What's the correct wording for this ability?
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Aug. 18, 2015, 3:20 p.m. by ABadMagicPlayer100
For my new set design, I've created a mechanic called Crippling:
Crippling (Whenever this creature deals combat damage to another creature, put a crippling counter on that creature. Creatures with crippling counters get -1/-0 for each crippling counter on them).
However, I'm not a rules expert and I don't know if this is properly worded. The desired effect is that crippling counters are essentially -1/-0 counters, but I don't want crippling to interact weirdly with -1/-0 counters from older sets. My concern is that the way it's currently worded, if there were 2 creatures with crippling, the -1/-0 ability would "stack," causing crippled creatures to get -2/-0 per counter. Is this the case, and if so, what's the proper way to word this effect?
I would look at Wither or Infect for inspiration for how to word this ability. The mechanic just seems poor, as using -1/-1 counters is better for memory issues as opposed to "crippling counters". But if you're dead set on this mechanic, I'd template it after Wither and Infect.
August 18, 2015 3:44 p.m.
ABadMagicPlayer100 says... #4
@JWiley129, in addition to the mechanic being flavorful to the faction it represents in my set, there will be cards in that faction that care about how many creatures opponents control, therefore making it relevant that the creatures don't die. I may template the ability like Wither or Infect after testing if the ability proves to be weak, but as it is right now, I want this faction to be playing with a more attrition-y game style and putting multiple counters on the creature at once may weaken them too quickly to promote that playstyle.
August 18, 2015 4:13 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #5
There is exactly one card that produces -1/-0 counters, and that is Jabari's Influence. The chance is also nigh zero that WotC will print more cards that do. They want to have as few different counters in use as possible. Heck, I'd be glad if they finally gave charge counters (third most common counter type) some love, but nowadays it's all just +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters.
I think it is save to just use -1/-0 counters and proceed to work on other details.
August 18, 2015 4:40 p.m.
ItchiUchiha117 says... #6
You could make it so that most creatures with Crippling have a static effect. As it is, the rules baggage that would go along with this ability would basically make it so that crippling counters were the things giving the creature -1/-0. For example:
~~ 
Creature - Human Warrior
Crippling (When this creature deals combat damage to another creature, that creature gets a crippling counter.)
Creatures with crippling counters get -X/-0 where X is the number of crippling counters on them.
2/2
Would that work? You could also make other static effects for the creatures, like giving them defender or, given that you said you want the faction to be a more attrition based group:
Creatures with crippling counters have "At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose 1 life."
August 18, 2015 4:45 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #7
Another aspect to consider is which creature will survive the exchange of combat damage.
For example, a 1/1 that puts cripple counters on a creature and has a static ability to make the creatures lose power is pointless. Either it dies, and the static ability with it, or it survives, which means the creature it dealt damage to (and received damage from) already had zero power.
Then there's the other extreme, a creature that has 4/4 and crippling. Most creatures facing it will be dead before even receiving the counter.
If you want to use a static effect on a crippling creature to make cripple work, then both creatures must be likely to survive combat.
First off, I'd cut combat damage out of the equation by making creatures with crippling deal damage in form of -1/-0 counters or cripple counters instead of applying them after combat damage to avoid killing them, as proposed by JWiley129.
Then, there's the matter of which type of counter to use. I'd go with -1/-0 counters. The power reduction does not stack that way, and any static ability that refers to a cripple counter can refer to a -1/-0 counter just as well. If you don't need a static ability on a creature, then it lifts the restriction of having to give that creature a high toughness, which in turn gives you more freedom to make your creatures as tough as you deem fitting.
The main problem we have here is the way that the flavor is expressed in the mechanics. You can express it through the name of the mechanics or express it through behavior of the mechanics. I always prefer the latter. You basically get three places to express the flavor in plain text: Card names, flavor text and keywords. That's it. I would use only name and flavor text to let the audience know what concept the card is representing, and maybe the keyword to show that the mechanic is part of that expression. Then I'd make the card represent that concept by making the mechanics behave as the concept would.
Being crippled is not something that only applies when someone is around to enforce it on you. It is something that is imposed on you by whatever occurrence and stays on you even after they are gone. It is something you carry with you and diminishes your abilities regardless of situation or company. The concept is represented by -1/-0 counters quite well.
However, there are times when that lack of ability will make others deny you access to certain things by putting up hurdles that you can't overcome or by flat out rejecting you. That is where I would use static abilities. They would reference "creatures with power below X" and deny them certain actions like tapping, blocking or attacking (which I think is better done by "can't attack" instead of "has defender" since that really drives the point home that some thing is lost, not gained) or make them pay additional costs. Could be something like "whenever a creature is tapped, it is destroyed unless its controller pays 
for each -1/-0 counter on it".
Then, Social stigma is a problem that the permeates the whole of society, reinforced by the masses. Removing a single individual has never removed widespread prejudice. Global Enchantments could be a great way to represent that aspect in terms of mechanic behavior.
August 18, 2015 6:14 p.m. Edited.
ABadMagicPlayer100 says... #8
Thanks all! Here are my thoughts about the ability based off of all your feedback:
- I've decided to change the mechanic name to Cripple.
- I will change the counters to -1/-0 counters to remove a need for reminder text explaining crippling counters and the potential of stacking.
- I will not template the ability like Wither or Infect. The creatures with Cripple will generally be low-power/high-toughness because it promotes keeping them back on blocks until you can win. It will also help both parties survive combat. to benefit static effects.
August 18, 2015 6:41 p.m.
Triforce-Finder says... #9
I didn't notice that before... Isn't "a cripple" also used to describe someone that is crippled? That is kind of the reason that creatures have "flying" and not "fly". Bzzzzz.
August 18, 2015 7:08 p.m.
ABadMagicPlayer100 says... #10
I believe that "cripple" is usually used in its verb form, whereas "fly" is usually used to describe the insect.
alecm says... #2
"A creature with Crippling counters on them receive -X/-0, where X is the number of Crippling counters on it."
Also, just a thought, I feel like it'd be Cripple, instead of Crippling. All the keywords I can think of are attributes that the card has, not that it is (Flying being the only exception), but it's usually Trample instead of Trampling, or Wither instead of Withering, etc.
August 18, 2015 3:30 p.m.