CardName: Vengeful Sayaka Cost: 2b Type: Creature - Magic Girl Pow/Tgh: 3/2 Rules Text: As long as Vengeful Sayaka is equipped with a sword, it has first strike. Flavour Text: Set/Rarity: Madoka Magi-ka Common

Vengeful Sayaka
Creature – Magic Girl
As long as Vengeful Sayaka is equipped with a sword, it has first strike.
Updated on 15 Jul 2012 by Alexander
Madoka Magi-ka: Cardlist | Visual spoiler | Export | Booster | Comments | Recent activity

History: [-]

2012-07-08 03:38:07: Alexander created the card Vengeful Sayaka
2012-07-08 03:42:35: Alexander edited Vengeful Sayaka:

Reduced casting cost from {3}{b} to {2}{b}. Same as Warpath Ghoul.

on 8 Jul 2012 by Vitenka:

Annoyingly, although it is utterly perfectly clear what you mean by this - equipment doesn't have subtypes like 'sword' so this wording would probably need to be something like the ugly: "As long as ~ is equipped with an artifact with sword in the name, it has deathtouch"

Whch is now too wordy for a common. And STILL won't trigger on Leonin Scimitar

on 9 Jul 2012 by L2i0n0k7:
on 9 Jul 2012 by Jack V:

Equipment could have further subtypes (the type line would be a bit cramped and technically it would be subtypes of artifact, not equipment) like "artifact - sword equipment". So you could do that for this set.

It's probably best just to make this "while equipped" -- that's hopefully specific enough people will get the sense of the character (and lots of equipment are swords).

It would also be possible to say "if this creature's power is increased by an equipment" but probably too nasty in the rules.

It would be possible to go back and add a section to the comp rules saying which equipments are swords, but almost certainly not worth it for one card.

on 9 Jul 2012 by jmgariepy:

Mm. But it does raise the question of whether you design cards for the way you would like Magic to look, or do you design each card to be the best it can be, given the way Magic exists. I used to do a lot more of the former before designing on Multiverse. Now that my cards are up for individual scrutiny, however, I don't do things such as make white About Face style cards, because I know that, despite how I think White should have that ability, the first comment will be "White doesn't have that ability".

Actually, now that I think about it, I think a little of both nowadays. It's just now, I preempt the obvious response with a sentence explaining why I think white having About Face (to use the same example) is fine. So, now that I've said a bunch of nothing... Hey, Alexander! What's your intent? Is this card supposed to assume that equipment has a subtype going forward, or is this for all cards that say "Sword" in their name (Which may sound awkward, but is actually pretty reasonable... barring the fact that some swords are called scimitars, i.e.)

(Oh, also, while the card may have some rules hiccups, I also think it's pretty cool)

on 13 Jul 2012 by M_Houlding:

Something not yet touched on, as these comments are more focused on the nature of equipment sub-types and the like, is that granting deathtouch as reward for equipping this creature is one of those subtle design traps people fall into.

That is to say, nearly any equipment that grants power increases (as you would expect from an offensive weapon like a sword) will push this creature's power to a point where having deathtouch is redundant. They do still put deathtouch on high powered creatures every so often (like Grave Titan and Harvester of Souls), but I'd suggest something equally flavorful and on-color that also consistent gameplay relevance (like first strike, to represent a "quick draw" concept).

2012-07-15 12:38:44: Alexander edited Vengeful Sayaka:

deathtouch changed to first strike

Add your comments:

(You won't be able to edit your comments unless you sign in before posting) (formatting help)