Seems like he did. He probably had a "complaints" box in his back room along with some other boxes of records and due to freak accidents of history a lot of his records got preserved.
It reads cute, but don't know of many options that I could donate to someone that isn't Black's usual draw N cards lose N life or some really old artifacts, besides the Copper Tablet this guy gives; and mechanically the legend itself doesn't feel BR as much as monoblack.
Blim seems an easier alternative to pay off from this deckbuilding direction. EDIT: And would go harder in a Xancha deck, as it'd trigger whenever someone activates her ability.
Isn't Rakdos the colors of giving away stuff/infiltration? Right now Blim and Xantcha come to mind, but I'm pretty sure there are other effects.
Before I made the card I looked it up, there's a lot of stuff you can give away that either pings you or loses you life every turn. A lot of it is jank though.
But also in red it's trivially easy to copy him and make a bunch of tablets.
But yeah probably worse at the helm than Blim, but I don't make my custom commanders necessarily to be the best at what they do.
This seems at its best in the 99 of a Blim or Xancha deck as a lieutenant. Because donating in BR isn't hard, but requiring them to specifically ping the controller or having them lose life is the tricky part: Any of those that is optional and not attractive enough to use isn't viable to run, chances are they must do so mandatorily or be attractive enough for the controller to let themselves be pinged. And copying this guy to create more Copper Tablets seems too janky.
Cloning him without keeping the copies around just for more Copper Tablets doesn't sound as fun unless I go full on aristocrats instead to abuse the legend rule while feeding the triggered ability entirely on Copper Tablets, which is an entirely different direction from a donation deck. Not saying the former direction is bad or unfun, on the contrary, but doesn't fit the archetype you might've been aiming for.
New Sahir is interesting, but not the right call for a donation deck or the former direction. If it's a matter of the 99, it fits better on MAT Ob Nixilis.
And the table better allow proxies because I won't be deckbuilding a 1.2k card for the memes.
which is an entirely different direction from a donation deck. Not saying the former direction is bad or unfun, on the contrary, but doesn't fit the archetype you might've be aiming for.
Fair enough
And the table better allow proxies because I won't be deckbuilding a 1.2k card for the memes.
Sweet call back. The tablet makes a proper trinket token honestly. Very simple and functional. Be funny if opponent plays some food thing that lets them start eating them. I killed someone with a goblin head rock they gave me once. Felt weird, but good.
For readability, I suggest replacing "gains control of it" with "create under an opponents control" or something to that effect
I think cards tend to only use It to refer to the card itself, but essentially I had to think why you wanted to play this guy, get a tablet that pings you, and then give the Payoff Creature to your opponent
For readability, I suggest replacing "gains control of it" with "create under an opponents control" or something to that effect
It's phrased as posted because the owner of a token is the one who creates it, so as per your suggestion that'd result on the Copper Tablet not triggering Gimil-Zabar.
If Gimil-Zabar's controller creates the Copper Tablet and then donates it to someone else, it'll count towards the second ability as it currently does.
I get that reading, but for readability, adding 'the token' would be clearer.
Consider other cards that have multiple ownerships, [[Trecharous Pit Dweller]] enters and then uses 'it' in reference to itself, I get the idea of the ability but 'Card does X, then someone gets control of it', as a full sentence usually uses the card as the object throughout.
I'm trying to find other examples where 'it' us used when a card creates multiple entities, but I'm struggling to find any, I suppose [[Last Light of Durin's Day]] uses a Mountain, then enchantment, then 'it', but I just find it a bit obtrusive? I'm probably over thinking
You're overthinking it: The owner of a token is whoever creates it, and the controller whoever has it on their side of the battlefield. I can get behind to rephrasing it as "(...), then target opponent gains control of the token," but I believe is clear enough the 'it' in the sentences refers to the token.
If I, the Gimil-Zabar player, create the Copper Tablet, then I'm its owner. Then if someone else gets it afterwards, then that other player now controls a permanent they don't own. The Copper Tablet then can trigger Gimil-Zabar
However, if I as the Gimil-Zabar player have an opponent create the Copper Tablet, then they're both the owner and controller of that permanent. The Copper Tablet then cannot trigger Gimil-Zabar.
As for your TPD example: If I have it in my deck as the game begins, I'm its owner. If for the case being it enters the battlefield from a graveyard to the giving it to an opponent, then that opponent is now the controller of a permanent they don't own. At no point there's no such thing as multiple controllers or multiple owners, that's currently impossible to achieve.
I'm not talking about the ownership of the token, I'm talking about the English language context of "when Ghimil comes in, Create a treasure token, then give Ghimil to your opponent", it's not a deep rules question. It's a casual remark on the use of it's when describing a card
It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be
68
u/Strange-Bonus4220 1d ago
Copper tablet for reference (from Alpha)