What I have in the OP doesn't involve a "Yes and No" conflict. It's a redirect in the order of operations, where the Golden Rule takes precedence and enables the card to played as written, overriding whatever "Layering" rules that would direct the order of operations otherwise.
Have you read what others have been writing? Yes, your card is able to be played as written. No, it doesn't work as you intend it. The Golden Rule applies only when a card contradicts a rule. Your wording does not contradict a ruel - more specifically it does not contradict the rules concerning layers. The order of effects is irrelevant to effects in different layers (which is, btw, the whole point of the layers).
Flash of the Blade
Instant
Choose one or both in any order -
Target creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn. If you chose to apply this mode second that creature gets +0/+1 instead. (Increasing its power.)
Switch target creature's power and toughness until end of turn.
"You'll die as you lived in a flash of the blade, in a corner forgotten by no-one. You lived for the touch, for the feel of the steel; one man—and his honor."
Almost there.
For what it's worth the spell not working as intended is a slightly better design - also I'm fairly certain the flavor text is way too long and not properly punctuated. But I'll let you figure that out.
White getting power and toughness switching doesn't fit - neither does the flavor text as I understand it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
The above example with the order of operations and the layering function is no such case. There is no logical conflict here (as there is no "Yes and No" operating function). This is a redirect function in the order of operations, where the Golden Rule clearly takes precedence, and allows a card to be played as it's written to create a custom order of operations in the resolve of its effect (as decided by the player—and the written text of the card).
There is more than one order of operations that are relevant here. In fact, there are two (plus an irrelevant one which is worth mentioning):
1: The order of operations of the stack (i.e. last in first out; covered under rule 405 in the comprehensive rules). This is irrelevant to your example, but would handle the case where two individual cards are cast, one reading "target creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn" and the other reading "switch target creature's power and toughness until end of turn".
2: The order of operations on the card itself (i.e. however the card lists the effects; 608.2c).
3: The order of layering (613.3), i.e. the order of operations for applying multiple continuous effects which alter the power and toughness of a given creature.
An example of ordered text is the card Epic Confrontation, for which the P/T bonus is important for the ensuing fight. The third type of ordering doesn't really have an explicit example on any card, it serves to more clearly define how continuous effects which modify P/T interact with eachother, including defining how a switch in power and toughness is handled.
Your "in any order" clause only modifies the effective order that the text of the card is applied in. You are correct that your card is clearly intended to modify the order of layering, because changing the order that text is applied is irrelevant to the card's functionality (since it is layering that determines the order in which P/T-modifying effects are applied, not the order of the effects on the card). Even so, it is not, syntactically, invalid to change the order that those effects are applied in, and so that's what your card does as-written.
Unfortunately Magic rules are very particular, and works quite similarly to a programming algorithm. This is desirable because it means that you will almost always get a consistent result every time you properly apply the rules to the same situation, regardless of player interpretation. This is very much intentional on the part of WotC; they want this to be the case, and actively strive for it. They have decided that the cost of some cards occasionally functioning unintuitively is worth the consistency. For example, you can't cast Hex if there are fewer than 5 creatures on the board, since you need to select 6 targets, but if you target six creatures and then one of them dies before Hex resolves, it still resolves and kills the 5 remaining targets.
This is also why the card Piracy is near-useless: even though its intended use (to allow you to tap your opponent's lands to cast your spells) is clear, a smart opponent will inevitably tap their lands in response to the spell to prevent you from using them; the card does nothing to prevent this despite the golden rule. Your card would fall into a similar unfortunate category, as-written.
It is possible, if very unlikely, that there will be a card some day which says "if an effect you control would switch this creature's power and toughness, instead sacrifice it and draw cards equal to its power"; that effect would be syntactically valid and there is no reason it can't exist in the game. That effect would suddenly cause the second type of order of operations (order of card text) to be relevant for your card. Now that the second type of ordering is relevant, your card is ambiguous about which order of operations the text is referring to: the order that the text is applied or the order of layering of continuous effects. The way you want your card to work falls victim to this ambiguity, while the way that the rules work avoids it by always assuming cards refer to the second type of ordering.
Your card could, in fact, work as you intended, but unfortunately you would need to very specifically refer to the order of layering which would end up being lengthy and make the card look 'ugly' by having too many words.
Dude this has gone on for way too long. We are here to create new cards, and express new ideas. Not find out about the hadron collider or all the science about why global warming is now global climate change.
All that is cool, but this game does have a rule that says if a card breaks the rules then do what the card says. So all your 7c-f stuff, while cute, doesn't stop the card from doing what it says. Period.
All that is cool, but this game does have a rule that says if a card breaks the rules then do what the card says.
As you stated the rule only applies to cards that directly contradicts the rules. And the card in the OP does not contradict the rules in question. As has been stated.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Planar Chaos was not a mistake neither was it random. You might want to look at it again.
[thread=239793][Game] Level Up - Creature[/thread]
Dude this has gone on for way too long. We are here to create new cards, and express new ideas. Not find out about the hadron collider or all the science about why global warming is now global climate change.
All that is cool, but this game does have a rule that says if a card breaks the rules then do what the card says. So all your 7c-f stuff, while cute, doesn't stop the card from doing what it says. Period.
You and the OP are simply unwilling to accept that not all card ideas are possible to implement into the game. You're not willing to admit that you're wrong. Just because you think the rules are as easily changeable to your every whim doesn't mean they are. You're simply deflecting the valid points other people are making just because they happen to conflict with your incorrect beliefs.
You and the OP can keep saying to yourselves that the card works and keep echo-chambering off of each other, but that just means you're completely close-minded and unwilling to take the input of others. That just makes you a regurgitator of ideas that happen to come into mind, not a custom card designer. Nobody will take you seriously.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you truly think the rules work the way you think they do, prove it. It's been pointed out several times that bringing up the "golden rule" is completely meaningless, since what the OP's card is doing already exists in the game and doesn't match with what the OP wants to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How to use card tags (please use them for everybody's sanity)
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format Minimum deck size: 60 Maximum number of identical cards: 4 Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
All that is cool, but this game does have a rule that says if a card breaks the rules then do what the card says. So all your 7c-f stuff, while cute, doesn't stop the card from doing what it says. Period.
Correct in that the card does what the card says, but I'm going to have to contest you on your emphatic "Period."
Because it's not as simple as that. The golden rule ensures that the card does what the card says.
The rest of the rules explain what it actually is that the card is saying.
An amusing interaction you might not know about, so that those who have read thus far can at least get something out of this...
Hallow as a spell is clearly intended to heal you for the damage that a nasty mean burn spell would otherwise deal. It deals with cards like Blaze or Fireball or even Pyroclasm. That is the card's intent, i.e. what the card says it does.
However, if we look at rule 400.7, we find some interesting details on prevention effects as they apply to spells.
Specifically, rule 400.7b: "Prevention effects that apply to damage from a permanent spell on the stack continue to apply to damage from the permanent that spell becomes."
That rule and rule 400.7a are intended to ensure that things like giving a creature spell haste will also give haste to the creature it becomes, such as how Generator Servant can give haste to a creature spell.
But, this also means that if you cast Hallow on a Glorybringer, Hallow will apply to all damage that Glorybringer deals as a creature this turn. This means that Hallow also works on creatures with haste or creatures that deal damage when they enter the battlefield.
If we look at the golden rule, we find something interesting...
"Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. [...]"
Emphasis mine. You'll notice that the golden rule is asking you to be specific, even going so far as to specify "only the rule", singular. The golden rule does not go about automatically revising any and all rules which would cause the card to function differently from its intent, as is clearly the case since Hallow and many, many cards like it can function quite differently from their intent.
It asks you to be specific. Unfortunately the golden rule is not the only rule you need to be aware of when designing cards.
Everyone bringing up the Golden Rule are applying it to the wrong portion. The only part this matters for is the
Do one or both in any order.
This part contradictions the rules and so supersedes them, possibly opening up interesting design space. The rest of the card doesn't function the way its described and has almost no design space anyways so its kind of irrelevant. But if you want it to word others have already provided viable alternatives to keep the cards functionality.
The place this kind of effect can be interesting is cards like this
Order matters card 13RW
Sorcery
Do the effects of this card in any order.
Up to two target creatures get +3/+0 until end of turn.
Destroy all creatures with power 4 or greater
All the nonsense of about the layers within layer 7 are derailing from a genuinely interesting concept.
Ghastlord's Gaze~2(U/B)
Sorcery (Uncommon)
Do the following in any order:
Scry 4
Put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard.
Draw a card
You could potentially dig 7 cards deep, but would have to guess about the mill part. Or you could just send specific cards to the graveyard to reanimate or whatever and be happy with seeing fewer cards.
EDIT:
or maybe better...
Ghastlord's Gaze~3(U/B)
Sorcery (Uncommon)
You may look at the top card of your library until end of turn. (You may do this at any time.)
Do each of the following in any order:
Put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard.
Put the top two cards of your library into your graveyard.
Draw two cards
So it's a little minigame where you only get to see one card before deciding.
I definitely am not carrying on that argument anymore. There is no "Yes and No" conflict here, so the Golden Rule takes precedence and enables this card to control the order of operations in which how these effects resolve themselves.
As for the color bleed, I do think it comes off a little awkward at first. But from a player's point of view, 9 times out of 10 all the player is going to see is the powerlevel, the playability, and/or the opened interactivity of the card. So basically, I would basically expect to look at this card from the other side like..."Wow!"
And with that said, once provided with a cycle of other cards that all do the same thing, and also create a color extension for certain effects, it would all likely normalize itself even more from there.
For example,
Sun and SteelR Instant
Do one or both in any order.
Target creature gets -1/-0 until end of turn.
Target creature can't block this turn.
"Sunlight—falling on your steel! Death in life is your ideal! Life is like a wheel—rolling on and on."
Sun and SteelR Instant
Do one or both in any order.
Target creature gets -1/-0 until end of turn.
Target creature can't block this turn.
"Sunlight—falling on your steel; death in life is your ideal! Life is like a wheel."
There is zero benefit for doing those in any order, so what is the point in allowing you to change the order? When you have a gimmick like this each card needs to actually utilize the gimmick or its pointless, even if one option is obviously superior, trinket text is better than useless text.
Also, out of color for Red. Red doesn't give -1/-0.
I definitely am not carrying on that argument anymore. There is no "Yes and No" conflict here, so the Golden Rule takes precedence and enables this card to control the order of operations in which how these effects resolve themselves.
Saying the equivalent of "I'm not listening anymore, I'm right and you're wrong!" is intentionally provocative as far as arguments are concerned.
The rules interaction has been comprehensively explained, but if you want to hold your breath and cover your eyes and ears I can't stop you. You're only undermining yourself if you won't learn the rules and won't let them be explained to you, and your fumbling attempts at card design make that apparent.
As to the design space itself; you need instantaneous effects that meaningfully change the game state as the card is resolving, so its usefulness is surprisingly limited. This means that damage and power/toughness changes, for example, can't really be used unless you're going to have a check in place for one of those.
for example,
Wanton Fury~WRG
Sorcery
Choose target creature you control, then do the following in any order:
That creature gains lifelink until end of turn and fights target creature you don't control.
That creature gains indestructible until end of turn and fights target creature you don't control.
That creature gets +2/+0 until end of turn and fights target creature you don't control.
Would seem to be a decision point on what order the creature gets lifelink, the damage boost, and indestructible in since each bonus applies to the subsequent fights. However, it doesn't actually matter when indestructible is gained because damage won't kill the creature until after the effect resolves and state-based effects are checked.
The best effects for this seem to be card manipulation (i.e. moving a card from a zone to another zone), particularly 'destroy' effects with conditionals like user_938036's example.
The reason why Wrath of God doesn't destroy Black Knight
Just because nobody mentioned it and it has been bothering me... Wrath of Goddoes destroy Black Knight - protection does not affect untargeted destruction effects that do not use damage.
It's almost as if Protection is a confusing and problematic ability that shouldn't be used anymore...
Oddly, I think Hexproof is a great mechanic they need to support. It's a lot more interesting and intuitive than indestructible and having even 1 decent hexproofer in standard means the meta's got to take notice.
There is zero benefit for doing those in any order, so what is the point in allowing you to change the order? When you have a gimmick like this each card needs to actually utilize the gimmick or its pointless, even if one option is obviously superior, trinket text is better than useless text.
Also, out of color for Red. Red doesn't give -1/-0.
That doesn't matter, you still need it there for context and clarity purposes. You're providing two options, it's good design etiquette to provide people the certainty to know they (or their opponent) can choose to resolve those effects in any order.
Here's another one,
Play with MadnessU Instant
Do one or both in any order.
Return target tapped creature to its owner's hand.
Target opponent reveals a card at random from his or her hand. If it's a creature card, that player discards that card.
"Can I play with madness? The prophet stared at his crystal ball. Can I play with madness? There's no vision there at all!"
That doesn't matter, you still need it there for context and clarity purposes. You're providing two options, it's good design etiquette to provide people the certainty to know they (or their opponent) can choose to resolve those effects in any order.
No, actually. Cards like Dromoka's Command don't specify that you can perform them in any order even though, for example, it is relevant what order the third and fourth options occur in. You follow the order they are written on the card, and there's no reason to add extra text allowing you to do otherwise if the order doesn't actually matter.
This is true even for cards like Collective Effort where you might actually want the last effect to occur first, due to the first effect.
Here's another one,
Play with MadnessU Instant
Do one or both in any order.
Return target tapped creature to its owner's hand.
Target opponent reveals a card at random from his or her hand. If it's a creature card, that player discards that card.
"Can I play with madness? The prophet stared at his crystal ball. Can I play with madness? There's no vision there at all!"
The minor case where you want to use the discard first isn't really worth specifying you can do them in any order, since 9 times out of 10 you'll want a definite creature in their hand to decrease the chance of missing the discard.
It should also definitely be a UB card, since MaRo has gone on record saying that, for example, even though putting a target creature on top of its owner's library and milling the top card of an opponent's library are both blue, the end result is a black effect. This card isn't certain to get the creature, but it still isn't a good fit for mono-blue. You may not agree with everything MaRo says, but not circumventing color restrictions like that is a good practice regardless.
I'm not seeing anything worth giving infractions for, but please keep it civil.
Can't we achieve what the OP wants with something like:
Target creature gains first strike until end of turn. You may switch that creature's power and toughness until end of turn.
Choose one:
- That creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
- That creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn.
I don't think this is really a good idea, because most people don't get that if you're switching, you have to give +0/+1 to add to power, and moreso for the fact that it's so much extra text for something you rarely want (more toughness and first strike). This option would work for most of the cases you want:
Target creature gains first strike until end of turn. Choose one:
- That creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
- That creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn. Switch its power and toughness until end of turn.
Target creature gains first strike until end of turn. Choose one:
- That creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
- That creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn. Switch its power and toughness until end of turn.
While that (almost*) works to fix the OP's sample card, it doesn't meet the OP's original goal of having cards where order between choices matters. Its an ordinary modal spell.
No, actually. Cards like Dromoka's Command don't specify that you can perform them in any order even though, for example, it is relevant what order the third and fourth options occur in. You follow the order they are written on the card, and there's no reason to add extra text allowing you to do otherwise if the order doesn't actually matter.
This is true even for cards like Collective Effort where you might actually want the last effect to occur first, due to the first effect.
The minor case where you want to use the discard first isn't really worth specifying you can do them in any order, since 9 times out of 10 you'll want a definite creature in their hand to decrease the chance of missing the discard.
Just going to quickly sum this response up in the fact that you've provided your own evidence that the context is needed and should be there. This is a perfect example of what I mean, and further proof of the poor development choices that Wizards constantly makes. With this brush up to the wording composure, it opens design space, and helps to neatly and effectively solve all simple confusions (while an errata ruling could fix their little error on other cards in the meantime).
It should also definitely be a UB card, since MaRo has gone on record saying that, for example, even though putting a target creature on top of its owner's library and milling the top card of an opponent's library are both blue, the end result is a black effect. This card isn't certain to get the creature, but it still isn't a good fit for mono-blue. You may not agree with everything MaRo says, but not circumventing color restrictions like that is a good practice regardless.
I just want to kindly say that Mark Rosewater's opinions have almost no authority with me whatsoever.
I personally believe that the man has been designing Magic: the Gathering entirely blind for years, and fails to possess any dynamic understanding of game and its scientific dynamics. This belief majorly extends to Richard Garfield as well, although I'd say he seems to have a keener sense of theoretical understanding towards certain fun factors of gaming, and this gives him the edge to blindly implement something beneficial now and again. Yet from the very beginning, it's clear to me that the man himself also designed Magic entirely blind, and to this day has achieved no greater understanding towards the scientific details of aspects such as the flow of the cards, the nature of effects based on how they specifically interact with the game, the balance of power based on that principal understanding, and the need for equality (balanced by flavor) which should be the aspect that ties the entire game together and brings it full circle.
Mark Rosewater is just the same, he rambles on a lot about color restrictions, and speaks vaguely on power-level, but never does he articulate upon the intricacies of the game and its scientific dynamics. In fact, he goes so far into the blind devotion of his color separation theories, that his design schematics produce lopsided balances of power between colors set and set (extending all the way to the legacy and vintage formats themselves).
With that said, I hope you can bear with me when my design (which embodies the understanding of these scientific details) attempts to correct and restore the balance of power and interactivity to where it should be.
Here's two more, just to finish the cycle.
Run to the HillsG Instant
Do one or both in any order. You can't choose different targets for these effects.
Untap up to two basic lands you control.
Target basic land you control becomes a green 2/3 Elemental Wall creature with defender until end of turn.
"Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes, galloping hard on the plains!
Chasing the redskins back to their holes—fighting them at their own game!"
Fear of the DarkB Instant
Do one or both in any order. You can't choose different targets for these effects.
Target creature gets -0/-1 until end of turn.
Target creature deals damage to itself equal to its power minus 2.
"Maybe your mind is playing tricks? You sense and suddenly eyes fix...on dancing shadows from behind!"
Just going to quickly sum this response up in the fact that you've provided your own evidence that the context is needed and should be there. This is a perfect example of what I mean, and further proof of the poor development choices that Wizards constantly makes. With this brush up to the wording composure, it opens design space, and helps to neatly and effectively solve all simple confusions (while an errata ruling could fix their little error on other cards in the meantime).
If your stance is that doing things in the order they appear on the card is bad, and you should be given the option to do them in any order, then you should try presenting more designs in which the order actually matters. The majority of your cycle makes no difference which order you choose the effects in. To a new player, you're just opening them up to confusion because you're presenting an option that literally does not matter. Why does the option exist if it does nothing? You have a "cycle" where there's the explicit option to choose the order, and for some it does make a difference. Do you not think that will trap players into thinking that they should all do something where the order makes a difference?
It actually does (or can) make a difference for all but 1 of them. Only the red one (Sun and Steel) is more of a modal spell than it is an "order of operations" spell. Not to say that order of operations can't be used for some dynamic powerplay, but that such a powerplay would be so technical, that it doesn't exactly support a considerable argument.
That last one though, Fear of the Dark, can be used to destroy an Indestructible creature by utilizing the proper order of operations. Did you miss that? The indestructible creature deals damage to itself leaving it with 1 toughness, then gets -0/-1 and falls off into the graveyard. Order of operations can definitely matter.
For the blue one (Play with Madness), order of operations can be used to suite advantage/disadvantage scenarios with the ability to isolate a single threat the opponent has in play, or split the effect to ward a threat waiting in their hand first, then dampening their offensive potential on the board. Order of operations can also coupe with other spells (such as a counterspell), to further diversify upon the potential available to you, rather than being forced to waste it all on a single shot.
Example scenario: Your opponent has a creature on the table, and something in their hand (likely coming next turn). Let's say it's turn 4, and they're about to drop their 5th land next turn. You have a counterspell in hand, but it's only a conditional one that would work on the creature they have on the table.
With the order of operations effect at your fingertips, you can use Play with Madness to hit their hand up for the creature in waiting, then bounce the one they have on the table for your counterspell to scoop it up in the exchange. If not for this, then you have to return their creature on the table first, and then essence of the powerplay would basically be ruined.
Also note that Play with Madness can be used to return and attacking creature (as long as it's tapped), and can also return a creature trying to use a tap effect (effectively countering that effect when the source is no longer on the table for the effect to resolve—correct me if I'm wrong).
Run to the Hills might not seem like the order of operations matters, but it definitely can when you consider the "in first, out last" stack, and other opposing effects that might tap a creature or permanent and render it of no use before it even becomes a creature.
I think I'm done debating this too, I really just wanted to finish the cycle, and I hope it's been an inspirational bit of design space that everyone can open heartedly embrace and have fun with.
That last one though, Fear of the Dark, can be used to destroy an Indestructible creature by utilizing the proper order of operations. Did you miss that? The indestructible creature deals damage to itself leaving it with 1 toughness, then gets -0/-1 and falls off into the graveyard. Order of operations can definitely matter.
No, it doesn't. Damage doesn't reduce toughness (no matter what Duels says). If it did, you wouldn't even need to give it -0/-X to "finish it off". After all, if damage reduced toughness, dealing 3 damage to a X/3 indestructible creature would reduce its toughness to 0 making indestructible irrelevant. I have seen so many players make this mistake, but it seems odd to me that they know you can't kill a creature with damage if it has Indestructible, but somehow giving it -0/-X in addition to damage makes it work.
Run to the Hills might not seem like the order of operations matters, but it definitely can when you consider the "in first, out last" stack, and other opposing effects that might tap a creature or permanent and render it of no use before it even becomes a creature.
This doesn't even make sense. You are still casting one spell. Nothing can act in the middle of that resolving so turning a land into a creature before untapping it (or vice versa) doesn't do anything. Nothing is going to do anything to that creature while Run to the Hills is still resolving. And, anything that could do something is just going to do it after the spell fully resolves anyway which, again, makes the order irrelevant.
Also note that Play with Madness can be used to return and attacking creature (as long as it's tapped), and can also return a creature trying to use a tap effect (effectively countering that effect when the source is no longer on the table for the effect to resolve—correct me if I'm wrong).
No. Removing the source of an ability does not counter the ability. The ability exists independently of the source and will still resolve as normal.
EDIT: I want to make it clear that I applaud your efforts in thinking outside the box. That is what a good designer can do; find something to do in a space that has not been played around in and design something that makes that design space relevant. So, your intentions are certainly admirable, but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules that makes some of your designs less impactful than you want them to be.
I encourage you to read up on the rules, or accept what others have been telling you in this thread, and use these design exercises as a learning tool that helps with your next design. There are certainly modal spells where you can make the order matter (such as that of Play with Madenss) but the usefulness of the order matters cards should amount to more than just "1% of the time, I might want to switch the order". With Play with Madenss, as has been mentioned, the player will probably most often want to bounce first to increase the chances of a hit. If the card generally plays the same, the order mattering aspect becomes less useful.
So, we are not necessarily trying to dissuade you from exploring this design space, but this seems to be a space that, so far, has shown to be less useful than desired.
You might actually be right about damage and -0/-1. Damage could be it's own unique layer, I don't exactly recall, but it almost seems like units of damage could be their own thing, and don't coincide with toughness reduction as I thought to work the effect in this way. With that said, it does lose some significance relating to the order of operations that those effects resolve
Still, many of the others retain their significance, and you would wrong yourself when you say nothing can resolve while you attempt to cast your single spell. In response to playing Run to the Hills, a person can place a spell or ability on the stack to tap your lands in advanced to the expection it's going to become a creature.
It really only applies to sloppy matches, where targets aren't officially designated upon "announcement" as they would be otherwise. However, a player could get left stranded if they announce to animate first, then get tapped down, having chose another land for the untap effect and not the tapped one.
Note the functionality of an effect could also be worded in the comprehensive rulings to be treated as (and resolved as) two separate spells, intending to open interactivity and enable more dynamic play options with and between such effects.
I don't really play Magic anymore, and have taken up development exclusively since the Time Spiral block. I was a Renaissance player from the Odyssey/7th Edition era, so I go way back, and do have a fonder understanding of the rules than I might lead on. However, I haven't been designing much lately, and have taken up many other intellectual endeavors so that my memory has dramatically faded regarding this game and it's comprehensive rulings.
I don't really wish to continue this debate any longer, and I just hope everyone enjoys the design space this opens up.
I just want to kindly say that Mark Rosewater's opinions have almost no authority with me whatsoever.
I personally believe that the man has been designing Magic: the Gathering entirely blind for years, and fails to possess any dynamic understanding of game and its scientific dynamics. This belief majorly extends to Richard Garfield as well, although I'd say he seems to have a keener sense of theoretical understanding towards certain fun factors of gaming, and this gives him the edge to blindly implement something beneficial now and again. Yet from the very beginning, it's clear to me that the man himself also designed Magic entirely blind, and to this day has achieved no greater understanding towards the scientific details of aspects such as the flow of the cards, the nature of effects based on how they specifically interact with the game, the balance of power based on that principal understanding, and the need for equality (balanced by flavor) which should be the aspect that ties the entire game together and brings it full circle.
Mark Rosewater is just the same, he rambles on a lot about color restrictions, and speaks vaguely on power-level, but never does he articulate upon the intricacies of the game and its scientific dynamics. In fact, he goes so far into the blind devotion of his color separation theories, that his design schematics produce lopsided balances of power between colors set and set (extending all the way to the legacy and vintage formats themselves).
With that said, I hope you can bear with me when my design (which embodies the understanding of these scientific details) attempts to correct and restore the balance of power and interactivity to where it should be.
After digging through this postmodern gibberish, I got from your post that you think Mark Rosewater is too much of a color pie absolutist - which I guess is a critique one could make. But I don't know for sure if that's what you're saying, because I don't fully understand a single sentence of what you wrote.
Still, many of the others retain their significance, and you would wrong yourself when you say nothing can resolve while you attempt to cast your single spell. In response to playing Run to the Hills, a person can place a spell or ability on the stack to tap your lands in advanced to the expection it's going to become a creature.
I know you said you don't want to continue this debate any longer, but I do want to clarify this as well in case any other aspiring designers find this thread:
My point was that no one could cast a spell while Run to the Hills was resolving. Of course they can do something after you cast the spell but before it resolves, but that hardly matters. For example, you choose to untap the lands first and then turn them into creatures. If your opponent taps them down before Run to the Hills resolves, they will just untap when it resolves. On the other hand, if you decide to turn them into creatures and then untap them and your opponent taps them down before Run to the Hills resolves, the same thing happens: they will still untap. And, this is assuming you declare the order up front which would, of course, need its own rules update. One that, based on the conversations so far, would be irrelevant anyway.
An opponent cannot do something in the middle of the two modes no matter what order they resolve. Once they start resolving, the full spell will resolve. I understand you are thinking of a potential CR update to have them resolve as two separate spells, but that seems inadvisable for such a card. Why change the way Modal spells resolve to be different than all other spells just so you can have this work?
Have you read what others have been writing? Yes, your card is able to be played as written. No, it doesn't work as you intend it. The Golden Rule applies only when a card contradicts a rule. Your wording does not contradict a ruel - more specifically it does not contradict the rules concerning layers. The order of effects is irrelevant to effects in different layers (which is, btw, the whole point of the layers).
Instant
Choose one or both in any order -
Almost there.
For what it's worth the spell not working as intended is a slightly better design - also I'm fairly certain the flavor text is way too long and not properly punctuated. But I'll let you figure that out.
White getting power and toughness switching doesn't fit - neither does the flavor text as I understand it.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
There is more than one order of operations that are relevant here. In fact, there are two (plus an irrelevant one which is worth mentioning):
1: The order of operations of the stack (i.e. last in first out; covered under rule 405 in the comprehensive rules). This is irrelevant to your example, but would handle the case where two individual cards are cast, one reading "target creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn" and the other reading "switch target creature's power and toughness until end of turn".
2: The order of operations on the card itself (i.e. however the card lists the effects; 608.2c).
3: The order of layering (613.3), i.e. the order of operations for applying multiple continuous effects which alter the power and toughness of a given creature.
An example of ordered text is the card Epic Confrontation, for which the P/T bonus is important for the ensuing fight. The third type of ordering doesn't really have an explicit example on any card, it serves to more clearly define how continuous effects which modify P/T interact with eachother, including defining how a switch in power and toughness is handled.
Your "in any order" clause only modifies the effective order that the text of the card is applied in. You are correct that your card is clearly intended to modify the order of layering, because changing the order that text is applied is irrelevant to the card's functionality (since it is layering that determines the order in which P/T-modifying effects are applied, not the order of the effects on the card). Even so, it is not, syntactically, invalid to change the order that those effects are applied in, and so that's what your card does as-written.
Unfortunately Magic rules are very particular, and works quite similarly to a programming algorithm. This is desirable because it means that you will almost always get a consistent result every time you properly apply the rules to the same situation, regardless of player interpretation. This is very much intentional on the part of WotC; they want this to be the case, and actively strive for it. They have decided that the cost of some cards occasionally functioning unintuitively is worth the consistency. For example, you can't cast Hex if there are fewer than 5 creatures on the board, since you need to select 6 targets, but if you target six creatures and then one of them dies before Hex resolves, it still resolves and kills the 5 remaining targets.
This is also why the card Piracy is near-useless: even though its intended use (to allow you to tap your opponent's lands to cast your spells) is clear, a smart opponent will inevitably tap their lands in response to the spell to prevent you from using them; the card does nothing to prevent this despite the golden rule. Your card would fall into a similar unfortunate category, as-written.
It is possible, if very unlikely, that there will be a card some day which says "if an effect you control would switch this creature's power and toughness, instead sacrifice it and draw cards equal to its power"; that effect would be syntactically valid and there is no reason it can't exist in the game. That effect would suddenly cause the second type of order of operations (order of card text) to be relevant for your card. Now that the second type of ordering is relevant, your card is ambiguous about which order of operations the text is referring to: the order that the text is applied or the order of layering of continuous effects. The way you want your card to work falls victim to this ambiguity, while the way that the rules work avoids it by always assuming cards refer to the second type of ordering.
Your card could, in fact, work as you intended, but unfortunately you would need to very specifically refer to the order of layering which would end up being lengthy and make the card look 'ugly' by having too many words.
- Rabid Wombat
All that is cool, but this game does have a rule that says if a card breaks the rules then do what the card says. So all your 7c-f stuff, while cute, doesn't stop the card from doing what it says. Period.
As you stated the rule only applies to cards that directly contradicts the rules. And the card in the OP does not contradict the rules in question. As has been stated.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
You and the OP are simply unwilling to accept that not all card ideas are possible to implement into the game. You're not willing to admit that you're wrong. Just because you think the rules are as easily changeable to your every whim doesn't mean they are. You're simply deflecting the valid points other people are making just because they happen to conflict with your incorrect beliefs.
You and the OP can keep saying to yourselves that the card works and keep echo-chambering off of each other, but that just means you're completely close-minded and unwilling to take the input of others. That just makes you a regurgitator of ideas that happen to come into mind, not a custom card designer. Nobody will take you seriously.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you truly think the rules work the way you think they do, prove it. It's been pointed out several times that bringing up the "golden rule" is completely meaningless, since what the OP's card is doing already exists in the game and doesn't match with what the OP wants to do.
[c]Lightning Bolt[/c] -> Lightning Bolt
[c=Lightning Bolt]Apple Pie[/c] -> Apple Pie
Vowels-Only Format
Minimum deck size: 60
Maximum number of identical cards: 4
Ban list: Cards whose English names begin with a consonant, Unglued and Unhinged cards, cards involving ante, Ancestral Recall
Correct in that the card does what the card says, but I'm going to have to contest you on your emphatic "Period."
Because it's not as simple as that. The golden rule ensures that the card does what the card says.
The rest of the rules explain what it actually is that the card is saying.
An amusing interaction you might not know about, so that those who have read thus far can at least get something out of this...
Hallow as a spell is clearly intended to heal you for the damage that a nasty mean burn spell would otherwise deal. It deals with cards like Blaze or Fireball or even Pyroclasm. That is the card's intent, i.e. what the card says it does.
However, if we look at rule 400.7, we find some interesting details on prevention effects as they apply to spells.
Specifically, rule 400.7b: "Prevention effects that apply to damage from a permanent spell on the stack continue to apply to damage from the permanent that spell becomes."
That rule and rule 400.7a are intended to ensure that things like giving a creature spell haste will also give haste to the creature it becomes, such as how Generator Servant can give haste to a creature spell.
But, this also means that if you cast Hallow on a Glorybringer, Hallow will apply to all damage that Glorybringer deals as a creature this turn. This means that Hallow also works on creatures with haste or creatures that deal damage when they enter the battlefield.
If we look at the golden rule, we find something interesting...
"Whenever a card’s text directly contradicts these rules, the card takes precedence. The card overrides only the rule that applies to that specific situation. [...]"
Emphasis mine. You'll notice that the golden rule is asking you to be specific, even going so far as to specify "only the rule", singular. The golden rule does not go about automatically revising any and all rules which would cause the card to function differently from its intent, as is clearly the case since Hallow and many, many cards like it can function quite differently from their intent.
It asks you to be specific. Unfortunately the golden rule is not the only rule you need to be aware of when designing cards.
- Rabid Wombat
The place this kind of effect can be interesting is cards like this
All the nonsense of about the layers within layer 7 are derailing from a genuinely interesting concept.
You could potentially dig 7 cards deep, but would have to guess about the mill part. Or you could just send specific cards to the graveyard to reanimate or whatever and be happy with seeing fewer cards.
EDIT:
or maybe better...
So it's a little minigame where you only get to see one card before deciding.
- Rabid Wombat
As for the color bleed, I do think it comes off a little awkward at first. But from a player's point of view, 9 times out of 10 all the player is going to see is the powerlevel, the playability, and/or the opened interactivity of the card. So basically, I would basically expect to look at this card from the other side like..."Wow!"
And with that said, once provided with a cycle of other cards that all do the same thing, and also create a color extension for certain effects, it would all likely normalize itself even more from there.
For example,
Sun and Steel R
Instant
Do one or both in any order.
Also, out of color for Red. Red doesn't give -1/-0.
Saying the equivalent of "I'm not listening anymore, I'm right and you're wrong!" is intentionally provocative as far as arguments are concerned.
The rules interaction has been comprehensively explained, but if you want to hold your breath and cover your eyes and ears I can't stop you. You're only undermining yourself if you won't learn the rules and won't let them be explained to you, and your fumbling attempts at card design make that apparent.
As to the design space itself; you need instantaneous effects that meaningfully change the game state as the card is resolving, so its usefulness is surprisingly limited. This means that damage and power/toughness changes, for example, can't really be used unless you're going to have a check in place for one of those.
for example,
Would seem to be a decision point on what order the creature gets lifelink, the damage boost, and indestructible in since each bonus applies to the subsequent fights. However, it doesn't actually matter when indestructible is gained because damage won't kill the creature until after the effect resolves and state-based effects are checked.
The best effects for this seem to be card manipulation (i.e. moving a card from a zone to another zone), particularly 'destroy' effects with conditionals like user_938036's example.
- Rabid Wombat
It's almost as if Protection is a confusing and problematic ability that shouldn't be used anymore...
No need to tell me. I crossed that bridge earlier and more completely than Wizards did.
Finally a good white villain quote: "So, do I ever re-evaluate my life choices? Never, because I know what I'm doing is a righteous cause."
Factions: Sleeping
Remnants: Valheim
Legendary Journey: Heroes & Planeswalkers
Saga: Shards of Rabiah
Legends: The Elder Dragons
Read up on Red Flags & NWO
Oddly, I think Hexproof is a great mechanic they need to support. It's a lot more interesting and intuitive than indestructible and having even 1 decent hexproofer in standard means the meta's got to take notice.
That doesn't matter, you still need it there for context and clarity purposes. You're providing two options, it's good design etiquette to provide people the certainty to know they (or their opponent) can choose to resolve those effects in any order.
Here's another one,
Play with Madness U
Instant
Do one or both in any order.
No, actually. Cards like Dromoka's Command don't specify that you can perform them in any order even though, for example, it is relevant what order the third and fourth options occur in. You follow the order they are written on the card, and there's no reason to add extra text allowing you to do otherwise if the order doesn't actually matter.
This is true even for cards like Collective Effort where you might actually want the last effect to occur first, due to the first effect.
The minor case where you want to use the discard first isn't really worth specifying you can do them in any order, since 9 times out of 10 you'll want a definite creature in their hand to decrease the chance of missing the discard.
It should also definitely be a UB card, since MaRo has gone on record saying that, for example, even though putting a target creature on top of its owner's library and milling the top card of an opponent's library are both blue, the end result is a black effect. This card isn't certain to get the creature, but it still isn't a good fit for mono-blue. You may not agree with everything MaRo says, but not circumventing color restrictions like that is a good practice regardless.
- Rabid Wombat
Can't we achieve what the OP wants with something like:
Target creature gains first strike until end of turn. You may switch that creature's power and toughness until end of turn.
Choose one:
- That creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
- That creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn.
I don't think this is really a good idea, because most people don't get that if you're switching, you have to give +0/+1 to add to power, and moreso for the fact that it's so much extra text for something you rarely want (more toughness and first strike). This option would work for most of the cases you want:
Target creature gains first strike until end of turn. Choose one:
- That creature gets +1/+0 until end of turn.
- That creature gets +0/+1 until end of turn. Switch its power and toughness until end of turn.
While that (almost*) works to fix the OP's sample card, it doesn't meet the OP's original goal of having cards where order between choices matters. Its an ordinary modal spell.
*almost, because you can't turn a 1/4 into a 4/1.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Just going to quickly sum this response up in the fact that you've provided your own evidence that the context is needed and should be there. This is a perfect example of what I mean, and further proof of the poor development choices that Wizards constantly makes. With this brush up to the wording composure, it opens design space, and helps to neatly and effectively solve all simple confusions (while an errata ruling could fix their little error on other cards in the meantime).
I just want to kindly say that Mark Rosewater's opinions have almost no authority with me whatsoever.
I personally believe that the man has been designing Magic: the Gathering entirely blind for years, and fails to possess any dynamic understanding of game and its scientific dynamics. This belief majorly extends to Richard Garfield as well, although I'd say he seems to have a keener sense of theoretical understanding towards certain fun factors of gaming, and this gives him the edge to blindly implement something beneficial now and again. Yet from the very beginning, it's clear to me that the man himself also designed Magic entirely blind, and to this day has achieved no greater understanding towards the scientific details of aspects such as the flow of the cards, the nature of effects based on how they specifically interact with the game, the balance of power based on that principal understanding, and the need for equality (balanced by flavor) which should be the aspect that ties the entire game together and brings it full circle.
Mark Rosewater is just the same, he rambles on a lot about color restrictions, and speaks vaguely on power-level, but never does he articulate upon the intricacies of the game and its scientific dynamics. In fact, he goes so far into the blind devotion of his color separation theories, that his design schematics produce lopsided balances of power between colors set and set (extending all the way to the legacy and vintage formats themselves).
With that said, I hope you can bear with me when my design (which embodies the understanding of these scientific details) attempts to correct and restore the balance of power and interactivity to where it should be.
Here's two more, just to finish the cycle.
Run to the Hills G
Instant
Do one or both in any order. You can't choose different targets for these effects.
"Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes, galloping hard on the plains!
Chasing the redskins back to their holes—fighting them at their own game!"
Fear of the Dark B
Instant
Do one or both in any order. You can't choose different targets for these effects.
"Maybe your mind is playing tricks? You sense and suddenly eyes fix...on dancing shadows from behind!"
That last one though, Fear of the Dark, can be used to destroy an Indestructible creature by utilizing the proper order of operations. Did you miss that? The indestructible creature deals damage to itself leaving it with 1 toughness, then gets -0/-1 and falls off into the graveyard. Order of operations can definitely matter.
For the blue one (Play with Madness), order of operations can be used to suite advantage/disadvantage scenarios with the ability to isolate a single threat the opponent has in play, or split the effect to ward a threat waiting in their hand first, then dampening their offensive potential on the board. Order of operations can also coupe with other spells (such as a counterspell), to further diversify upon the potential available to you, rather than being forced to waste it all on a single shot.
Example scenario: Your opponent has a creature on the table, and something in their hand (likely coming next turn). Let's say it's turn 4, and they're about to drop their 5th land next turn. You have a counterspell in hand, but it's only a conditional one that would work on the creature they have on the table.
With the order of operations effect at your fingertips, you can use Play with Madness to hit their hand up for the creature in waiting, then bounce the one they have on the table for your counterspell to scoop it up in the exchange. If not for this, then you have to return their creature on the table first, and then essence of the powerplay would basically be ruined.
Also note that Play with Madness can be used to return and attacking creature (as long as it's tapped), and can also return a creature trying to use a tap effect (effectively countering that effect when the source is no longer on the table for the effect to resolve—correct me if I'm wrong).
Run to the Hills might not seem like the order of operations matters, but it definitely can when you consider the "in first, out last" stack, and other opposing effects that might tap a creature or permanent and render it of no use before it even becomes a creature.
I think I'm done debating this too, I really just wanted to finish the cycle, and I hope it's been an inspirational bit of design space that everyone can open heartedly embrace and have fun with.
No, it doesn't. Damage doesn't reduce toughness (no matter what Duels says). If it did, you wouldn't even need to give it -0/-X to "finish it off". After all, if damage reduced toughness, dealing 3 damage to a X/3 indestructible creature would reduce its toughness to 0 making indestructible irrelevant. I have seen so many players make this mistake, but it seems odd to me that they know you can't kill a creature with damage if it has Indestructible, but somehow giving it -0/-X in addition to damage makes it work.
This doesn't even make sense. You are still casting one spell. Nothing can act in the middle of that resolving so turning a land into a creature before untapping it (or vice versa) doesn't do anything. Nothing is going to do anything to that creature while Run to the Hills is still resolving. And, anything that could do something is just going to do it after the spell fully resolves anyway which, again, makes the order irrelevant.
No. Removing the source of an ability does not counter the ability. The ability exists independently of the source and will still resolve as normal.
EDIT: I want to make it clear that I applaud your efforts in thinking outside the box. That is what a good designer can do; find something to do in a space that has not been played around in and design something that makes that design space relevant. So, your intentions are certainly admirable, but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules that makes some of your designs less impactful than you want them to be.
I encourage you to read up on the rules, or accept what others have been telling you in this thread, and use these design exercises as a learning tool that helps with your next design. There are certainly modal spells where you can make the order matter (such as that of Play with Madenss) but the usefulness of the order matters cards should amount to more than just "1% of the time, I might want to switch the order". With Play with Madenss, as has been mentioned, the player will probably most often want to bounce first to increase the chances of a hit. If the card generally plays the same, the order mattering aspect becomes less useful.
So, we are not necessarily trying to dissuade you from exploring this design space, but this seems to be a space that, so far, has shown to be less useful than desired.
Still, many of the others retain their significance, and you would wrong yourself when you say nothing can resolve while you attempt to cast your single spell. In response to playing Run to the Hills, a person can place a spell or ability on the stack to tap your lands in advanced to the expection it's going to become a creature.
It really only applies to sloppy matches, where targets aren't officially designated upon "announcement" as they would be otherwise. However, a player could get left stranded if they announce to animate first, then get tapped down, having chose another land for the untap effect and not the tapped one.
Note the functionality of an effect could also be worded in the comprehensive rulings to be treated as (and resolved as) two separate spells, intending to open interactivity and enable more dynamic play options with and between such effects.
I don't really play Magic anymore, and have taken up development exclusively since the Time Spiral block. I was a Renaissance player from the Odyssey/7th Edition era, so I go way back, and do have a fonder understanding of the rules than I might lead on. However, I haven't been designing much lately, and have taken up many other intellectual endeavors so that my memory has dramatically faded regarding this game and it's comprehensive rulings.
I don't really wish to continue this debate any longer, and I just hope everyone enjoys the design space this opens up.
Completed sets:
Iamur — The Underwater Set
Overworld — Pirates vs. Octopuses
Esparand — The Sands of Time
Unfinished Sets:
Siege of Ravnica — Eldrazi in Ravnica
Shandalar — The Mana Set
Iamur Reimagined — Iamur v2
You can find more creative projects on my page Antaresdesigns!
I know you said you don't want to continue this debate any longer, but I do want to clarify this as well in case any other aspiring designers find this thread:
My point was that no one could cast a spell while Run to the Hills was resolving. Of course they can do something after you cast the spell but before it resolves, but that hardly matters. For example, you choose to untap the lands first and then turn them into creatures. If your opponent taps them down before Run to the Hills resolves, they will just untap when it resolves. On the other hand, if you decide to turn them into creatures and then untap them and your opponent taps them down before Run to the Hills resolves, the same thing happens: they will still untap. And, this is assuming you declare the order up front which would, of course, need its own rules update. One that, based on the conversations so far, would be irrelevant anyway.
An opponent cannot do something in the middle of the two modes no matter what order they resolve. Once they start resolving, the full spell will resolve. I understand you are thinking of a potential CR update to have them resolve as two separate spells, but that seems inadvisable for such a card. Why change the way Modal spells resolve to be different than all other spells just so you can have this work?