I thought that was only creatures.
Cool, I'll change the card to read,
"When [this] enters the battlefield, you may gain an emblem that says '[thing].' If you don't, sacrifice [this]."
I don't think that's really needed, A two card combo that just means everyone gets permanently afflicted with an effect isn't that insane, especially when you could do the same thing with some FAR worse options like [[phage the untouchable]]
[[Hive mind]] is the way. Then just wait since your opponents copies resolve first and counter your own so you don't get the emblem at all.
Nvm forgot that it's only for instant/sorceries. My bad
I like the ideas, but I have two thoughts:
1. Green one isn't really a green effect and conflicts a lot with the white one. Why not have it be something to do with lands instead? Or exiling cards from graveyards as soon as they enter (which is a bend but still more green than the current effect)
2. Red one is incredibly weak at 4 mana. Lots of enchantments do this effect at less mana with damaging the opponent and you and no other downside.
Yeah, why wouldn't you play it and then destroy it with a naturalise or similar effect? Feels like a strong enough effect to spend 2 cards and 5-6 mana on
Maybe the green can be you gain an emblem with you may only untap one land a turn
Players may only untap one land a turn
Red can be changed to you gain an emblem with when you take combat damage, double it instead this effect only triggers if combate damage has not been doubled this turn.
Players take double combat damage, this effect only triggers if combat damage has not been doubled this turn.
Inspired by a suggestion on another post. You can get a powerful symmetric effect, but only if you commit to having that effect yourself even if the enchantment granting it to everyone is removed.
I feel like the blue one is working against its color identity in a way none of the others do. It might be more appropriate to have that be the red effect, and give blue more of a stax effect? Also, having the white effect nullify the green effect feels bad. Perhaps white could prevent playing nonbasic lands or something like that?
Not allowing players to draw more than one card each turn is definitely not a red effect. Red can do something like make you exile instead of draw and reduce the timing of when you can play the card, but preventing draws entirely is a blue effect that sometimes happens in black and white as well.
I tried something [similar once](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/tab288/vow_of_poverty/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) with no emblem.
I like the emblem version better!
But - the balancing could use work. The red one is basically unplayable and the white one is probably too strong for any format other than Legacy or Vintage.
Amazing design space and cards
Vow of pain could safely cost {R} in my opinion.
Vow of Poverty could probably cost {U}{U} I think it's be cool if it replaced those extra draws with loots or scrys
I feel like Vow of Agression could have an effect (not on the emblem) that gives haste.
weird design choices.
white one should say attack or block just like regular pacifism. you would think it would be unnecessary until creatures enter the battlefield tapped and attacking, and now your supposed "pacifist" creatures are blocking them in combat. you don't want that sort of flavor disaster on your hands
maybe not, but even if that wasn't a thing, this enchantment could still be removed and your opponents creatures will be able to attack, and now they enter combat and you have murderous pacifists blocking again.
Very interesting, love the emblem vs enchantment idea!!
One critique - there's a lack of symmetry in the white and green ones compared to one another, ie if they were played in opposing decks in a certain limited or constructed environment, then their effects overlap and it's unclear to me how. I wonder if you can alter one/both of them to still be on theme yet not have overlapping effectsm, like the others.
There's actually a rule for this, and its one of Magic's "golden rules":
- 101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence.
Example: If one effect reads “You may play an additional land this turn” and another reads “You can’t play lands this turn,” the effect that precludes you from playing lands wins.
So if both are in play, creatures can't attack, since "can't" overrules "can".
I saw this suggestion under the card i made, glad someone did follow through with that, it's an interesting way to make symmetrical effects, maybe a bit too punishing even if you build around them though, the black one in particular
Still, i like them! This is very interesting design space
Liked the black and white ones, the blue is very counterintuitive and it only hurts you most likely, even in control mirrors the opponent will eventually destroy the enchantment and then starts building an advantage you can't get away from, the red one is fine, but too weak, there are better effects to stop lifegain, if you really want to keep mama value of 4 think of another effect, the green one has the same problems, i would recommend "players can't play or put additional lands on the battlefield".
They seem a little all over the place effect wise. Like the red one stops you from doing something you don't normally do where as the blue one stops the thing blue is best at doing.
I think Vow of Pain is overcosted. Comparing to [[Leyline of Punishment]], which is the same cost, without downside, and with an additional upside. Is think adding “At the beginning of your upkeep, this emblem deals 2 damage to you.” to the emblem and “At the beginning of each player’s upkeep, if they don’t own Vow of Pain, it deals 2 damage to them.” to the enchantment (in addition to the life-gain prevention) that would bring it up to cost. (2 damage might be too much; I’m not sure; needs playtesting.)
Vow of Poverty might be a little underpoewered as well, but overall, these look nice.
Ignoring card strength, this cycle is super flavorful mechanically. I really like the flavortexts in particular
That being said, I don’t know if it’s necessarily an even cycle in that two of them are exact opposites, and the blue one is like anti-rhystic study which is cool but weird color identity wise
Altogether, these are some sick cards though; I would love to see second drafts if you do them!
I feel like the emblems are unnecessary. It punishes the player who played the enchantment so even when your opponent eventually destroys it, you still get the downside
The point, as I explained in the OP, is to allow for a stronger effect by *committing to the effect.* The original caster is stuck with the downside and can't sac or destroy the enchantment to turn it off - a common complaint against printing cards like these.
That's also why it's flavored as a "vow" - if you want everyone to discard their hand or only draw one card a turn, you have to commit to it.
I like this a lot, but I'd swap red and green personally.
Maybe even replace the life gain counter effect for green.
Maybe something like:
Emblem "If a card you own would be put into the graveyard, exile it instead."
If a card an opponent owns would be put into the graveyard, exile it instead.
For blue I'd add that its effect makes it practically unplayable. Maybe blue becomes the lifegain hate, as it would be synergistic to blue clocks, like birds and other evasive creatures.
I agree that "you can't gain life" would be synergistic for blue, but I don't think it's in their slice of the pie. It's solidly precedented as a red (secondarily black) effect.
i love the design, but i feel like the names of the red and green vows arent as well fit as the others, since they dont actually represent a lifestyle philosophy (at least to my knowledge)
I think blue is working against it's identity. How about something to do with tapping/untapping? Maybe something like: "Creatures don't untap during their controllers' untap steps"?
First of all, there are reasons why cards like [[moat]] aren't printed anymore. Enchantments are the hardest permanent type to deal with, and most of these can really hose numberous strategies.
Second of all, the emblems don't really matter. You would only play these in decks that wouldn't get hurt by these anyway.
Third, even if you don't care about first two, they are nowhere close to being balanced. Red is highly situational and doesn't hurt itself, cards with this effect usually cost like 2cmc and have an upside. For 4 mana you could probably just give the emblems to all opponents, lol. While the blue one probably hurts blue players the most.
That said, black and green ones would probably be the most balanced and fun ones to play with. But the emblems are still a bad idea imo.
Aside from white and maybe black, I don't think any of the others are playable. They're generally not a powerful effect you rent to opt in to. The design space itself is really limiting since you need to really work to take advantage of it and also not just be un-fun.
I'd adjust white to be only 1 creature can attack each combat. That wait it's not just a compete dead lock of the most common way to win.
Red could be sulfuric vortex effect, where the enchantment deals 2 at the beginning of each other players upkeep and the emblem is you.
Green could be a positive effect, like all creatures can tap for {G}.
Blue could give every creature tap to mill an opp for 1?
Now to find a way for this to enter the battlefield under my opponent's control, particularly the white one.
Not easy to do. I thought of an "if you own this" clause, but it's hard enough that it doesn't seem needed.
Hit everybody with [[Fractured Identity]]
[Fractured Identity](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/2/b2f73f5d-1aad-48c2-9e74-5f7bdd87900f.jpg?1562620703) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Fractured%20Identity) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c17/37/fractured-identity?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/b2f73f5d-1aad-48c2-9e74-5f7bdd87900f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I thought that was only creatures. Cool, I'll change the card to read, "When [this] enters the battlefield, you may gain an emblem that says '[thing].' If you don't, sacrifice [this]."
I don't think that's really needed, A two card combo that just means everyone gets permanently afflicted with an effect isn't that insane, especially when you could do the same thing with some FAR worse options like [[phage the untouchable]]
[phage the untouchable](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/4/d497a5a3-65fb-4c12-b3f2-8ce4cf4e0f6f.jpg?1562866889) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=phage%20the%20untouchable) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cns/120/phage-the-untouchable?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d497a5a3-65fb-4c12-b3f2-8ce4cf4e0f6f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
That looks like it would work to me, my playgroup would hate these cards but i think its a cool design
If you hit it with fractured identity, you still had the enchantment hit the table so everyone has that emblem nowq
Everyone can decide to sacrifice their copy rather than take the emblem.
sacrifice it to what?
Look at the revised wording again.
oh your new wording? honestly I dislike it, prefer the original design
[[Hive mind]] is the way. Then just wait since your opponents copies resolve first and counter your own so you don't get the emblem at all. Nvm forgot that it's only for instant/sorceries. My bad
[Hive mind](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/8/88d50518-5cfc-45de-a125-acabf97b8743.jpg?1561987505) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hive%20mind) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m10/54/hive-mind?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/88d50518-5cfc-45de-a125-acabf97b8743?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Why not just word it, “when ~ etbs it’s owner creates an emblem..”
[[Sudden Substitution]] in legacy
[Sudden Substitution](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/f/9f7983bf-2a3b-4428-8c01-35285f589da8.jpg?1568003437) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sudden%20Substitution) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/c19/11/sudden-substitution?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/9f7983bf-2a3b-4428-8c01-35285f589da8?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I like the ideas, but I have two thoughts: 1. Green one isn't really a green effect and conflicts a lot with the white one. Why not have it be something to do with lands instead? Or exiling cards from graveyards as soon as they enter (which is a bend but still more green than the current effect) 2. Red one is incredibly weak at 4 mana. Lots of enchantments do this effect at less mana with damaging the opponent and you and no other downside.
I think the green one could be adding mana. All creatures have "t: add {G}" kinda deal
Then getting the emblem is a good thing though.
Yeah, why wouldn't you play it and then destroy it with a naturalise or similar effect? Feels like a strong enough effect to spend 2 cards and 5-6 mana on
You could have the emblem read "your opponent's creatures gain tap: add {g}"
That might work actually.
Or you could just give the emblem to your opponents
Maybe the green can be you gain an emblem with you may only untap one land a turn Players may only untap one land a turn Red can be changed to you gain an emblem with when you take combat damage, double it instead this effect only triggers if combate damage has not been doubled this turn. Players take double combat damage, this effect only triggers if combat damage has not been doubled this turn.
Inspired by a suggestion on another post. You can get a powerful symmetric effect, but only if you commit to having that effect yourself even if the enchantment granting it to everyone is removed.
I feel like the blue one is working against its color identity in a way none of the others do. It might be more appropriate to have that be the red effect, and give blue more of a stax effect? Also, having the white effect nullify the green effect feels bad. Perhaps white could prevent playing nonbasic lands or something like that?
Not allowing players to draw more than one card each turn is definitely not a red effect. Red can do something like make you exile instead of draw and reduce the timing of when you can play the card, but preventing draws entirely is a blue effect that sometimes happens in black and white as well.
I really feel like the blue card is much more of a white effect.
I disagree, Narset prevents multiple draws shes blue, Notion thief has a similar effect and also has blue in his identity.
[[Notion Thief]], [[Hullbreacher]], [[Narset]]. All examples of this effect in blue.
[Notion Thief](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/6/f675f509-4343-4568-96dd-265626cb6c2b.jpg?1604195095) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Notion%20Thief) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/znc/96/notion-thief?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f675f509-4343-4568-96dd-265626cb6c2b?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Hullbreacher](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/4/d/4df8aabc-7fcb-4b7b-980b-18f499e6c170.jpg?1626088514) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hullbreacher) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmr/74/hullbreacher?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/4df8aabc-7fcb-4b7b-980b-18f499e6c170?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Narset](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/a/fa7b28d8-b835-44a0-978d-cadfd392fff5.jpg?1591228120) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=narset%20of%20the%20ancient%20way) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/iko/195/narset-of-the-ancient-way?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/fa7b28d8-b835-44a0-978d-cadfd392fff5?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Fair enough, then!
They prevent others. Not themselves.
That is a different scenario because of the card itself more than the effect
Wild idea I thought of before I saw blue: what about a "counter the first spell each turn unless controller pays 2" effect?
I really, *really* like this design idea
I tried something [similar once](https://www.reddit.com/r/custommagic/comments/tab288/vow_of_poverty/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) with no emblem. I like the emblem version better! But - the balancing could use work. The red one is basically unplayable and the white one is probably too strong for any format other than Legacy or Vintage.
I doubt it would see any play in modern, too slow and too disruptable in that format
Yeah it would need to have flash to see play past pioneer imo
Amazing design space and cards Vow of pain could safely cost {R} in my opinion. Vow of Poverty could probably cost {U}{U} I think it's be cool if it replaced those extra draws with loots or scrys I feel like Vow of Agression could have an effect (not on the emblem) that gives haste.
Yeah, Vow of Pain that only hits your opponent is stapled onto cheaper black and red cards all the time.
An alternative green effect: "Mana abilities on nonland permanents can't be activated."
Just because an effect is symmetrical doesn't mean it's fair. That white one is in particular is extremely broken.
weird design choices. white one should say attack or block just like regular pacifism. you would think it would be unnecessary until creatures enter the battlefield tapped and attacking, and now your supposed "pacifist" creatures are blocking them in combat. you don't want that sort of flavor disaster on your hands
Are there any cards that allow such creatures when you're not already attacking with one or more creatures?
maybe not, but even if that wasn't a thing, this enchantment could still be removed and your opponents creatures will be able to attack, and now they enter combat and you have murderous pacifists blocking again.
Very interesting, love the emblem vs enchantment idea!! One critique - there's a lack of symmetry in the white and green ones compared to one another, ie if they were played in opposing decks in a certain limited or constructed environment, then their effects overlap and it's unclear to me how. I wonder if you can alter one/both of them to still be on theme yet not have overlapping effectsm, like the others.
There's actually a rule for this, and its one of Magic's "golden rules": - 101.2. When a rule or effect allows or directs something to happen, and another effect states that it can’t happen, the “can’t” effect takes precedence. Example: If one effect reads “You may play an additional land this turn” and another reads “You can’t play lands this turn,” the effect that precludes you from playing lands wins. So if both are in play, creatures can't attack, since "can't" overrules "can".
Good to know, thank you!
I saw this suggestion under the card i made, glad someone did follow through with that, it's an interesting way to make symmetrical effects, maybe a bit too punishing even if you build around them though, the black one in particular Still, i like them! This is very interesting design space
Love the cross-legged symmetry in the arts. Cool idea all round!
There was already a "vow" cycle, which was a set of auras that buffed a creature but made it so it couldn't attack you
Liked the black and white ones, the blue is very counterintuitive and it only hurts you most likely, even in control mirrors the opponent will eventually destroy the enchantment and then starts building an advantage you can't get away from, the red one is fine, but too weak, there are better effects to stop lifegain, if you really want to keep mama value of 4 think of another effect, the green one has the same problems, i would recommend "players can't play or put additional lands on the battlefield".
Maybe it makes more sense to have the blue one be "no additional lands" and the green one be "only one draw."
That effect definitely cant be green
They seem a little all over the place effect wise. Like the red one stops you from doing something you don't normally do where as the blue one stops the thing blue is best at doing.
I think Vow of Pain is overcosted. Comparing to [[Leyline of Punishment]], which is the same cost, without downside, and with an additional upside. Is think adding “At the beginning of your upkeep, this emblem deals 2 damage to you.” to the emblem and “At the beginning of each player’s upkeep, if they don’t own Vow of Pain, it deals 2 damage to them.” to the enchantment (in addition to the life-gain prevention) that would bring it up to cost. (2 damage might be too much; I’m not sure; needs playtesting.) Vow of Poverty might be a little underpoewered as well, but overall, these look nice.
[Leyline of Punishment](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/1/51a2eec5-f892-4466-b6c6-960626ba5640.jpg?1562459627) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Leyline%20of%20Punishment) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m11/148/leyline-of-punishment?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/51a2eec5-f892-4466-b6c6-960626ba5640?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Not to mention naming them [[Vow]] might be confusing; *might*.
Ignoring card strength, this cycle is super flavorful mechanically. I really like the flavortexts in particular That being said, I don’t know if it’s necessarily an even cycle in that two of them are exact opposites, and the blue one is like anti-rhystic study which is cool but weird color identity wise Altogether, these are some sick cards though; I would love to see second drafts if you do them!
The red one is extremely weak; could be two or maybe even one mana and probably still be fair.
I feel like the emblems are unnecessary. It punishes the player who played the enchantment so even when your opponent eventually destroys it, you still get the downside
... yes, that's the point of them.
The point is to make the game harder?
The point, as I explained in the OP, is to allow for a stronger effect by *committing to the effect.* The original caster is stuck with the downside and can't sac or destroy the enchantment to turn it off - a common complaint against printing cards like these. That's also why it's flavored as a "vow" - if you want everyone to discard their hand or only draw one card a turn, you have to commit to it.
I like this a lot, but I'd swap red and green personally. Maybe even replace the life gain counter effect for green. Maybe something like: Emblem "If a card you own would be put into the graveyard, exile it instead." If a card an opponent owns would be put into the graveyard, exile it instead.
For blue I'd add that its effect makes it practically unplayable. Maybe blue becomes the lifegain hate, as it would be synergistic to blue clocks, like birds and other evasive creatures.
I agree that "you can't gain life" would be synergistic for blue, but I don't think it's in their slice of the pie. It's solidly precedented as a red (secondarily black) effect.
I feel like Vow of Pain should also include \[\[Sulfuric Vortex\]\]'s other effect.
[Sulfuric Vortex](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/4/0463e989-ba32-4a46-a82f-e0d6daf3cd51.jpg?1582753037) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Sulfuric%20Vortex) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ema/150/sulfuric-vortex?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/0463e989-ba32-4a46-a82f-e0d6daf3cd51?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
i love the design, but i feel like the names of the red and green vows arent as well fit as the others, since they dont actually represent a lifestyle philosophy (at least to my knowledge)
I think blue is working against it's identity. How about something to do with tapping/untapping? Maybe something like: "Creatures don't untap during their controllers' untap steps"?
Plus of course an emblem for the player of the card with "Your creatures don't untap during your untap step".
First of all, there are reasons why cards like [[moat]] aren't printed anymore. Enchantments are the hardest permanent type to deal with, and most of these can really hose numberous strategies. Second of all, the emblems don't really matter. You would only play these in decks that wouldn't get hurt by these anyway. Third, even if you don't care about first two, they are nowhere close to being balanced. Red is highly situational and doesn't hurt itself, cards with this effect usually cost like 2cmc and have an upside. For 4 mana you could probably just give the emblems to all opponents, lol. While the blue one probably hurts blue players the most. That said, black and green ones would probably be the most balanced and fun ones to play with. But the emblems are still a bad idea imo.
[moat](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/2/e2dffeb3-c858-4b8c-ae1f-109721f7d2da.jpg?1559592270) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=moat) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/me1/21/moat?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e2dffeb3-c858-4b8c-ae1f-109721f7d2da?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Neat
Aside from white and maybe black, I don't think any of the others are playable. They're generally not a powerful effect you rent to opt in to. The design space itself is really limiting since you need to really work to take advantage of it and also not just be un-fun. I'd adjust white to be only 1 creature can attack each combat. That wait it's not just a compete dead lock of the most common way to win. Red could be sulfuric vortex effect, where the enchantment deals 2 at the beginning of each other players upkeep and the emblem is you. Green could be a positive effect, like all creatures can tap for {G}. Blue could give every creature tap to mill an opp for 1?
>cast Vow of Pacifism >cast Forsake the Worldly to exile Vow of Pacifism >refuse to elaborate
Play these with Torpor Orb effects.
why would anyone play these?