Unstoppable warlord
Custom Cards forum
Posted on Feb. 12, 2015, 8:11 a.m. by tyforthevenom
Types: Legendary Creature
Rarity: Mythic Rare
Subtype: shapeshifter
P/T: 1/1
Abilities: double strike; can only leave the battlefield if destroyed, damage does not count towards being destroyed, toughness being reduced to 0 doesn't count to being destroyed, can be targeted by any spell that says destroy even if it's an otherwise illegal target.
Mana cost: 
tyforthevenom says... #3
Forgot to put on the rules text "cannot gain indescribable or hexproof or shroud"
February 12, 2015 8:19 a.m.
I always like to ask myself a question when designing mythics. Would any player see this card as powerful? The answer here is no. Fledgling players will have no clue why this is supposed to be good. They will miss all of the nuance you are trying to build in here. Also the cost is prohibitive to see a lot of play (block dependent). Toughness going to 0 does not cause destruction. It causes a state-based effect that moves the creature to your graveyard, meaning the first clause covers this. This is very rules intensive. You would need to do a ton of templating work on this to make it make sense to judges.
February 12, 2015 10:25 a.m.
tyforthevenom says... #5
I thought I'd state the toughtness part for those less familiar with it, but it'd be hilarious having a 0/0 double strike blocker they can't deal with
February 12, 2015 10:40 a.m.
tyforthevenom says... #7
And there are no cards in magic specifically designed to break the rules cough Relentless Rats Reliquary Tower Platinum Angel Teferi, Temporal Archmage cough
February 12, 2015 10:44 a.m.
lemmingllama says... #8
If you worded it as "Unstoppable Warlord can only leave the the battlefield if it's toughness is reduced to 0" and gave it hexproof, you would have essentially the same card but more functional. It could probably be moved to a 1/3 for 
at that point, since it's almost an unremovable Prophetic Flamespeaker at that point.
This means that only cards like Mutilate or Black Sun's Zenith could actually interact with it, and the 3 toughness would move it out of Massacre Wurm/Decree of Pain territory for those EDH players out there.
Alternatively, try the wording "Unstoppable Warlord cannot be exiled, sacrificed, or destroyed." It would still die to 0 toughness, but it wouldn't cause the same rules nightmare that your original version does.
February 12, 2015 10:52 a.m.
Not it breaks the rules as in "this goes against the rules". you can do that. This card makes rules and rulings fall apart. R&D would never let this through.
February 12, 2015 10:57 a.m.
tyforthevenom says... #10
in what way squire? the ruling on it would be simple assuming it's worded more professionally than an amateur like me is able to with a mere 15 minutes thought. to simplify rulings for judges it would be "ask the question 'did you target it with a card or effect that says destroy, if it was not targeted and/or the effect or spell does not say destroy it remains on the battlefield'."
lemming, it's "unstoppable" warlord, the idea is the only way to stop it is to completely DESTROY it, otherwise i may as well have said "it's hexproof and indestructible" which isn't what i wanted to put into the card, it's a legendary mythic because it's hard to deal with it's 3 white because it's a card you should build around not "oh i'll splash for this"
February 12, 2015 11:11 a.m.
Do not make cards if you cannot either 1) create meaningful, new rules text that is in concert with current wording and meaning or 2) make a card that correctly uses all currently available rules text.
There is no way to make this work. It fundamentally violates shroud and hexproof, ignores the concept of state-based actions, and uses wording not allowable on any card, ever.
Also, the flavor and power are completely off-base. Why is a warlord a shapeshifter? There is no flavorful basis as to why this should be so. It should at minimum be a Warrior and should also have a defined race type, such as Avatar. Moreover, a card like this would completely confuse newer players and have exactly zero appeal to competitive players, as previously mentioned. The idea is interesting but the design is completely flawed.
February 12, 2015 12:32 p.m.
dis what I say
I mean Jimhawk articulated it better but yes.
I would say start with your concept. What are you trying to get at here. Are you trying to avoid exile effects? What is the essence of what you are designing?
February 12, 2015 12:36 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #14
shapeshifter coz whenever i choose a creature type i'm wrong (so i chose all creature types)
wizards always builds cards that break the rules, it's called branching out or making an impact
i was thinking on a purely standard view point and possibly modern in a white wheeny deck built around pumping a single creature (a creature not innately broken but in the right deck is very strong) so every colour CAN deal with it but most colours only run the cards that they'd have to use on it in the sideboard if at all
how does it violate shround and hexproof? the ruling that states it can't get shroud of hexproof from any effect?
squire1 i already stated the concept "a creature that can only be removed by being destroyed, not damage, not exile, not sacrifice, not lack of durability, not bounce"
February 12, 2015 12:48 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #15
and it can't be removed by board wipes, so targeted removal only. but the big downside is that any targeted removal can target it regardless of what the removal says must be it's targets i.e. it can be hit by Krosan Grip
February 12, 2015 12:57 p.m.
Ok so that is the concept. So I see the functionality you are going for. Now a new question. What is the problem you are trying to solve by making this card? Defensive cards try to solve problems. Like Grafdigger's Cage.
Also, so Krosan Grip can target it, but does nothing to it right? I am clarifying. Not sure.
February 12, 2015 1:46 p.m.
tyforthevenom says... #17
no it destroys it as the card i'm trying to design has the rule written on it that any card with "target" and "destroy" on it can be used to destroy it.
the problem i'm trying to "solve" with this card is making more resilient 1/1's that don't infect aren't elves or artifacts and adding in more potential for casual formats like commander and tiny leaders, a card that would be decent for draft but isn't a first pick
February 12, 2015 1:52 p.m.
I mean now you have made it a challenge so let's see.
"~ can't change zones unless its toughness is reduced to 0 or less. If ~ has been targeted by an effect that would destroy it, ~ loses all abilities until end of turn."
This is still pretty sketchy wording, but might be better. You can't target it with Krosan Grip this way, but hits most of your criteria.
Even this has issues though. So can you choose to sacrifice it and it stays put. The rules do not really support a clean way of templating this. The best way would be about 7 different clauses and be a wall of text.
February 12, 2015 2:01 p.m.
now this makes sense what you are aiming at
no it destroys it as the card i'm trying to design has the rule written on it that any card with "target" and "destroy" on it can be used to destroy it. the problem i'm trying to "solve" with this card is making more resilient 1/1's that don't infect aren't elves or artifacts and adding in more potential for casual formats like commander and tiny leaders, a card that would be decent for draft but isn't a first pick
So you want it to be target-able by anything that has the word destroy on it. But the way you worded it, you could target it with Day of Judgement?!?!?!!.
Now that I understand the problem that you are trying to solve and the outcome you want, the next question that R&D or an analyst would ask is: Is the problem you are trying to solve actually a problem? Meaning is this a need or a want? If it is a want, then you get to questions about how prohibitive the complexity is to allow the want.
If you "want" a 3/3 for 1 there is no complexity, if you want just as good a value and a block of 3 pt font text on a creature, you likely have high complexity which is too prohibitive to make.
trust me, my "want" card is something that makes tokens act as cards in all zones. i have toyed with a million ways of phrasing this card. I have come up with a few templates that might work. But the complexity makes it prohibitive. Too many players would have to ask a judge for help. Too many L1s would have to ask L2s for help. I still want the card, but it will never be made. I think you have hit this point with your design. It is a neat idea, but is too difficult to do correctly.
This is the reason WOTC has a huge Filemaker pro database filled with cards that will never see the light of day.
Keep designing and if you would like some advise, start designing from common and uncommon. Designing flashy cards that do off the wall stuff is much easier.
lemmingllama says... #2
Add an "or sacrificed" onto there and then we are getting somewhere.
February 12, 2015 8:16 a.m.