Cumulative Upkeep Hoser

[netherspirit]

I'm not sure how to word this properly, the idea is that players must pay cumulative upkeep when possible. It's a pretty basic idea and all, but I've got a feeling it may get a little complicated when wording.

Cumulative Upkeep Hoser
4
Artifact
Players must pay all Cumulative Upkeep costs of permanents they control if possible.

I think that just about makes sense, I didn't know which colour to make this so I've just made it an artifact to save hastle, if any one has suggestions on colour then please feel free to suggest. Obviously it needs a name and  possibly flavour text, but this is it for now.

Current Wording:

Cumulative Upkeep Hoser
 
Artifact
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player puts an Age counter on each permanent he or she controls with Cumulative Upkeep.

[parallax]

This is a rules nightmare. I don't know how you force people to pay things. Have you seen the wordings on cards like Drain Power and Word of Command?

[Matt]

Yeah, this doesn't work. What if:

I have 4 swamps and a Flow of Maggots with five age counters, and a Dark Ritual in hand. Am I "forced" to cast the Ritual to pay for the Flow of Maggots?

It's much better if you simply penalize them for not paying it:

"Whenever a permanent with any age counters on it is put into a graveyard from play, that permanent's controller loses 4 life" or something.

[netherspirit]

What if I added a "players play with their hands revealed" clause?

[parallax]

What if I added a "players play with their hands revealed" clause?

No. You really can't force players to take complex actions like paying costs.

Edit: Well, you can, but its not worth it for this card. Cumulative upkeep is already a drawback, besides. Why hose a drawback?

[netherspirit]

Well, I was thinking of things like Braid of Fire (which can cause mana burn) and ones that cost mana (so they become locked out of mana).

EDIT: Basically they have no way to stop the upkeep cost if it becomes too dangerous.

[parallax]

Why would anyone ever play this card? In limited or constructed? There are not enough CU cards, that are powerful enough, to require playing a hoser that doesn't really do much anyway, as most people will hold on to their CU cards until they can't afford to pay anyway. Would you sideboard this card against decks that play Braid of Fire (if there even were any)? CU cards are already designed to be self-hosing.

[LordHomerCat]

When I saw the title, I thought a couple things.   First: 'How do you hose a mechanic thats inherently a drawback?'.  Then, 'Maybe he made a card that lets you get out of actually paying CU'.  Then I read it, and went back to 'Its a card that hoses cards which hose themselves... in a block full of devastating hosers for the few mechanic-driven cards worth using.  I guess it fits in the flavor of Ice Age hosing the ever-loving piss out of every possible mechanic, but its also the most unnecessary thing ever'.

Why would you want to hose a mechanic whose entire design is to hose the cards it's on?

[netherspirit]

Would you sideboard this card against decks that play Braid of Fire (if there even were any)?

Braids of Fire I guess was a bad example for me to use, but I just wanted to shut off players' control over cumulative upkeep. I think it could be used if they were using thins like Phyrexian Etchings etc that require mana for the upkeep.

Why would you want to hose a mechanic whose entire design is to hose the cards it's on?

Do I really have to repeat myself?

[parallax]

If a deck based around Phyrexian Etchings became a force in the metagame, would anyone board this card? Or would they just run Naturalize/Disenchant/whatever artifact board-wiper is printed that block? Even if this card didn't bend the rules over the kitchen counter, I don't see why anyone would ever play it. There are better answers out there to problem permanents. I imagine the Phyrexian Etchings deck would want to pay the CU every turn anyway. That's why they're running the card. This is a very narrow hoser that barely even hoses and requires a significant amount of rules baggage.

[jeek]

How about this:

All permanents gain "Cumulative Upkeep: 0"?

Seems like a pretty good hoser for people trying to play with CU.

[Anusien]

That's really cute, but perhaps a bit too complicated for the effect.  I'd rather say "At the beginning of each player's upkeep, that player puts an Age counter on each permanent they control that <foo>" where foo is either "each permanent they control with cumulative upkeep" or "each permanent they control with an age counter on it."

[netherspirit]

Wording edited.