Artifact Wall

[RisseR]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Let's say Wizards wanted to make a Wall-like thingy that was an
Artifact, but not a creature. In the old days, they would have made
something like this:

***
Pete's Wall {2}
Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
***

How could you template something like this today, assuming you wanted
it to be an Artifact, and not a Creature, because you don't want it
Equippable or Aura-Creature-able?

Or, maybe you could make it a Creature with something like Protection
from Equipment and Protection from Auras. Maybe something like:
***
Pete's Wall {2}
Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
- Defender, Protection from Auras
- Pete's Wall cannot be Equipped.
***

Hmm, that has all kinds of interesting flavors. I mean, it makes sense
you can't Pacifism a wall.

I think they should write-up all the old *REAL* walls like that.
Because Defender alone is just stupid. I like the idea that Walls are
WALLS, and are not the same as guys with a lot of patience.

Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

"Risser" <knucklehead000@yahoo.com> writes:
> Let's say Wizards wanted to make a Wall-like thingy that was an
> Artifact, but not a creature. In the old days, they would have made
> something like this:
>
> ***
> Pete's Wall {2}
> Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
> ***
>
> How could you template something like this today, assuming you wanted
> it to be an Artifact, and not a Creature, because you don't want it
> Equippable or Aura-Creature-able?

Did Walls used to be non-enchantable? I guess I'm just not sure what
you mean... Today I think that the identical card would just be

Pete's Wall {2}
Artifact Creature -- Wall 0/5
Defender

> Or, maybe you could make it a Creature with something like Protection
> from Equipment and Protection from Auras. Maybe something like:
> ***
> Pete's Wall {2}
> Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
> - Defender, Protection from Auras
> - Pete's Wall cannot be Equipped.
> ***
>
> Hmm, that has all kinds of interesting flavors. I mean, it makes sense
> you can't Pacifism a wall.

If you want it to not have Equipment or Auras attached, just give it
"~this~ can't be equipped or enchanted."

Protection from Auras could have some odd effects, as then no Auras
could target or damage it either... And while I'm not sure, there's
probably some crazy Aura somewhere that can do at least one of those.

> I think they should write-up all the old *REAL* walls like that.
> Because Defender alone is just stupid. I like the idea that Walls are
> WALLS, and are not the same as guys with a lot of patience.

Well, I don't think that they should change the old walls. (It always
bugs me when they make functional changes like that.) But I do agree
that Defender was kind of dumb. Not necessarily the keywording of it,
as I can see it making sense to keyword it so that the creature types
don't matter. But "Defender" sounds like it gives some bonus on
defense or something.

I tend to joke that since they keyworded "~this~ can't attack" to be
Defender, pretty soon they'll keyword "~this~ can't block" to be
Aggressor or something, and then Pacifism's text becomes "Enchanted
creature gains Defender and Aggressor."

--
Peter C.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Risser <knucklehead000@yahoo.com> sent:
> Let's say Wizards wanted to make a Wall-like thingy that was an
> Artifact, but not a creature. In the old days, they would have made
> something like this:

> ***
> Pete's Wall {2}
> Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
> ***

> How could you template something like this today, assuming you wanted
> it to be an Artifact, and not a Creature, because you don't want it
> Equippable or Aura-Creature-able?

A wild guess:

Zoe's Nonwall Wall 2 Artifact
Whenever an opponent declares attackers, Zoe's Nonwall Wall becomes a
0/5 Wall creature until end of combat. It's still an artifact.

It would probably need some development and creative input, of course

> Or, maybe you could make it a Creature with something like Protection
> from Equipment and Protection from Auras. Maybe something like:
> ***
> Pete's Wall {2}
> Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
> - Defender, Protection from Auras
> - Pete's Wall cannot be Equipped.
> ***

Protection from Auras also means that your opponent's Aura cards can't
target this wall with their abilities. I'm not sure if there are any
such Auras, mind.

How about "unequippable, unenchantable"?

> Hmm, that has all kinds of interesting flavors. I mean, it makes sense
> you can't Pacifism a wall.

> I think they should write-up all the old *REAL* walls like that.
> Because Defender alone is just stupid. I like the idea that Walls are
> WALLS, and are not the same as guys with a lot of patience.

Not happening any time soon, there's not much call for fixing the older
things these days. Here's a corner of the design space that might be
useful in future, though:

Zoe's Weird Wall {2}{W} Artifact Enchantment - Wall
At the beginning of the declare blockers step, target creature attacking
you that could be blocked by a 0/1 white Wall creature becomes blocked.

Totally plucked the casting cost out of thin air, mind. Artifact and
enchantment slightly offsets the inability to use creature removal on
it. Wall subtype probably wouldn't fly with the current rules, but it's
a very small tweak to allow it in, and it lets all your wall-specific
cards still work. I'm sure there are lots of other ways of designing
wall-like things.

--
-- zoe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Peter Cooper Jr. <pete@cooperjr.name> wrote:

> Protection from Auras could have some odd effects, as then no Auras
> could target or damage it either... And while I'm not sure, there's
> probably some crazy Aura somewhere that can do at least one of those.

Sacrifice Fire Whip: Fire Whip deals 1 damage to target creature or
player.
--
Daniel W. Johnson
panoptes@iquest.net
http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/
039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W

 

[RisseR]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Oh, or what about:

Wally's Weird Wall {3}
Artifact
Whenever you are attacked, put a 0/5 Wall artifact creature token into
play that has "This can't be the target of spells or abilities." If
this token is destroyed, sacrifice Wally's Weird Wall. At the end of
combat, remove this token from the game.


I just want to see real walls come back in the game. I like the idea of
a spell where you lay down a rampart that makes it more difficult for
creatures to attack. I understand the reason they have taken Walls as
actual physical walls out of the game is because it doesn't make sense
to have them be creatures that you can equip, enchant, etc.

So, I want to capture the essence of:
- it isn't a creature, but is an artifact, but
- it blocks a creature

Oh, maybe it's as simple as:

Pete's Sturdy Wall {3}
Artifact
0: Target unblocked creature attacking you becomes blocked. Use this
ability only once per turn.

So, the wall blocks the creature of your choice. It's not succeptable
to creature damage or removal, enchantments or equipment, but can be
hammered by an artifact removal spell. If you wanted to simulate Wall
of Swords you could make the ability something like:

Pete's Pointy Wall {3}
Artifact
0: Target unblocked creature attacking you becomes blocked. Pete's
Pointy Wall deals 3 damage to that creature. Use this ability only
once per turn.


That works for me.

You could also make it a land:
Pete's Field of Rocks
Land
T: Add 1 to your mana pool.
0: Target unblocked creature attacking you becomes blocked. Use this
ability only once per turn.

Anyway, I'd like to see "real walls" come back and I
Peter

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

"Zoe Stephenson" <zrs1@uk.ac.york.reversed> wrote in message
news:dh9o4f$9gq$1@pump1.york.ac.uk...
> Risser <knucklehead000@yahoo.com> sent:
>> Or, maybe you could make it a Creature with something like Protection
>> from Equipment and Protection from Auras. Maybe something like:
>> ***
>> Pete's Wall {2}
>> Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
>> - Defender, Protection from Auras
>> - Pete's Wall cannot be Equipped.
>> ***
>
> Protection from Auras also means that your opponent's Aura cards can't
> target this wall with their abilities. I'm not sure if there are any
> such Auras, mind.
>
> How about "unequippable, unenchantable"?

'Cards can't be attached to ~.'

Wouldn't that be simpler?

>> Hmm, that has all kinds of interesting flavors. I mean, it makes sense
>> you can't Pacifism a wall.
>
>> I think they should write-up all the old *REAL* walls like that.
>> Because Defender alone is just stupid. I like the idea that Walls are
>> WALLS, and are not the same as guys with a lot of patience.
>
> Not happening any time soon, there's not much call for fixing the older
> things these days. Here's a corner of the design space that might be
> useful in future, though:
>
> Zoe's Weird Wall {2}{W} Artifact Enchantment - Wall
> At the beginning of the declare blockers step, target creature attacking
> you that could be blocked by a 0/1 white Wall creature becomes blocked.
>
> Totally plucked the casting cost out of thin air, mind. Artifact and
> enchantment slightly offsets the inability to use creature removal on
> it. Wall subtype probably wouldn't fly with the current rules, but it's
> a very small tweak to allow it in, and it lets all your wall-specific
> cards still work. I'm sure there are lots of other ways of designing
> wall-like things.

I gotta wonder. Have they got to the point where 'Wall' to them conceptually
means 'part of a building', and thus, they have to make it into a building,
thus going into Land territory? Sometimes, a Wall is just a Wall, such as
the Great Wall of China. I don't believe it's actually part of a building,
is it?

Erich

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

Erich Leibrock <eleibrock@symDELETETHECAPSpatico.ca> sent:
> "Zoe Stephenson" <zrs1@uk.ac.york.reversed> wrote in message
> news:dh9o4f$9gq$1@pump1.york.ac.uk...
>> Risser <knucklehead000@yahoo.com> sent:
>>> Or, maybe you could make it a Creature with something like Protection
>>> from Equipment and Protection from Auras. Maybe something like:
>>> ***
>>> Pete's Wall {2}
>>> Artifact Creature - Wall 0/5
>>> - Defender, Protection from Auras
>>> - Pete's Wall cannot be Equipped.
>>> ***
>>
>> Protection from Auras also means that your opponent's Aura cards can't
>> target this wall with their abilities. I'm not sure if there are any
>> such Auras, mind.
>>
>> How about "unequippable, unenchantable"?

> 'Cards can't be attached to ~.'

> Wouldn't that be simpler?

Simpler, but prone to:

Bonesplitter, March of the Machines, Dance of Many, destroy March of the
Machines, equip the wall with the token Bonesplitter.

"unattach-toable"?

--
-- zoe

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc (More info?)

To summon a deamon called Zoe Stephenson you must know the following
incantation:

/snip/
>> 'Cards can't be attached to ~.'
>> Wouldn't that be simpler?
> Simpler, but prone to:
> Bonesplitter, March of the Machines, Dance of Many, destroy March of the
> Machines, equip the wall with the token Bonesplitter.

this is the scene in which i officialy stop doubting that there is
something impossible in m:tg ;]

watman
--
Mateusz "Watman" Wata | http://poggadali.blox.pl
How to contact me: http://republika.pl/watman/kontakt.html
"Work is the curse of the drinking class..."