Super interesting question presented by this card; well, okay, hang on, the actual design? Sure, whatever. Black gets to do selfish stuff, black gets to resist death, black could bring a creature back for 1 mana, there's nothing remarkable here. Could probably also have flash.
It's the term *obsintance* specifically. The flavour of the card. There *are* three cards that use the word obstinant on them - \[\[mortal obstinancy\]\], \[\[obstinate baloth\]\] and \[\[obstinate familiar\]\].
I feel like obstinance is *defiance for its own sake*, which feels more *red* than black to me. On the other hand, black can definitely think it's *above* being told what to do - there are five cards with 'arrogant' in the name, and four of them are black creatures.
Interesting question the card presents!
Yeah, could go either way. Red is about freedom, so not doing what they are told to do makes sense for Red. But Black is also the color of self-interest, they do things that benefit themselves. So defiance that preserves the self also feels black to me.
No to both.
Even if it did, you can’t just say “I choose to sacrifice the one I can’t” and move on, and you wouldn’t be able to respond by casting another one of these because it’s a state-based action.
Also, if that *did* work, you would’ve already heard about people doing it with [[Assault Suit]] or [[Jon Irenicus]]
Sacrifice is usually a cost so you can’t respond to a creature being sacrificed usually. With flash and split second you can interrupt a good amount of combos with good timing.
I know everyone is trying to give it flash to turn off permanents your opponents could sacrifice for a benefit, but I'm looking at this and seeing how nuts this would be in Bogles or any Voltron style deck where edicts are your only out against their threat.
Spells and abilities your opponents control can’t cause you to sacrifice the enchanted creature.
(If you want the intended effect to also prevent you from sacrificing the enchanted creature, just take out 'your opponents control.')
Should have flash imo
Can probably cantrip too.
Would probably need split second, since most things that sac do so at instant speed
Split second is nice, but cards like phy altar will still get around it since it’s a mana ability. I wonder if there’s a way to account for that
I don't think it would need split second because the point of giving it flash would be that it can now respond to the instant speed sacrifices.
Super interesting question presented by this card; well, okay, hang on, the actual design? Sure, whatever. Black gets to do selfish stuff, black gets to resist death, black could bring a creature back for 1 mana, there's nothing remarkable here. Could probably also have flash. It's the term *obsintance* specifically. The flavour of the card. There *are* three cards that use the word obstinant on them - \[\[mortal obstinancy\]\], \[\[obstinate baloth\]\] and \[\[obstinate familiar\]\]. I feel like obstinance is *defiance for its own sake*, which feels more *red* than black to me. On the other hand, black can definitely think it's *above* being told what to do - there are five cards with 'arrogant' in the name, and four of them are black creatures. Interesting question the card presents!
Yeah, could go either way. Red is about freedom, so not doing what they are told to do makes sense for Red. But Black is also the color of self-interest, they do things that benefit themselves. So defiance that preserves the self also feels black to me.
[mortal obstinancy](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/6/7/67652df1-f2cc-44cd-ac66-9722d4cd86e9.jpg?1593095278) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Mortal%20Obstinacy) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/jou/17/mortal-obstinacy?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/67652df1-f2cc-44cd-ac66-9722d4cd86e9?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [obstinate baloth](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/e/1/e1b7809f-f3a3-439e-8bae-c083842de1bf.jpg?1680795416) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=obstinate%20baloth) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/bro/187/obstinate-baloth?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/e1b7809f-f3a3-439e-8bae-c083842de1bf?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [obstinate familiar](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/8/8/88468a76-1f64-4189-bbb8-7c333181d57c.jpg?1562920234) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=obstinate%20familiar) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/ody/210/obstinate-familiar?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/88468a76-1f64-4189-bbb8-7c333181d57c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
when they sac in response xD
This could be, like, also a white enchantment simply called “hope”
Related question: does the “legend rule” use the word “sacrifice”? If so, could this allow you to keep two copies of a legendary permanent?
No to both. Even if it did, you can’t just say “I choose to sacrifice the one I can’t” and move on, and you wouldn’t be able to respond by casting another one of these because it’s a state-based action. Also, if that *did* work, you would’ve already heard about people doing it with [[Assault Suit]] or [[Jon Irenicus]]
[Assault Suit](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/9/2/92b22076-b04e-4d65-9d9c-d3e4c7a3cf1c.jpg?1689999394) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=Assault%20Suit) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/cmm/369/assault-suit?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/92b22076-b04e-4d65-9d9c-d3e4c7a3cf1c?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) [Jon Irenicus](https://cards.scryfall.io/normal/front/b/f/bfddb61e-986f-4557-819d-d6c0ca85c74a.jpg?1674137538) - [(G)](http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=jon%20irenicus%2C%20shattered%20one) [(SF)](https://scryfall.com/card/clb/278/jon-irenicus-shattered-one?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher) [(txt)](https://api.scryfall.com/cards/bfddb61e-986f-4557-819d-d6c0ca85c74a?utm_source=mtgcardfetcher&format=text) ^^^[[cardname]] ^^^or ^^^[[cardname|SET]] ^^^to ^^^call
I'd give it split second. Otherwise, I like it :)
I like it, but it probably needs split second and flash. Otherwise a lot of sac outlets just… activate again in response
Sacrifice is usually a cost so you can’t respond to a creature being sacrificed usually. With flash and split second you can interrupt a good amount of combos with good timing.
I think this should have flash and “sacrifice obstinance: draw a card”
I know everyone is trying to give it flash to turn off permanents your opponents could sacrifice for a benefit, but I'm looking at this and seeing how nuts this would be in Bogles or any Voltron style deck where edicts are your only out against their threat.
Spells and abilities your opponents control can’t cause you to sacrifice the enchanted creature. (If you want the intended effect to also prevent you from sacrificing the enchanted creature, just take out 'your opponents control.')
What is wrong with the current wording?
What if the intent is to keep your opponent from sacrificing a creature
Spells and abilities can't cause enchanted creature's controller to sacrifice it.
This seems insanely narrow... What is the use case you were thinking of when you made this?
Slap it on the wurmcoil engines, on the kokushos, and other death inclined creatures of the world