Keeping damage around

User avatar
OneAndOnly
Posts: 2356
Joined: 4 years ago
Pronoun: he / him

Post by OneAndOnly » 1 year ago

Here's a recent design:

Lyaza, Mistress of Whips - 3BB
Legendary Creature - Gorgon {R}
Whenever Lyaza deals combat damage to a creature, put that many stun counters on that creature.
If damage would be removed from a creature with a stun counter on it, remove a stun counter from it instead.
3/6

Does the second ability function? Should it maybe say "Damage isn't removed from that creature as long as it has a stun counter on it" instead?

User avatar
WizardMN
Posts: 1987
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 126
Pronoun: he / him
Location: Twin Cities
Contact:

Post by WizardMN » 1 year ago

I don't see anything glaringly obvious as to why it wouldn't work. Due to the way this functions though, it might just be better to use -0/-1 counters though removing them elegantly might be more problematic.

I think I may have talked myself into liking your current wording :)

User avatar
Mookie
Posts: 3537
Joined: 4 years ago
Answers: 48
Pronoun: Unlisted
Location: the æthereal plane

Post by Mookie » 1 year ago

Comprehensive Rules wrote: 120.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step, even if that permanent stops being a creature. If the total damage marked on a creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a permanent is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.15, "Regenerate") and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).
There are a few things that cause damage to be removed, most notably as a turn-based action during the cleanup step and regeneration. I'll agree with WizardMN - I don't believe there is any reason why the ability won't function, but it may cause some weird situations. For example, if anything triggers during the cleanup step, there will be an additional cleanup step... which will then cause damage to be cleared again as a turn-based action and remove another counter.

From a design perspective, I'll also note that this implementation looks like it would be a pain to track, since the damage and number of counters will very quickly get out of sync. -0/-1 counters (or wither / -1/-1 counters) would likely be simpler.

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Custom Card Rulings”