Thrill of the Chase1G Enchantment
At the end of each player's untap step, create up to two Food tokens for each permanent that player controls that wasn't untapped.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step. It is such a terrifying power—the rush that drives creatures to reach through leaps of evolutionary potential in an instant.
A contribution towards the Nature & Philosophythemed cards. It creates a dramatic scene with Stasis, emulating the suspense of the chase, with the feeling of the predator closing in. Or possibly the enveloping gloom in the air, with the ogre feasting and feasting at the banquet table, while all you have is a Mickey Mouse bean. And then Channel || Helix Pinnacle the ogre rips ass—and it blows the skin and flesh off your bones.
If this wanted to fall into the 3CMC category at 2G, I would slap Deus Ex Machina on it.
Thrill of the Chase2G Enchantment
Deus Ex Machina (As you cast this spell, each player may put the cards from their hand on the bottom of their library, then draw that many cards.)
At the end of each player's untap step, create up to two Food tokens for each permanent that player controls that wasn't untapped.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step.
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, create two food tokens for each permanent they control that was tapped at the start of their turn and is still tapped.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step.
Having made your nonsense functional. I have to ask why? It's technically a functional card but why is it? the pay of while significant doesn't seem worth it unless you're abusing it some how.
Being able to setback 3 damage consistently isn't exactly weak.
Oh yes, I forgot how consistently broken Healing Salve has proven over the years.
Even if it isn't directly noticeable as a game-ending apocalypse card—which it is! Ha Ha! Another instantly game-ending apocalypse card!
I doubt this card would even see play, much less become the stuff of revelation. Still, correct wording aside, it probably only rates as a 2 or 3 on ThaReap scale, so good job.
First, "..for each permanent that player controls that wasn't untapped." is badly worded because it can be read in two different ways: For each permanent that didn't untap? Or for each permanent that was untapped already? I assume the first, but it should say "that didn't untap" in that case.
Second, "step, create up to two Food tokens for each permanent" means that for each permanent not untapped I can create 0, 1, or 2 Food, not that my food maxes at two total each whole untap.
As written this is inherently broken as any permanents that were untapped already will still count (and this isn't even counting that it trigger on your opponents stuff too) and you get two food per permanent (unless you choose to get less for some reason)
Turn 1: Land + Any 1 mana permanent.
Turn 2: Land + Thrill of the Chase. Do nothing else. (2 untapped permanents left)
Turn 3: Create 4 food tokens. Land + Reckless Fireweaver. Do nothing else. (8 untapped permanents left)
Turn 4: Create 16 Food, your opponent takes 16 damage.
Explain how you want the card to actually word regaring already untapped permanents, max number of food, etc and the wording can be fixed but its a mess right now.
Okay, well then the same could be said for the inverse—but we wouldn't.
{At the beginning of your untap step, create a food token for each permanent that was untapped.}
Reminder you get to choose how it goes onto the stack.
So is it for each that was already untapped—or that was untapped by the untap step? Typically, you could probably change the context a little by designating [you]. We could do that here also: {for each permanent that player controls that he or she didn't untap}.
But would we? Probably not, because even at first sight it's more convoluted.
So this is just silly. There will always be implied context in the game, and never an entirely uniform code.
You could never create 16 food tokens, you can only create up to two at a time. Savor the flavor.
You could never create 16 food tokens, you can only create up to two at a time. Savor the flavor.
Wait, is this meant to only ever produce a maximum of two food? Not two food per permanent? If that is th4 case I take back most of what I said. I don't know why it does the every player. If you drop that it can be infinitely cleaner.
Thrill of the Chase 1G
Enchantment
You may choose not to untap a tapped permanent you control during your untap step. If you do, create two food tokens.
I kind of like this card. It's definitely strong but I don't think its too strong for eternal formats.
If you learn how to properly format cards we can avoid these scenarios where everyone is judging the card that they understand from what you posted and not what you intended to design.
I definitely prefer to do this kind of thing as a one-shot effect - less admin in the upkeep. Something like:
Dinner Time XGG
Sorcery
Put a stun counter on X target permanents you control. Create X Food tokens.
I really don't know what deck wants a load of food and also doesn't care about untapping, though. And there's way better ways to make Food than either my thing or Thrill of the Chase.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Did you think to kill me? There's no flesh and blood within this cloak to kill. There is only an idea. Ideas are bulletproof." - V, V for Vendetta. Alan Moore
Hold on, I thought it said for each tapped thing that wasn't untapped, that changes everything.
Then you can totally net freed food from your enchantments which tipically don't tap ever
Ahhhhh then the card is nice I suppose, the 2 per turn limit is ok in that case
BUT yeah it could be less steppy at that point, less convoluted and get the same result in a much cleaner way, and there are plenty of ways to describe that effect easier, (Once you do understand what how the card is meant to function)
So this is just silly. There will always be implied context in the game, and never an entirely uniform code.
You could never create 16 food tokens, you can only create up to two at a time. Savor the flavor.
This is not how rules text works. All rules text is specific terminology used in a specific way to create a specific result, evidenced by the fact that most of the commenters judged your card not based on making a max of 2 food per turn.
Here is you card correctly templated:
Thrill of the Chase 1G
Enchantment
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, create a Food token for each permanent that player controls that didn't untap during their untap step. Up to two Food tokens can be created this way each turn.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step.
Note also that you cannot have a trigger at the end of a phase or step, because a triggered ability then causes priority to pass between players again after the ability resolves and the phase will not end.
I think you've provided a better example of why we adapt wording composure so that it's better understood for the intended context, based on the surrounding context. I'm not sure how we end of debating the English language all the time. It's so subjective that MTG is printed in so many other languages. But I think the fundamentals of language are all the same. We use specific context (forewording, after, sequence) to best imply what our intended meanings are.
What you've provided is more convoluted because it provides more enigmatic elements towards the sequence of operation. Thus, the path of logical direction becomes incredibly more difficult to find, create, and/or follow.
If you could though, where in the context that I provided is there even the least bit of notion that more than 2 tokens could be created? Especially, you know, since it says "up to two food tokens" explicitly, as a {clear and convincing} restriction clause.
If you could though, where in the context that I provided is there even the least bit of notion that more than 2 tokens could be created? Especially, you know, since it says "up to two food tokens" explicitly, as a {clear and convincing} restriction clause.
If someone took me to a discount store and told me it would cost me up to $2 for each item that I wanted to buy, I would not load up my cart with everything and expect to only pay $2 for the entire cart. The specific “linguistic context” you think exists does not work for this reason.
Linguistically, One for each (up to two) =\= up to two for each.
If you think that there is a circumstantial or mechanical context (AKA: it’s obvious what I meant as the other interpretation is too powerful or doesn’t work), that fails as well as half of this thread had people with mixed opinions about the other interpretation.
Show me one other MTG design where [create up to # anything]; [draw up to # card]; [prevent up to # damage]; etc.—is ambiguous to the maximum amount possible outcome.
If you missed that part, that's okay. Just say so. Sometimes I miss words too. It comes with being overstimulated chemical monkeys rigged up to the VR world 24-7.
That's one of the reasons I like to get out and get some fresh air and exercise as much as possible.
Sometimes I miss words too. It comes with being overstimulated chemical monkeys rigged up to the VR world 24-7.
Thank you for admiring you miss words. So let me point of the words you missed.
"For each"
You see, when these words appear as they have on your design. They modify the previous notion such that every viable instance is a seperate restriction. So the "upto two" is reset "for each" go ahead and peruse existing magic cards to see that this is the case 100% of the time leaving no room for ambiguity.
Don't be ashamed the best of us misread text and/or type incorrectly. As long as you admit your mistake and rectify the problem then we all grow from the experience.
Sometimes I miss words too. It comes with being overstimulated chemical monkeys rigged up to the VR world 24-7.
Thank you for admiring you miss words. So let me point of the words you missed.
"For each".
Exactly this. As you wanted examples, though, look at dismantling wave or grasp of fate, which target “up to one” target “for each” player and in fact can target multiple permanents in a multiplayer game.
Enchantment
At the end of each player's untap step, create up to two Food tokens for each permanent that player controls that wasn't untapped.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step.
It is such a terrifying power—the rush that drives creatures to reach through leaps of evolutionary potential in an instant.
A contribution towards the Nature & Philosophy themed cards. It creates a dramatic scene with Stasis, emulating the suspense of the chase, with the feeling of the predator closing in. Or possibly the enveloping gloom in the air, with the ogre feasting and feasting at the banquet table, while all you have is a Mickey Mouse bean. And then Channel || Helix Pinnacle the ogre rips ass—and it blows the skin and flesh off your bones.
If this wanted to fall into the 3CMC category at 2G, I would slap Deus Ex Machina on it.
Thrill of the Chase 2G
Enchantment
Deus Ex Machina (As you cast this spell, each player may put the cards from their hand on the bottom of their library, then draw that many cards.)
At the end of each player's untap step, create up to two Food tokens for each permanent that player controls that wasn't untapped.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step.
This being the current vision for it.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step.
Having made your nonsense functional. I have to ask why? It's technically a functional card but why is it? the pay of while significant doesn't seem worth it unless you're abusing it some how.
I thought this might be like a nice cool breeze for everyone with the mildness of the effect.
Well food are not Treasure, but I believe they mean the card is weak for what it does.
Even if it isn't directly noticeable as a game-ending apocalypse card—which it is! Ha Ha! Another instantly game-ending apocalypse card!
This originally wanted to create a food token for each permanent untapped, but then I decided some moderation would be better. Savor the flavor.
Oh yes, I forgot how consistently broken Healing Salve has proven over the years.
I doubt this card would even see play, much less become the stuff of revelation. Still, correct wording aside, it probably only rates as a 2 or 3 on ThaReap scale, so good job.
Second, "step, create up to two Food tokens for each permanent" means that for each permanent not untapped I can create 0, 1, or 2 Food, not that my food maxes at two total each whole untap.
As written this is inherently broken as any permanents that were untapped already will still count (and this isn't even counting that it trigger on your opponents stuff too) and you get two food per permanent (unless you choose to get less for some reason)
Turn 1: Land + Any 1 mana permanent.
Turn 2: Land + Thrill of the Chase. Do nothing else. (2 untapped permanents left)
Turn 3: Create 4 food tokens. Land + Reckless Fireweaver. Do nothing else. (8 untapped permanents left)
Turn 4: Create 16 Food, your opponent takes 16 damage.
Explain how you want the card to actually word regaring already untapped permanents, max number of food, etc and the wording can be fixed but its a mess right now.
{At the beginning of your untap step, create a food token for each permanent that was untapped.}
Reminder you get to choose how it goes onto the stack.
So is it for each that was already untapped—or that was untapped by the untap step? Typically, you could probably change the context a little by designating [you]. We could do that here also: {for each permanent that player controls that he or she didn't untap}.
But would we? Probably not, because even at first sight it's more convoluted.
So this is just silly. There will always be implied context in the game, and never an entirely uniform code.
You could never create 16 food tokens, you can only create up to two at a time. Savor the flavor.
Ancient Copper Dragon is still single though.
Thrill of the Chase 1G
Enchantment
You may choose not to untap a tapped permanent you control during your untap step. If you do, create two food tokens.
I kind of like this card. It's definitely strong but I don't think its too strong for eternal formats.
If you learn how to properly format cards we can avoid these scenarios where everyone is judging the card that they understand from what you posted and not what you intended to design.
Dinner Time XGG
Sorcery
Put a stun counter on X target permanents you control. Create X Food tokens.
I really don't know what deck wants a load of food and also doesn't care about untapping, though. And there's way better ways to make Food than either my thing or Thrill of the Chase.
Then you can totally net freed food from your enchantments which tipically don't tap ever
Ahhhhh then the card is nice I suppose, the 2 per turn limit is ok in that case
BUT yeah it could be less steppy at that point, less convoluted and get the same result in a much cleaner way, and there are plenty of ways to describe that effect easier, (Once you do understand what how the card is meant to function)
This is not how rules text works. All rules text is specific terminology used in a specific way to create a specific result, evidenced by the fact that most of the commenters judged your card not based on making a max of 2 food per turn.
Here is you card correctly templated:
Thrill of the Chase 1G
Enchantment
At the beginning of each player's upkeep, create a Food token for each permanent that player controls that didn't untap during their untap step. Up to two Food tokens can be created this way each turn.
You may choose not to untap up to one permanent during your untap step.
Note also that you cannot have a trigger at the end of a phase or step, because a triggered ability then causes priority to pass between players again after the ability resolves and the phase will not end.
What you've provided is more convoluted because it provides more enigmatic elements towards the sequence of operation. Thus, the path of logical direction becomes incredibly more difficult to find, create, and/or follow.
If you could though, where in the context that I provided is there even the least bit of notion that more than 2 tokens could be created? Especially, you know, since it says "up to two food tokens" explicitly, as a {clear and convincing} restriction clause.
If someone took me to a discount store and told me it would cost me up to $2 for each item that I wanted to buy, I would not load up my cart with everything and expect to only pay $2 for the entire cart. The specific “linguistic context” you think exists does not work for this reason.
Linguistically, One for each (up to two) =\= up to two for each.
If you think that there is a circumstantial or mechanical context (AKA: it’s obvious what I meant as the other interpretation is too powerful or doesn’t work), that fails as well as half of this thread had people with mixed opinions about the other interpretation.
If you missed that part, that's okay. Just say so. Sometimes I miss words too. It comes with being overstimulated chemical monkeys rigged up to the VR world 24-7.
That's one of the reasons I like to get out and get some fresh air and exercise as much as possible.
"For each"
You see, when these words appear as they have on your design. They modify the previous notion such that every viable instance is a seperate restriction. So the "upto two" is reset "for each" go ahead and peruse existing magic cards to see that this is the case 100% of the time leaving no room for ambiguity.
Don't be ashamed the best of us misread text and/or type incorrectly. As long as you admit your mistake and rectify the problem then we all grow from the experience.
Exactly this. As you wanted examples, though, look at dismantling wave or grasp of fate, which target “up to one” target “for each” player and in fact can target multiple permanents in a multiplayer game.