Unguarded Treasury

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unguarded Treasury -
Artifact
Gift (When this card enters play, you may have target player gain control of it.)
Assailable (Creatures you don't control may attack this permanent as though it was another player.)
Unguarded Treasury must be attacked with a creature if able.
Whenever it's dealt combat damage, that creature's controller gains two life and you lose two life.

Turn enemy dragons into bank-robbers! ^.^

You could better the wording composition by wording Gift as, "You may have this permanent enter the battlefield under any player's control." In this case, it would evade targeting restrictions, but it's cleaner and reads better.


Assailable is surely a beta name for your ability. I can't think of any better suggestions off the top. However, you may have composed the ability wrong. If it's a player, it's got to have a life total. For the same reason, if you define something can be attacked as a creature, you have to define its power and toughness. There are a few ways to fix this, one of them is to just state, "except it has infinite life total"; or define an infinite life total in the comprehensive rulings; or change the entire concept to a different channel.

For example, "This permanent can be attacked directly and dealt damage." You see, it doesn't need to be defined as a creature or player for this purpose. You're revolving around the function of dealing combat damage, so you don't need to encompany any other functions except being attacked and being dealt damage. From here, you've created a brand new game function. Just define its comprehensive functions and rulings how it works—and you're golden.

Example rulings,

01. A permanent with this ability can be attacked directly by creatures. It follows the same protocol as if that player was attacking a planeswalker or another player.
02. A permanent dealt damage this way can be dealt an infinite amount of damage unless otherwise stated.

Other than this,  "must be attacked by a creature" fixes the first non-keyword ability. Did you mean, "~ must be attacked each turn if able"?

The final ability needs to be apart of the first, or it needs to state the card's name. Since they embody two different functions, you want to roll with the second suggestion. When a second clause it tacked on to a first, it needs to reference the function of the first on, or be supplementary to it in someway.


 

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

Hmmm interesting, I like the idea.

Though, what happens when a creature with trample attacks this?

IMAGE(http://i1.minus.com/jbcBXM4z66fMtK.jpg)

192884403 wrote:
surely one can't say complex conditional passive language is bad grammar ?
Unguarded Treasury -
Artifact
Gift (You may have this permanent enters play under any player's control.)
Assailable (Creatures you don't control may attack this permanent as though it was a planeswalker.)
Unguarded Treasury must be attacked each turn if able.
Whenever Unguarded Treasury is dealt combat damage by a creature, that creature's controller gains two life and you lose two life.

I used many different wordings for the second ability in the past, maybe I should recycle the "planeswalker" version just because there are the most rules for this situation and because that also explains what happens when creatures have trample, right? Since it's actually possible for non-creature permanents to have damage on them and since that damage is removed at the end of each turn, I don't think that it's causing too much trouble.. And it's nice that you're back, even though some people really didn't miss you, it's not because of your designs or your feedback in other threads!
Sorry for the typo, fixed that. It reminds me a lot of Rio's "plunder" concept.


What's your main motives behind this? What've you got in mind?  

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

Well, the current problem with the card is that non-creature, non-planeswalker permanents can't actually be dealt damage. It might work if it's a replacement effect, I'm not entirely sure about that.

The "you control" in the reminder text is mostly unnecessary. Planeswalker can already only be attacked by opponents, and it gives the implication that teammates can attack you.

Yxoque wrote:
This forum can't even ****ing self-destruct properly.

IMAGE(http://img.pokemondb.net/sprites/black-white/anim/normal/plusle.gif)

@Mown: Thank you for your help! ^.^ I'm not sure whether it's possible to damage this artifact right now, maybe I should also specify that it's also possible to ~damage~ this artifact as though it was a planeswalker..

@GM_Champion: Since they printed the first planeswalkers, this mechanic showed up rather often in this forum! And whether you should attack different opponents and/or planeswalkers is a very simple and rare choice, because you just would like to eliminate that opponent or that planeswalker.. That's why I'm sometimes designing cards with that mechanic that offer more difficult choices, here's one that could be printed as uncommon or even common.. Just as with the card above, you have to decide how many creatures should attack this permanent!

Bothered Gatekeeper -
Creature - Human Townsfolk
Assailable (Creatures you don't control may attack this creature as though it was another player.)
Prevent all damage that creatures would deal to you unless Bothered Gatekeeper was attacked this turn.
0/5
The thing is, you don't want to put this ability onto creatures. You'll be taking away from the purpose of combat interactions. The one example you've show is going to be one of the only special cases, which is best summarized into a single ability without utilizing the ability itself. Don't make that mistake of implementing abilities you can't get in each color in equal measure (and all equally as useful).

Taking away the option to block can become a serious issue. So just watch out for that. It depends greatly on how you implement the content, but based on the nature of the suggestion for it (making it a brand-new independant function), creatures would be an off-limit permanent type. You could come up with another ability though—along the lines of, "This creature can be attacked directly." If this was something you already have deeply rooted into your project. 

Still, for that one—I suggest, 

Bothered Gatekeeper can be attacked directly.
Prevent all damage that creatures would deal to you unless Bothered Gatekeeper was attacked this turn.


A stand-alone design, keeping the "Assailable" ability seperate from the creature permanent type.  

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

What do you mean when you're talking about the purpose of combat and blocking? Don't you like that "Bothered Gatekeeper" can't defend himself against creatures attacking him when he's already tapped, for example when he attacked you on the last turn?
One good design adds up to nothing though. You've got to be able to balance it across the board. You'll need four more designs (in each other color), that operate just as well as this one.

Taking away your options to block or not is a drawback. Deathtouch creature—don't want to be forced to block that guy, right? Be aware of the drawback here when it comes to creatures.

It all matters greatly how you implement the ability. If you have too many creatures with this ability, it'll just amount to all combat decisions being pre-decided—detracting from the interactivity of combat itself. You and your opponent just pick and choose creatures to attack directly and can't get beyond that. Having the option to block and who to block with is an essential game component.

Also want to point out, the context of this operating function suggests that other creatures can't even join in on the block with the creature attacked directly, because those blockers are decided after this one has already been declared a blocker. For example, your opponent chooses the creature to attack directly, that creature is locked in an declared a blocker of this special interaction direct attack; then you go into the declare blockers step where you can choose to block all non-special interaction attackers. You see, attacking directly creates a special interaction. Otherwise, the function you might have been intending is provoke → Goblin Grappler.

Do you see the difference? As I said though, it's all very techincal and depends on how you define the ability, as well as how you implement the content. For consistency, matching word and function, you want to keep those abilities as functionally identical as possible—rather than having to hotfix it in the comprehensive rulings (like by saying additional blockers can be supplemented during the declare blockers step).

You want to declare all blockers at once, or else by all logic and context, you'll have creatures who are already locked in as blockers, and can't be supplemented because that option has passed.

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

Actually, your creature doesn't have to block any of your opponent's creatures attacking it! If your opponent attacks your "Bothered Gatekeeper" with Typhoid Rats, you're free to block them with a 1/1 soldier creature token, while "Bothered Gatekeeper" blocks a 4/4 beast creature token.. Nothing happens before the declare blockers step of your combat phase, the rats are only threatening your "Bothered Gatekeeper" and you'll have to prevent them from dealing combat damage in the next steps, for example by blocking them or burning them..
Attacking directly takes away the option to block. Where are you getting this logic from? How are you intending this ability to work?

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

Wait, you just invented attacking directly above, I presented two different wordings for that ability..

* Assailable (Creatures you don't control may attack this permanent as though it was a planeswalker.)
* Assailable (Creatures you don't control may attack this permanent as though it was another player.)

For both abilities, it's pretty obvious that you're free to block creatures as you wish!
Players and planeswalkers are attacked directly though.


Also, most of my comments are referencing the function and wording I suggested in place of the one you're using now. I was pointing out the details in case you'd have missed them otherwise.  

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)

So, yesterday I designed this card with four different abilities, but it's probably too much and I should remove one ability, right?
That's possible, but it's a matter of how it looks rendered. If the text is neat and flush, then you're golden.

IMAGE(http://cdn.bulbagarden.net/upload/1/1c/Spr_4p_389.png)