altar fate

[13NoVa]

~this~ can only target Artifacts.
R
2UU
gain control of target artifact UNLESS you already control it.

flip two coins. If they are both heads or both tails, target artifact becomes a 6/6 artifact creature with haste, first strike, and trample, that retains it's original abilities. if you flip a heads AND a tail, destroy the artifact.

 

[Spiderman]

gain control of target artifact UNLESS you already control it

Why not say "Gain control of target artifact opponent controls"?

 

[Istanbul]

Altar Fate (UB)
Enchantment
Whenever an opponent sacrifices a creature, you may choose to put that creature back into play. If you do, destroy a creature of your choice that player controls, it can't be regenerated.
No, it's not a spelling error.

 

[train]

I like smelling errors

 

[13NoVa]

spidy, the point is that if your opponent DOESNT control artifacts, you can target your own to use the ability.

i also like spelling arrers, train.

isty, it WAS a spelling error, but if you want it to be an Altar, then here is mine.



Altar of Fate UUB
enchantment
UU: discard two card, counter target spell.
BB: discard two cards, testroy target creature
UUBB: sacrafice altar of fate, gain control of target artifact an opponent controls. it becomes a 3/3 creature. Flip a coin, and if it lands heads, this creature gets an additional +2+2 and flying.
heads i kill you...tails i still kill you

 

[Spiderman]

Well, maybe it's just me, but your wording doesn't really say that... Or else it does, but there's GOT to be an easier way of saying it.

 

[Jigglypuff]

You could just say. "You gain control of target artifact." Plain and simple.

(- Steve -)

 

[Spiderman]

But I think he wants to gain control of an opponent's artifact first and if there's none available, then his own.

 

[Jigglypuff]

Then his first choice for a target would be his opponent's artifact. If there was none available, he would say, "Darn. There are no artifacts that I can steal with this card." Then he would target his own artifact.

By the way, it should also say "target non-creature artifact".

(- Steve -)

 

[Thallid Ice Cream Man]

How about this:

Alter (? whatever) Fate
Card type (probably sorcery)
R
2UU
Choose target artifact. Then flip two coins.
If you flip two heads or two tails, the artifact becomes a 6/6 artifact creature with haste, first strike, and trample, that retains its original abilities. You control it.
If you flip a heads and a tails, destroy the artifact.


If it's being sacrificed, do you need to gain control of it?

Also I think it would be simpler to flip only one coin. The probability of each outcome happening would be the same (1 in 2).

 

[Spiderman]

Then his first choice for a target would be his opponent's artifact. If there was none available, he would say, "Darn. There are no artifacts that I can steal with this card." Then he would target his own artifact.

Personally I agree with you, but this way there's no way to force the caster to pick an opponent's artifact. You might be playing with that Unglued card that lets you re-flip a coin or something and you just want to change your artifact or something.

So basically, since it seems there's a slight conflict over this, there's no easy way to word it so the caster has to pick an opponent's artifact first, correct?

If it's being sacrificed, do you need to gain control of it?

Yes.

 

[Jigglypuff]

But I think the fact that you could potentially gain control of an opponent's artifact and have it be huge is enough of a reason to target an opponent's artifact if possible. Nothing on Shock forces you to choose an opponent's creature as a target, but most people do choose an opponent's creature simply because it is the best play.

(- Steve -)

 

[Spiderman]

True, but there are some cards that specifically say "play on an opponent's <permanent>"

So as I asked, while I agree with you that choosing an opponent's artifact would be the best play, is there a template or easy way of wording it so you have to choose an opponent's artifact first? If not, then it can just be "You gain control of target artifact".

 

[Jigglypuff]

No. Plain and simple. Unless you wanted to make it like the Flagbearers:

When ~this~ is put on the stack, if it could target an artifact controlled by an opponent and doesn't, change the target of ~this~ to an artifact controlled by an opponent.

(- Steve -)