Does a "piercing" mechanic make sense?

[perm]

I was thinking of having a mechanic not even as a keyword mechanic, but for a specific card with a specific use, that can target things that would otherwise be untargetable. example:

Piercing Death
Instant
2BB
Piercing Death can target creatures that could otherwise not be targeted.

Destroy target creature.

First of all, how would this have to be worded for it to make sense mechanically and rules wise?

I think a similar card will inevitably be printed. Is such a card inevitable? And in what form would it be made?

[emidln]

Perhaps with the templating:

"Choose a creature in play. That creature''s controller sacrifices it."

[rufus]

Honestly, I think it could be a fun to have a reverse protection thing:
RRR
Deal 1 damage to each target creature in play.
Exile all creatures who did not get damaged this way.

[perm]

Perhaps with the templating:

"Choose a creature in play. That creature''s controller sacrifices it."

that would also get past regenerate and indestructable effects though, which wouldn't be the exact intention of the card. I was just thinking one that could target the untargetable. I suppose:

"Choose a creature in play. Destroy that creature."

[DrJones]

Name a card. Destroy all creatures in play with that name.

Also, Extinction.

[perm]

single target removal, though.

[Meekrab]

Interesting idea in the OP. It gets around "protection from" as well as untargetability, while still allowing things like Misdirection to save the creature, which none of the 'Choose' templates do.

[pippo84]

Good Idea! I'd like to see this card printed! It wouldn't be broken, but playable in some decks/sides..

[Vacrix]

Why not just instead word the spell in such a way:
Piercing Death 1BB
Instant
Creatures lose shroud and protection until the end of turn.
Destroy target creature.

[DarthVicious]

If the card was templated as "~this spell~ can target permanents that otherwise can't be targetted' then it doesn't work. Piecing Death wouldn't work either, as you have to announce targets as you cast the spell, and the creature doesn't lose those abilities until resolution.

One of the most basic rules of Magic is that if there are two contradicting effects in play, the one that says "can't" is the one that wins.

Templating it something along the lines of 'Choose a permanent with shroud.' would probably be the easiest way. It can even be limited. 'Choose a nonblack creature with protection from black.' Possibilities are endless.

[jrsthethird]

So this doesn't really solve the problem but my original idea developed into this:

Pay the Mana Cost Next Time, Asshole
B
Instant
This card can not be played after your 7th turn.
Each player sacrifices all creatures with converted mana cost greater than 8.

But seriously, "Name a creature, then exile all creatures with that name." seems like the best plan. If you say "Choose a creature" it feels like you're cheating the rules.

[heroicraptor]

But seriously, "Name a creature, then exile all creatures with that name."

I don't know if killing swaths of tokens is the right way to go.

[perm]

I don't see why we need to beat around the bush with the rules (all creatures lose shroud etc).

printed text says shround/protection is irrelevant. Why is that impossible?

[Bardo]

Moved to Community.

[jrsthethird]

I don't know if killing swaths of tokens is the right way to go.

I'm trying to make it not feel like you're cheating shroud. Saying "choose a creature" doesn't feel right because it's basically saying the same thing as target, without using the word target. Also, I don't think kitchen table players would get the interaction.

If you're disguising the effect as a sweeper, then it doesn't feel like a way to explicitly avoid shroud.

[dontbiteitholmes]

How about a keyword "Piercing" that says spells or abilities with piercing can target permanents with shroud.

[Purgatory]

How about a keyword "Piercing" that says spells or abilities with piercing can target permanents with shroud.

That would still be weird, because it still breaks the fundamental can vs. can't rule of Magic.