Angelic Keeper

[TheShop]

Angelic Keeper

WWW

Creature- Angel

Flying

If Divine Messenger would leave play, it does not instead.

1/1

I love the ability about not leaving play, but it is so powerful that I felt the cost needed to jump.  Also, I never understood things undress divine protection dying???  Lastly, if he is enchanted, notice that he can't be bounced to remove the enchant, they would need to bounce it...and you would just drop it back down.  The only busted applications would be paying sacrifice costs with him since hebwouldmt leave play.

[Delha]

How about rewording the ability as follows? It's admittedly weaker, but fixes a lot of the weird interactions.

If a spell or effect would cause CARDNAME to leave play, it instead remains in play.

--Stops your sacrifice loophole, but still keeps it alive through Diabolic Edict.
--Dies to dmg. As is, the guy is Wall of Denial on steroids (and can attack besides).
--Prevents weird gamestates where a 0/0 creature stays on the board.

If you were actually looking for a 1/1 flier with super-indestructable on it, the cost probably needs to go up. Maybe change it to an activated ability, or add some sort of drawback.

[TheShop]

What if he was a 0/1 wall with flying and the same ability and cost?

[zeus-online]

This guy is broken, as in, he does not work under the current rules.

What about:

WWW
Creature - Angel
Flying, Shroud, indestructable.
If this card would be put into your graveyard from the battlefield, return it to your hand.
1/1

Think it's still undercosted though.

I can only think of 1 card that really kill this creature by itself. (Final judgment)

[Nazdakka]

The original card probably wouldn't work within the rules, and combos both spectacularly and dangerously with anything that lets you sacrifice creatures for some useful effect.

I'm really not sure what Delha's version does in practice. What do you mean by 'effect'? I think that word should be 'ability'. If so, I think the card works, although it still has plenty of wierd interactions that will confuse a lot of people. My reading is that it would die to combat damage, toughness reduction, sacrifice and direct damage, but not Wrath of God, Terror, or Seal of Doom, which is really wierd. Is it worth the confusion?

Zeus-Online's version works within the rules and is fairly costed. However, the abilities seem really redundant - the card feels like it either wants to be indestructible or have the graveyard ability, not both. A case where the whole is less than the sum of its parts. Nothing scary from a power perspective, however.

Also, if you want to do this more simply, maybe something like:

Divine Messenger
WWW
Creature - Angel
Flying, Shroud
0: Exile Divine Messenger then return it to play.
1/1

You could also use an Astral Slide-style ability instead of a Flicker ability if you want it to dodge Wrath. This version also gives you infinite Enters the Battlefield triggers if you have something appropriate in play - Pandemonium?

[Delha]

I can only think of 1 card that really kill this creature by itself. (Final judgment)

Hallowed Burial works too.

Zeus-Online's version works within the rules and is fairly costed. However, the abilities seem really redundant...

I agree with Zeus' own belief that his version is still undercosted. It is a significant upgrade to Wall of Denial. That said, being indestructable and having the grave ability are not entirely redundant. The former does not answer sacrifice and zero toughness effects, but the latter demands recasting. From a purely defensive stance, your variant sounds like a case of true redundancy to me. What does Blink guard against that Shroud does not?

I'm really not sure what Delha's version does in practice. What do you mean by 'effect'? I think that word should be 'ability'. If so, I think the card works, although it still has plenty of wierd interactions that will confuse a lot of people. My reading is that it would die to combat damage, toughness reduction, sacrifice and direct damage, but not Wrath of God, Terror, or Seal of Doom, which is really wierd. Is it worth the confusion?

Sorry, showing my age as a player. "Spells and effects" is from back in the day, I mistakenly used the old OLD templating.

I agree that the interactions are weird, but I don't think they are unreasonable. You were mostly correct, but it would be immune to sacrifices. The things it still dies to (lethal damage and zero toughness) could easily be listed as reminder text.

My biggest goal was trying to stick to the original intent of the card. It sounded like the point was to create something enchantable but unaffected by removal, which is why I avoided Shroud. As I see it, there are a few key types of removal that need to be addressed.

-- Destroy effects, such as Terminate
-- Sacrifice effects, such as Diabolic Edict
-- Bounce effects, such as Chain of Vapor
-- Exile effects, such as Swords to Plowshares

My suggestion was intended to answer all of them in a single line of text, without granting it an infinite-sacrifice loop. I purposely excluded damage and toughness for balance reasons.

[Nazdakka]

Zeus-Online's version works within the rules and is fairly costed. However, the abilities seem really redundant...

I agree with Zeus' own belief that his version is still undercosted. It is a significant upgrade to Wall of Denial. That said, being indestructable and having the grave ability are not entirely redundant. The former does not answer sacrifice and zero toughness effects, but the latter demands recasting. From a purely defensive stance, your variant sounds like a case of true redundancy to me. What does Blink guard against that Shroud does not?

Yeah, you're right there. Blink lets it block and then blink to avoid damage, but that's about it. Make it '0: Exile ~this~ until end of turn, then return it' instead. With respect to costing I think it's probably OK at WWW - remember trample will still work - but if people aren't sure then it could easily go to 1WWW, 2WW or similar.

I'm really not sure what Delha's version does in practice. What do you mean by 'effect'? I think that word should be 'ability'. If so, I think the card works, although it still has plenty of wierd interactions that will confuse a lot of people. My reading is that it would die to combat damage, toughness reduction, sacrifice and direct damage, but not Wrath of God, Terror, or Seal of Doom, which is really wierd. Is it worth the confusion?

Sorry, showing my age as a player. "Spells and effects" is from back in the day, I mistakenly used the old OLD templating.

I agree that the interactions are weird, but I don't think they are unreasonable. You were mostly correct, but it would be immune to sacrifices. The things it still dies to (lethal damage and zero toughness) could easily be listed as reminder text.

My biggest goal was trying to stick to the original intent of the card. It sounded like the point was to create something enchantable but unaffected by removal, which is why I avoided Shroud. As I see it, there are a few key types of removal that need to be addressed.

-- Destroy effects, such as Terminate
-- Sacrifice effects, such as Diabolic Edict
-- Bounce effects, such as Chain of Vapor
-- Exile effects, such as Swords to Plowshares

My suggestion was intended to answer all of them in a single line of text, without granting it an infinite-sacrifice loop. I purposely excluded damage and toughness for balance reasons.

So it's immune to a sacrifice caused by Diabolic Edict, but not to being sarcificed as a cost to play Nantuko Husk's ability? That's downright wierd. It will also be non-obvious to newer players that it's immune to Lightning Bolt, even though it is.

I guess my main objection to this card is from a development standpoint - I don't think that either your version (with the replacement ability) or the original would be interesting enough to play with to justify making players understand all the nuances of how it works. We can get 90% of the functionality using existing rules technology (some combination of indestructible, shroud, flicker, etc.), but to get the final 10% we have to invoke a very wierd and non-obvious corner of the rulebook. Sure, it could probably be fixed with an enormous pile of reminder text, but that's also far from ideal.

[Delha]

It's not really that hard to explain: You can sacrifice it to pay for something, but nothing can FORCE you to sacrifice it. I'd argue that it's no more complicated than Emrakul's protection: Path to Exile doesn't work, but Journey to Nowhere does.

A similar case of divergent forms of the same action already exists. Consider Survival of the Fittest vs Volrath's Shapeshifter, or Recurring Nightmare vs Boomerang. In both cases, an action appears on one card is a cost, then on another as an effect.

From a design perspective, I'd argue that there's never before been a creature where bounce and exile spells can resolve against it without effect. Sounds like an interesting concept to me.

[jro]

To make this immune to forced sacrifice but not infinite fodder for sacrifice costs, it could adapt the wording from Tajuru Preserver:

Spells and abilities your opponents control can't cause you to sacrifice ~this~.

[Delha]

To make this immune to forced sacrifice but not infinite fodder for sacrifice costs, it could adapt the wording from Tajuru Preserver:

Spells and abilities your opponents control can't cause you to sacrifice ~this~.

Yeah, but then you still need separate abilities for destroy, bounce, exile. Also, that doesn't stop your own global sweepers (ie. Wrath/Balance/etc...)

[zeus-online]

My version was intended to be nigh unkillable...with only 2 cards in the entire game that really kills it, i think it succeeded in that part.

I'm not sure if we really want an unkillable creature though...Most annoying blocker ever.

[BruiZar]

How about this?

Ancestor's Prophet 
Creature - Human Cleric
Flying
: Reincarnate (The next time that Ancestor's Prophet would leave play this turn, it doesn't.)
1/1

[TheShop]

I like Bruz's version best.   It follows the actual intent, which was not indestructibilty...but for there to be nopoint at which it can be forced to leave play

[zeus-online]

And how is that not being unkillable? I made it return to hand specificly to be abit more fair.

Ancestor's prophet is abit more akin to a bad will-o-wisp.

[TheShop]

What is the problem with a 1/1 unkillablw creature at 4 mana(3 of which was white)???

I will repose my older question:  if he was a 0/1 wall would that make it okay?

[FlyFlySideOfFry]

This card inspired me to think of a template based on counters that would probably be better as black:

Master of Undeath
Creature - Vampire
If Master of Undeath would leave play put a +1/+1 counter on it instead.
At the beginning of your upkeep remove all +1/+1 counters on Master of Undeath and lose one life for each counter removed this way.
4/3

While it may seem strong keep in mind that it essentially turns all -X/-X spells into potentially amazing burn spells and with no evasion even if it somehow manages to get huge you can chump and make your opponent lose a ton of life next turn. It still has the problem of being infinitely sacrificable but unless you win that turn you're basically screwed. Also your opponent can do dirty things like put +1/+1 counters on him to screw you over.

[zeus-online]

There is no problem with ancestor's prophet, i think it's flat out unplayable

On the other hand, my version is probably undercosted.

Edit: Okay, there is a problem, what if i give it a -1/-1 counter, and you reincarnate it in response? State based effects will make it die over and over again, which would lead to me thinking it would just die, but it would probably be very confusing for newer players.

[BruiZar]

I simplified it by taking the text of regeneration and modifying it slightly. Regarding the -1/-1 counters, maybe there should be a clause like this "Destroy all auras, unattach all equipment and remove all counters from Ancestor's Prophet". About the cost, that's up for discussions.

[Delha]

What is the problem with a 1/1 unkillablw creature at 4 mana(3 of which was white)???

I will repose my older question:  if he was a 0/1 wall would that make it okay?

I think that a 0/1 flying wall that is better than unkillable makes UW control absolutely insane in Standard.

I simplified it by taking the text of regeneration and modifying it slightly. Regarding the -1/-1 counters, maybe there should be a clause like this "Destroy all auras, unattach all equipment and remove all counters from Ancestor's Prophet". About the cost, that's up for discussions.

There's no problem w/ Reincarnate and a -1/-1 counter, because it goes to state based actions, gets saved, then goes to state based actions again, and dies.

I really like the black version. I'd probably make it start as a 1/1 flier, and make the upkeep ability not remove counters. So you basically take a ramping amount of life loss per upkeep (in return for a huge fatty). Still has the problem of breaking the hell out of sacrifice effects though.

[TheShop]

No offense to the standard players out there, but if a 4 mana 0/1 that sticks in play is a real problem for most decks...it is time to try a new format (maybe one where it takes less than 1,000 turns to kill someone and a 0/1 isn't quite as menacing)

[Delha]

No offense to the standard players out there, but if a 4 mana 0/1 that sticks in play is a real problem for most decks...it is time to try a new format (maybe one where it takes less than 1,000 turns to kill someone and a 0/1 isn't quite as menacing)

An eternal 4 mana 0/1 isn't terrible, but in a deck that can easily run 8 Wrath effects, it would be. You force them to commit heavily to the board to get around your unkillable blocker, then get 3 for 1's all day. Oh, and your wall STILL doesn't die.

*Pacifism effects being the only exception I can think of

[zeus-online]

What is the problem with a 1/1 unkillablw creature at 4 mana(3 of which was white)???

I will repose my older question:  if he was a 0/1 wall would that make it okay?

I think that a 0/1 flying wall that is better than unkillable makes UW control absolutely insane in Standard.

I simplified it by taking the text of regeneration and modifying it slightly. Regarding the -1/-1 counters, maybe there should be a clause like this "Destroy all auras, unattach all equipment and remove all counters from Ancestor's Prophet". About the cost, that's up for discussions.

There's no problem w/ Reincarnate and a -1/-1 counter, because it goes to state based actions, gets saved, then goes to state based actions again, and dies.

I really like the black version. I'd probably make it start as a 1/1 flier, and make the upkeep ability not remove counters. So you basically take a ramping amount of life loss per upkeep (in return for a huge fatty). Still has the problem of breaking the hell out of sacrifice effects though.

There's two problems with the -1/-1...first is...it kills the creature, and its not supposed to leave play. And second, it's confusing for newer players.

[Delha]

There's two problems with the -1/-1...first is...it kills the creature, and its not supposed to leave play. And second, it's confusing for newer players.

When you look at it like Regeneration Plus, it serves to balance an inherently powerful ability without necessitating a ridiculous mana cost, and is very easily explained to a new player.

[zeus-online]

There's two problems with the -1/-1...first is...it kills the creature, and its not supposed to leave play. And second, it's confusing for newer players.

When you look at it like Regeneration Plus, it serves to balance an inherently powerful ability without necessitating a ridiculous mana cost, and is very easily explained to a new player.

Well, what more can i say? I don't agree.

[TheShop]

Rules question for the rules lawyers out there: 

On this -1/-1 issue, if the creature is supposed to die, and doesn't when state based effects check...did the player who played the card giving the -1/-1 create an infinite loop which he cannot stop???

[Delha]

Rules question for the rules lawyers out there: 

On this -1/-1 issue, if the creature is supposed to die, and doesn't when state based effects check...did the player who played the card giving the -1/-1 create an infinite loop which he cannot stop???

If the "does not leave play" effect is continuous, rather than "the next time this creature would leave play", then I believe so. AFAIK, it's never come up before.

[TheShop]

I would die laughing if someone darkblasted this guy and lost as a result.

[Delha]

I would die laughing if someone darkblasted this guy and lost as a result.

I think it would end up a draw, like the WGD loop.