High CommandW Instant
Exile target spell that targets you or a creature you control. Its controller is still affected any additional losses that spell would have caused them. (Losing life, skipping their next turn, tapping or sacrificing permanents, etc.) What the angels speak of is truth. And what is truth is responsibility; we do it or we face consequence.
The second sentence is unneeded as additional costs and alternative costs (I presume that the life loss is mostly referring to phyrexian mana) are paid before the card can be countered.
Cards like Harrow, for example, are generally seen as risky as you lose the land for nothing if the spell is countered.
Otherwise, an enhanced Rebuff the Wicked is... fine, I guess. Bit of a color bend but white is technically known to be (distant) second best at countering so I’m not too displeased.
The second sentence is unneeded as additional costs and alternative costs (I presume that the life loss is mostly referring to phyrexian mana) are paid before the card can be countered.
Cards like Harrow, for example, are generally seen as risky as you lose the land for nothing if the spell is countered.
Otherwise, an enhanced Rebuff the Wicked is... fine, I guess. Bit of a color bend but white is technically known to be (distant) second best at countering so I’m not too displeased.
It's to say for coherence, that a player you will still lose 2 life from attempts like Vampiric Tutor and Thoughtseize.
The second sentence is unneeded as additional costs and alternative costs (I presume that the life loss is mostly referring to phyrexian mana) are paid before the card can be countered.
Cards like Harrow, for example, are generally seen as risky as you lose the land for nothing if the spell is countered.
Otherwise, an enhanced Rebuff the Wicked is... fine, I guess. Bit of a color bend but white is technically known to be (distant) second best at countering so I’m not too displeased.
It's to say for coherence, that a player you will still lose 2 life from attempts like Vampiric Tutor and Thoughtseize.
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant before I read your reply.
Congratulations. It make "sense" in someone playing it at a kitchen table can probably make it work, but the rules don't actually support resolving a part of a spell, especially when that spell is already being countered because it was exiled.
The second sentence is unneeded as additional costs and alternative costs (I presume that the life loss is mostly referring to phyrexian mana) are paid before the card can be countered.
Cards like Harrow, for example, are generally seen as risky as you lose the land for nothing if the spell is countered.
Otherwise, an enhanced Rebuff the Wicked is... fine, I guess. Bit of a color bend but white is technically known to be (distant) second best at countering so I’m not too displeased.
It's to say for coherence, that a player you will still lose 2 life from attempts like Vampiric Tutor and Thoughtseize.
Oh... Black bordered magic is incapable of making that distinction (and the actual text would have to be something incredibly warped like “If that card’s rules text would cause its owner to lose life or take damage when that card resolves, they still lose that life or take that damage”, assuming cards like orcish cannonade are also intended to be affected).
Yet another card that is literally impossible because of a small wording choice. Keep moving along, folks. Nothing to see here.
I do believe it's capable of making that decision when the card's effect explicitly says to do it.
#GoldenRuleSwag
The card’s effect works insofar that it follows English syntax. Now try making the card obey the syntax structure of MTG... you know, as this is supposed to be an MTG card.
I do believe it's capable of making that decision when the card's effect explicitly says to do it.
#GoldenRuleSwag
The card’s effect works insofar that it follows English syntax. Now try making the card obey the syntax structure of MTG... you know, as this is supposed to be an MTG card.
I do believe the only additional aspect that could considered here, is labeling the effects of 'additional losses' with an official reference term.
That certainly would be better, and cover more ground. It is how the effect is intended to work too. Although, if there's an additional loss effect at the end of the spell that says 'Exile this spell.', it's exiled anyways so that doesn't matter.
So then make a reference term to go with it, and add that to your card. Lets just say on Thoughtseize the "You lose 2 life." is replaced with "Bleed 2." And then your card would be something like "Exile target spell that targets you or a creature you control. If a card exiled this way has a Bleed effect, that player still loses life."
But then you'd need another keyword for a self-exiling spell, and make sure your card contains that too. Damage is different than life loss, so probably add another for that. And another for whatever other "additional loss effects" you have in mind. Or come up with a broad definition of what those effects are, and then create some new subdivision of rules to handle it. Make sure you're thorough, don't miss any of them.
But you get that all sorted out, and I think you're onto something.
So then make a reference term to go with it, and add that to your card. Lets just say on Thoughtseize the "You lose 2 life." is replaced with "Bleed 2." And then your card would be something like "Exile target spell that targets you or a creature you control. If a card exiled this way has a Bleed effect, that player still loses life."
But then you'd need another keyword for a self-exiling spell, and make sure your card contains that too. Damage is different than life loss, so probably add another for that. And another for whatever other "additional loss effects" you have in mind. Or come up with a broad definition of what those effects are, and then create some new subdivision of rules to handle it. Make sure you're thorough, don't miss any of them.
But you get that all sorted out, and I think you're onto something.
I didn't mean keyword it, but an official reference term which describes the event of additional costs/losses (sacrificing creatures, exiling a spell, skip your next turn, etc. etc.).
So then make a reference term to go with it, and add that to your card. Lets just say on Thoughtseize the "You lose 2 life." is replaced with "Bleed 2." And then your card would be something like "Exile target spell that targets you or a creature you control. If a card exiled this way has a Bleed effect, that player still loses life."
But then you'd need another keyword for a self-exiling spell, and make sure your card contains that too. Damage is different than life loss, so probably add another for that. And another for whatever other "additional loss effects" you have in mind. Or come up with a broad definition of what those effects are, and then create some new subdivision of rules to handle it. Make sure you're thorough, don't miss any of them.
But you get that all sorted out, and I think you're onto something.
I didn't mean keyword it, but an official reference term which describes the event of additional costs/losses (sacrificing creatures, exiling a spell, skip your next turn, etc. etc.).
Even that is a bit wibbly-wobbly, though.
consider something like peel from reality. The caster returning one of their own creatures would probably be “an additional cost” in a vacuum... unless they are casting it to counter your spot removal and bouncing their own creature becomes the main objective and isn’t a cost at all.
If you have to specifically designate what is and what isn’t a “drawback” on a card-by-card (or even usage-by-usage) basis, that isn’t a good basis for card design.
"Change the text of target spell that targets you or a creature you control by removing any number of full sentences. (Those sentences are treated as if they don't exist.)
If that spell would be put into its owners graveyard this turn, exile it instead."
I didn't mean keyword it, but an official reference term which describes the event of additional costs/losses (sacrificing creatures, exiling a spell, skip your next turn, etc. etc.).
So then define it. You're the one trying to change the rules, so then describe what those changes need to be. I mean, first you'd need to know how MtG actually works, but you could at least try.
"Change the text of target spell that targets you or a creature you control by removing any number of full sentences. (Those sentences are treated as if they don't exist.)
If that spell would be put into its owners graveyard this turn, exile it instead."
Lets the caster choose which parts resolve.
Cards in black border have to be consistent across all languages, so that still wouldn't work unless every card in every language had the exact same sentence structure. Still a fine silver bordered card though.
"Change the text of target spell that targets you or a creature you control by removing any number of full sentences. (Those sentences are treated as if they don't exist.)
If that spell would be put into its owners graveyard this turn, exile it instead."
Lets the caster choose which parts resolve.
Cards in black border have to be consistent across all languages, so that still wouldn't work unless every card in every language had the exact same sentence structure. Still a fine silver bordered card though.
This isn't a rule problem so much as a comprehension problem. In black bordered magic all cards function off their English oracle text rather than whatever is printed on the card.
Such a card functions "perfectly" in the rules but would confuse non-English speakers when their cards are worded significantly differently such that the effect of the card could be different.
Speaking on the original card
As is common with Reap's designs it works but not in the way they want it to and the way they want it to work makes the card too wordy or requires a significant addendum to the rules for their one card.
Target spell that targets you loses card text of your choice. You may only omit whole sentences this way. "Strike it from the record!"
Generally speaking your first card is confusing because it's trying to resolve a spell partially, and there are certainly things in magic that could arguably be losses or gains based on context. My card is also absurd, but I have less work to do when it comes to defining what a loss is in every gameplay situation. I think you'd have a long list of things to go through
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Instant
Exile target spell that targets you or a creature you control. Its controller is still affected any additional losses that spell would have caused them. (Losing life, skipping their next turn, tapping or sacrificing permanents, etc.)
What the angels speak of is truth. And what is truth is responsibility; we do it or we face consequence.
Cards like Harrow, for example, are generally seen as risky as you lose the land for nothing if the spell is countered.
Otherwise, an enhanced Rebuff the Wicked is... fine, I guess. Bit of a color bend but white is technically known to be (distant) second best at countering so I’m not too displeased.
It's to say for coherence, that a player you will still lose 2 life from attempts like Vampiric Tutor and Thoughtseize.
Yeah, I figured that's what you meant before I read your reply.
Congratulations. It make "sense" in someone playing it at a kitchen table can probably make it work, but the rules don't actually support resolving a part of a spell, especially when that spell is already being countered because it was exiled.
As typical you made a silver bordered card.
Oh... Black bordered magic is incapable of making that distinction (and the actual text would have to be something incredibly warped like “If that card’s rules text would cause its owner to lose life or take damage when that card resolves, they still lose that life or take that damage”, assuming cards like orcish cannonade are also intended to be affected).
Yet another card that is literally impossible because of a small wording choice. Keep moving along, folks. Nothing to see here.
#GoldenRuleSwag
The card’s effect works insofar that it follows English syntax. Now try making the card obey the syntax structure of MTG... you know, as this is supposed to be an MTG card.
I do believe the only additional aspect that could considered here, is labeling the effects of 'additional losses' with an official reference term.
That certainly would be better, and cover more ground. It is how the effect is intended to work too. Although, if there's an additional loss effect at the end of the spell that says 'Exile this spell.', it's exiled anyways so that doesn't matter.
But then you'd need another keyword for a self-exiling spell, and make sure your card contains that too. Damage is different than life loss, so probably add another for that. And another for whatever other "additional loss effects" you have in mind. Or come up with a broad definition of what those effects are, and then create some new subdivision of rules to handle it. Make sure you're thorough, don't miss any of them.
But you get that all sorted out, and I think you're onto something.
I didn't mean keyword it, but an official reference term which describes the event of additional costs/losses (sacrificing creatures, exiling a spell, skip your next turn, etc. etc.).
Even that is a bit wibbly-wobbly, though.
consider something like peel from reality. The caster returning one of their own creatures would probably be “an additional cost” in a vacuum... unless they are casting it to counter your spot removal and bouncing their own creature becomes the main objective and isn’t a cost at all.
If you have to specifically designate what is and what isn’t a “drawback” on a card-by-card (or even usage-by-usage) basis, that isn’t a good basis for card design.
As previously stated, if your card functions because of the "it works because I want it to" principle, you have created a silver bordered card.
If that spell would be put into its owners graveyard this turn, exile it instead."
Lets the caster choose which parts resolve.
So then define it. You're the one trying to change the rules, so then describe what those changes need to be. I mean, first you'd need to know how MtG actually works, but you could at least try.
Cards in black border have to be consistent across all languages, so that still wouldn't work unless every card in every language had the exact same sentence structure. Still a fine silver bordered card though.
Such a card functions "perfectly" in the rules but would confuse non-English speakers when their cards are worded significantly differently such that the effect of the card could be different.
Speaking on the original card
As is common with Reap's designs it works but not in the way they want it to and the way they want it to work makes the card too wordy or requires a significant addendum to the rules for their one card.
"It's controller is still affected any additional losses that spell would have caused them."
Instant
Target spell that targets you loses card text of your choice. You may only omit whole sentences this way.
"Strike it from the record!"
Generally speaking your first card is confusing because it's trying to resolve a spell partially, and there are certainly things in magic that could arguably be losses or gains based on context. My card is also absurd, but I have less work to do when it comes to defining what a loss is in every gameplay situation. I think you'd have a long list of things to go through