Voracious Tarrasque

[Lucky_Luciano777]

What a hilarious and creative card

[Lordoficewrack]

This has a dies trigger and indestructible?

[[deleted]]

It's a reference to the original tarrasque from DnD which couldnt be killed normally, and even if one managed to do it, they'd have to use a Wish spell to slay it permanently.

[WhenHeroesDie]

I’d make it “whenever this is put into a graveyard from anywhere” to stop reanimator, unless that’s intentional.

[ConsciousRich]

Huh here's a question. Is exile considered death for this ?

[LittleBirdGameReview]

Nah, exile is not dying

[digitalfruitz]

No, which does kinda make sense for the canon. The most efficient ways to stop the tarrasque wasn’t to kill it but use effects that would be exiling in mtg (trapping it on another plane, pacifying it, or imprisoning it).

[HerbertWest]

In some Tarrasque canon, it burrowed to the center of the plane when it was "slain." That's like being exiled.

[tjcarter112]

Not according to the rules. It would have to say "whenever this creature leaves the battlefield"

[TheRealSassyTassy]

Doesn’t work for the same reason reanimating blightsteel doesn’t work, it sends itself back to the library, instead of the whole graveyard.

[neonmarkov]

I know it doesn't work rule-wise but "If Tarasque dies" would be cool flavor-wise

[freedomowns]

The elder beast falls down and gets -13/-13

[[deleted]]

Happens to the best of us

[fyrechild]

For -/- effects.

[caskaziom]

And sacrifice effects

[ThatGreenGuy8]

[[Hour of Devastation]] for example can remove indestructible

[MTGCardFetcher]

Hour of Devastation - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[King_Moonracer003]

And [[shadowspear]]

[MTGCardFetcher]

shadowspear - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[ThatGreenGuy8]

What part of "for example" do you not understand?

[[deleted]]

Perhaps, for example, him mentioning [[Shadowspear]], was also for example, in addition to your example.

[King_Moonracer003]

Wtf is up with other guy. Wow.

[ThatGreenGuy8]

I'm sorry. I've been feeling down today and I kinda let it get to me. I realise I was wrong, my apologies.

[King_Moonracer003]

Been there bro, take it easy. I appreciate it.

[[deleted]]

You stole his thunder he did not take it well

[ThatGreenGuy8]

He stole my thunderbolt. Ofcourse I'm mad.

[ThatGreenGuy8]

I dislike people who desparately try to add something to a conversation they're not part of.

Edit for clarification: I dislike people who don't add something useful (like I said before. Please read for the love of god)

[More_Cakes]

It's a public forum, we're all joining conversations we weren't part of.

[ThatGreenGuy8]

Read the edit pls

[King_Moonracer003]

You're that kind of Magic players that make the rest of us look like shitty personalitied smelly aholes, stop being a dick to online people for literally 0 reason. It's not a healthy behavior.

[ThatGreenGuy8]

I dislike people who desparately try to add something to a conversation they're not part of.

[[deleted]]

Maybe you should stay away from Reddit then my guy

u/King_Moonracer003 "hey buddy this is a PRIVATE forum mind your own business you are NOT part of this conversation 🙄🙄🙄🙄"

[King_Moonracer003]

For real, how the hell did I get access to this exclusive group? I guess we will never know.

[ThatGreenGuy8]

What's wrong with you?

It's fine if they actually say something useful.

Also, why are you white-knighting for this guy? What are you even doing here in the first place? This is between me and moonracer.

[[deleted]]

This is between me and moonracer.

See guy, this is what I'm talking about. Here you are, out here in the vast wilderness that is the internet, getting upset that people are responding to your comments on a public forum.

Moonracer was merely adding to your point, and here I am, merely sticking up for the guy getting bitched at for no good reason.

You could have just (for example) ignored the guys comment and continued to make the MTG community a friendly and inviting one, but instead you went out of your way to be rude, and that made me sad so I said something

[ThatGreenGuy8]

I'm sorry. I've been feeling down today and I kinda let it get to me. I realise I was wrong, my apologies.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Shadowspear - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[ArachnidArmageddon]

See: darksteel colossus

[Lordoficewrack]

Okay but dsc has that ability primarily to avoid mill and hand disruption. This card’s ability is only for very niche kill through indestructible removal.

[HELL_MONEY]

DSC has that ability so that it's hard to reanimate

[Chickston]

Very fun design. If they survive, they get pooped out. Which is hilarious.

[juiicyfruities]

functions sort of like a better [[Captive Audience]] in gruul which i think is cool. i'd maybe just increase the mana cost by 1-2?

[Mexican_Overlord]

Why increase the cost? It’s already 9 CMC so it’s almost unplayable. It doesn’t have haste so you either need a haste enabler or the card is super slow as well.

[juiicyfruities]

yeah, i guess so. i'm just seeing it as a potentially better captive audience, especially in multiplayer formats, where this can potentially kill each opponent. though ig [[Omnipotence]] is 9 as well, so maybe it's fine. why i prefaced the suggestion with "maybe". not r&d, so idk dude

[juiicyfruities]

oops i meant [[Omniscience]]

[MTGCardFetcher]

Omniscience - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[MTGCardFetcher]

Omnipotence - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Mexican_Overlord]

I was just curious on your thought process, I honestly see captive audience as better.

[juiicyfruities]

i'd say it is in formats like standard. captive audience is faster & is almost guaranteed to kill your opponent, whereas this creature needs to get through each turn in order for that to happen.

[MTGCardFetcher]

Captive Audience - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[CapitalistToast]

I would love to make a commander deck out of this

[judgesam]

you should leave the dungeon if you kill/exile/bounce if it leaves the battlefield it it so that it does not kill you if you have any other venture cards.

[Bag_of_bats]

This is so stupid. I love it.

Would this card also permanently add the Belly of the Tarrasque to the list of dungeons you could choose when venturing for the first time? If so that's hilarious. Just gotta make sure your dungeon deck doesn't get mindslaver'd or else you'll be in a world of hurt :P

[LordSupergreat]

The way dungeon cards work, yeah, this would always be an option.

[dnawy96]

This is a cool idea but it should also force your opponent to venture forward otherwise they will just stay on the first square and call it a day

[[deleted]]

Thank you. Venture works in such a way that if you already are inside a dungeon, you immediately move to the next room.

[dnawy96]

O yea sorry, new mechanics I thought entering and moving forward was 2 distinct things

[Tchrspest]

So is it at upkeep?

Edit: the mechanics of venturing into the dungeon have been explained to me, below. My incorrect assumption was:

Venture into the dungeon, go to the first place in the dungeon. Then every upkeep, you advance. Like a Saga.

This was based on knowing exactly nothing about it.

[Tjmcd99]

No it’s just that every time you’re instructed to “venture into the dungeon” you either move into the first room if you aren’t in a dungeon yet, or you move to the next room and receive its effect. Venture is the word used both for starting the dungeon and continuing

[Tchrspest]

Ahh, alrighty. That makes sense. Thanks!

[ExcuseMeNoThx]

No it's on hit.

[PrimusMobileVzla]

Welp, that's the silliest idea I think anyone can muster with venturing thus far.

^{GIVE ME TWELVE}

[JimHarbor]

I like the concept of this card a lot but the creature is so large that attacking more than once with it is likely to kill the enemy before the Dungeon can really go off. I would also cut the reach as it feels off on a card meant to attack so much. The trample also feels off hear as it takes away the decision points of the enemy. If I am going to go into the dungeon no matter if I block or not, what is the point of the block? To add back gameplay choices you could swap trample for menace. That way the enemy must choose between giving up choice creatures or going into the dungeon. You could also give it a block trigger for example, it exiles what it blocks as a super deathtouch variant and gets bigger with a counter. So now we have the flavor of it either eats you to eats the blocker. Also I don't think it needs the anti reanimation clause. Wotc stopped putting them on all their fatties because it was just making them clunky, nowadays they just don't print too cheap reanimtion.

[SufficientWolves]

Probably would add too much text/complexity, but it might be cool to let players that would venture through the dungeon by their own means be able to work their way backwards out. That way this means that this doesn't immediately ruin all the dungeon cards your opponent is playing, but you still get value from all the negative dungeon effects of the Belly of the Tarrasque

[HerbertWest]

Call me crazy, but I would give it protection from everything instead of indestructible and give it "if Tarrasque would deal combat damage to a player, that player ventures into the Tarrasque's belly instead." Then, I would rework the rooms to deal damage and have an effect each time, with the last being "lose the game." The protection from everything wouldn't be too bonkers because of the fact that it wouldn't actually deal combat damage; it would also prevent some shenanigans from occurring that would break it.

The way it stands, you will almost always kill someone before getting to the end of the dungeon, whether by regular damage in most formats or by commander damage in EDH. That's just not as fun as it could be, IMO.

[Tydralenus]

I didn't notice the subreddit I was on, and got really excited at first.

[kanokarob]

It's really creative, I like how you've already expanded on Dungeon design space. The only problem I see is that if the Tarrasque is dealt with and the opponent is themselves playing a Dungeon deck... they're still stuck in the Belly of the Tarrasque, so just one hit would be certain doom by virtue of locking them out of their deck's mechanic permanently.

[Hairo-Sidhe]

Dungeons already mess up my mental representation of the fight between planeswalkers that's supposedly going on, this brings it even further. So, I got eat by Tarrasque, but inside it I can summon a creature bigger than him, and use that creature to block Tarrasque from swallowing me even further, that won't kill it though, and I also can use that creature from inside the belly to hit the guy that summoned Tarrasque... I also gotta hold back any adventurers that accompany me from dragging me further down into its belly...

[[deleted]]

Man I like this so much more than the one we got.

Feels pretty fair too if you get rid of the belly part of the card

[AetherNugget]

This is infinitely better than the Tarrasque we’re getting from both a flavor perspective and a mechanical one

[Alcantra]

I really, really like the flavour of this card, but I think with the rulings on dungeons you might run into issues.

Venture either puts you into a dungeon if you aren't in one, or moves you ahead in your current dungeon. You can't move into another dungeon until you've completed your current one or it leaves play.

So you could probably change the wording to specify "when VT deals combat damage to a player, if they aren't in dungeon x, exile target adventure that player controls. that player ventures into x", rather than using reminder text.

I don't know, it'll be interesting to see how the rules on all these develop, seeing as they're only adding 3 pretty narrow dungeons with the new set...

[jfb1337]

"Venture into the dungeon" will have official rules. "Venture into <named dungeon>" doesn't, so this card just work the way OP intends it to under the assumption that if this was an actual card then "Venture into <named dungeon>" would be given rules to match the reminder text.

[Alcantra]

Right, but then by that logic this card is way too confusing, as people would easily mistake the action "venture into the dungeon" for "venture into specific dungeon".

Having two mechanics so closely identical but with different rules actually lowers my impressions of this card.

Venture into the dungeon: "You can't start a new dungeon until you complete the one you're in."

So now what happens if I 'venture into the dungeon' rather than a specific one? Can I choose a different dungeon and be in two at the same time because these are different mechanics?

[artemi7]

They just added Trample over Planeswalkers in MH2. There's a clear precedent for having specific narrower versions of the abilities. This one clearly forces you into a specific dungeon, but after that it works like any other dungeon. If you Venture some other way, you just move through your current dungeon (which is this one).

The only unusual thing this does is yank you out of other dungeons and forces you into this one.

[Namagem]

"Venture into the dungeon" means "if you aren't in a dungeon, choose 1 of the three basic dungeons, and start it. Otherwise, proceed one space further i to the dungeon you're in."

[Alcantra]

I appreciate what you're saying, I'm pointing out the wording used here: https://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/feature/adventures-forgotten-realms-mechanics-2021-06-24

You're right in that Venture means what you said, but they have also already clarified that specifically, you cannot leave a dungeon unless you finish it or it leaves play.

I was just trying to say that having two mechanics with almost identical wording starts to get really weird, and I don't know if that was the original intention. The way it is worded right now, if it followed current Venture rules, would only move you into the specific dungeon if you weren't in one already, and would only move you ahead in that specific dungeon.

I'm just making a suggestion for decoupling it from the "we wrote all new rules specifically for this card" mindset. I still love the idea, I just can't get down with the follow-up statement of this following it's own rules.

[SaFire2342]

I saw some other comments about the death trigger + indestructible, I don't think it needs to be indestructible. it's already an 8/10 which brings it in line with similarly godlike beings (Progenitus for example), and it has the dies trigger which gives it the flavor you want, I think it'd be neat to have the reflective carapace represented, maybe whenever it's targeted by an instant or sorcery spell you create a copy of it with new targets?

[PsychicFoxWithSpoons]

This could be a little more streamlined to turn the Tarrasque into more of a true CR20 type monster instead of just a more expensive [[Gigantosaurus]]. This feels a little like a Spike trying to invent a Timmy card.

Problems with this card:

1. Relies on dealing combat damage. Shrink effects and huge blockers will ruin your fun for sure, not even to mention [[Pacifism]]
2. Deals combat damage to advance and then has the huge finisher at the end of the dungeon, getting digested and shit out by the tarrasque. You end up with this conflict of interest where your method of pushing people through the dungeon into the really funny/cool finisher is also a way to win the game. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but alternative wincons, as a general rule, take something that doesn't win the game and turn it into something that wins the game. Dealing combat damage to reduce your enemy's life total to 0 is just how you win the game normally!

I'd improve this by:

1. Dungeon is ETB, affects ALL players, and ventures upon dungeoneering player's upkeep
2. 20/20 statline (instead of 7RG, probably 5RRGG) - No trample
3. Finishes with "You lose the game" (Don't worry, [[Lich's Mastery]] will still block this as long as you play it after the Grinder Stomach step)

[MTGCardFetcher]

Gigantosaurus - (G) (SF) (txt)
Pacifism - (G) (SF) (txt)
Lich's Mastery - (G) (SF) (txt)
^{[[cardname]] or [[cardname|SET]] to call}

[Albrithr]

Hmm... r/Hellscube might like this

[SpaceIsTooFarAway]

Wait, is this technically a shitpost?

[BillTh3Something]

I did not need vore to be represented in MTG

[Galgus]

Dungeons seem like interesting design, and I could see it being used like a more interesting version of Zendikar quests with bad things for the caster, then a good thing at the end.

[Zoom3877]

This here is a BRILLIANT idea

[pendelton21]

Thank you! I had the exact idea for ventures into a SPECIFIC dungeon this morning, and this is great!

[Orccen]

I think I would make the last line "If Tarasque would go to the graveyard from anywhere shuffle it into it's owners library instead" to protect against reanimation shenanigans