- my second issue is that Wizards prints alot of these supposedly balanced cards, i.e. Balance, heartbeat of spring, etc that is suppose to seem like both players get the "same" effect but the casting player can break the effect a bit more. The problem with spectacle is player A would be able to cast anything, while Player B would be only able to cast instants. That really doesn't sound like a "balanced" card that is meant to be broken by the casting side
Read the card text again. It gives you until the end of your next turn.
- my second issue is that Wizards prints alot of these supposedly balanced cards, i.e. Balance, heartbeat of spring, etc that is suppose to seem like both players get the "same" effect but the casting player can break the effect a bit more. The problem with spectacle is player A would be able to cast anything, while Player B would be only able to cast instants. That really doesn't sound like a "balanced" card that is meant to be broken by the casting side
Read the card text again. It gives you until the end of your next turn.
Oh okay. You're right. I'll make a correct to my post.
I don't think they'd actually do this, but in my wildest dreams, Spectacle is "You may cast this for it's spectacle cost. If you do, each other player puts a copy of this spell onto the stack. They may choose new targets."
Call it a hunch, but you may not be as far off as you think. After all, this makes a lot of sense with the exact design we see in the promo.
I personally see two issues with a card like this:
- This is way too complicated for a format like commander where there are 4 people and everyone gets triggers. This opens up a giant stack issue. Suppose Player A casts this. Player A Light the stage is on the stack, Then Player B, Player C, Player D. Player A resolves. Then Player B Resolve, picks up his 2 cards, then decides to respond to the stack while Player C's trigger is still on the stack. Player C responds to Player B's trigger with his own Spectacle card that adds 4 more triggers to the stack. This is just a disaster waiting to happen.
A) That's not how the stack resolves
B) That's not uncommon in Commander either.
Act on Impulse
I think our guesses for the card should be closer to the power level of this card.
-------
I do like the idea that spectacle is an alternate casting cost if this is the last card in your hand or (1 or less card in your hand, similar to hazoret).
It would be like the idea of Rakdos charging in a perform and giving the audience a spectacle with a strong end performance. (i.e. I go to my turn, I;m a BR aggro, on my last turn, I will cast this, reach for the top two which are bolt and bolt and I go Bolt, Bolt, Attack attack as my final act).
I don't think they'd actually do this, but in my wildest dreams, Spectacle is "You may cast this for it's spectacle cost. If you do, each other player puts a copy of this spell onto the stack. They may choose new targets."
Call it a hunch, but you may not be as far off as you think. After all, this makes a lot of sense with the exact design we see in the promo.
I personally see two issues with a card like this:
- This is way too complicated for a format like commander where there are 4 people and everyone gets triggers. This opens up a giant stack issue. Suppose Player A casts this. Player A Light the stage is on the stack, Then Player B, Player C, Player D. Player A resolves. Then Player B Resolve, picks up his 2 cards, then decides to respond to the stack while Player C's trigger is still on the stack. Player C responds to Player B's trigger with his own Spectacle card that adds 4 more triggers to the stack. This is just a disaster waiting to happen.
A) That's not how the stack resolves
B) That's not uncommon in Commander either.
I wrote that with the ability in mind of "puts copies of this onto the stack" rather than something like Ad Nauseam where you need to finish resolving the Ad nauseam spell.
Okay so lets just for argument sakes say this is Hive Mind.
- Could you correct me where I was wrong in my interruption of the stack?
- I'm willing to take back my point about commander but I still think this is a disaster waiting to happen
I don't think they'd actually do this, but in my wildest dreams, Spectacle is "You may cast this for it's spectacle cost. If you do, each other player puts a copy of this spell onto the stack. They may choose new targets."
Call it a hunch, but you may not be as far off as you think. After all, this makes a lot of sense with the exact design we see in the promo.
I personally see two issues with a card like this:
- This is way too complicated for a format like commander where there are 4 people and everyone gets triggers. This opens up a giant stack issue. Suppose Player A casts this. Player A Light the stage is on the stack, Then Player B, Player C, Player D. Player A resolves. Then Player B Resolve, picks up his 2 cards, then decides to respond to the stack while Player C's trigger is still on the stack. Player C responds to Player B's trigger with his own Spectacle card that adds 4 more triggers to the stack. This is just a disaster waiting to happen.
A) That's not how the stack resolves
B) That's not uncommon in Commander either.
I wrote that with the ability in mind of "puts copies of this onto the stack" rather than something like Ad Nauseam where you need to finish resolving the Ad nauseam spell.
Okay so lets just for argument sakes say this is Hive Mind.
- Could you correct me where I was wrong in my interruption of the stack?
- I'm willing to take back my point about commander but I still think this is a disaster waiting to happen
Player A casts the spell
Player B, C, and D will get copies, which go on the stack in that same order.
Player D's copy will reserve first (not player A's), then C, B, and A.
Spanish speaker here, if this is legit, then the English name should definitely be "Light the Stage".
Professional translator here. When translating titles and such, a lot of other aspects than exact literal translation come into play, such as intended flavour (what kinds of feelings are evoked by the words) and how cool/natural it sounds in the target language. Translation is not an exact science, and shouldn't be treated as such.
This is not meant as criticism towards you, your input here is super useful. I just want people on the forums to not decide that "this MUST be the English name because that's what it says in this other language" like they wrongfully do over and over again during spoiler season. Don't name/number crunch this based on its most literal translation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When I hit my 3000 post mark, I'm gone for good.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Call it a hunch, but you may not be as far off as you think. After all, this makes a lot of sense with the exact design we see in the promo.
I personally see two issues with a card like this:
- This is way too complicated for a format like commander where there are 4 people and everyone gets triggers. This opens up a giant stack issue. Suppose Player A casts this. Player A Light the stage is on the stack, Then Player B, Player C, Player D. Player A resolves. Then Player B Resolve, picks up his 2 cards, then decides to respond to the stack while Player C's trigger is still on the stack. Player C responds to Player B's trigger with his own Spectacle card that adds 4 more triggers to the stack. This is just a disaster waiting to happen.
A) That's not how the stack resolves
B) That's not uncommon in Commander either.
I wrote that with the ability in mind of "puts copies of this onto the stack" rather than something like Ad Nauseam where you need to finish resolving the Ad nauseam spell.
Okay so lets just for argument sakes say this is Hive Mind.
- Could you correct me where I was wrong in my interruption of the stack?
- I'm willing to take back my point about commander but I still think this is a disaster waiting to happen
Player A casts the spell
Player B, C, and D will get copies, which go on the stack in that same order.
Player D's copy will reserve first (not player A's), then C, B, and A.
Okay that makes sense. Back to my point, I feel this idea of putting multiple copies of a spell on to the stack in games such as commander just seems like a logistical nightmare waiting to happen. Especially when multiple spectacle cards are put onto the stack at the same time and people are responding while the Player B, C and D's original copies are still on the stack.
Edit: I don't even want to think about how this will work if the casting player has a Hive Mind on the field...
Spanish speaker here, if this is legit, then the English name should definitely be "Light the Stage".
Professional translator here. When translating titles and such, a lot of other aspects than exact literal translation come into play, such as intended flavour (what kinds of feelings are evoked by the words) and how cool/natural it sounds in the target language. Translation is not an exact science, and shouldn't be treated as such.
This is not meant as criticism towards you, your input here is super useful. I just want people on the forums to not decide that "this MUST be the English name because that's what it says in this other language" like they wrongfully do over and over again during spoiler season. Don't name/number crunch this based on its most literal translation.
I'm more than aware of that, I've done translation work myself, and I know the Spanish translators for Magic are often hacks (don't get me started on the atrocious Rakish Heirs translation or the genius who violated spelling rules with "Dóran" la Torre de Asedio)but in Spanish Iluminar el Escenario is a stock phrase like "light the stage" in English, I'd be really surprised if the English name turns out to be anything different. Unlike in English where you have "light" and "illuminate", which sounds more cultured and is often connected with the idea of imparting knowledge, in Spanish whenever you add light to something or a place you use the verb "iluminar", encender means either to light a fire or to turn a machine or the actual lamps on.
Also to the people who commented about the flavor text hinting at something huge because Judith calls "all the world" to their seats, that sounds fun but in fact "todo el mundo" (all the world) simply means "everybody" in Spanish.
Okay that makes sense. Back to my point, I feel this idea of putting multiple copies of a spell on to the stack in games such as commander just seems like a logistical nightmare waiting to happen. Especially when multiple spectacle cards are put onto the stack at the same time and people are responding while the Player B, C and D's original copies are still on the stack.
Edit: I don't even want to think about how this will work if the casting player has a Hive Mind on the field...
That's a thing that happens all the time in more casual games. Not saying that it can't be confusing and require the group to slow things down for a minute and piece through what resolves and when, but it's not like WotC has stopped that in the past.
[Edit: Assuming that Spectacle works like all other alternate costs and copy abilities] If Hive Mind is out, nothing particularly special happens; each other player other than the one that Spectacle'd the spell would get 2 copies in sequential turn order (A, B, C, D, B, C, D)
I am a fan of spectacle being an alternate cost; if it weren't rakdos I would think something like "you may cast this spell for its spectacle cost if it's the first spell you cast this turn"
To be more rakdosian, what about "if you played a card for its spectacle cost this turn, tap all <lands, permanents, creatures, some bundle> you control at end of turn".
Seems like Rakdos traditionally make a spectacle out of sacrificing creatures. "You may cast this spell for its spectacle cost if you sacrificed a creature this turn" would be pretty balanced but require sacrifice outlets. Alternatively, "you may cast this spell for its spectacle cost if a player discarded a card this turn" which is mostly weaker than madness but enabled by lots of common black and red effects and also jives with jump-start.
I don't think it has to do with sacrifice for this reason:
Selesyna and Boros (and pretty much any white guild) is pretty token heavy. Sacrifice a creature is best used in white based archetypes. I don't think it is a good idea to create a mechanic that is best used in other archetypes
I see where you're coming from with that point but, if I should defend my thesis, black and red are definitely colors that sacrifice creatures (especially in Rakdos) and getting a cost reduction for sacrificing a creature is pretty out of place in white's slice of the color pie but extremely fitting for both black and red. Token creation isn't really limited to just white and even if it were, you're making a case for the mechanic having inter-guild synergy with white token-based guilds (something it has been established is a design principle for the guild mechanics in this iteration). Black in particular makes tons of tokens and red tends to get tokens at efficient rates. Also, black and red do have some recursive creatures (admittedly just Phoenixes in red) that can diminish the drawbacks of sacrificing a creature. I would say the strength of the mechanic probably depends most strongly on the quality of the sacrifice outlets available and the actual cards printed with the mechanic or to support it.
I am a fan of spectacle being an alternate cost; if it weren't rakdos I would think something like "you may cast this spell for its spectacle cost if it's the first spell you cast this turn"
To be more rakdosian, what about "if you played a card for its spectacle cost this turn, tap all <lands, permanents, creatures, some bundle> you control at end of turn".
Spanish speaker here, if this is legit, then the English name should definitely be "Light the Stage".
Professional translator here. When translating titles and such, a lot of other aspects than exact literal translation come into play, such as intended flavour (what kinds of feelings are evoked by the words) and how cool/natural it sounds in the target language. Translation is not an exact science, and shouldn't be treated as such.
This is not meant as criticism towards you, your input here is super useful. I just want people on the forums to not decide that "this MUST be the English name because that's what it says in this other language" like they wrongfully do over and over again during spoiler season. Don't name/number crunch this based on its most literal translation.
I'm more than aware of that, I've done translation work myself, and I know the Spanish translators for Magic are often hacks (don't get me started on the atrocious Rakish Heirs translation or the genius who violated spelling rules with "Dóran" la Torre de Asedio)but in Spanish Iluminar el Escenario is a stock phrase like "light the stage" in English, I'd be really surprised if the English name turns out to be anything different. Unlike in English where you have "light" and "illuminate", which sounds more cultured and is often connected with the idea of imparting knowledge, in Spanish whenever you add light to something or a place you use the verb "iluminar", encender means either to light a fire or to turn a machine or the actual lamps on.
Also to the people who commented about the flavor text hinting at something huge because Judith calls "all the world" to their seats, that sounds fun but in fact "todo el mundo" (all the world) simply means "everybody" in Spanish.
In the last set they got a little more "jaunty" with card names than usual (eg Collar the Culprit). Its probably too far removed from the literal translation to be correct but I wonder if this could be something like "Hit the Lights"
They are constantly at pains to emphasize that guild mechanics need to be *simple* due to the fact that there are five of them crammed into one set AND they need to overlap somewhat between the featured guilds.
In the last set they got a little more "jaunty" with card names than usual (eg Collar the Culprit). Its probably too far removed from the literal translation to be correct but I wonder if this could be something like "Hit the Lights"
Or even "Hit the Lights!" - To Arms! was in a Ravnica set after all.
A friend of mine and I were discussing this and he pointed out that the Rakdos see themselves as performers. With that in mind the mechanic could be something like 'when this creature attacks/deals damage/dies you may cost a card in your hand for its Spectacle cost'
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Standard - Some kind of control
Modern - UB Mill (casual)
EDH - Meren's Grave Shenanigans
I might guess that spectacle might be a more balanced version of miracle, castable for its spectacle cost the moment you draw it. It would be a very Rakdos-themed (and the 'hour of need flavor' was one of the storm scale limits to making miracle effect, Rakdos eschews that), being castable whenever you draw it also takes away a lot of the finagling and remembered about a 'first draw'
This sort of card is the perfect example of a Rakdos mentality. If you draw it, cast it /now/. Are you going to be ready to use it.. eh maybe let's try and see!
In essence, you abandon the ability to control your timing with the ability to get discounts, sounds very Rakdos to me.. and has more thematic design space than miracle.
Miracle is an '8' on the storm scale article.. though in early days Maro listed it as a 4 or 5..
I see where you're coming from with that point but, if I should defend my thesis, black and red are definitely colors that sacrifice creatures (especially in Rakdos) and getting a cost reduction for sacrificing a creature is pretty out of place in white's slice of the color pie but extremely fitting for both black and red. Token creation isn't really limited to just white and even if it were, you're making a case for the mechanic having inter-guild synergy with white token-based guilds (something it has been established is a design principle for the guild mechanics in this iteration). Black in particular makes tons of tokens and red tends to get tokens at efficient rates. Also, black and red do have some recursive creatures (admittedly just Phoenixes in red) that can diminish the drawbacks of sacrificing a creature. I would say the strength of the mechanic probably depends most strongly on the quality of the sacrifice outlets available and the actual cards printed with the mechanic or to support it.
I see Rakdos more of a blood lusting, suicidal black strategy. Not really a sacrifice mechanic. Scarifice is a black mechanic, but this aristocrats style is usually Black-White or Black-Green historically.
[quote from="alanyuan0408 »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/802474-rna-leaked-promo-card?comment=66"]
Okay that makes sense. Back to my point, I feel this idea of putting multiple copies of a spell on to the stack in games such as commander just seems like a logistical nightmare waiting to happen. Especially when multiple spectacle cards are put onto the stack at the same time and people are responding while the Player B, C and D's original copies are still on the stack.
Edit: I don't even want to think about how this will work if the casting player has a Hive Mind on the field...
That's a thing that happens all the time in more casual games. Not saying that it can't be confusing and require the group to slow things down for a minute and piece through what resolves and when, but it's not like WotC has stopped that in the past.
[Edit: Assuming that Spectacle works like all other alternate costs and copy abilities] If Hive Mind is out, nothing particularly special happens; each other player other than the one that Spectacle'd the spell would get 2 copies in sequential turn order (A, B, C, D, B, C, D)
I guess that could be okay.
----
I have a second purposed theory on this and take a look at this:
I feel the concept of the reckless charge (i.e. exert) would fit Rakdos very well. I feel this spectacle might be a mix between Exert and Fateful Hour where its something like: If you have 1 or less cards in your hand, you get double of this effect or something.
Or my other theory is more like this is your last turn, if you spectacle, you get twice this effect but you skip your next draw step or something. (which does fit the rakdos theme)
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Oh okay. You're right. I'll make a correct to my post.
I misread the card. My original point was invalid.
A) That's not how the stack resolves
B) That's not uncommon in Commander either.
I think our guesses for the card should be closer to the power level of this card.
-------
I do like the idea that spectacle is an alternate casting cost if this is the last card in your hand or (1 or less card in your hand, similar to hazoret).
It would be like the idea of Rakdos charging in a perform and giving the audience a spectacle with a strong end performance. (i.e. I go to my turn, I;m a BR aggro, on my last turn, I will cast this, reach for the top two which are bolt and bolt and I go Bolt, Bolt, Attack attack as my final act).
I wrote that with the ability in mind of "puts copies of this onto the stack" rather than something like Ad Nauseam where you need to finish resolving the Ad nauseam spell.
Okay so lets just for argument sakes say this is Hive Mind.
- Could you correct me where I was wrong in my interruption of the stack?
- I'm willing to take back my point about commander but I still think this is a disaster waiting to happen
I like that card and would very much like it as a mechanic
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Player A casts the spell
Player B, C, and D will get copies, which go on the stack in that same order.
Player D's copy will reserve first (not player A's), then C, B, and A.
This is not meant as criticism towards you, your input here is super useful. I just want people on the forums to not decide that "this MUST be the English name because that's what it says in this other language" like they wrongfully do over and over again during spoiler season. Don't name/number crunch this based on its most literal translation.
Stay reasonable, be mindful of your expectations and don't feed the trolls.
Doomsdayin'
Okay that makes sense. Back to my point, I feel this idea of putting multiple copies of a spell on to the stack in games such as commander just seems like a logistical nightmare waiting to happen. Especially when multiple spectacle cards are put onto the stack at the same time and people are responding while the Player B, C and D's original copies are still on the stack.
Edit: I don't even want to think about how this will work if the casting player has a Hive Mind on the field...
I'm more than aware of that, I've done translation work myself, and I know the Spanish translators for Magic are often hacks (don't get me started on the atrocious Rakish Heirs translation or the genius who violated spelling rules with "Dóran" la Torre de Asedio)but in Spanish Iluminar el Escenario is a stock phrase like "light the stage" in English, I'd be really surprised if the English name turns out to be anything different. Unlike in English where you have "light" and "illuminate", which sounds more cultured and is often connected with the idea of imparting knowledge, in Spanish whenever you add light to something or a place you use the verb "iluminar", encender means either to light a fire or to turn a machine or the actual lamps on.
Also to the people who commented about the flavor text hinting at something huge because Judith calls "all the world" to their seats, that sounds fun but in fact "todo el mundo" (all the world) simply means "everybody" in Spanish.
That's a thing that happens all the time in more casual games. Not saying that it can't be confusing and require the group to slow things down for a minute and piece through what resolves and when, but it's not like WotC has stopped that in the past.
[Edit: Assuming that Spectacle works like all other alternate costs and copy abilities] If Hive Mind is out, nothing particularly special happens; each other player other than the one that Spectacle'd the spell would get 2 copies in sequential turn order (A, B, C, D, B, C, D)
To be more rakdosian, what about "if you played a card for its spectacle cost this turn, tap all <lands, permanents, creatures, some bundle> you control at end of turn".
|| UW Jace, Vyn's Prodigy UW || UG Kenessos, Priest of Thassa (feat. Arixmethes) UG ||
Cards I still want to see created:
|| Olantin, Lost City || Pavios and Thanasis || Choryu ||
I see where you're coming from with that point but, if I should defend my thesis, black and red are definitely colors that sacrifice creatures (especially in Rakdos) and getting a cost reduction for sacrificing a creature is pretty out of place in white's slice of the color pie but extremely fitting for both black and red. Token creation isn't really limited to just white and even if it were, you're making a case for the mechanic having inter-guild synergy with white token-based guilds (something it has been established is a design principle for the guild mechanics in this iteration). Black in particular makes tons of tokens and red tends to get tokens at efficient rates. Also, black and red do have some recursive creatures (admittedly just Phoenixes in red) that can diminish the drawbacks of sacrificing a creature. I would say the strength of the mechanic probably depends most strongly on the quality of the sacrifice outlets available and the actual cards printed with the mechanic or to support it.
It better be worth it casting the spell then
In the last set they got a little more "jaunty" with card names than usual (eg Collar the Culprit). Its probably too far removed from the literal translation to be correct but I wonder if this could be something like "Hit the Lights"
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Standard - Some kind of control
Modern - UB Mill (casual)
EDH - Meren's Grave Shenanigans
Yes this makes great sense.
I guess that could be okay.
----
I have a second purposed theory on this and take a look at this:
https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Reckless
and there was https://mtg.gamepedia.com/Exert from Amonhket
I feel the concept of the reckless charge (i.e. exert) would fit Rakdos very well. I feel this spectacle might be a mix between Exert and Fateful Hour where its something like: If you have 1 or less cards in your hand, you get double of this effect or something.
Or my other theory is more like this is your last turn, if you spectacle, you get twice this effect but you skip your next draw step or something. (which does fit the rakdos theme)