Relic Use: The Ruins and The Builder

[EmeraldTiger]

I am thinking The Ruins can generate a Relic when a Permanent is destroyed. The Builder then can turn a Relic in to a random non-slot Permanent.

[EvaRia]

Problem: Relics are Spells =X

[ZephyrPhantom]

Problem: Relics are Spells =X

You can still have cards that benefit from having relics in-hand or cards that require you to discard or play a relic.
There have been plenty of card ideas based on synergy with Relic, and I think it'd be an interesting idea to implement cards ingame that work well with it.

[RRQJ]

Or relics can just be recoded as permanents.

[EmeraldTiger]

Because it is a spell The Ruins would have to generate a Relic in hand. Then with each Relic cast per Builder a non-slot Permanent is created.

[EmeraldTiger]

[Rutarete]

Why the X cost?

[EmeraldTiger]

still in early form, I had no idea for cost.

[NikaZaslavsky]

I like this idea. I don't think there should be useless cards in the game.

About the cards:
•the wordings should be more like "every time a permanent is destroyed, 1 relic is generated in your hand."
•those should be made into real card ideas (with a topic in the smithy)

[EmeraldTiger]

i based the wording off graveyard.

[NikaZaslavsky]

Oh really? I thought a wording for generating something never uses the generating card's name.

[Sevs]

I like the idea of placing relics in hand. but what if we gave relics a use by making them cost a bit more say 5 quanta . Then everytime a perm is destroyed a relic is placed into the hand of the opponent as a form of hand denial.

Of course this might be abused as you eventually combine this with pulvy and essentially nightmare everyturn.