|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 10:54PM
#11
|
|
|
I would like to know what would be wrong with, "Until end of turn, creatures you control have haste," other than confusion with "Creatures you control gain haste until end of turn."
You could also give yourself the power to create a game event (from the Department of Redundency Department), "Until end of turn, you may have creatures you control gain haste until end of turn."
But as a last resort, you could emblemize it: "You get an emblem with 'Creatures you control have haste' and 'This emblem loses all abilities at end of turn.'"
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 11:06PM
#12
|
|
|
I would like to know what would be wrong with, "Until end of turn, creatures you control have haste," other than confusion with "Creatures you control gain haste until end of turn."
Those two abilities are perfectly good to print, and completely equivalent to each other. Unfortunately, they aren't satisfactory for the goals discussed here because by granting an ability, that effect ends up modifying characteristics. By the continuous effect rules, any continuous effect that has a duration and modifies characteristics has to "lock in" the things it applies to at the moment it's first created. So if you want to take advantage of Godsire  's haste by tapping it for a token, the resulting token would not have haste in the presence of an effect worded that way, and that's what this excursion for different templates is trying to avoid.
Emblems are for planeswalkers only, and temporary emblems are just dumb. Granting an ability to the player is clear, functional, and it doesn't leave garbage lying around with no effect afterwards. The question is whether the templating and rules teams are willing to dole out abilities to players more liberally.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 08, 2013 - 11:28PM
#13
|
|
|
I would like to know what would be wrong with, "Until end of turn, creatures you control have haste," other than confusion with "Creatures you control gain haste until end of turn."
Those two abilities are perfectly good to print, and completely equivalent to each other.
I'm not really fond of that, because they are definitely saying different things in English, to a player that hasn't learned the ins and outs of the game.
I would prefer there be a simple, more elegant way to differentiate between continuous effects that are modifying characteristics and continuous effects that are modifying rules.
Personally, I prefer "have/doesn't have" and "is/isn't" to be different from "gains/loses." But I doubt that's going to go over well...
How about, "Until end of turn, as a rule, creatures you control have haste?" That's a bit too "fourth wall breaking" for me though. No other ideas.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 09, 2013 - 3:16AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2007
|
Maybe we can use "under your control" in a way that would be distinctive and show that it doesn't lock on: "this turn, under your control, creatures have haste" (Of course the rules would have to exlain it) Personally, I prefer "have/doesn't have" and "is/isn't" to be different from "gains/loses."
I'd like to have some sort of distinction like that. It would be like how we can identify tirggered abilities and replacement effects, and it might not be too troublesome. The only problem might be with P/T changing effects as it might be weird to use have/is/are for them ("creatures you control are +1/+1")
Are there any cards that would become to strong, too weak or otherwise ruined from such a distinction?
Would such a distinction be easy to miss or not easily unserstood?
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 12, 2013 - 9:53PM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 23, 2007
|
Suggestion: "target permanent gains "creatures you control have haste" until end of turn.
|
|
|
