Lower Resist -A Curse!

[rvs]

It's a pretty simple idea, and since all my other cards are either done or have died, I figured I'd start this up.

Lower Resist
B
Enchantment
All creatures that have protection from a color lose it. All creatures that would gain protection from a color do not.
flavor up for grabs!

Pretty simple eh? The wording seems a bit 'non-standard' to me right now, so you guys got any clue how to simplify and standardize it?

[rvs]

Current Wording:

Veil of Madness
B
Enchantment
All creatures that have protection from a color lose it. All creatures that would gain protection from a color do not.
There's a darkness of the spirit, a waning of one's being/ that leaves us but a shadow/of what we might have been

[Matt]

Though it's not quite the same card, I think it would read better if it said "All creatures lose protection. If a creature would gain protection, instead it does not".

[Robert the Swordsman]

I do believe that this card was inspired by Diablo II...

...either way, it seems pretty legitimate.

[Jacob Orlove]

I do believe that this card was inspired by Diablo II.

So that's where the horrible name came from?

[Matt]

I think it's supposed to be "Lower Resistance." Still horrible.

Okay, think about what it means to have protection. A White Knight is so pure of spirit that black magic just falls right off him. What kind of thing could undo that?

[Dr. Sylvan]

An Enchant World with some kind of apocalyptic overtones. Not a simple global enchantment with cmc one. Good card, bad flavor.

[Matt]

Well it's not just white. Take Beasts of Bogarden - so fiery that white can never extinguish them. Somehow it seems like an apocalyptic event would only make that stronger.

[rvs]

I think you should sort of see this as a permanent curse, where in a dark way, the natural resistence of a being against a certain color/group is de-strengtened

But really, everybody knows I suck at flavor, so why should I stop sucking right now? I like the card idea, and D2 is basicly where it came from. Sue me :p

If there's some sort of consensus as to how it should be, I'll update the wording. Really though, I'm fine with enchant world, but the CC doesn't need to be upped. Let's not forget this is EXTREMELY narrow.

[GerryMander]

hey!  using diablo 2 necromancer curses is cool!

mebby it should sound like:

Lower Resist
 
Enchant World
All creatures lose protection from colors.  If a creature would gain protection from a color, it does not instead.

[leviat]

Ward is usually the term used to apply to protection spells. So white not use something similar for this name.

- Anti-Ward
- Ward Plague
- Penetration Ward

[Marco]

How about:

Aversion
B
Enchantment
All creatures lose protection from colors. If a creature would gain protection from a color, it does not instead.
Adhesion to vice and aversion from goodness.

- I like this a lot
- this would make Benevolent Angel* from my Magic set less broken
- why enchant world? I know the rules and benefits of enchant worlds, but they're not printed anymore
- I re-read Matt's suggestion and I like it too, but it would be even more insidious to deny protection of any kind (not just protection from colors), and may justify a higher casting cost (even if only 1B). At any rate, this effect should have a name containing the word "void" or something similar

* Benevolent Angel
4WWW
Creature - Angel
4/4
Flying
All other creatures you control gain protection from all colors.

[GerryMander]

Unholy Ward!!!!!!!

oh snap!

[BWM]

I am really against Penetration Ward...


We've already had Raping the Wards, so let me do cool stuff, kay??


Unholy Ward is cool though

[Jacob Orlove]

Veil of Madness
B
Enchantment
All creatures that have protection from a color lose it. All creatures that would gain protection from a color do not.
There's a darkness of the spirit, a waning of one's being/ that leaves us but a shadow/of what we might have been

[rvs]

sry for not paying attention to TMD for the past few days :p

I'll update the wording to Jacob's. Great Flavor text!

[GerryMander]

i still don't like how it is worded very much...

[rvs]

how so?

[Jebus]

I think its worded as best as we could hope.

He could change it to a replacement effect I suppose.

[GerryMander]

how so?

i dunno.  it just seems a lil akward to me...  it is probably the best that we are going to get, but i was just hoping that there was a better way to word it...

[rvs]

Well, I can't think of anything better, and Jebus doesn't seem to be able to either. I know it is a little iffy, but it's probably just counter-intuitively or some shit.

[Jebus]

Well, I can't think of anything better, and Jebus doesn't seem to be able to either. I know it is a little iffy, but it's probably just counter-intuitively or some shit.

The only other possibility would be something like:

"If a creature would gain Protection, it doesn't instead"

But, I believe that the current wording works just as well.

[Matt]

'Gain' and 'lose' are not used for static abilities, I think. At the very least, it should be 'have' and 'can't have' or 'don't have'.

Couldn't we word it "Creatures can't have protection from a color"? I don't see any problem with that, and it shortens the card into one sentence (which is also short).

[Jebus]

'Gain' and 'lose' are not used for static abilities, I think. At the very least, it should be 'have' and 'can't have' or 'don't have'.

Couldn't we word it "Creatures can't have protection from a color"? I don't see any problem with that, and it shortens the card into one sentence (which is also short).

Gain and Lose most certainly are used for static abilities.

"Creatures can't have protection..." could work, I suppose.  It just looks clunky to me for some reason.

[Matt]

Are you sure? Cards like Primal Rage, Anger, Crusade, and Absolute Law all say "have" and this is the same kind of effect, therefore we should use 'have'.

You generally don't "gain" something unless you expect to lose it at some point (usually at end of turn).

Note: cards that alter power and toughness often use "get(s)." Perhaps you were thinking of that.

[Jebus]

Are you sure? Cards like Primal Rage, Anger, Crusade, and Absolute Law all say "have" and this is the same kind of effect, therefore we should use 'have'.

You generally don't "gain" something unless you expect to lose it at some point (usually at end of turn).

Note: cards that alter power and toughness often use "get(s)." Perhaps you were thinking of that.

Regardless of the duration, it still gains a static ability.  Of course, I'm not sure if that was the point you were trying to make or not.

Regardless, for this cards purposes, Gain and Have are pretty much interchangable as far as preventing it from getting the ability.

[Matt]

It's not. The point I was making is that while you "gain <a static ability>", static effects that grant such gains are written 'have'. Consider global enchantments with the following texts:

"All creatures have trample." Correct
": All creatures gain trample until end of turn." Correct
"All creatures gain trample." Wrong*

Also, gain vs have does make a difference, because if it only says "creatures can't gain protection" it does nothing about creatures that already have it (Cho-Manno's Blessing already in play on a Savannah Lions), or that have it naturally (White Knight).


*This would not be wrong for a one-time effect such a sorcery or instant. But it IS wrong for something that sticks around in play.

[Jacob Orlove]

Well, it makes White Knight and Cho-Manno'd creatures lose protection.

[Matt]

As currently written, maybe, but if all it said was "creatures can't gain protection" then it would not.

[Jebus]

The replacement effect wording I posted I was only trying to replace the second half of the card that kept cards from getting protection.

It was meant to compliment the effect that caused existing proteciton to be lost.