Sliver Licid

[jeek]

Original Text:
Sliver Licid
Creature -- Sliver Licid
All Slivers gain "T: Sliver Licid loses this ability and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the abilities of enchanted creature."
2/2

Current Text:
Sliver Licid
Creature -- Sliver Licid
All Sliver creatures gain "T: This creature loses this ability and becomes a Sliver Aura tribal enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target nonsliver creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect."
All Sliver permanents gain "Enchanted creature is a Sliver. Copy enchanted creature's text box onto all other Slivers."
2/2

BrassMan: enchanted sliver guy is a sliver
BrassMan: which means flanking sliver gives him flanking
BrassMan: but since he has flanking do other slivers get it twice?
The answer currently is "Yes". How do we fix this?
----
jeek: Enchanted creature is a Sliver. Copy enchanted creature's text box onto all other Slivers.
jeek: zomg I think I have it!
LeeSharpe: That would probably wouldn't be a copy effect, it would probably be keyworded
LeeSharpe: but that seems reasonable
LeeSharpe: "Splice onto [quality]" on a permanent means "[quality] permanents have this permanent's rules text, except for any Splice abilitie, in addition to their own."
LeeSharpe: or similar
LeeSharpe: I would still keyword it, for the complication factor
LeeSharpe: People will understand the keyword and reminder text, they won't understand the rules as written on the card
LeeSharpe: much like Mindslaver, etc

Thanks to LeeSharpe, BrassMan, and EliShffrn for helping me get the rules issues out of the way.

[Harlequin]

There's something that seems paradoxiale about this card.  I don't like that it's a static ability on a card, that grants an on-off ability + another static ability.  I feel like All slivers would gain this abilite like ... X^2 times based on how many slivers are in play if you attached it.  I have to think about it more.

[Anusien]

So there is problem with things like upkeep effects and somewhat.  If you Sliver Licid a Juzam Djinn, should all slivers ping you on upkeep?  What about upkeep costs like Force of Nature.

So you only want the printed text on the card; the first hunch is to access the copyable abilities of the card.

503.2. When copying an object, the copy acquires the copiable values of the original object's characteristics (name, mana cost, color, type, supertype, subtype, expansion symbol, rules text, power, and toughness) and, for an object on the stack, choices made when playing it (mode, targets, the value of X, whether a kicker cost was paid, how it will affect multiple targets, and so on). The "copiable values" are the values that are printed on the object, as modified by other copy effects, "comes into play as" abilities, and abilities that caused the object to be face down. Other effects (including type-changing and text-changing effects), status, and counters are not copied.

[zimagic]

BrassMan: enchanted sliver guy is a sliver
BrassMan: which means flanking sliver gives him flanking
BrassMan: but since he has flanking do other slivers get it twice?
The answer currently is "Yes". How do we fix this?

What are you trying to fix exactly? Look at Cavalry Master

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/TSP/en-us/Card108903.jpg

"Other creatures you control with flanking have flanking. (Each instance of flanking triggers separately.)"

Abilities on slivers stack and this suggests that they can also be stacked on on-slivers.

[jeek]

BrassMan: enchanted sliver guy is a sliver
BrassMan: which means flanking sliver gives him flanking
BrassMan: but since he has flanking do other slivers get it twice?
The answer currently is "Yes". How do we fix this?

What are you trying to fix exactly? Look at Cavalry Master

http://resources.wizards.com/Magic/Cards/TSP/en-us/Card108903.jpg

"Other creatures you control with flanking have flanking. (Each instance of flanking triggers separately.)"

Abilities on slivers stack and this suggests that they can also be stacked on on-slivers.

The problem is that Sliver Licid gains flanking, so then it gives a second instance of flanking to all other slivers.

[Harlequin]

All Slivers gain "T: This creature loses this ability and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the abilities of enchanted creature."


Lets say you have a Muscle Sliver, and a Prodical Sorcerer in play. along with this guy.

You tap this guy and enchant him onto Tim.

Now you have:
Tim
T: Ping
T: Tim loses this ability and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. with: (Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the abilities of enchanted creature.)
Tim is a Sliver.
All Other slivers gain Tim's abilites.
All Slivers gain "T: This creature loses this ability and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the abilities of enchanted creature."


Your Muscle sliver is:
All Sliver have +1/+1
T: Ping
T: Muscle Sliver loses this ability and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. with: (Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the abilities of enchanted creature.)
Muscle Sliver is a Sliver.
All Other slivers gain Muscle Sliver's abilites.
(that ability x3)

All Slivers gain "T: This creature loses this ability and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the abilities of enchanted creature."
(that ability x2)

Now this inturn gives Tim that All Slivers have +1/+1

So all slivers would get +2/+2 and you didn't even copy the muscle at all! 

Now if you play a Sinue Sliver.  you either get all slivers have +6/+6 (with sinue = +3, muscle = +2, and tim = +1).  I think thats how layering would work.

==============

Basically I think you end up with something that basically reads:  Each sliver gives all other sliver's it's abilites.

>> All other Slivers gain the abilities of enchanted creature << ends up being an ability of the enchanted creature.  that's what causes the issue.

[Anusien]

So you only want the printed text on the card; the first hunch is to access the copyable abilities of the card.

It's sort of hacky, but what about "All other Slivers gain all copyable abilities of enchanted creature."

[zimagic]

So you only want the printed text on the card; the first hunch is to access the copyable abilities of the card.

It's sort of hacky, but what about "All other Slivers gain all copyable abilities of enchanted creature."

I get it. (In fact I got it about an hour after I posted but you have confirmed the depths of my lack of knowledge, I thank you all)

Ok, bring this down to my level of game understanding and below (not much further to go then, eh?) How do you define what's copyable? Are only keywords copyable?

If so, the problem with slivers is that none have keywords. They all just have abilities that grant keywords & abilities.

What about having:

All Slivers gain "T: This creature loses all other abilities and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the printed abilities of enchanted creature"

They used this wording in Vs for some effects and it works pretty well. This way your Tim & Muscle Sliver look like this:

Tim
T: Ping
Tim is a Sliver.
Tim has +1/+1
All other Slivers gain "Ping". (don't know if this would appear given that it's specified on the Aura)

With an enchant creature Aura attached that says:
"Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the printed abilities of enchanted creature.
You may pay 0 to end this effect."

Your Muscle sliver is:
All Slivers have +1/+1
T: Ping

I have a question (and I'm presuming in my example above that the answer is no):  Is the Aura is still considered a Sliver or not?

The fact of it becoming an aura should mean it's no longer a sliver, if it also loses all other abilities then other Slivers don't gain the "T: This creature loses all other abilities...." etc ability.

The question really is, do you want other creatures to have the "become an Aura" ability if the Licid Sliver is already an aura?

[jeek]

What about having:

All Slivers gain "T: This creature loses all other abilities and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the printed abilities of enchanted creature"

I was told by Lee Sharpe that I can't use "printed".

[Anusien]

Seems to work, although I think you'll get some contamination in the case where they make other Tribal Enchantment - Sliver Auras with Enchant Creature.  My only question is, "Can you refer to the text box of a card"?

[zimagic]

What about having:

All Slivers gain "T: This creature loses all other abilities and becomes an Aura enchantment with enchant creature. Attach it to target creature. You may pay 0 to end this effect.
Enchanted creature is a Sliver. All other Slivers gain the printed abilities of enchanted creature"

I was told by Lee Sharpe that I can't use "printed".

That's a pity. It seems like a simple solution. And forgive my ignorance, but who is Lee Sharpe and what was his reasoning?

[Harlequin]

I think it has to do with erratas.  Like for example, if you said "When you cast a spell, it has its card printed text"  what would Impulse do?  how about those textless mana leaks or pyroclasms?

[zimagic]

I think it has to do with erratas.  Like for example, if you said "When you cast a spell, it has its card printed text"  what would Impulse do?  how about those textless mana leaks or pyroclasms?

Fair enough so.

[jeek]

That's a pity. It seems like a simple solution. And forgive my ignorance, but who is Lee Sharpe and what was his reasoning?

I'm a bit out of it at the moment, so my answer might not be exactly correct.
Lee Sharpe is a Level 3 judge that is also involved in fixing up rules issues and templating issues in upcoming Magic sets. You'll see him mentioned in the FAQs for
the last few sets. His reasoning was "This is something we don't do"