Symbicant

[dandan]

Inspired my Matt's thread

I thought it might be cool to join two (or more) creatures together to make one HUUUUUUUUUUUGE lump of lard. Remember that that is 3 cards of investment so I have tried to minimise the card disadvantage potential.

Symbiant
Enchant Creatures (you must target 2 or more creatures)
GG
THIS can only enchant creatures you control
Enchanted creatures cannot attack or block or use any activated abilities
Symbiant is a creature with power and toughness equal to the sum of the power and toughness respectively of creatures it enchants and all of their abilities.

I want it to be possible to kill the Symbiant but let the lesser beings live (otherwise it is suicide to play it!). You can also kill the lesser beings to weaken the Symbiant.

I am sure there are combinations of abilities that would satisfy the wildest Tim. Go for it.

Yes, it does need some major rewording!


Current version

Symbicant
Enchantment
GG
When ~this~ comes into play, put a Union counter on any number of creatures you control that are not called Symbicant, ~This~ becomes a creature with power and toughness equal to the total power and total toughness respectively of all creatures with a Union counter on them.
~This~ has all activated and static abilities of each creature with a Union counter on it.
Each creature with a Union counter on it can't attack or block, and its activated abilities can't be played.

Changes
Ephraim - major rewording including changing it to an Enchantment
Me - stopping multiple Symbicant 'abuse'

[Ephraim]

Not only is the wording awkward, but the memory issues are tricky. The reason why Imprint always removes cards from the game, for example, is so that those physical cards can represent the power of the artifact with the Imprint ability. Typical local enchantments are easy to slide under the targetted permanent. It might be necessary to use some mechanically awkward means to solve this problem.

For example:

Symbiotic Bond
{G}{G}
Enchantment

When ~this~ comes into play, put a symbiant token on any number of creatures you control.

When ~this~ comes into play, it becomes a creature with power equal to the total power of all creatures with a symbiant token on them and toughness equal to the total toughness of all creatures with a symbiant token on them.

Each creature with a symbiant token on it can't attack or block, and its activated abilities can't be played.

[Jacob Orlove]

[card]Dracoplasm[/card]

[Ephraim]

Dracoplasm's power and toughness are fixed once the spell's finished its initial counting. Dandan wants this creature's power and toughness to be dynamic, changing as creatures within the symbiotic bond die.

The only big problem I see with my wording is that it doesn't distinguish between the counters of two different Symbiotic Bonds. Worse yet, what happens when a second Symbiotic Bond puts multiple symbiant tokens on creatures or on another Symbiotic Bond.

Now that I think about it, though, these issues exist whether one's using counters or not. This card just seems rife with confusion. I'm not saying it has no hope, because it's very cool, but from where I'm standing, it's also very complicated, no matter how I look at it.

[kemykal]

i like the idea of making it just an enchantment rather that "Enchant Creatures."  that is just strange.  i think Ephraim's wording works just fine.  also, to get around having two of this card in play, you could simply make it an Enchant World.

[dandan]

I actually like the fact that having 2 in play makes super Symbiants with lots of cards with tokens. Having said that, having two super Symbiants for an investment of 4 creatures and 2 enchantments is not exactly broken.

THE major change from Dracoplasm is that I want the Symbiant to have all of the abilities of the symbiotic parts. It shouldn't just be fat but also adept. This is very important as the 'fun' of Symbiant is in finding sick combos (Arcanis/Reveka and Quirion Ranger/Morphling or Master Decoy and Royal Assassin for example - not exactly broken).

Dracoplasm is bad because for it is usually better to just put a creature enhancing enchantment on a creature if you want fat, and that is a card disadvantage route. Splicing 2 or more creatures, using a card is very very weak if you only get a vanilla fattie. Giving Superman additional powers is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cooler (Symbiant of Morphling and Reveka disagrees that Decree of Justice is the superior choice for 2004)

Just a fun, fun idea that needs the rules issues ironed out. I am not attached to Enchant Creatures but it does at least make it very clear what you are doing. I visualise a pile of creatures (lets be honest, 2) with Symbiant slid under them in actual games.  That solves the memory issues. Making Symbiants of 5+ creatures just isn't going to happen very often.

[Ephraim]

I'm very sorry about that, dandan. I didn't read the card carefully enough. Very well, add to my above card the text

~This~ has all activated abilities of each creature with with a symbiant token on it.

The reason I don't like the idea of creatures with multiple tokens on them is that it becomes confusing to keep track of things when you have to essentially double everything, because of the second Symbiotic Bond (note that my wording allows the first symbiotic bond to derive benefit from counters placed by the second Symbiotic Bond). It's not broken, but it's awkward... I thought for a moment that it would also be more confusing with the absorption of abilities - stuff like Goblin Sharpshooter's untapping ability, but then I realized that's a triggered ability, not an activated one. I suppose the ability absorption doesn't add all that much confusion to the way the card works. I still think it'd be easier to include the text:

When ~this~ comes into play, sacrifice each other Symbiotic Bond you control.

At any rate, it should probably also have a clause that reads:

When ~this~ leaves play remove all symbiant tokens from permanents you control.

I'm beginning to wonder about this card. Even without some of the stuff to make the effect less confusing, the card's just getting filled up with rules text. Can we have word from a templater over whether or not this is going to fit into a text box without reducing the size of the text? I think the card has a lot of fun potential and it's very flavourful, but it just seems to be taking too much space to describe in a way that obeys the rules. So far, if my wording turns out to be optimal it looks like:

Symbiotic Bond
{G}
Enchantment

When ~this~ comes into play, Sacrifice each other CARDNAME that you control.

When ~this~ comes into play, put a symbiant token on any number of creatures you control.

When ~this~ comes into play, it becomes a creature with power equal to the total power of all creatures with a symbiant token on them and toughness equal to the total toughness of all creatures with a symbiant token on them.

Each creature with a symbiant token on it can't attack or block, and its activated abilities can't be played.

When ~this~ leaves play, remove all symbiant counters from permanents you control.

[dandan]

I can't see the problem with multiple Symbiants, I just can't. I make a Symbiant with a Morphling and a Reveka, investing 3 cards for a super pinger (don't try to convince a casual player that FCG is albout pinging!). Then later I cast another Symbiant and put counters on a Sindbad (look at this UG deck taking shape) and a Quirion Ranger as no doubt I already have a Gaea's Touch in play to allow me to play additional Forests anyway. Is it too much for me to have two fat Symbiants that have more abilities than I can possibly usefully use?
I believe that cards that check for counters all currently work even if there are more counters on that permanent (magnet counters anyone?) so I doubt it is even necessary to change 'a counter' to 'a counter or counters'.

Why is it a problem, Symbiants have symbiosis with each other? They are the Borg (just far far weaker), everything should be assimilated.

This gives us

Symbiant
Enchantment
GG
When ~this~ comes into play, put a symbiant token on any number of creatures you control that are not called Symbiant , ~This~  becomes a creature with power equal to the total power of all creatures with a symbiant token on them and toughness equal to the total toughness of all creatures with a symbiant token on them.
~This~ has all activated and static abilities of each creature with a symbiant token on it.
Each creature with a symbiant token on it can't attack or block, and its activated abilities can't be played.

Leaving the counters on merely symbolises the natural inclination of that creature to want to be part of a Symbiant. It also makes Symbiant mirror-matches far more interesting!!!!

P.S. I have just remembered Eater of the Dead! Fear the Eater of the Dead/Reveka/Symbiant combo!!!

[rvs]

P.S. I am not sure of the exact terminology of abilities like Flying. Is it called a static or continuous ability?

Static. Continous abilities generate effects, while static abilities are just that... static. For a more detailed (and maybe better) explentation, see comprules.

[dandan]

Thanks. It is hard using the search feature when you aren't sure what the term is called! Anyway I knew that someone out there would know. I'll just go and edit the above post.....

[dandan]

I've added the current wording to the first post to reflect the discussion so far. I would be very grateful if someone could suggest a shorter version that manages to keep the Symbiant as the sum of the creatures that make it up, including abilities.

[Bram]

Yeah, 'cause right now it rivals Ice Cauldron's wording (93 words of card text vs. 98 or something).

Also, it's 'Symbiont', not 'Symbiant'

[mouth]

When ~this~ comes into play, put a blahblah counter on any number of creatures you control. Then, ~this~ becomes a ~creature type~ creature with power and toughness each equal to the total number of blahblah counters on permanent's you control.
~This~ has all activated and static abilities of each creature with a blahblah counter on it.
Each creature with a blahblah counter on it can't attack or block, and it's activated abilities can't be played.

1. Removed the "that are not called Symbiant" clause from the first sentence. The changing into a creature happens after the counters are spread, so it can't ever put a counter on itself (notice the addition of "Then".) This doesn't stop you from putting other blahblah counters onto a Symbiant from newer Symbiant's, or is this something you're trying to stay away from?

2. Changed the word token into counter.

3. Then changed "symbiant counter" into "blahblah counter", because counters and tokens should never have the same name as permanents. You could make blahblah = something really short, like Borg, to make the templating realistically possible.

4. I figure that you don't actually need a creature type, but it would be much more flavourful to call it a Borg Collective or some such.

Would it work if you changed "on permanent's you control" to "in play"?

[Bram]

I vote for 'i' counters. That way, I might be able to actually squeeze this on a mock-up

[dandan]

I was trying to stay away from a second Symbiant being twice the size of its junior as this is not in flavour with the Symbiant growing by joining creatures. A Symbiant of 2 bears is fine as a 4/4 but making a second Symbiant an 8/8 because of Symbiant number 1 and the bears is not right, despite being OK from a power level point of view.
 I guess I could make it non-token creatures but you just know that the sort of people who would use Symbiants also like Saproling tokens.

Symbiant sounds better than Symbiont.

I don't think we have room for a creature type. Besides nobody but me would like another Fungus, Thallid or Ooze.

I think you are right that it puts counters not tokens on creatures. Union counters is the logical choice.

I'll tidy up the latest wording but I think we need a quantum leap in wording to cut the overlong text to size.

[Bram]

Symbiant sounds better than Symbiont.

For one thing, it doesn't sound better. It sounds the same. Possibly, you think it looks better. And while that may be so, it's still wrong. I think 'carpool tunnel syndrome' looks better but it's still 'carpal tunnel syndrome'. How'd you like it if I made a card called 'Nucular Fusion' or something?

[Jacob Orlove]

This is way too complex and long. Grafting static abilities is a huge problem. What happens if two abilities each set the p/t (eg maro, keldon warlord, nightmare, etc.)? Then we have that whole multiple power/toughness thing that happened to duplicant.

[dandan]

Jacob - you are right. I can't think of an elegant away around this problem with abilities that set P/T. Would adding 'Apart from Power and Toughness THIS has all of the abilities...' help?

Note I have shortened the text a little using respectively to avoid repetition.

I could live with Simbiont although Simbiant just 'feels' better to me. Magic tends to avoid using real life names anyhow and there are a number of examples of 'correct' titles being modified either by accident or design.

I just think that the idea is so cool that the rules problems are worth overcoming if possible.

How about?
0: THIS gains the abilities of any creature with a Union counter on it and loses all other abilities gained in this way.

You would rarely choose the P/T abilities as this would reduce the size of the Symbiont (get under that Bridge!).

[Bram]

Magic tends to avoid using real life names anyhow and there are a number of examples of 'correct' titles being modified either by accident or design.

That goes mostly for names of people that are 'converted' or changed english nouns or verbs. Not for plain misspellings. A 'symbiont' is an actual word (it's an archaic synonym to 'symbiote' by the way), a 'symbiant'  is not.

0: THIS gains the abilities of any creature with a Union counter on it and loses all other abilities gained in this way.

Erm...honestly, I can only understand this in the context of the old wording. If you print this in a card, over half the crowd won't know what it does. I agree with Jacob. This is just too complicated.

[Matt]

What's the real difference between this and banding?

[dandan]

@Bram

I have just remembered why I didn't use Symbiont in the first place, Matt used the name in his thread which inspired this card. I started with Simbicant actually but somewhere along the line devaited to Symbiant. Is Symbicant better seeing as Symbiont is not an option as Matt got there first?

I think most people can handle creature gaining abilities. It is necessary to make it lose old abilities to remove contradictions.

I agree that this a wording mess at present but I hope it is clear what the intent of the card is, and the intent is a cool casual card that makes super creatures by uniting creatures in a 'Borg-like' way.

@Matt

I fail to see how a Symbicant of a Morphling and Reveka reminds you of Banding in any shape or form. Even ignoring the abilities, a Simbicant of 2 Benalish Heroes can take 1 damage without losing anything but a band of Heroes gets smaller. The current version is also mightily amusing when it includes a Negator or Flesh Reaver.
And Banding is a White thing, Symbiosis is Green.

I think I'll change the name back to Symbicant as Symbiant appears to be a no-no.

[Bram]

Symbicant is better. It looks less like a typo that way and more like a twist on an existing word.

[dandan]

I think something drastic needs to be done to reduce the text on this card. As it is similar in effect to Imprint, I could change it to Imprint as long as the creatures come back as and when the Symbicant snuffs it.

This would mean a general weakening of the card (you could kill the Symbicant in response to CIP and permanently remove the creatures) although it would give protection from destruction by killing the creatures one by one.

The ability problem (Nightmare, Keldon Warlord, etc) would have to be solved by giving it the activated ability above. I now think that it is unnecessary to 'turn off' abilities although I am sure that this opens the door to some weird combos. If you want to turn your Negator Nightmare Symbicant from an 11/11 to a 6/6 go ahead. Note that the activated ability solution means that you negate most negative abilities although you would need to activate the 'negator' ability to get the Trample ability in this last example.

This gives us:

Symbicant
Enchantment
GG
Imprint - When ~this~  comes into play, you may remove any number of creatures you control from the game. ~This~ becomes a creature with power and toughness equal to the total power and total toughness respectively of all creatures Imprinted on ~this~
0: ~This~ gains the abilities of any creature Imprinted on ~this~
0: Return a creature Imprinted on ~this~ to play under its owner's control

Is that better from a rules point of view? I guess you could have a Symbicant of one creature using this version that you would need to kill twice, making this a one-use Regenerate and you could have a short-lived 0 creature Symbicant

[Jacob Orlove]

You still have hideous rules issues.

[dandan]

And the 'but only casual players would ever use it and they use common sense' argument is not going to fly, right?

What rules problems are you thinking about? I am sure there are creature abilities that are weird combos but by making it an activated ability I think it negates the Nightmare problem (yoy can make its P/T equal to the number of Swamps you control if you like but that ability overrides the initial P/T setting in a similar way to a number of other cards.

I think Imprinting creatures has been done with few problems, the main problem was copying abilities which may override the P/T. CIP abilities of returning creatures has also been done before in Torment.

If I can understand the potential problems I can try to resolve them or give up. I think the Imprint version actually solves a lot of the rules issues.

[Jacob Orlove]

The second ability doesn't override the p/t ability, nor does it replace itself. You still have the multiple p/t issue, and I'm sure you could find a few other static abilities that you just don't want to combine.

[dandan]

Surely if I have a 6/6 and I activate an ability that gives it  P/T equal to the number of Swamps in play and I have 4 Swamps I have a 4/4. If later I activate an ability that says it has P/T equal to the number of creatures I control and I have only Symbicant then I have a 1/1. I am not sure why any number of effects can override the characteristics of a card but the activated ability that I suggested can't.  I originally had a clause that stated that the new abilities caused older abilities to be lost but I thought I could do without it as I thought the latest 'instructions' took precedence given any contradiction.
Looking closer at cards like Sworn Defender, the word 'change' is used. Would it help to make the activated ability ?
1: Change ~this's~ abilities to those of a creature Imprinted on ~this~

I think that would make it clear that it loses older abilities.

Finding combinations of cards that do weird and wonderful things on a single creature is a major selling point of this card IMHO. However I recognise that it will be a battle to word it so that it works sensibly!!

[Laurie Cheers]

Symbionic Strength
GG
Enchant Creature
Imprint - When Symbionic Strength comes into play, remove target creature you control from the game.  (The removed card is imprinted on this permanent.)
Enchanted creature has the abilities of the imprinted card in addition to its own.
Enchanted creature gets +X/+X, where X the imprinted card's power.
When Symbionic Strength leaves play, return the imprinted card to play.

I couldn't find a concise wording that treated power and toughness separately; apart from that this seems to be what you want.
Nice combo with Blistering Firecat; it's a Lingering Death that also gives you an extra chance to use the Firecat.

There's no problem with multiple p/t setting abilities; they will just apply in the order they were created, so the later-added ones will override the earlier ones.

[Alfred]

@Laurie:

That card is just ridiculously over-complicated. Why don't you just make it a creature enchantment that returns the creature to play if it goes to the graveyard?

[dandan]

I appreciate the effort in trying to solve the problem although the above example merely highlights the main rules problem which arises when 2 current abilities try to set the P/T.

Imagine a Symbicant made of a Nightmare (4/4) and a Keldon Warlord (2/2). With just the Symbicant in play, it has P/T of 5/5 but the Nightmare ability tries to make it a 4/4 and the Warlord ability tries to make it a 1/1. My activated ability that gave the Symbicant abilities was an attempt to make it clear that the Symbicant starts as a 5/5 but can get the Nightmare abilities of Flying and having P/T equal to Swamps so a 4/4 or the Keldon Warlord ability of being a 1/1, with timestamps sorting out which applies. This reduces the power level of the Symbicant (it can't be a Flying 5/5 in this example) but the problem of conflicting abilities needs to be solved or the card cannot exist. Using the word 'Change' may be needed in order to make sure it is clear that older P/T values are overwritten.

The Blistering Firecat example shows that the Enchantment/counters solution is different in use to the Enchantment/Imprint version as well as giving a good example of just how much FUN this card could be.

I just hope there is a way around the rules issues as this card is a Timmy wet dream. (Fungasaur/Psionic Entity/Eater of the Dead)