Had this awkward left over from the Crescendo concept that I never got to share. I was just tinkering with a possible burn card with the idea.
Brillo Pad 4 Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, Brillo Pad deals 1 damage to you.
: Brillo Pad deals 3 damage to target creature. 2, : Sacrifice Brillo Pad.
Here's another odd end I had and wasn't sure where to put it.
Impudent Lazy Cuck UB Creature ‒ Human Imp
Halve all positive numerical values, rounded down, in the text of spells and abilities controlled by Impudent Lazy Cuck's controller. "What is math even? A philosophy? A theory? One more thing we have but we'll never truly understand or realize? One more thing with no purpose in our lives other than to complicate it, and take away from our enjoyment of more primordial indulgences? If so, where does it even find place in life? For these are these not true things that give meaning to life? How could it ever equate?"
1/1
Brillo Pad may as well have "Cumulative Upkeep - Brillo Pad deals 1 damage to you.".
Impudent causes a lot of weirdness. Since creature spells are still spells, it will end up forming counterless creatures with P/Ts that don't match their printed values. On the plus side, though, at least it's practically impossible to play a second.
The pad would work in quite other way than Cumulative upkeep, as you can always not pay. However, the card doesn't follow any formatting rules and doesn't even work in magic rules as is (when the counter should be put?). ReapThaWirlwind, please, read some cards on gatherer that work similarly and write yours in this fashion before posting cards here. For this card, consider Smokestack.
As it is, it seems really powerful, killing three creatures for a price of three mana and 3 life, and if you want to stop you need to pay only two.
Brillo Pad may as well have "Cumulative Upkeep - Brillo Pad deals 1 damage to you.".
Impudent causes a lot of weirdness. Since creature spells are still spells, it will end up forming counterless creatures with P/Ts that don't match their printed values. On the plus side, though, at least it's practically impossible to play a second.
It's funny you should say that, because this was literally an idea I had for a second one.
Impudent Lazy Cuck Jr.UB Creature ‒ Human Imp
Subtract 1 from all positive numerical values in the text of spells and abilities controlled by Impudent Lazy Cuck Jr.'s controller. "What is English even? A chore? A curse? One more thing that makes life harder than it feels like it needs to be? One more thing that makes the opposite gender even harder to communicate with? Would this not make it the antithesis of life's meaning? For what is left of life without such leisures? How does one make the best of this time and space they have? From whence cometh such strength?"
1/1
As for the power/toughness aspect, I didn't originally envision this effect to affect power and toughness. And I had thought that the best way of resolving any confusion would be with a comprehensive ruling. Otherwise, a "except power and toughness" clause would also work just fine. My logic on this factor resolves around the loose reference of effects only pertaining to the text within the text box, such as with cards like Crystal Spray and New Blood. I guess I probably should have added the term "text" to the wording to secure that context, but I really wasn't thinking about it all that deeply.
The pad would work in quite other way than Cumulative upkeep, as you can always not pay. However, the card doesn't follow any formatting rules and doesn't even work in magic rules as is (when the counter should be put?). ReapThaWirlwind, please, read some cards on gatherer that work similarly and write yours in this fashion before posting cards here. For this card, consider Smokestack.
As it is, it seems really powerful, killing three creatures for a price of three mana and 3 life, and if you want to stop you need to pay only two.
Crescendo instructs a person to use a counter to keep track of the Cresendo stack. It doesn't actually put a physical counteronto the card. Akin to this, there is no need to define any if-where-when-or-how in the placement of physical counters on the Crescendo card. The counter technically exists outside the game, and the count is increased when the ability would trigger for the first time, but before it goes onto the stack.
You know, I'm well-versed in mtg content, development, and schematics; but I haven't really been in the spirit of it for a while. I was thinking it of a creature and forgot that as an artifact, it would be able to tap on the turn it enters the battlefield. I guess it should cost another 1 at least in that case. I don't think the other ability needs to be increased any, since both abilities require you to tap, and this was intended to ensure that you can't tap for damage and get an extra hit off before you sacrifice it to save yourself.
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
This mechanic is still a non-starter. It's too much complexity for too little payoff, and "use a counter to keep track of this" is complete nonsense - when is the counter put on? What kind of counter is it?
I don't actually think cumulative upkeep is an inherently bad mechanic, but of course that has a few different rules implications; in this case "At the beginning of your upkeep, put a charge counter on this" and then setting variables ("then this deals damage to you equal to the number of charge counters on it") works just fine.
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
This mechanic is still a non-starter. It's too much complexity for too little payoff, and "use a counter to keep track of this" is complete nonsense - when is the counter put on? What kind of counter is it?
I don't actually think cumulative upkeep is an inherently bad mechanic, but of course that has a few different rules implications; in this case "At the beginning of your upkeep, put a charge counter on this" and then setting variables ("then this deals damage to you equal to the number of charge counters on it") works just fine.
Crescendo instructs a person to use a counter to keep track of the Crescendo stack. It doesn't actually put a physical counteronto the card. Akin to this, there is no need to define any if-where-when-or-how in the placement of physical counters for Crescendo. The counter technically exists outside the game, and the count is increased when the ability would trigger for the first time, but before it goes onto the stack.
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
This mechanic is still a non-starter. It's too much complexity for too little payoff, and "use a counter to keep track of this" is complete nonsense - when is the counter put on? What kind of counter is it?
I don't actually think cumulative upkeep is an inherently bad mechanic, but of course that has a few different rules implications; in this case "At the beginning of your upkeep, put a charge counter on this" and then setting variables ("then this deals damage to you equal to the number of charge counters on it") works just fine.
Crescendo instructs a person to use a counter to keep track of the Crescendo stack. It doesn't actually put a physical counteronto the card. Akin to this, there is no need to define any if-where-when-or-how in the placement of physical counters for Crescendo. The counter technically exists outside the game, and the count is increased when the ability would trigger for the first time, but before it goes onto the stack.
That makes no sense under the actual rules of Magic.
I personally don't know of any rules that prohibit the instruction of using counters outside the game. I'm pretty sure there's nothing against, and in this case, I think it would be a very neat and intuitive way to implement the effect without any trouble. If you don't have the counter exist outside the game, then you run into actual complications with effects such as Fate Transfer, where you can have people obstructing the Crescendo stack, and possibly revoking consequential effects that cards have to balance them (such as taking damage, discarding cards, or tapping permanents).
Considering this, it's actually best that the counter in this case exists outside of the game. It's just for aesthetics, there is some functional benefit to it as well.
As for Crescendo, I think it's very adaptable with the right touch.
Chicken Nugget2 Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you gain 1 life.
At the end of your turn, if a creature you control didn't deal combat damage to an opponent, sacrifice Chicken Nugget. "Finger licking good! Just stick your whole fist in your mouth."
One thing I did notice is that this keyword could end up being a torture device of sorts for coders. In the sense that abilities like the last one in this card would trigger multiple times in respects to the Crescendo, but can also effectively choose the same creature to resolve the effect; so coders would have to implement special exceptions of every card like this, so that effects like this can simply resolve and not ask anymore questions; or otherwise waste potentially precious CPU power computing the entire stack just to be thorough.
I honestly don't get it. How can a thing you instruct players to do or make not be part of the game? Anything you instruct players to do or make is part of the game, isn't it? I'd say that your counters are part of the game in the same way poison counters on players are part of the game. You don't put a physical poison counter on a player. But you want to count something and to keep track of it you use counters. In that they are a memory aid that can be flavoured in different ways. If you keep track of countable events in the game on a card, besides a card on the table, or written on a piece of paper makes no difference for the course of the game itself. It's just for the players convenience to put counters on cards where it's possible, to make the state of the game as clear as possible at any time. Even if you don't tell the player to put their crescendo counters (named it) on the cards I assume that they will naturally do so. As I understand it, what you are trying to get to with your wording game wise only matters in combination with a tiny sub set of cards that mess with counters on permanents and I personally don't think that it's worth it compared to the inconvenience it adds.
Also I don't get why this exact topic has to be brought up again if nothing's changed since the last time. From other comments I get the impression that you are not generally a troll.
Why would there even be a provision for counters outside the game in the rules? Counters are a game term and get put on specific things for a reason. Different counters have very specific jobs to do to keep track of effects. Even emblems, which current design rules say are not to be interacted with under any circumstances, exist within the game and get placed in the command zone.
Why would there even be a provision for counters outside the game in the rules? Counters are a game term and get put on specific things for a reason. Different counters have very specific jobs to do to keep track of effects. Even emblems, which current design rules say are not to be interacted with under any circumstances, exist within the game and get placed in the command zone.
Well, not exactly. Technically, the life counter exists outside of the game. It's not a physical counter, and it's not regulated that a counter has to be used to keep track of your life total either. So there is already use of this technique unbeknownst to common perception.
Why would there even be a provision for counters outside the game in the rules? Counters are a game term and get put on specific things for a reason. Different counters have very specific jobs to do to keep track of effects. Even emblems, which current design rules say are not to be interacted with under any circumstances, exist within the game and get placed in the command zone.
Well, not exactly. Technically, the life counter exists outside of the game. It's not a physical counter, and it's not regulated that a counter has to be used to keep track of your life total either. So there is already use of this technique unbeknownst to common perception.
What? A life counter isn't a thing, in rules terms. There's just a life total and you track it by whatever means you want. So this analogy is nonsense.
Chicken Nugget2 Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you gain 1 life.
At the end of your turn, if a creature you control didn't deal combat damage to an opponent, sacrifice Chicken Nugget. "Finger licking good! Just stick your whole fist in your mouth."
As has been pointed out many times before, Crescendo can be replaced with either cumulative upkeep or similar wording to Descent into Madness.
Regardless of whether you can have players keep track of things with non-counter counters (yes, you technically can), there's absolutely no reason to. Cards that interact with counters are meant to interact with counters. There's also no flavor reason to prevent those effects from working with Crescendo, like there is in giving creatures shroud to subvert targeting. So what gives?
Cease this Descent into Ma - I mean, start using the Descent into Madness wording!
ReapThaWhirlwind, why are you so obsessed with writing abilities in just wrong ways (although you say that those are "innovative") with an excuse of eliminating corner cases (although you create millions of new ones)? Your designs usually are not flawed at their core (Imp aside), but you insist on making them as unlike Magic cards as possible. Everyone gives you suggestions how a card should be templated, but instead of accepting it, you try to convince everyone that your wordings are exactly what Magic needs. Sorry, but they are not. Why are you publishing your cards here, if you don't want to listen to opinions of others?
I really like the idea of repeatable removal that becomes more and more dangerous to you. The numbers, you can work with. The template, though, is just indefensible.
Why are you publishing your cards here, if you don't want to listen to opinions of others? I really like the idea of repeatable removal that becomes more and more dangerous to you. The numbers, you can work with. The template, though, is just indefensible.
I am not ignoring anyone's opinions, but so far the points of interest reflected by others have been either untrue, or are not significant enough to warrant the suggested change.
Just want to sum this up, that Cumulative Upkeep-like effects, or the suggested operating function of Descent into Madness would literally change the functionality of Crescendo in a way that makes it less proficient, less functional, and less productive than it currently is.
Cumulative Upkeep for example would enable players to openly bypass any consequential aspects of challenge implemented into the card for balance. You can simply refuse to pay the upkeep and sacrifice the card at your leisure. The open-source nature of Crescendo however, provides the option to make it impossible for players to directly avoid such effects, thus preserving and enforcing aspects of challenge, which can be essential to the balance of power for certain cards.
Using a physical counter would effectively enable effects such as Giant Fan and Fate Transfer to disrupt the Crescendo stack with easy, and effectively bypass all aspects of challenge (or render the ability malfunctional) to potential levels of confusion and trouble blindly suggested of with instructing players to simply use a counter to keep track of the Crescendo stack.
For more complicated cards it would also take immeasurable amounts of text space to implement each effect that way. Who would want to do that when it's not necessary?
So you see, I'm not ignoring anyone, but what is being suggested so far isn't good advice. The effect wouldn't function the same (and to less benefit and greater consequence)‒or it would actually become subject to technicalities and confusion through simple counter manipulative effects.
This is simply obstinate and ignores every point other users have made. Warned for trolling.
It is not "malfunctional" for your counter mechanic that instructs the player to use a counter interacts with counter-manipulating cards like Power Conduit and Chisei, Heart of Oceans. That is the entire point of those cards. It is strictly a good thing for your mechanic to have interaction with counter mechanics like proliferate.
It is not "malfunctional" for your counter mechanic that instructs the player to use a counter interacts with counter-manipulating cards like Power Conduit and Chisei, Heart of Oceans. That is the entire point of those cards. It is strictly a good thing for your mechanic to have interaction with counter mechanics like proliferate.
You might have missed the original thread, but sometimes the Crescendo is based around a drawback to balance the power of the card.
It would be counter-intuitive to the design to give players the ability to bypass the drawback without losing the physical card. The power-levels are so tightly knit, you would essentially end up with a Flash/Hulk combo in other forms. Not much challenge, not much fun.
It is not "malfunctional" for your counter mechanic that instructs the player to use a counter interacts with counter-manipulating cards like Power Conduit and Chisei, Heart of Oceans. That is the entire point of those cards. It is strictly a good thing for your mechanic to have interaction with counter mechanics like proliferate.
You might have missed the original thread, but sometimes the Crescendo is based around a drawback to balance the power of the card.
It would be counter-intuitive to the design to give players the ability to bypass the drawback without losing the physical card. The power-levels are so tightly knit, you would essentially end up with a Flash/Hulk combo in other forms. Not much challenge, not much fun.
A mana rock, no matter how powerful, is nowhere near the degeneracy of a turn-0 win combo. Cards should be able to interact with other cards. And if someone wants to use a card like Power Conduit - basically jank - to keep a 7-power creature or a mana rock around, then more power to them. Combos can exist, especially ones that aren't, in fact, game-breaking.
It is not "malfunctional" for your counter mechanic that instructs the player to use a counter interacts with counter-manipulating cards like Power Conduit and Chisei, Heart of Oceans. That is the entire point of those cards. It is strictly a good thing for your mechanic to have interaction with counter mechanics like proliferate.
You might have missed the original thread, but sometimes the Crescendo is based around a drawback to balance the power of the card.
It would be counter-intuitive to the design to give players the ability to bypass the drawback without losing the physical card. The power-levels are so tightly knit, you would essentially end up with a Flash/Hulk combo in other forms. Not much challenge, not much fun.
A mana rock, no matter how powerful, is nowhere near the degeneracy of a turn-0 win combo. Cards should be able to interact with other cards. And if someone wants to use a card like Power Conduit - basically jank - to keep a 7-power creature or a mana rock around, then more power to them. Combos can exist, especially ones that aren't, in fact, game-breaking.
You can't win with you people.
Present a powerful card, and you say it's game-breaking. Argue that something is game-breaking, and you say it's just a powerful card.
I think you all just argue to be right.
You don't even seem aware to be aware of the context of your arguments; or at least the basis on which they take course. No matter what side you argue for, you're always on the wrong side you should be based on the credentials, and how they affect or preserve the fundamental elements that bring fun to the game (challenge, action, suspense, horror, interactivity, soft-lock balance, hard-lock balance, etc.).
It is not "malfunctional" for your counter mechanic that instructs the player to use a counter interacts with counter-manipulating cards like Power Conduit and Chisei, Heart of Oceans. That is the entire point of those cards. It is strictly a good thing for your mechanic to have interaction with counter mechanics like proliferate.
You might have missed the original thread, but sometimes the Crescendo is based around a drawback to balance the power of the card.
It would be counter-intuitive to the design to give players the ability to bypass the drawback without losing the physical card. The power-levels are so tightly knit, you would essentially end up with a Flash/Hulk combo in other forms. Not much challenge, not much fun.
A mana rock, no matter how powerful, is nowhere near the degeneracy of a turn-0 win combo. Cards should be able to interact with other cards. And if someone wants to use a card like Power Conduit - basically jank - to keep a 7-power creature or a mana rock around, then more power to them. Combos can exist, especially ones that aren't, in fact, game-breaking.
You can't win with you people.
Present a powerful card, and you say it's game-breaking. Argue that something is game-breaking, and you say it's just a powerful card.
I think you all just argue to be right.
You don't even seem aware to be aware of the context of your arguments; or at least the basis on which they take course. No matter what side you argue for, you're always on the wrong side you should be based on the credentials, and how they affect or preserve the fundamental elements that bring fun to the game (challenge, action, suspense, horror, interactivity, soft-lock balance, hard-lock balance, etc.).
The context of the arguments we're all making is the actual game of Magic and precedent playing with similar cards. What better context could there be?
The context of the arguments we're all making is the actual game of Magic and precedent playing with similar cards. What better context could there be?
Now you just ignored the entire point about presenting and preserving fun factors and entertainment value of the game.
The context of the arguments we're all making is the actual game of Magic and precedent playing with similar cards. What better context could there be?
Now you just ignored the entire point about presenting and preserving fun factors and entertainment value of the game.
How much less entertaining is a game of Magic when someone can cash out the age counters on their Ronom Hulk for +1/+1 counters with a Conduit, exactly? I'd argue that dumb combos make it more entertaining.
So your notion of "counters outside the game" has been basically shut down on two fronts - 1, it's completely impossible under the rules, and 2, it adds nothing and in fact subtracts from some scenarios. Why press on an issue that everyone else has - if not proof exactly - very good arguments from precedent that you're wrong about? Why do you think counter manipulation is the biggest scourge on Magic, exactly? Why do you post cards for criticism if you're not willing to listen to any of it?
Brillo Pad 4
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, Brillo Pad deals 1 damage to you.
: Brillo Pad deals 3 damage to target creature.
2, : Sacrifice Brillo Pad.
Here's another odd end I had and wasn't sure where to put it.
Impudent Lazy Cuck UB
Creature ‒ Human Imp
Halve all positive numerical values, rounded down, in the text of spells and abilities controlled by Impudent Lazy Cuck's controller.
"What is math even? A philosophy? A theory? One more thing we have but we'll never truly understand or realize? One more thing with no purpose in our lives other than to complicate it, and take away from our enjoyment of more primordial indulgences? If so, where does it even find place in life? For these are these not true things that give meaning to life? How could it ever equate?"
1/1
Impudent causes a lot of weirdness. Since creature spells are still spells, it will end up forming counterless creatures with P/Ts that don't match their printed values. On the plus side, though, at least it's practically impossible to play a second.
As it is, it seems really powerful, killing three creatures for a price of three mana and 3 life, and if you want to stop you need to pay only two.
Impudent Lazy Cuck - just don't. Please.
It's funny you should say that, because this was literally an idea I had for a second one.
Impudent Lazy Cuck Jr. UB
Creature ‒ Human Imp
Subtract 1 from all positive numerical values in the text of spells and abilities controlled by Impudent Lazy Cuck Jr.'s controller.
"What is English even? A chore? A curse? One more thing that makes life harder than it feels like it needs to be? One more thing that makes the opposite gender even harder to communicate with? Would this not make it the antithesis of life's meaning? For what is left of life without such leisures? How does one make the best of this time and space they have? From whence cometh such strength?"
1/1
As for the power/toughness aspect, I didn't originally envision this effect to affect power and toughness. And I had thought that the best way of resolving any confusion would be with a comprehensive ruling. Otherwise, a "except power and toughness" clause would also work just fine. My logic on this factor resolves around the loose reference of effects only pertaining to the text within the text box, such as with cards like Crystal Spray and New Blood. I guess I probably should have added the term "text" to the wording to secure that context, but I really wasn't thinking about it all that deeply.
Crescendo instructs a person to use a counter to keep track of the Cresendo stack. It doesn't actually put a physical counter onto the card. Akin to this, there is no need to define any if-where-when-or-how in the placement of physical counters on the Crescendo card. The counter technically exists outside the game, and the count is increased when the ability would trigger for the first time, but before it goes onto the stack.
You know, I'm well-versed in mtg content, development, and schematics; but I haven't really been in the spirit of it for a while. I was thinking it of a creature and forgot that as an artifact, it would be able to tap on the turn it enters the battlefield. I guess it should cost another 1 at least in that case. I don't think the other ability needs to be increased any, since both abilities require you to tap, and this was intended to ensure that you can't tap for damage and get an extra hit off before you sacrifice it to save yourself.
This mechanic is still a non-starter. It's too much complexity for too little payoff, and "use a counter to keep track of this" is complete nonsense - when is the counter put on? What kind of counter is it?
I don't actually think cumulative upkeep is an inherently bad mechanic, but of course that has a few different rules implications; in this case "At the beginning of your upkeep, put a charge counter on this" and then setting variables ("then this deals damage to you equal to the number of charge counters on it") works just fine.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Crescendo instructs a person to use a counter to keep track of the Crescendo stack. It doesn't actually put a physical counter onto the card. Akin to this, there is no need to define any if-where-when-or-how in the placement of physical counters for Crescendo. The counter technically exists outside the game, and the count is increased when the ability would trigger for the first time, but before it goes onto the stack.
That makes no sense under the actual rules of Magic.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Considering this, it's actually best that the counter in this case exists outside of the game. It's just for aesthetics, there is some functional benefit to it as well.
As for Crescendo, I think it's very adaptable with the right touch.
Chicken Nugget 2
Artifact
Crescendo (During each of your turns, increase the number of times this card's abilities trigger by 1. Use a counter to keep track of this.)
At the beginning of your upkeep, you gain 1 life.
At the end of your turn, if a creature you control didn't deal combat damage to an opponent, sacrifice Chicken Nugget.
"Finger licking good! Just stick your whole fist in your mouth."
One thing I did notice is that this keyword could end up being a torture device of sorts for coders. In the sense that abilities like the last one in this card would trigger multiple times in respects to the Crescendo, but can also effectively choose the same creature to resolve the effect; so coders would have to implement special exceptions of every card like this, so that effects like this can simply resolve and not ask anymore questions; or otherwise waste potentially precious CPU power computing the entire stack just to be thorough.
Also I don't get why this exact topic has to be brought up again if nothing's changed since the last time. From other comments I get the impression that you are not generally a troll.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Well, not exactly. Technically, the life counter exists outside of the game. It's not a physical counter, and it's not regulated that a counter has to be used to keep track of your life total either. So there is already use of this technique unbeknownst to common perception.
What? A life counter isn't a thing, in rules terms. There's just a life total and you track it by whatever means you want. So this analogy is nonsense.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Life counter is an official term in product terminology. You know those plastic 20-sided dice they include in certain products, such as Fat Packs?
You might be trying to take this too literally, but the principal is the same.
Regardless of whether you can have players keep track of things with non-counter counters (yes, you technically can), there's absolutely no reason to. Cards that interact with counters are meant to interact with counters. There's also no flavor reason to prevent those effects from working with Crescendo, like there is in giving creatures shroud to subvert targeting. So what gives?
Cease this Descent into Ma - I mean, start using the Descent into Madness wording!
- Rabid Wombat
I really like the idea of repeatable removal that becomes more and more dangerous to you. The numbers, you can work with. The template, though, is just indefensible.
I am not ignoring anyone's opinions, but so far the points of interest reflected by others have been either untrue, or are not significant enough to warrant the suggested change.
Just want to sum this up, that Cumulative Upkeep-like effects, or the suggested operating function of Descent into Madness would literally change the functionality of Crescendo in a way that makes it less proficient, less functional, and less productive than it currently is.
Cumulative Upkeep for example would enable players to openly bypass any consequential aspects of challenge implemented into the card for balance. You can simply refuse to pay the upkeep and sacrifice the card at your leisure. The open-source nature of Crescendo however, provides the option to make it impossible for players to directly avoid such effects, thus preserving and enforcing aspects of challenge, which can be essential to the balance of power for certain cards.
Using a physical counter would effectively enable effects such as Giant Fan and Fate Transfer to disrupt the Crescendo stack with easy, and effectively bypass all aspects of challenge (or render the ability malfunctional) to potential levels of confusion and trouble blindly suggested of with instructing players to simply use a counter to keep track of the Crescendo stack.
For more complicated cards it would also take immeasurable amounts of text space to implement each effect that way. Who would want to do that when it's not necessary?
So you see, I'm not ignoring anyone, but what is being suggested so far isn't good advice. The effect wouldn't function the same (and to less benefit and greater consequence)‒or it would actually become subject to technicalities and confusion through simple counter manipulative effects.
This is simply obstinate and ignores every point other users have made. Warned for trolling.
You might have missed the original thread, but sometimes the Crescendo is based around a drawback to balance the power of the card.
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/788980-norrxraptera
https://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/788597-crescendo-an-innovative-keyword-concept
It would be counter-intuitive to the design to give players the ability to bypass the drawback without losing the physical card. The power-levels are so tightly knit, you would essentially end up with a Flash/Hulk combo in other forms. Not much challenge, not much fun.
A mana rock, no matter how powerful, is nowhere near the degeneracy of a turn-0 win combo. Cards should be able to interact with other cards. And if someone wants to use a card like Power Conduit - basically jank - to keep a 7-power creature or a mana rock around, then more power to them. Combos can exist, especially ones that aren't, in fact, game-breaking.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
You can't win with you people.
Present a powerful card, and you say it's game-breaking. Argue that something is game-breaking, and you say it's just a powerful card.
I think you all just argue to be right.
You don't even seem aware to be aware of the context of your arguments; or at least the basis on which they take course. No matter what side you argue for, you're always on the wrong side you should be based on the credentials, and how they affect or preserve the fundamental elements that bring fun to the game (challenge, action, suspense, horror, interactivity, soft-lock balance, hard-lock balance, etc.).
Infraction issued for trolling - wildfire393
The context of the arguments we're all making is the actual game of Magic and precedent playing with similar cards. What better context could there be?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Now you just ignored the entire point about presenting and preserving fun factors and entertainment value of the game.
How much less entertaining is a game of Magic when someone can cash out the age counters on their Ronom Hulk for +1/+1 counters with a Conduit, exactly? I'd argue that dumb combos make it more entertaining.
So your notion of "counters outside the game" has been basically shut down on two fronts - 1, it's completely impossible under the rules, and 2, it adds nothing and in fact subtracts from some scenarios. Why press on an issue that everyone else has - if not proof exactly - very good arguments from precedent that you're wrong about? Why do you think counter manipulation is the biggest scourge on Magic, exactly? Why do you post cards for criticism if you're not willing to listen to any of it?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝