Arcane FlareXR
Sorcery R
~ deals X damage to any target.
Spells you cast with variable mana costs cost X less to cast this turn. (For example, this spell has a variable mana cost.)
Trying a new blanket term for X costs to avoid confusion with exactly what is being reduced by how much. I don't know if this is the best way to handle it though. Any suggestions?
I prefer Rosheen Meanderer's text. It's easy to understand and has less room for confusion. For example, hybrid and phyrexian costs could be interpreted as variable costs, and there's no harm in naming X anyways if it's the only thing you're looking for. Your version would be an improvement if you wanted to describe more than one kind of variable cost or if you had a card that cared about permanents with X in their costs. Otherwise, this change doesn't really stand to gain anything of substance.
I prefer Rosheen Meanderer's text. It's easy to understand and has less room for confusion. For example, hybrid and phyrexian costs could be interpreted as variable costs, and there's no harm in naming X anyways if it's the only thing you're looking for. Your version would be an improvement if you wanted to describe more than one kind of variable cost or if you had a card that cared about permanents with X in their costs. Otherwise, this change doesn't really stand to gain anything of substance.
Okay so I cast this for 3R. Here's Rosheen's wording:
"XR
Sorcery
~ deals X damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost X less to cast this turn."
which could be interpreted as:
"~ deals 3 damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost 3 less to cast this turn."
or as:
"~ deals 3 damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain 3 cost 3 less to cast this turn."
Arcane FlareXR
Sorcery R
~ deals X damage to any target.
Spells you cast with variable mana costs cost X less to cast this turn. (For example, this spell has a variable mana cost.)
Trying a new blanket term for X costs to avoid confusion with exactly what is being reduced by how much. I don't know if this is the best way to handle it though. Any suggestions?
I would just use a different variable.
Arcane FlareYR
Sorcery R
~ deals Y damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost Y less to cast this turn.
I prefer Rosheen Meanderer's text. It's easy to understand and has less room for confusion. For example, hybrid and phyrexian costs could be interpreted as variable costs, and there's no harm in naming X anyways if it's the only thing you're looking for. Your version would be an improvement if you wanted to describe more than one kind of variable cost or if you had a card that cared about permanents with X in their costs. Otherwise, this change doesn't really stand to gain anything of substance.
Okay so I cast this for 3R. Here's Rosheen's wording:
"XR
Sorcery
~ deals X damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost X less to cast this turn."
which could be interpreted as:
"~ deals 3 damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost 3 less to cast this turn."
or as:
"~ deals 3 damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain 3 cost 3 less to cast this turn."
Ok, I see your point. That's still a very narrow corner case, though.
Why not just make it "The next spell you cast this turn costs X less to cast"? See, while that means it also reduces fixed costs, the fact the X symbol is used will help highlight that it works best with X cost spells, which is the point, yes?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MTGS Wikia Article about "New World Order"
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.
PSA to everyone who keeps forgetting about the Reserved List:
You're on a website dedicated to talking about MtG. You're only a few keystrokes away from finding out what cards are on the Reserved List. You're also only a few keystrokes away from finding out why some cards on the Reserved List got foil printings in FtV, as Judge promos, or whatnot, as well as why that won't happen again. Stop doing this.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorcery R
~ deals X damage to any target.
Spells you cast with variable mana costs cost X less to cast this turn. (For example, this spell has a variable mana cost.)
Trying a new blanket term for X costs to avoid confusion with exactly what is being reduced by how much. I don't know if this is the best way to handle it though. Any suggestions?
"XR
Sorcery
~ deals X damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost X less to cast this turn."
which could be interpreted as:
"~ deals 3 damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost 3 less to cast this turn."
or as:
"~ deals 3 damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain 3 cost 3 less to cast this turn."
Arcane Flare YR
Sorcery R
~ deals Y damage to any target.
Spells you cast whose mana costs contain X cost Y less to cast this turn.
"Reveal a Dragon"
Ok, I see your point. That's still a very narrow corner case, though.
Every time I read a comment about "Well if this card had card draw/trample/haste/indestructible/hexproof/life gain...", I think "You're missing the point." They're armchair developer comments that fail to take into account the card's role in the greater Limited and Standard environment. No, it may not be as good as whatever card you're comparing it to. There's a reason for that. Not every burn spell is Lightning Bolt, nor does it need to be or should be.