Here's a recent invention:
Weary of Weeping --
Enchantment {R}
Whenever an effect reduces the toughness of a creature whose toughness is already reduced by another effect, destroy that creature.
Sacrifice Weary of Weeping: Target creature gets -2/-2 until end of turn.
The intent is that if one effect reduces a creature's toughness (let's say Dead Weightlet's , and then a second effect also reduces its toughness (let's say a Chupacabra Echo for just -1/-1), the result would be that the creature is destroyed (even if it were Emrakul, the Aeons Torn.
Is there a better way to generate this effect? Does it matter if one effect is static and the other is durational (i.e., until the end of turn)?
Also, is there a downturn in the number of -X/-X effects in reent sets? I understand the desire to limit the number of -1/-1 counters overall, but in the last few sets there seem to be fewer cards that do this. Maybe it's just me.
Double reduction?
-
OneAndOnly
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Pronoun: he / him
There isn't going to be a way to word this effectively and clearly. Maybe something along "whenever a creature whose toughness is less than its base toughness has its toughness reduced, destroy that creature". It is wordy and not great in general but this wording covers the possibility of something reducing the toughness and something else boosting it and making it clearer what happens.
I am not sure if there is a great reason to move forward with that effect though. Reducing toughness multiple times is already getting closer to killing something anyway. Not in the case of big creatures but that doesn't seem like a great reason to do this.
Also, with the card above, adding a sac effect to lower toughness is super confusing. One you sac it, the effect is gone so making it reduce toughness won't work with its own ability.
I am not sure if there is a great reason to move forward with that effect though. Reducing toughness multiple times is already getting closer to killing something anyway. Not in the case of big creatures but that doesn't seem like a great reason to do this.
Also, with the card above, adding a sac effect to lower toughness is super confusing. One you sac it, the effect is gone so making it reduce toughness won't work with its own ability.
-
OneAndOnly
- Posts: 2356
- Joined: 4 years ago
- Pronoun: he / him
A big distinction is that you could have some pump effect in play -- let's say it gives everything +5/+5 -- the effect I'm looking for should trigger if that creature gets -1/-1 twice, even though its final calculated toughness is still greater than its printed (base) toughness. I think checking to see if toughness has been reduced is pretty straightforward in plain English; I'm more concerned with whether the CompRules has the language for it.
Two or three years ago I might have agreed about the ability not mattering too much, since it requires a creature to be at least x/3 to matter. But we've witnessed some serious power creep in the past two or three years, and sizes have grown, meaning this effect is more likely to have consequence.
Two or three years ago I might have agreed about the ability not mattering too much, since it requires a creature to be at least x/3 to matter. But we've witnessed some serious power creep in the past two or three years, and sizes have grown, meaning this effect is more likely to have consequence.
I am not sure I agree. If I give something -1/-1 and then +1/+1, is the toughness reduced or not? It seems like it would not be (it technically no longer has changed at all). So, if I give something -1/-1 and then +5/+5, why would the toughness still be considered reduced? I think that scenario adds in too much confusion. Or, at least, enough where players can argue about it. If the answer to this is meant to be yes still, would there ever be a way to offset a reduction in a way to get around this trigger? From a common sense perspective, I can see the argument being made that once something has a toughness reduction and then Giant Growth, it no longer has its toughness reduced.
I get that you want the answer to be yes even if it is being increased as well, but it adds an element of ambiguity into the wording. It obviously changes functionality to word it the way I suggested, as you pointed out, but it eliminates some of the issues with potential arguments around what is still reducing the toughness.
In regards to the CR, there is a reason my statements above are focused on the results of the effect rather than the effect itself. It doesn't happen often when the game or the rules explicitly call out an effect doing something. Typically, we look at the results of effects not the effects themselves. To put another way, the game isn't going to look at "an effect reducing toughness". It looks for "the toughness being reduced".
The reason this distinction matters is for the cases I presented above. We don't care if there are any effects; we care about what those effects are doing. And if the effect is no longer actually reducing the toughness, it becomes difficult to point out that there is an effect acting on it at all. From a game perspective anyway. Yes, we as humans know that effect is still there but (other than replacement effects) it isn't often the game is looking directly at an effect existing rather than the results of effects.
I would suggest that nothing in the CR supports this type of wording so nothing really supports the functionality you are going for. There are likely ways to word it, but it does not seem to be as straightforward as it likely needs to be without the possible suggestion of an accompanying CR update.
I get that you want the answer to be yes even if it is being increased as well, but it adds an element of ambiguity into the wording. It obviously changes functionality to word it the way I suggested, as you pointed out, but it eliminates some of the issues with potential arguments around what is still reducing the toughness.
In regards to the CR, there is a reason my statements above are focused on the results of the effect rather than the effect itself. It doesn't happen often when the game or the rules explicitly call out an effect doing something. Typically, we look at the results of effects not the effects themselves. To put another way, the game isn't going to look at "an effect reducing toughness". It looks for "the toughness being reduced".
The reason this distinction matters is for the cases I presented above. We don't care if there are any effects; we care about what those effects are doing. And if the effect is no longer actually reducing the toughness, it becomes difficult to point out that there is an effect acting on it at all. From a game perspective anyway. Yes, we as humans know that effect is still there but (other than replacement effects) it isn't often the game is looking directly at an effect existing rather than the results of effects.
I would suggest that nothing in the CR supports this type of wording so nothing really supports the functionality you are going for. There are likely ways to word it, but it does not seem to be as straightforward as it likely needs to be without the possible suggestion of an accompanying CR update.
