that player.
October 19, 2015 4:31 p.m.
I'm curious if 'not winning' could be considered the same as losing. If not strictly the same, the wording could simply be: "Players can't lose the game." And then include the winning clause: "At the beginning of each player's upkeep, if that player has 100 or more life, they win the game."
October 19, 2015 6:17 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #12
It's strictly to allow for work arounds like Battle of Wits infect Laboratory Maniac or mill in general
October 19, 2015 6:33 p.m.
Epochalyptik says... #13
If a player wins the game, that player's opponents lose the game. There are no "second winners" instead of losers.
MagicalHacker says... #2
I like it :)
October 19, 2015 3:26 p.m.