Perfectus // Impuritice | A Split-Card Commander

Custom Cards forum

Posted on Sept. 17, 2015, 10:42 a.m. by kanokarob

My goal here was a commander that could change depending on the state of your board. One avoids boardwipes, the other avoids targeting spells. (Yes im aware Impuritice could just have Shroud but I wanted to maintain flavor with Perfectus.)

http://i.imgur.com/oYj5bnc.png

Lame_Duck says... #2

It's an interesting design, but the way that Protection functions means that your card won't work as intended.

Protection means the card can't be damaged, enchanted, blocked or targeted so Perfectus would still be killed by any board wipe that doesn't use damage.

Also, I think a split permanent would have the same problems as the old flip creatures like Nezumi Shortfang in that it's visually difficult to tell which form the card is when it's on the battlefield.

September 17, 2015 10:58 a.m. Edited.

kanokarob says... #3

That would be an easy fix, I'd just put a die on the active one.

How could I word it so Perfectus doesn't die to boardwipes as intended?

September 17, 2015 11:02 a.m.

kanokarob says... #4

Updated both sides to reflect their intended abilities.

September 17, 2015 11:28 a.m.

Lame_Duck says... #5

I'm trying to come up with one, but it's made difficult by how many different methods there are to wipe the board. The best way that I can think of that should dodge most of them is an AEtherling-like ability. Something along the lines of:

"Whenever a player casts a spell or activates an ability that doesn't target Perfectus, you may exile it. If you do, return it to the battlefield under your control at the beginning of the next end step."

It's super wordy and ruins the symmetry you were going for and even then it wouldn't stop triggered abilities like Child of Alara's. I don't know, maybe someone else can think of something better.

September 17, 2015 11:35 a.m.

kanokarob says... #6

Well if the one I thought up doesn't quite work I may end up having to do that. Thanks for the help.

September 17, 2015 11:40 a.m.

MagicalHacker says... #7

Even though I think designing a split commander is super neat and very awesome design space, I think that ultimately, having split creatures can be very confusing for players and on top of that this design could be done more simply:

Impuritice Perfectus

Legendary Creature - Demon Angel

Flying

When ~ enters the battlefield, if you control more white permanents than black permanents, ~ gains indestructible. Otherwise, ~ gains hexproof.

5/5


Or...


Impuritice Perfectus

Legendary Creature - Demon Angel

Flying

As long as you have more white permanents than black permanents, ~ has indestructible.

As long as you have more black permanents than black permanents, ~ has hexproof.

5/5

September 17, 2015 11:41 a.m.

Lame_Duck says... #8

Yeah, unfortunately, there are still plenty of board wipes that will remove Perfectus with the new wording. Black Sun's Zenith, Mutilate or even Inferno don't directly cause Perfectus to leave the battlefield, they either reduce it's toughness to less than 0 or mark damage greater than it's toughness, which causes it to be put into the graveyard by the game's rules.

September 17, 2015 11:47 a.m.

JWiley129 says... #9

Also split card permanents don't work within the rules. That's why all the split cards have been Instants or Sorceries (Breaking / Entering and Fire/Ice as examples). To do what you want you should either use a Double Faced Card or what M a g i c a l H a c k e r suggested.

September 17, 2015 11:49 a.m.

kanokarob says... #10

While a simpler design is quite possible, its also less interesting and unique, which is what I'm trying to do with this series (See: Zahttah, Blind-Mad Sultan). Its not overly complicated to find a way to denote which side is on the board, though I can understand how it could be confusing if you are unused to it. But in a regular playgroup, they'd get the hang of it.

September 17, 2015 11:50 a.m.

kanokarob says... #11

Sadly Magic Set Editor has no option for DFCs, which is what I did want to do to begin with. Obviously I could just make it a written card but that's no fun for me.

Perfectus // Impuritice is unprecedented, yes, but not impossible to make work.

September 17, 2015 11:52 a.m.

MagicalHacker says... #12

kanokarob I am in complete agreement that people would quickly catch on, but as it stands, Magic is complicated enough and that's why the cards try as much as possible to not add to the complexity, and I think having a permanent that is one of two split cards is way WAY beyond the threshold of simplicity. Plus, MSE should have an add-on that lets you do a DFC, which is really the only way you can do this design unless you want to go with the simplified version that I wrote above.

September 17, 2015 12:46 p.m.

HolyFalcon says... #13

MSE has tons of add-ons including DFC as M a g i c a l H a c k e r has stated.

September 17, 2015 1:05 p.m.

kanokarob says... #14

Weird, i guess ill look harder for that that. Thanks guys.

September 17, 2015 2:31 p.m.

JWiley129 says... #15

I just want to add that just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it should be done. That leads to poor design and ineffective cards.

September 17, 2015 2:34 p.m.

kanokarob says... #16

Now a Double Faced Card.

September 17, 2015 4:08 p.m.

I do like M a g i c a l H a c k e r's suggestion however a problem is presented that you have a creature that gets weaker if your board has variety. If you have an equal number of black permanents to white permanents it should do something really stupid instead of becoming vanilla

September 19, 2015 11:25 a.m.

MagicalHacker says... #18

I was thinking it would be cool to have it get both, but that's just ridiculous for a voltron strategy since commander are usually the first colored permanent on the battlefield for those players.

September 19, 2015 12:55 p.m.

I was thinking if equal number of permanents give it a new ability that is comparable to the 2 modes but dumber

September 19, 2015 1 p.m.

MagicalHacker says... #20

Like "0: Regenerate ~."?

September 19, 2015 1:08 p.m.

This discussion has been closed