Murderous Assault (U)
:3mana::symb::symr:
Sorcery
Choose two at random — Look at target player’s hand and choose a card from it. That player discards that card; or destroy up to one target creature; or Murderous Assault deals 4 damage to target player. Eiganjo was once prosperous. But after Godo’s brutal visit, all that are left are ransacked vaults, dead bodies and scorched city.
How do you propose to pick one of three at random? You likely only have d20s and d2s (coins) at your disposal.
Setting up an experiment with three equally likely, mutually exclusive events is impossible using these items, since the number of possible outcomes can never be divisible by 3.
You *need* a d6 (or d12, but there's a better chance of a d100 being in the room, honestly).
At least ShinyMan prevented it from being able to be played illegally. That would just make my head explode.
Also, horribly underpowered. There'd be nothing wrong with this costing 2BR - nothing.
It wouldn't be Wizards' MO to actually print a good random spell, but the option is there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
I disagree. I pull out three random Magic cards. I announce Deathlace is the discard effect, Squire is the destroy effect, and Aliban's Tower is the damage effect. I turn them face down, shuffle them around, and have my opponent pick.
Or we can do rock paper scissors - I win = discard effect, you win = destroy, tie = damage.
Or if you don't have a 6-sider handy, you probably have a 20-sider, just reroll on 19 and 20.
Obviously a 6 sider would clearly be easiest, but you definitely don't need it.
6-sided die is the simplest way to do it. I had that in mind when I created the card. 1 and 2 for discard, 3 and 4 for destroy, 5 and 6 for damage, go with any two modes you got first. 6-sided die could be found almost anywhere that people are playing Magic anyway.
And thanks to muchsarcasm for his approach on how to random. That's an easy one, too.
I accept that the template is wrong. I knew there are cards like Splitting Headache but I had no idea why it had to be in one sentence and no part in the comp rule specifically said about that so I didn't strictly follow the precedence. I started to do some researching after the judges talked about it and found out that it wasn't the rule of the game that requires all modes to be in one sentence, but it was the rule of English grammar. I couldn't help that. If it was Thai grammar then I might not made the mistake.
Believe me, I paid the cost for not knowing this grammatical rule to many judges.
you know its possible to just use a three-sided dice, have each # apply to an effect, and the outcome is the one you *don't* do? simple & effective.
FFFFFAAAAACCCCCEEEEEPPPPAAAALLLLMMMM!!!!
but its aactually a pretty cool and origional card, and its nice to have a decent powered random card. As for deciding the modes, even an eenie, meenie, miney, mo type situation could work, even if you dont have a die handy (which you probably do if you are playing competitively)
I really, really don't like this card. Why? Because of these rules:
Quote from CompRules »
409.1. Playing a spell or activated ability follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the playing of a spell or ability, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the spell was played illegally; the game returns to the moment before that spell or ability was played (see rule 422, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they’ve been made.
Quote from CompRules »
409.1c If the spell or ability requires any targets, the player first announces how many targets he or she will choose (if the spell or ability has a variable number of targets), then announces his or her choice of an appropriate player, object, or zone for each of those targets. A player can’t play a spell or ability unless he or she chooses the required number of legal targets. The same target can’t be chosen multiple times for any one instance of the word “target” on the spell or ability. If the spell or ability uses the word “target” in multiple places, the same object, player, or zone can be chosen once for each instance of the word “target” (as long as it fits the targeting criteria).
My beef is this:
The modes of the spell are chosen randomly, and mode choices are made in during 409.1b, the step right before choosing targets for a spell or ability. When it comes time to choose targets for the spell, if the "destroy target creature" mode was chosen and there are no legal targets, then the player can't play the spell and has therefore performed an illegal operation, which in this case means simply reverting the game state to the point just before the player played the spell.
Net result: With no creatures on the board, in order for this spell to resolve, you would have to play and replay the spell until you randomly stumble upon the only combination of modes that can legally be played. With this particular card that's not so bad, especially since real live people who know this jargon can skip all the random nonsense and cut to the chase; but the idea of choosing modes randomly, especially modes that target, opens the door to a whole new can of rules baggage that the game really could do without.
Also, I mentioned that it wouldn't be much of an issue in real life. What about MTGO? Click on the card in hand to play the spell and modes are chosen randomly. It'll prompt you in one of three ways: "Choose target player" and "Choose target creature"; "Choose target player" and "Choose target player"; or "Choose target creature" and "Choose target player." Either way, you will know by the second prompt which two modes have been chosen. By the time you come to having to pay the costs for the spell, if you don't like the two modes that have been chosen, you can simply hit "Cancel" to not waste the card. The problem then comes when a player tries to play the spell ad nauseum until they deduce that the client has randomly chosen the two modes they want. Again, some extra code could be coded to avoid such nonsense, but again, MTGO doesn't need the extra baggage.
Also, I agree that it is overcosted. It's only worth the cost if the spell deals the 4 damage to an opponent, and even then you only barely break even for the spell. A card that can destroy a creature and make an opponent discard a revealed card should cost 2BR, maybe even 1BR. The fact that this is all done randomly suggests to me that the cost should be cheaper still.
To give credit where credit is due, randomly choosing modes is interesting, but in this case I think it would be a rules headache (and a nightmare on MTGO) and you would have to use modes that don't use the word "target."
EDIT: I just noticed that the second mode says "Destroy up to one target creature," thus averting the real-life rules issues I brought up for the most part. It'd still be annoying on MTGO, though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why should I boast? The bards will do it for me--and with music." --Ertai, wizard adept
It would be impossible to realize for exactly the reason you said. I choose the modes randomly, and then if I don't like which ones got chosen, I don't tap any mana and then say "Whoops! I didn't tap the necessary mana for this, back up the game."
It can't work, but it's a cool idea.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
Flip the coin EXACTLY three times (no matter what the outcome of the first two flips is).
Each flip is for one of the three ability.
If there is exactly one Head, then the two Tails determine the abilities used (3/8).
If there is exactly two Heads, then those two Heads determine the abilities used (3/8).
If there is exactly zero or three Heads, then repeat the process (1/4).
Of course, the downside is that you might have to do that two or three times if you're quite unlucky.
And the better way is surely still with three face down cards as already mentioned : )
You can't use a method that includes "repeat this process" - there's no guarantee the trial would terminate. Rules want - no, need - the randomization to end in one step.
Other people's answers work. I think the rock paper scissors game was clever, actually. I stand by that some groups will not have d6s with them.
And yes, Axe, a d3 is a prism. It is thrown from the palm to tumble. But again. . . sort of kinda usually hard to find 'em.
@Sutherlands: As I would have directed sclocke42 had he not edited his post, my own first post concluded the impossibility of this spell being played illegally. If there are no legal creatures to target, then you simply don't choose a target with that mode. And you can play the spell if and only if some player can be targeted by it.
It is not a rules headache (not a bad one anyway), and there's no necessary reason for it to suck on MTGO. I mean, if you're just referring to MTGO's track rrecord with getting basically any interaction right (:rolleyes:), then yes, MTGO will @#$%& this card up royally. But it could be made to work just as surely as the rules could be amended to deal with it, and that is exactly how I said - you can play this spell if and only if some player could be targeted by it.
The card couldn't be printed if its targeting options were different by enough, but whether to Shinyman's credit or through some form of serendipity, it can.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
The phrase 'up to' works great. When there are no creatures on the board and you get the destroy target creature mode, then you choose zero. It's true that there could be situations where no players could be targeted, but that's a very corner case and doesn't worth the aesthetic loss for putting two more 'up to' in the text. (The same goes for the Torrent of Souls cycle, they put 'up to' before other things, but not 'target players'.
As for MTGO, I didn't consider that at all, since the general consideration for FCC is that we don't care for problems that would only specifically happen in MTGO. (There was a discussion about Helix Pinnacle in the judge discussion. Helix Pinnacle has 'X: X counters' but not '1: 1 counter' specifically because that would take you forever on MTGO. The response was 'We don't expect (FCC) players to care for such miniscule detail.)
It would be impossible to realize for exactly the reason you said. I choose the modes randomly, and then if I don't like which ones got chosen, I don't tap any mana and then say "Whoops! I didn't tap the necessary mana for this, back up the game."
You then get disqualified for cheating - you intentionally made an illegal play with intent to gain advantage.
As for MTGO, I didn't consider that at all, since the general consideration for FCC is that we don't care for problems that would only specifically happen in MTGO. (There was a discussion about Helix Pinnacle in the judge discussion. Helix Pinnacle has 'X: X counters' but not '1: 1 counter' specifically because that would take you forever on MTGO. The response was 'We don't expect (FCC) players to care for such miniscule detail.)
Helix Pinnacle is actually a perfect example for the point I was trying to make. They made the card slightly different in terms of functionality in order to make game play smoother on MTGO. (I have no idea if that's actually why the Pinnacle has the "X: X counters" ability as opposed to the "1: 1 counter" ability, but it's definitely a beneficial consequence.) I don't think this card would make for smooth gameplay on MTGO for the reasons stated in my last post.
I was made aware that WOTC usually doesn't take MTGO into account when designing cards, as anything they can make work with the rules they should be able to make work on MTGO. However, there is a difference between cards that play nice with the rules and cards that play nice with MTGO's interface. Again, Helix Pinnacle is a great example: With the "1: 1 counter" ability, it would be annoying to put more than one counter on it at a time, and would thus fall into the "doesn't play nice with the MTGO interface" category; but with the "X: X counters" ability, you can accomplish the same thing in fewer clicks, and it only changes its mechanical functionality slightly.
ShinyMan's FCC card falls into the latter category: Even if it could be made to work with the rules, it could be abused on MTGO simply because of how the client allows you to play spells and abilities. Because of this, I don't think a card like this would actually see print.
To reiterate something else, I do think random modes is an interesting idea, but it would definitely be much cleaner without the word "target" on the card anywhere.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why should I boast? The bards will do it for me--and with music." --Ertai, wizard adept
First, the randomization method is something that player have to agree when it comes up. The comp rule does not specify or require a particular method. So the fact that flipping coins repeatedly can in theory never ends, it practice it will and won't matter.
One way to fix the card templating is simply to word it so that the targeting is done before the rnadomization and is not optional.
As in:
Choose up to one target creature. Choose a target player.
Choose two at random — Look at that player’s hand and choose a card from it, that player discards that card; or destroy that creature; or Murderous Assault deals 4 damage to that player.
Regarding the mathematical unsolvability of the randomization with just one coin, I feel compelled to show that it can be done. So, to be pedantic: you take a section of the real line from 0-3, with a point set at the midpoint. Flip a coin. If the coin is heads, now focus on the segment to the right of the midpoint, and if it's tails, the left. Now take this segment, find its midpoint, and repeat the process. Keep doing this until both ends of your interval are located between two adjacent integers. That's the mode you don't choose. Technically, this system is guaranteed to resolve eventually. That's real analysis!
Ex: First coin is heads. We consider the interval [1.5-3]. Next coin is tails. We consider [1.5-2.25]. Next coin is tails. We consider [1.5-1.875]. Since both endpoints are between two adjacent integers, we're done; we don't do the second mode.
On the other hand, the other coin method would probably resolve faster, and is never going to be repeated that many times, so there's no real reason not to use it.
Helix Pinnacle is actually a perfect example for the point I was trying to make. They made the card slightly different in terms of functionality in order to make game play smoother on MTGO. (I have no idea if that's actually why the Pinnacle has the "X: X counters" ability as opposed to the "1: 1 counter" ability, but it's definitely a beneficial consequence.)
They did Helix Pinnacle that way for two reasons. One was this exact issue, the MTGO interface. The other was interaction with Rosheen Meanderer.
I believe if there was a serious issue with a card's function on MTGO it might kill the card, but I think in the majority of such cases if R&D wanted the card then it would be up to the MTGO programmer(s) to find a way to make it work. There have been tons of stories told about challenges MTGO programmers faced when trying to translate paper cards into the online game engine.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
Regarding the mathematical unsolvability of the randomization with just one coin, I feel compelled to show that it can be done. So, to be pedantic: you take a section of the real line from 0-3, with a point set at the midpoint. Flip a coin. If the coin is heads, now focus on the segment to the right of the midpoint, and if it's tails, the left. Now take this segment, find its midpoint, and repeat the process. Keep doing this until both ends of your interval are located between two adjacent integers. That's the mode you don't choose. Technically, this system is guaranteed to resolve eventually. That's real analysis!
Ex: First coin is heads. We consider the interval [1.5-3]. Next coin is tails. We consider [1.5-2.25]. Next coin is tails. We consider [1.5-1.875]. Since both endpoints are between two adjacent integers, we're done; we don't do the second mode.
On the other hand, the other coin method would probably resolve faster, and is never going to be repeated that many times, so there's no real reason not to use it.
Bold emphasis added. There is no guarantee it will resolve swiftly, so in a tournament using a coin for this would likely be called as stalling. You can use coins to resolve Confusion in the Ranks and Grip of Chaos but it be tedious. While mathematically a coin flip can work and MTGO can use a system like that with a binary number generator it fails in a practical trial because human patiance is finite.
Round 2
Round 3
Final Round
The winner of the October 2008 FCC: ShinyMan
Murderous Assault (U)
:3mana::symb::symr:
Sorcery
Choose two at random — Look at target player’s hand and choose a card from it. That player discards that card; or destroy up to one target creature; or Murderous Assault deals 4 damage to target player.
Eiganjo was once prosperous. But after Godo’s brutal visit, all that are left are ransacked vaults, dead bodies and scorched city.
Grats
:symb::symb:MEMBER OF CLAN MONO -BLACK :symb::symb:
CONGRATS PRESIDENT OBAMA
Setting up an experiment with three equally likely, mutually exclusive events is impossible using these items, since the number of possible outcomes can never be divisible by 3.
You *need* a d6 (or d12, but there's a better chance of a d100 being in the room, honestly).
At least ShinyMan prevented it from being able to be played illegally. That would just make my head explode.
Again, mistaken templating: Splitting Headache
Also, horribly underpowered. There'd be nothing wrong with this costing 2BR - nothing.
It wouldn't be Wizards' MO to actually print a good random spell, but the option is there.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Or we can do rock paper scissors - I win = discard effect, you win = destroy, tie = damage.
Or if you don't have a 6-sider handy, you probably have a 20-sider, just reroll on 19 and 20.
Obviously a 6 sider would clearly be easiest, but you definitely don't need it.
And thanks to muchsarcasm for his approach on how to random. That's an easy one, too.
I accept that the template is wrong. I knew there are cards like Splitting Headache but I had no idea why it had to be in one sentence and no part in the comp rule specifically said about that so I didn't strictly follow the precedence. I started to do some researching after the judges talked about it and found out that it wasn't the rule of the game that requires all modes to be in one sentence, but it was the rule of English grammar. I couldn't help that. If it was Thai grammar then I might not made the mistake.
Believe me, I paid the cost for not knowing this grammatical rule to many judges.
Thanks to KrackkShott at Kracked Graphics for my special banner!
Come Join the War!!!
Congrats ShinyMan
"Sarcasm is the body's natural defense against Stupidity"
I suppose you could also use a four sided dice and reroll on a four.
FFFFFAAAAACCCCCEEEEEPPPPAAAALLLLMMMM!!!!
but its aactually a pretty cool and origional card, and its nice to have a decent powered random card. As for deciding the modes, even an eenie, meenie, miney, mo type situation could work, even if you dont have a die handy (which you probably do if you are playing competitively)
ex. 4, don't do option 1
19, reroll, 15 don't do last option. Simple.
My beef is this:
The modes of the spell are chosen randomly, and mode choices are made in during 409.1b, the step right before choosing targets for a spell or ability. When it comes time to choose targets for the spell, if the "destroy target creature" mode was chosen and there are no legal targets, then the player can't play the spell and has therefore performed an illegal operation, which in this case means simply reverting the game state to the point just before the player played the spell.
Net result: With no creatures on the board, in order for this spell to resolve, you would have to play and replay the spell until you randomly stumble upon the only combination of modes that can legally be played. With this particular card that's not so bad, especially since real live people who know this jargon can skip all the random nonsense and cut to the chase; but the idea of choosing modes randomly, especially modes that target, opens the door to a whole new can of rules baggage that the game really could do without.
Also, I mentioned that it wouldn't be much of an issue in real life. What about MTGO? Click on the card in hand to play the spell and modes are chosen randomly. It'll prompt you in one of three ways: "Choose target player" and "Choose target creature"; "Choose target player" and "Choose target player"; or "Choose target creature" and "Choose target player." Either way, you will know by the second prompt which two modes have been chosen. By the time you come to having to pay the costs for the spell, if you don't like the two modes that have been chosen, you can simply hit "Cancel" to not waste the card. The problem then comes when a player tries to play the spell ad nauseum until they deduce that the client has randomly chosen the two modes they want. Again, some extra code could be coded to avoid such nonsense, but again, MTGO doesn't need the extra baggage.
Also, I agree that it is overcosted. It's only worth the cost if the spell deals the 4 damage to an opponent, and even then you only barely break even for the spell. A card that can destroy a creature and make an opponent discard a revealed card should cost 2BR, maybe even 1BR. The fact that this is all done randomly suggests to me that the cost should be cheaper still.
To give credit where credit is due, randomly choosing modes is interesting, but in this case I think it would be a rules headache (and a nightmare on MTGO) and you would have to use modes that don't use the word "target."
EDIT: I just noticed that the second mode says "Destroy up to one target creature," thus averting the real-life rules issues I brought up for the most part. It'd still be annoying on MTGO, though.
--Ertai, wizard adept
It can't work, but it's a cool idea.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
You can't use a method that includes "repeat this process" - there's no guarantee the trial would terminate. Rules want - no, need - the randomization to end in one step.
Other people's answers work. I think the rock paper scissors game was clever, actually. I stand by that some groups will not have d6s with them.
And yes, Axe, a d3 is a prism. It is thrown from the palm to tumble. But again. . . sort of kinda usually hard to find 'em.
@Sutherlands: As I would have directed sclocke42 had he not edited his post, my own first post concluded the impossibility of this spell being played illegally. If there are no legal creatures to target, then you simply don't choose a target with that mode. And you can play the spell if and only if some player can be targeted by it.
It is not a rules headache (not a bad one anyway), and there's no necessary reason for it to suck on MTGO. I mean, if you're just referring to MTGO's track rrecord with getting basically any interaction right (:rolleyes:), then yes, MTGO will @#$%& this card up royally. But it could be made to work just as surely as the rules could be amended to deal with it, and that is exactly how I said - you can play this spell if and only if some player could be targeted by it.
The card couldn't be printed if its targeting options were different by enough, but whether to Shinyman's credit or through some form of serendipity, it can.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
As for MTGO, I didn't consider that at all, since the general consideration for FCC is that we don't care for problems that would only specifically happen in MTGO. (There was a discussion about Helix Pinnacle in the judge discussion. Helix Pinnacle has 'X: X counters' but not '1: 1 counter' specifically because that would take you forever on MTGO. The response was 'We don't expect (FCC) players to care for such miniscule detail.)
You then get disqualified for cheating - you intentionally made an illegal play with intent to gain advantage.
Helix Pinnacle is actually a perfect example for the point I was trying to make. They made the card slightly different in terms of functionality in order to make game play smoother on MTGO. (I have no idea if that's actually why the Pinnacle has the "X: X counters" ability as opposed to the "1: 1 counter" ability, but it's definitely a beneficial consequence.) I don't think this card would make for smooth gameplay on MTGO for the reasons stated in my last post.
I was made aware that WOTC usually doesn't take MTGO into account when designing cards, as anything they can make work with the rules they should be able to make work on MTGO. However, there is a difference between cards that play nice with the rules and cards that play nice with MTGO's interface. Again, Helix Pinnacle is a great example: With the "1: 1 counter" ability, it would be annoying to put more than one counter on it at a time, and would thus fall into the "doesn't play nice with the MTGO interface" category; but with the "X: X counters" ability, you can accomplish the same thing in fewer clicks, and it only changes its mechanical functionality slightly.
ShinyMan's FCC card falls into the latter category: Even if it could be made to work with the rules, it could be abused on MTGO simply because of how the client allows you to play spells and abilities. Because of this, I don't think a card like this would actually see print.
To reiterate something else, I do think random modes is an interesting idea, but it would definitely be much cleaner without the word "target" on the card anywhere.
--Ertai, wizard adept
One way to fix the card templating is simply to word it so that the targeting is done before the rnadomization and is not optional.
As in:
Choose up to one target creature. Choose a target player.
Choose two at random — Look at that player’s hand and choose a card from it, that player discards that card; or destroy that creature; or Murderous Assault deals 4 damage to that player.
Actually, you know which mode to use before picking targets. The sequence to play this spell is, announce it, choose mode(s), then choose targets.
WIN!
How you should approach every game of Magic.
Mod Helpdesk (defunct)
My Flawless Score MCC Card | My Other One | # Three!
Ex: First coin is heads. We consider the interval [1.5-3]. Next coin is tails. We consider [1.5-2.25]. Next coin is tails. We consider [1.5-1.875]. Since both endpoints are between two adjacent integers, we're done; we don't do the second mode.
On the other hand, the other coin method would probably resolve faster, and is never going to be repeated that many times, so there's no real reason not to use it.
They did Helix Pinnacle that way for two reasons. One was this exact issue, the MTGO interface. The other was interaction with Rosheen Meanderer.
I believe if there was a serious issue with a card's function on MTGO it might kill the card, but I think in the majority of such cases if R&D wanted the card then it would be up to the MTGO programmer(s) to find a way to make it work. There have been tons of stories told about challenges MTGO programmers faced when trying to translate paper cards into the online game engine.
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
Bold emphasis added. There is no guarantee it will resolve swiftly, so in a tournament using a coin for this would likely be called as stalling. You can use coins to resolve Confusion in the Ranks and Grip of Chaos but it be tedious. While mathematically a coin flip can work and MTGO can use a system like that with a binary number generator it fails in a practical trial because human patiance is finite.
I don't remember that happen... ever... from the beginning until the end of the kamigawa trilogy.
The Eiganjo Castle was indeed reduced to rubble, but not from Godo's doing. O-Kagachi was the one
who did such a thing.