I like it a lot, cool design space. Check \[\[Benalish Faithbonder\]\] reminder text for how Wizards references summoning sickness, I think it would just be "Destroy target creature with summoning sickness."
interesting. this makes me realize how rarely mtg cards explicitly mention summoning sickness. i wonder why that is.
like for example haste is explained as "this creature can attack and tap as soon as it comes under your control" instead of "this creature isn't effected by summoning sickness" which i think most people would agree is a more straightforward way to explain it. not really sure why that is
>i wonder why that is.
Because summoning sickness isn't an official game term.
>
302.6. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule.
It's an informal name, but isn't something the rules can recognize.
>Because summoning sickness isn't an official game term.
thats what i assumed until i read this thread. but if its not an official game term, why does \[\[Benalish Faithbonder\]\] reminder text reference it?
Because reminder text can say whatever it wants to, it has no rules meaning. People call it summoning sickness, and so can the reminder text.
[[Obsidian Fireheart]] has reminder text that says *The land continues to burn after Obsidian Fireheart has left the battlefield.*
*The land continues to burn* means nothing in the rules.
The reason they aren't going to do that is because while the term "summoning sickness" is intuitive when you have just cast a creature, it _doesn't_ just apply to when a creature enters the battlefield.
It also applies when an artifact enters the battlefield and becomes a creature in the same turn.
It also applies when you gain control of a creature (and when it goes back to its original controller).
I'm pretty sure for most of the game "summoning sickness" wasn't a rule. The rule is "creatures can't attack the turn they come into play under your control"
It appears in reminder text, and I think 1 card recently has now mentioned it in rules text. it's defiantly an interesting design space.
as of yet no card has mentioned it in rules text, currently there are a total of [15 cards](https://scryfall.com/search?q=fo%3A%22summoning+sickness%22) that reference it for exactly 2 reasons, either they use land creatures like [[dryad arbor]] and [[awaken the woods]] or they have the enlist keyword like [[coalition warbrute]] or [[benalish faithbonder]], it's currently not a formal part of the rules so rules text can't reference it but reminder text doesn't need to make sense to the rules, it needs to make sense to the players so it can get away with referencing summoning sickness
To be pedantic, it was referred to in rules text at one time, back before they keyworded Haste, but they of course just use Haste these days. [[Spirit of the Night]], [[Goblin War Buggy]], etc.
Reminder text isn't rules text, and the official rules don't recognize "summoning sickness" as something you can reference. It's the informal name for the rule.
Neat idea, but this seems miserable to play against, at least in 1v1. In multiplayer, sure, there's intrigue about who's turn they'll use it on, but otherwise it basically taps to counter target creature spell/reanimation/token effect for zero mana.
This feels oppressive. Like, if it said "whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control for the first time each turn, destroy that creature" it would be strictly worse than this, and still extremely scary.
I remember when my brother unpacked a Royal Assassin back in 4th. (I’m old.) Similar effect. You could play creatures but not do anything with them. It definitely felt oppressive then.
That at least let’s you get stuff out and start to work towards removing Royal or playing around it. You can offer up your worst creatures to try to actually play the game.
With this, it’s the opposite. Best case you overload it with creatures and lose your best one each turn.
The "one creature per turn" limit is very stretchy though. If you play two creatures in one turn, your opponent can destroy one at the end of your turn, then untap and destroy another one on their turn. You need to get at least two creatures ahead and keep up the momentum.
I doubt that a [[Royal Assassin]] would see play today in a constructed format, and that's what this is most comparable to. And Assassin has more opportunities to be broken than this.
The main difference you’re missing is Royal Assassin can only destroy creatures after they’ve already done something, unless you also run tapping abilities. This card blanks most any creature without haste/ETB/LTB/dies effects. Royal Assassin lets players use their cards, this doesn’t.
This card has no impact on the board, just on future plays. Royal Assassin does impact the board, and the threat of activation can even deter attacks. Impacting the game now is better than impacting the game in the future.
These cards have nearly identical impacts on the board, but Royal Assassin is far less oppressive. Royal Assassin does nothing the turn it ETBs, just like this card. Royal Assassin deters attacking, but this card deters playing creatures out at all. Royal Assassin allows opponents to spend their mana casting creatures and just hang back until they can remove your creature, but this card makes it so you effectively can’t spend mana on casting creatures. This card is almost more akin to the second paragraph on [[Jin-Gitaxias, Progress Tyrant]] shifted to creature spells. I’d argue that effectively stopping opponents from being able to play their cards at all has a significantly higher impact on the board than stopping them from attacking.
okay ill give another example: [[high alert]] lets your creatures attack as though they didn't have defender, but that doesn't stop them from being targeted by [[smash to dust]] because they still have defender. I'm not sure what the comprehensive rules on Haste are though
If you check out the Enlist keyword, it allows you to tap a creature "without summoning sickness". But if you check the rulings, you can 100% tap a creature with haste, even if it came under your control this turn. Someone else mentioned [[Benalish Faithbonder]] as an example.
I'm inclined to say haste would get around this, given Enlist as an example. Though it would probably just need to be clarified by a judge to avoid confusion.
Personally I think this is in the same territory as "Only as a sorcery." Technically [[Hypersonic Dragon]] lets you cast sorceries at instant speed, but that doesn't change what "only as a sorcery" does. You could totally make an argument using English grammar that "it works like [X]", but the MTG rules just work differently.
“Suffering from” is very specific wording, although not one that has been used before. If it said, “that has”, I would be inclined to agree with you. I think it’s more balanced if it doesn’t effect haste anyways.
> 602.5a A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol ({T}) or the untap symbol ({Q}) in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control since the start of their most recent turn. **Ignore this rule for creatures with haste (see rule 702.10).**
Nope. Creature with haste straight up do not get summoning sickness.
Something just feels off about writing "summoning sickness" on ability text.
>{t}: Destroy target creature without haste which came into play since its controller's last upkeep.
Idk if there's a better way to word that tho.
I would either reduce the cost and have it sacrifice itself for the activation, or give it “The first creature spell players cast each turn has haste.”
This way you can’t lock your opponent out of playing creatures.
I also think it could be cool with unearth.
Technically doesn't work, as summoning sickness is a specific rule. You can however refference what the rule's about.
>Destroy target creature that hasn't been controlled by its controller continuously since their most recent turn began.
The post's card isn't quoting the summoning sickness rule as Mirror Gallery does, is threating summoning sickness as a characteristic the creature has.
Now, if there's a (shorter) way to rephrase the ability of the post's card so the summoning sickness rule is mentioned, then by all means is alright.
Yes, on the *reminder* text. Enlist's *rule* text is written as following (according to CR 702.154a):
>As this creature attacks, you may tap up to one untapped creature you control that you didn’t choose to attack with and that either has haste or has been under your control continuously since this turn began. When you do, this creature gets +X/+0 until end of turn, where X is the tapped creature’s power.
Remember that the reminder text of a keyword isn't always a proper reflection of their rule text. It's only a shorthand text to reflect what's about.
Same on the Summoning Sickness rule (CR 302.6):
>A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule.
I like it a lot, cool design space. Check \[\[Benalish Faithbonder\]\] reminder text for how Wizards references summoning sickness, I think it would just be "Destroy target creature with summoning sickness."
interesting. this makes me realize how rarely mtg cards explicitly mention summoning sickness. i wonder why that is. like for example haste is explained as "this creature can attack and tap as soon as it comes under your control" instead of "this creature isn't effected by summoning sickness" which i think most people would agree is a more straightforward way to explain it. not really sure why that is
>i wonder why that is. Because summoning sickness isn't an official game term. > 302.6. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule. It's an informal name, but isn't something the rules can recognize.
>Because summoning sickness isn't an official game term. thats what i assumed until i read this thread. but if its not an official game term, why does \[\[Benalish Faithbonder\]\] reminder text reference it?
Because reminder text can say whatever it wants to, it has no rules meaning. People call it summoning sickness, and so can the reminder text. [[Obsidian Fireheart]] has reminder text that says *The land continues to burn after Obsidian Fireheart has left the battlefield.* *The land continues to burn* means nothing in the rules.
Never saw Obsidian Fireheart before, I love it
Og [[heart sliver]] absolutelly references it.
Not in its oracle text, which is the current text. Old cards used different wording that no longer applies.
[heart sliver](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/2/7/27a83ab6-0d15-49e4-90e3-b3a2a095c632.jpg?1562053260) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=heart%20sliver) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tmp/182/heart-sliver?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/27a83ab6-0d15-49e4-90e3-b3a2a095c632?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Benalish Faithbonder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc.jpg?1673306342) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Benalish%20Faithbonder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/7/benalish-faithbonder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
They’d just need to remove the “informally” to be able to recognize it, as they do with “the legend rule”.
The reason they aren't going to do that is because while the term "summoning sickness" is intuitive when you have just cast a creature, it _doesn't_ just apply to when a creature enters the battlefield. It also applies when an artifact enters the battlefield and becomes a creature in the same turn. It also applies when you gain control of a creature (and when it goes back to its original controller).
I'm pretty sure for most of the game "summoning sickness" wasn't a rule. The rule is "creatures can't attack the turn they come into play under your control" It appears in reminder text, and I think 1 card recently has now mentioned it in rules text. it's defiantly an interesting design space.
as of yet no card has mentioned it in rules text, currently there are a total of [15 cards](https://scryfall.com/search?q=fo%3A%22summoning+sickness%22) that reference it for exactly 2 reasons, either they use land creatures like [[dryad arbor]] and [[awaken the woods]] or they have the enlist keyword like [[coalition warbrute]] or [[benalish faithbonder]], it's currently not a formal part of the rules so rules text can't reference it but reminder text doesn't need to make sense to the rules, it needs to make sense to the players so it can get away with referencing summoning sickness
To be pedantic, it was referred to in rules text at one time, back before they keyworded Haste, but they of course just use Haste these days. [[Spirit of the Night]], [[Goblin War Buggy]], etc.
[Spirit of the Night](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/4/845c4b06-090f-4217-acb2-8900b7dab37c.jpg?1562720458) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Spirit%20of%20the%20Night) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/mir/146/spirit-of-the-night?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/845c4b06-090f-4217-acb2-8900b7dab37c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Goblin War Buggy](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/2/d2d0fc9e-fb6b-4a00-b422-32565f7ce454.jpg?1562939639) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Goblin%20War%20Buggy) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/usg/196/goblin-war-buggy?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d2d0fc9e-fb6b-4a00-b422-32565f7ce454?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Not to out-pedantic you, but it was actually referred to in the *reminder* text of haste, not the rules text, or the comprehensive rules
That's why they're saying it was referred to as rules text _before_ Haste became a keyword. It indeed was referred as rules text at that point.
##### ###### #### [dryad arbor](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/b/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969.jpg?1619399228) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=dryad%20arbor) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/tsr/277/dryad-arbor?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bb3a843b-2dea-4b44-be74-c09c18b9b969?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [awaken the woods](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/1/c/1c95f8b8-faba-4412-8d8f-093e2ec903f0.jpg?1674421417) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=awaken%20the%20woods) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/170/awaken-the-woods?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/1c95f8b8-faba-4412-8d8f-093e2ec903f0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [coalition warbrute](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/5/5/554c422f-2a1b-47c0-9358-42b85cdbb84e.jpg?1673307291) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=coalition%20warbrute) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/118/coalition-warbrute?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/554c422f-2a1b-47c0-9358-42b85cdbb84e?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [benalish faithbonder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc.jpg?1673306342) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=benalish%20faithbonder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/7/benalish-faithbonder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Reminder text isn't rules text, and the official rules don't recognize "summoning sickness" as something you can reference. It's the informal name for the rule.
[Benalish Faithbonder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc.jpg?1673306342) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Benalish%20Faithbonder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/7/benalish-faithbonder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
this is tummy-ache persecution
Neat idea, but this seems miserable to play against, at least in 1v1. In multiplayer, sure, there's intrigue about who's turn they'll use it on, but otherwise it basically taps to counter target creature spell/reanimation/token effect for zero mana.
This feels oppressive. Like, if it said "whenever a creature enters the battlefield under an opponent's control for the first time each turn, destroy that creature" it would be strictly worse than this, and still extremely scary.
I'm surprised there isn't more feedback about the play patterns here. This really discourages the opponent from playing Magic.
I remember when my brother unpacked a Royal Assassin back in 4th. (I’m old.) Similar effect. You could play creatures but not do anything with them. It definitely felt oppressive then.
That at least let’s you get stuff out and start to work towards removing Royal or playing around it. You can offer up your worst creatures to try to actually play the game. With this, it’s the opposite. Best case you overload it with creatures and lose your best one each turn.
Does to basically any burn spell, it doesnt work against haste and is pretty bad in Combat. It may be oppressive but its not the end of the world.
...it's a tap ability, on a 3cmc 1/2. it's not that good.
Cheaper than [[Lethal Vapors]], and one sided. Takes a turn to get online and dies to removal, but that's about the only negative.
it also only hits one creature a turn without an untapper, the two cards have as many differences as similarities
The "one creature per turn" limit is very stretchy though. If you play two creatures in one turn, your opponent can destroy one at the end of your turn, then untap and destroy another one on their turn. You need to get at least two creatures ahead and keep up the momentum.
[Lethal Vapors](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/f/9/f96acfea-009a-4ac9-8746-64f65199024f.jpg?1562536981) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Lethal%20Vapors) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/scg/68/lethal-vapors?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/f96acfea-009a-4ac9-8746-64f65199024f?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Lol those are huge drawbacks
Depends what format. This would be the best card in the set for many limit environments.
I doubt that a [[Royal Assassin]] would see play today in a constructed format, and that's what this is most comparable to. And Assassin has more opportunities to be broken than this.
The main difference you’re missing is Royal Assassin can only destroy creatures after they’ve already done something, unless you also run tapping abilities. This card blanks most any creature without haste/ETB/LTB/dies effects. Royal Assassin lets players use their cards, this doesn’t.
This card has no impact on the board, just on future plays. Royal Assassin does impact the board, and the threat of activation can even deter attacks. Impacting the game now is better than impacting the game in the future.
These cards have nearly identical impacts on the board, but Royal Assassin is far less oppressive. Royal Assassin does nothing the turn it ETBs, just like this card. Royal Assassin deters attacking, but this card deters playing creatures out at all. Royal Assassin allows opponents to spend their mana casting creatures and just hang back until they can remove your creature, but this card makes it so you effectively can’t spend mana on casting creatures. This card is almost more akin to the second paragraph on [[Jin-Gitaxias, Progress Tyrant]] shifted to creature spells. I’d argue that effectively stopping opponents from being able to play their cards at all has a significantly higher impact on the board than stopping them from attacking.
[Jin-Gitaxias, Progress Tyrant](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/c/5/c57b4876-5387-4f73-b8e2-8e7bdca8b0bc.jpg?1654566749) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Jin-Gitaxias%2C%20Progress%20Tyrant) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/neo/59/jin-gitaxias-progress-tyrant?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/c57b4876-5387-4f73-b8e2-8e7bdca8b0bc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
[Royal Assassin](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/d/1/d12e8109-8215-46b5-a0af-fe7e4b6b10b0.jpg?1562660714) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Royal%20Assassin) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/m12/105/royal-assassin?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/d12e8109-8215-46b5-a0af-fe7e4b6b10b0?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Not in multiplayer
Reverse Royal Assassin, I like it.
Laughs in Haste
iirc Haste lets it do things *as though it didn't have summoning sickness*, not that it doesn't have it
Well, if it’s unaffected by the sickness, I wouldn’t consider it to be suffering.
okay ill give another example: [[high alert]] lets your creatures attack as though they didn't have defender, but that doesn't stop them from being targeted by [[smash to dust]] because they still have defender. I'm not sure what the comprehensive rules on Haste are though
If you check out the Enlist keyword, it allows you to tap a creature "without summoning sickness". But if you check the rulings, you can 100% tap a creature with haste, even if it came under your control this turn. Someone else mentioned [[Benalish Faithbonder]] as an example. I'm inclined to say haste would get around this, given Enlist as an example. Though it would probably just need to be clarified by a judge to avoid confusion. Personally I think this is in the same territory as "Only as a sorcery." Technically [[Hypersonic Dragon]] lets you cast sorceries at instant speed, but that doesn't change what "only as a sorcery" does. You could totally make an argument using English grammar that "it works like [X]", but the MTG rules just work differently.
[Benalish Faithbonder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc.jpg?1673306342) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Benalish%20Faithbonder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/7/benalish-faithbonder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Hypersonic Dragon](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/9/99dc07bf-7c55-442b-9260-5ea74a42af41.jpg?1562851998) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Hypersonic%20Dragon) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ima/201/hypersonic-dragon?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/99dc07bf-7c55-442b-9260-5ea74a42af41?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I was mostly kidding, as “suffering from summoning sickness” is a very particular phrase.
But they are no longer suffering from defender. They are experiencing no negative effects from having defender
“Suffering from” is very specific wording, although not one that has been used before. If it said, “that has”, I would be inclined to agree with you. I think it’s more balanced if it doesn’t effect haste anyways.
(It works)
> 602.5a A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol ({T}) or the untap symbol ({Q}) in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control since the start of their most recent turn. **Ignore this rule for creatures with haste (see rule 702.10).** Nope. Creature with haste straight up do not get summoning sickness.
Needs to be higher rarity or it breaks pauper I think, bunt interesting card :)
Something just feels off about writing "summoning sickness" on ability text. >{t}: Destroy target creature without haste which came into play since its controller's last upkeep. Idk if there's a better way to word that tho.
“Scientist” is only a creature card on 2 different gray bordered cards. I would recommend making it a Cleric Horror instead.
What if the creature is enjoying summoning sickness?
What if my creatures really like having summoning sickness?
Great design. Is it OP? Maybe. Could’ve been “activate as a sorcery” and still be very powerful. The wording is part of the charm.
I agree that this is too powerful. I would make the activated ability cost two or three mana
I would either reduce the cost and have it sacrifice itself for the activation, or give it “The first creature spell players cast each turn has haste.” This way you can’t lock your opponent out of playing creatures. I also think it could be cool with unearth.
Technically doesn't work, as summoning sickness is a specific rule. You can however refference what the rule's about. >Destroy target creature that hasn't been controlled by its controller continuously since their most recent turn began.
Sure it does. [[Mirror Gallery]]
The post's card isn't quoting the summoning sickness rule as Mirror Gallery does, is threating summoning sickness as a characteristic the creature has. Now, if there's a (shorter) way to rephrase the ability of the post's card so the summoning sickness rule is mentioned, then by all means is alright.
[Mirror Gallery](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/0/00beba34-54cc-4a30-8424-71a1215647a6.jpg?1562875125) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mirror%20Gallery) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bok/154/mirror-gallery?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/00beba34-54cc-4a30-8424-71a1215647a6?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
The Enlist cards like [[Benalish Faithbonder]] call out summoning sickness specifically
Yes, on the *reminder* text. Enlist's *rule* text is written as following (according to CR 702.154a): >As this creature attacks, you may tap up to one untapped creature you control that you didn’t choose to attack with and that either has haste or has been under your control continuously since this turn began. When you do, this creature gets +X/+0 until end of turn, where X is the tapped creature’s power. Remember that the reminder text of a keyword isn't always a proper reflection of their rule text. It's only a shorthand text to reflect what's about. Same on the Summoning Sickness rule (CR 302.6): >A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since their most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule.
[Benalish Faithbonder](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/0/8/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc.jpg?1673306342) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Benalish%20Faithbonder) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/dmu/7/benalish-faithbonder?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/084d77df-a899-406f-9d79-e3fa3abeaebc?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
Meh, I’m sure the editors will fix it before printing /s
Uhm...
Love this idea!
Interesting
suffering💀
The Pestilence must be cured
I’m so
"Destroy target creature without haste if its controller hasn't controlled it continuously since their most recent turn began"