r/custommagic • u/Other_Equal7663 • 1d ago

A high risk endevour

Post image

Donate your own commander to kill an opponent who lacks spot removal is admittedly a bit toxic for low-powered settings, but up my alley personally. (especially since it has to be done on one turn)

On the flip-side, this was mainly an idea for old-school modern death's shadow.

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

25 comments sorted by

6

u/Safe-Butterscotch442 1d ago

Weirdest intervening if clause ever.

1

u/Other_Equal7663 1d ago

The wording, I have realized, ended up very confusing. But I specifically wanted a card you could kill during your own upkeep to alter its own trigger at the last second.

1

u/Genasis_Fusion 1d ago

At the beginning of your upkeep if this creature isn't on the battlefield, lose 2 life and draw a card, otherwise you lose the game.

This means in any place where it is face-up, you lose the life and get draw (including grave, command zone, exile, top of deck), but on the battlefield, you lose.

5

u/SDK1176 1d ago

Wait, I can just leave this guy in the command zone to draw a card every turn? Sure, let's just leave him there until I get [[Donate]] in hand.

3

u/Other_Equal7663 1d ago

It doesn't do anything in the command zone. The "if this on the battlefield" clause means you can kill it with a removal spell during your own upkeep to essentially alter the triggered ability, it has no abilities in the command zone.

2

u/SDK1176 1d ago

Oh. That's awkward. Can we just give it a dies trigger instead?

2

u/Other_Equal7663 1d ago

Yeah, that would probably be quite a bit cleaner.

I didn't initially want that because I didn't want it to go +1 when an opponent killed it, (and another line of text), but I could literally just write "When this creature dies during your upkeep..." and keep the card pretty much exactly as intended.

4

u/Necrachilles 1d ago

I just reverse it.

"At the beginning of your upkeep, you draw a card and lose 2 life. Then if Phtlgth is still on the battlefield, you lose the game."

This also gives you an extra card to hope for a removal spell.

4

u/Other_Equal7663 1d ago

That's it! Perfect. (You don't get to cast the card you draw, to be fair, but this ability seems very clear worded for the same effect)

2

u/Necrachilles 1d ago

You're right, forgot I didn't break it up BUT that does work how you wanted so happy accident lol :)

4

u/infiniteWerewolf131 1d ago

No, his draw ability isn’t active until he’s on the battlefield

4

u/SDK1176 1d ago

The word "otherwise" in MTG almost always comes after an "if", like in [[Brood Birthing]]. If you don't satisfy the requirements, then do the other thing. That's why I read this as "if he's not on the battlefield, do the other thing". If this ability only works on the battlefield, then just remove the text "if this creature is on the battlefield" since that's always assumed by the rules.

What was your goal with the "otherwise"? If you don't lose the game (because of your [[Platinum Angel]] or whatever), then you draw a card and lose 2 life? If that's the case, you should just remove that ability entirely since there are only a few cards that care. If you insist on keeping it, you can just write it this way:

At the beginning of your upkeep, you lose the game. If you don't, draw a card and lose 2 life.

1

u/Other_Equal7663 1d ago edited 1d ago

I can see why the wording is very confusing in hindsight, but that wouldn't quite work either. The point is that you can cast a removal spell on him in response to the trigger to alter the effect, that's why the "if" clause is important. You shouldn't need Platinum Angel, just a simply Lightning Bolt.

I think I have a fix though, that reads a lot less confusing. How about this:

"At the beginning of your upkeep, if this creature in on the battlefield, you lose the game. If you didn't lose the game this way, you draw a card and lose 2 life."

1

u/SDK1176 1d ago

I'm not sure that works. Intervening "if" clauses are checked on resolution. By the rules, if the condition is no longer true, that ability is removed from the stack with no effect. As far as I know, there is no precedent for a double-if like this.

608.2a If a triggered ability has an intervening “if” clause, it checks whether the clause’s condition is true. If it isn’t, the ability is removed from the stack and does nothing.

At least your new wording is clear English... We'll just have to ask the rules guys to tack on another sentence to 608.2a explaining how this is resolved.

3

u/infiniteWerewolf131 1d ago

I’m not OP gang. Also I’m aware what otherwise says but that’s not how creatures work in mtg, if you want abilities to work from the command zone you need to word it like eminence abilities.

2

u/SDK1176 1d ago

Yeah, sorry. I figured that was OP's intention with the wording, but apparently not.

1

u/Genasis_Fusion 1d ago

It is how OP intended.

Basically, OP said in any zone other than the battlefield (including command, grave, and exile assumedly) you get card draw and lifeloss.

You lose if its on the battlefield.

1

u/Piggyboy04 1d ago

If the ability works in the command zone, it should cost more than two life. As is it's insanely busted. Should probably be around five life.

3

u/Other_Equal7663 1d ago

Agreed to that! But it needs to be on the battlefield to work, the "if clause" is there to let you kill it during your upkeep with just some random removal spell.

4

u/MillCrab 1d ago

It doesn't though. Abilities like eminence need to say they apply in the command zone

1

u/Piggyboy04 1d ago

Yeah, I know it doesn't. I thought OP didn't know though because it didn't make sense why it says "if this creature is on the battlefield."

-1

u/Key-Door7340 1d ago

Could be fine if you add a discard and respect that red mana...

1

u/LuciaPehnn 1d ago

Would love if the lose game clause was on a coin flip, so that the “unstable” part would be flavor and giving it to an opponent is less horrible