Alter EquilibriumR Instant
Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest integer of your choice matching even or odd. "Pay close attention to the balance of your force—for it leads you along thin lines that easily cross into dangerous territory—both too much and too little."
"Pay close attention to the balance of your force, for it leads you along thin lines that easily crosses into dangerous territory you may never return from."
Here's a neat concept I came up with devising a way to create a Red hack.
It might be a little confusing at first, but the way this is intended to work, you can change any one number, with closest even or odd number to it.
For example, 2 can become 0—or it can become 4; 3 can become 1—or it can become 5. The term "matching" here is desired to describe both a number's positive or negative standing, as well as its even or odd nature. Thus, using the term "integer" to further elaborate upon this.
Given this intended dynamic, you cannot transverse the positive and negative barrier between numbers. So like—1 can become 3—but cannot become 0 or -1, as it's not "matching" the original number's credentials.
In advanced response to putting the description of positive and negative on the card, I originally thought to do that, but I think it just complicates things further, in that people get sopped up between the ambiguity of having a choice between positive/negative, even and odd. It would moreso, likely breed greater confusion, in that it leads people to think it only has to match one or the other. I think it makes the reading composure clunky, and thus optically unappealing and hard on the eyes. Just feel it's easier to do it this way, and there should be no reason to spell it all out here (although I am traditionally strict on enforcing that—where it seems necessary clarity and reading composure).
Not entirely sure as of yet, if this should change just a number symbol, just a number word, or have the potential to change both. That is why it's currently undefined as to what type of number you change. It's thought you can change either, but cannot change a mana symbol this way. As they are not "numbers", they are technically "values", that use number symbols as identifiers.
Flavor failure in red, blue makes more sense.
Having to define your new rules terms to make the card understandable should be a red flag "Matching" has never been used this way in either Magic rules or in general mathematics, and only by a great stretch in broader English.
Other than that, the biggest issue I can think of is how it would interact with +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters, turning them into +3/+3 or -3/-3 counters, while technically possible in the rules, breaks a lot of interactions and messes with the power level of lots of cards.
Having to define your new rules terms to make the card understandable should be a red flag "Matching" has never been used this way in either Magic rules or in general mathematics, and only by a great stretch in broader English.
Especially when you can just say "increase or decrease by 2."
Cause, y'know, adding or subtracting 2 from every every integer will give you a number with the same parity?
Having to define your new rules terms to make the card understandable should be a red flag "Matching" has never been used this way in either Magic rules or in general mathematics, and only by a great stretch in broader English.
Especially when you can just say "increase or decrease by 2."
Cause, y'know, adding or subtracting 2 from every every integer will give you a number with the same parity?
It's not the same has adding or subtracting by 2. You can't transverse the positive or negative barrier. I would also question how viable the wording composure is for, "increase or decrease a number by 2" even is. That's like‒super-way out of the ballpark for MTG. This is the most function way to fit the effect within the confines of MTG wording composure. The word "matching" isn't really a stretch by any logical means, imo. I don't even recall a card using that term. Let me look it up. Nope, the gatherer doesn't even come up with anything, so I think it's fair to say that the context is open to interpretation.
//
To address the +1/+1 counter question. Yes, it could change a +1/+1 counter to a +3/+3 counter. However, as this involves a two-card combo, try not to think of that as particularly overpowered. It's more of a light challenge. Get the two cards together, and complete a light buff combo. The fun of the game is found in challenges like this, so don't psyche yourself out. Also remember, you can't transverse the positive and negative barrier. -2 can become 0, or -4. However, -1 can become -3, but cannot become 0 or +1.
Although they both involve changing numbers, I don't think we can compare this to Look at Me, I'm R&D.
I would question they came up with that (which I had totally lost reference of), because they couldn't figure out how to fix the functionality of the effect, and make it balanced and viable. Additionally, that is a static replacement effecting the entire card, whereas the term "text" in 'change the text', refers to the text-box in the card. All contemporary designs cannot change any text outside the text box. Of course, (per the Golden Rule) a card could do this if it explicitly state so, but just to relate the fact that there's a big difference in the power level of a static replacement and a spot replacement.
Never said that the concept was entirely original, but I do think that the functionality is very unique and original.
Excuse me for the double post, but I totally forgot to discuss the color factor.
It trips me up a little too honestly, but the intention was to create a red hack, and the operating function is a chaotic veer of numbers (that can go up or down). That fits perfectly in red. There's also a more prominent point of interest that I feel is crucial to discuss here. It lies in the balance of power amongst the colors and their capabilities, and how those capabilities are distributed amongst them. I've discussed this passionately in the past, but I just want to cleanly summarize the central point here. A great reason why some colors fall behind in the power curve, and some capabilities are hard to relate to (in colors that they shouldn't be)—is because the devs fails to force diversity upon the colors, and properly distribute core-effect to their capabilities.
This would be a good example of a first step in that. The journey of a thousand miles. It attempts to force diversity upon the color, which effectively opens up new worlds of potential for it, without violating the realism/fantasy of the color in any way.
I would also question how viable the wording composure is for, "increase or decrease a number by 2" even is. That's like‒super-way out of the ballpark for MTG. This is the most function way to fit the effect within the confines of MTG wording composure. The word "matching" isn't really a stretch by any logical means, imo. I don't even recall a card using that term. Let me look it up. Nope, the gatherer doesn't even come up with anything, so I think it's fair to say that the context is open to interpretation.
Your wording is even more confusing than "increase or decrease a number by 2." "Closest matching even or odd integer" has absolutely no rigorous mathematical definition. The entire point of Magic wording is so that the context isn't ambiguous and up for interpretation, so the fact that you advertise your wording as such means your wording is bad.
To address the +1/+1 counter question. Yes, it could change a +1/+1 counter to a +3/+3 counter.
No, this is incorrect. +1/+1 and -1/-1 are descriptors for a kind of counter, and can only be be treated as a singular unit. Just because they have numerals in the descriptor doesn't mean those numerals are automatically eligible to be changed.
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
I would also question how viable the wording composure is for, "increase or decrease a number by 2" even is. That's like‒super-way out of the ballpark for MTG. This is the most function way to fit the effect within the confines of MTG wording composure. The word "matching" isn't really a stretch by any logical means, imo. I don't even recall a card using that term. Let me look it up. Nope, the gatherer doesn't even come up with anything, so I think it's fair to say that the context is open to interpretation.
Your wording is even more confusing than "increase or decrease a number by 2." "Closest matching even or odd integer" has absolutely no rigorous mathematical definition. The entire point of Magic wording is so that the context isn't ambiguous and up for interpretation, so the fact that you advertise your wording as such means your wording is bad.
Not sure what you mean by "rigorous mathematical definition".
This is not a matter of mathematics, it's a matter of English. And corresponding to that, the context of the word "closest", refers to the "closest or nearest" number within the "sequence" that numbers are naturally indexed in. The context actually isn't ambiguous, although it does require some errata to fully support it. Not the first time that's been necessary by any means. The nature of all "hack"cards are already dependent upon errata by default, given how the term "text" refers to contents within the 'text box' specifically, and doesn't relate to (or have domain over) anything else outside of it.
It's perfectly fine that way, and I don't see how this is any different, or less acceptable than that. It's even a little less ambiguous, as the term "matching even or odd" and "integer" gives clue to specifics.
To address the +1/+1 counter question. Yes, it could change a +1/+1 counter to a +3/+3 counter.
No, this is incorrect. +1/+1 and -1/-1 are descriptors for a kind of counter, and can only be be treated as a singular unit. Just because they have numerals in the descriptor doesn't mean those numerals are automatically eligible to be changed.
Well, yes and no.
Like a mana symbol, the term '+1/+1—or +1/+1 counter' is technically a "value", where the number symbol serves as an "identifier". However, unlike a mana symbol, since an actual number symbol (in plain text) is used here, it's at the discretion of developer to allow the effect to change the 'number symbol' of the 'text'. I did explain this in the opening post, that I was uncertain as to what combination of number words or number symbols this should be able to change. A colorless mana symbol might have a 'number symbol' or 'text' within it, but it's encased within an image, which totally separates it from a traditional number symbol or text.
Even with the number symbol within it, a colorless mana symbol is a symbol of its own, and needs to be identified individually (as a mana symbol) to be changeable. That's not the case here with number symbols that identify power/toughness altering counters. It's plain text, that technically moreso, should be viable for change with this effect.
You are doing what you always do, clinging to a specific tiny detail of your overly complex design and taking great liberties with the english language while doing so. Your insistence that the effect cannot allow a positive number to turn into a negative number and vice versa creates a massive compication that requires either a block of text or a new section of rules defining new terms in the card text, all for one card. That is not necessarily impossible, but it is bad design. Furthermore, it literally only affects 1 and -1, the only two possible values that are within 2 of each other across 0, so a tiny portion of possible targets. Huge rules complications for minimal mechanical gains are bad design.
If you really want to be pedantic about it, 0 is neither a positive nor a negative number, so by your definition of "matching" (and it really is your own personal definition, which is half of the confusion) no number could be changed to 0, and 0 could not be changed to any number.
As for color, there is nothing chaotic about this design, it looks and feels like a deliberate alteration of a magical effect, requiring the knowledge and skill to do so is a very blue thing, which is why all the "hack" effects have been blue and shall remain blue (Look At Me, I'm R&D not withstanding).
You are doing what you always do, clinging to a specific tiny detail of your overly complex design and taking great liberties with the english language while doing so. Your insistence that the effect cannot allow a positive number to turn into a negative number and vice versa creates a massive complication that requires either a block of text or a new section of rules defining new terms in the card text, all for one card.
I'm not sure where you're drawing that from. What is the massive complication of the integers having to match both even and odd, positive and negative? You can't put that together all together because look,
"Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest matching even or odd, positive or negative integer of your choice of your choice."
It makes people think they CAN transverse between positive and negative. You can't use AND there between 'positive or negative', because then it loses continuancy with the sentence.
You can maybe re-word the composure entirely, as I had originally contemplated composing it.
"Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest integer of your choice, matching even or odd, positive and negative."
However, I scrapped this composure, as I thought it would be unnecessary with the proper use of errata ruling. Why? Because the term "integer" is supposed to be specific to positive and negative numbers.
A positive integer—and a negative integer—are two different things entirely.
In mathematics they're called opposites—so when you're supposed to be "matching" an 'integer', it is reasonably a given that it has to be an integer of the same type (positive or negative)—otherwise it's not "matching" the 'integer'.
Furthermore, it literally only affects 1 and -1, the only two possible values that are within 2 of each other across 0, so a tiny portion of possible targets. Huge rules complications for minimal mechanical gains are bad design.
That's entirely untrue. And I literally have NO IDEA where you even begin to form that argument.
Where do you denote there is a cut-off in the sequence indexed numbers, and the word "closest" lose its meaning, so that you get redirected to 1 or -1?
You can choose a number, say it's 4.
2 and 6 are the closest 'matching' numbers in the indexed sequence of numbers. You can choose either one of them.
If you really want to be pedantic about it, 0 is neither a positive nor a negative number, so by your definition of "matching" (and it really is your own personal definition, which is half of the confusion) no number could be changed to 0, and 0 could not be changed to any number.
That's why we have errata, to side-note the fact that 0 can be chosen, despite not being technically positive or negative. Reasonably, it should be open ground, and the final frontier as it's not technically either, proving there is no restriction against it for this reason.
[When two rules contradict each other, the one that says, "No" takes precedence.]
There's no contradiction to say No, since 0 is not positive or negative. It should be open for selection by all reason. And since 0 IS even, there is grounds that says it can be a match (with no contest against it from the positive/negative restriction). Given this, there's grounds to permit it, but none to restrict it.
As for color, there is nothing chaotic about this design, it looks and feels like a deliberate alteration of a magical effect, requiring the knowledge and skill to do so is a very blue thing, which is why all the "hack" effects have been blue and shall remain blue (Look At Me, I'm R&D not withstanding).
A chaotic tip of the scale, that can go either way at one's whim, does not match the flavor of Red representing Chaos? Equilibrium is blue. So if you're distorting the equilibrium, that should be Red, right? You're disrupting the balance, that's Chaos, that is Red's gig.
You definitely can't have it transverse the 0 boundary, because then Master of Cruelties becomes Phage the Untouchable. To some more interesting potential, it could be used with Worldfire to force a draw-game in competition and take the match.
I still don't think it should be able to do that, and that errata would be the best way to go for this to hammer out the small details.
Not sure what you mean by "rigorous mathematical definition".
This is not a matter of mathematics, it's a matter of English.
It's a matter of mathematics because the English definition of the terms you're trying to use here refer to the mathematical definitions of those terms.
I never said that the issue was with the word "closest", so I'm not sure why you chose to focus on that.
It's perfectly fine that way, and I don't see how this is any different, or less acceptable than that. It's even a little less ambiguous, as the term "matching even or odd" and "integer" gives clue to specifics.
It's only perfectly fine to you. The problem is that it's not perfectly fine in Magic wording, and you keep thinking that whatever is fine for you is the same as whatever is fine for Magic wording. It's not.
You keep citing mathematical definitions of words in your argument. That's fine, but just because there is a commonly associated English antonym for a mathematical term, it doesn't mean the antonym doesn't need to be defined. "Irrational number," the associated English antonym for "rational number," doesn't automatically get a definition just because "rational number" does. "Irrational number" doesn't have a definition without being defined explicitly as what it is.
Similarly, "matching numbers" doesn't have a definition just because "opposite numbers" does. You need to explicitly state what criteria about the numbers constitute "matching" on the card. The bolded wording you provided in response to saneatali works here, as far as parity is concerned.
Like a mana symbol, the term '+1/+1—or +1/+1 counter' is technically a "value", where the number symbol serves as an "identifier". However, unlike a mana symbol, since an actual number symbol (in plain text) is used here, it's at the discretion of developer to allow the effect to change the 'number symbol' of the 'text'. I did explain this in the opening post, that I was uncertain as to what combination of number words or number symbols this should be able to change. A colorless mana symbol might have a 'number symbol' or 'text' within it, but it's encased within an image, which totally separates it from a traditional number symbol or text.
Even with the number symbol within it, a colorless mana symbol is a symbol of its own, and needs to be identified individually (as a mana symbol) to be changeable. That's not the case here with number symbols that identify power/toughness altering counters. It's plain text, that technically moreso, should be viable for change with this effect.
A numeral appearing in plain text isn't sufficient for it to be changed the way you mention, just as a color word appearing in plain text isn't sufficient for it to be changed by color word-changing effects.
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
It's perfectly fine that way, and I don't see how this is any different, or less acceptable than that. It's even a little less ambiguous, as the term "matching even or odd" and "integer" gives clue to specifics.
It's only perfectly fine to you. The problem is that it's not perfectly fine in Magic wording, and you keep thinking that whatever is fine for you is the same as whatever is fine for Magic wording. It's not.
You seem to be missing the point here, in that this statement had nothing to do with how I feel personally feel about errata, but relates to the fact that we already have a catalog of printed cards that, "change the 'text' of target spell or permanent", and critically rely on errata to define what the term 'text' specifically means (referring to only what's in the "text box" itself).
It's already a perfectly accepted reality in printed MTG, to use and allow errata rulings to define technicalities like this, including defining the specific context of a word as it's used on a card.
You seem to be missing the point here, in that this statement had nothing to do with how I feel personally feel about errata, but relates to the fact that we already have a catalog of printed cards that, "change the 'text' of target spell or permanent", and critically rely on errata to define what the term 'text' specifically means (referring to only what's in the "text box" itself).
There does not exist a "hack" card with errata that clarifies what the word "text" is. You're not using the term errata correctly.
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
You seem to be missing the point here, in that this statement had nothing to do with how I feel personally feel about errata, but relates to the fact that we already have a catalog of printed cards that, "change the 'text' of target spell or permanent", and critically rely on errata to define what the term 'text' specifically means (referring to only what's in the "text box" itself).
There does not exist a "hack" card with errata that clarifies what the word "text" is. You're not using the term errata correctly.
Yes man, in the errata rulings for the original design, Magical Hack, it defines the term "text" as the 'text box' and the 'type line' (the latter which I was unaware of counted as 'text').
I'd also like to point out, that although you might not realize it, integers have an identifying standing at all times. When you see 3, that is a positive three. When you see -5, that's more obviously a negative five.
So when you select a 7, you've selected a positive integer specifically. It's not just a seven, it's a positive seven. So although you may realize it, whenever you choose an integer, you are choosing positive or negative integer specifically. And thus, the foundation is laid that restricts the two sides, as the two are NOT one in the same. They are sub-classed, although you may not realize it. Negative Integers are not Positive Integers, so when you pick one specifically, the other is entirely irrelevant to it.
I would like to add there is a bit of unsettling confusion in the fact of "Number Words" being 'integers'. Because technically—they aren't. You have to convert integers to number words. So if you select a "Number Word" to change, it becomes kind of confusing to say the 'nearest integer', as integers are genuinely identified by "Number Symbols" and not words.
This kind of furthers the need for errata, but my point is that it's just plain confusing outright.
And as I originally stated, it's still undecided if this effect should only be able to change just Number Symbols, just Number Words, or both. In addition to that, it's undecided as to spell that all out,
"Change the text of target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number symbol or word with...".
Or to just summarize both with the word "number", and then let errata take care of the rest.
Traditionally, there aren't both symbols and words, so it's unbeknownst if they're best summarized as one, or spelled out individually. It could easily go either way. You traditionally only spell something out like that when you're trying to isolate it. For example, Creature vs. specific Creature. When see the word 'Creature', you know it means any creature. But when you see the word 'Zombie creature', you know it means just a Zombie. It should be no different when you see the word 'Number', opposed to seeing the term 'Number Word' specifically.
Why needlessly complicate the card with talk of closest, even, odd, matching and integers? There is no need to introduce new vocabulary or use potentially confusing words to explain an easily grok'd ability.
Change the text of target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with another that is two higher or lower.(1 can't become -1. Mana Symbols aren't numbers.)
Despite Equilibrium being a blue card, white is the color of equilibrium. There is not the slightest hint of Red in this effect. It is magically reworking somethings code so it functions differently. Only Blue would have the know-how necessary. If you want it to look red then at least add the element of chaos somewhere, it probably still wouldn't be red but it would at least look the part.
It doesn't seem like you know the difference between Errata and Reminder Text. Errata is a change between a cards printed text and its oracle text. While Reminder Text is any italicized text in parentheses that explains rules you already know. It can be used to clarify non obvious things as well, Void Winnower explaining that 0 is even.
This card makes my brain hurt. What does it actually do, in layman's terms?
What this card does, in layman's terms, is incite people who know how the rules of Magic work, and have an understanding of English to point out where there are problems with either of those things, thereby allowing ReapThaWhirlwind to defend his design with more of the same almost-grasp of those two things, repeating the cycle until the community members become bored of arguing with him.
Structurally what it does is the same as what all of his designs aim to do, it presents a conceptually simple effect phrased in a nonstandard way, and including either a new concept or a modification of an existing concept that violates Magic rules in some irreconcilable way.
Specifically, it increases or decreases a number of your choice in the text of a spell or permanent by 2, but cannot turn a positive value negative or vice versa as a result, but worded in a confusing way.
This card makes my brain hurt. What does it actually do, in layman's terms?
What this card does, in layman's terms, is incite people who know how the rules of Magic work, and have an understanding of English to point out where there are problems with either of those things, thereby allowing ReapThaWhirlwind to defend his design with more of the same almost-grasp of those two things, repeating the cycle until the community members become bored of arguing with him.
Structurally what it does is the same as what all of his designs aim to do, it presents a conceptually simple effect phrased in a nonstandard way, and including either a new concept or a modification of an existing concept that violates Magic rules in some irreconcilable way.
Specifically, it increases or decreases a number of your choice in the text of a spell or permanent by 2, but cannot turn a positive value negative or vice versa as a result, but worded in a confusing way.
Thanks, that clears things up in more ways than one.
This card makes my brain hurt. What does it actually do, in layman's terms?
The description was in the opening post.
I'd like to conclude that despite my initial thoughts, the I feel that the wording composure would have to run along the lines that I had thought to initially scrap.
"Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest integer of your choice, matching even or odd."
This way, the errata could be cleanly written for it, with how all the descriptive words are isolated. Integer takes its place all by itself, giving way for a clean identification that the term "integer" specifically means a positive integer or a negative integer—and the two are not one-in-the-same. I also think this composure reads best, juxtaposed with "user_938036's" suggested entry.
I am a strong believer that it's crucial to best preserve the romantization of contemporary mtg wording, and the way they describe cascading or enveloping effects. It provides, a fantasy element of itself, in the way it causes the mind to emulate how the effect is unraveling. Text or wording composure that is too monotone, loses this fantasy element, and doesn't do much for the fantasy element that is the foundation of the game.
Call balance/equilibrium white or blue, but disrupting the balance seems very Red to me.
Love it or hate it, describing the errata would make for a nice article, and I feel very confident to say, that's great design.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Instant
Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest integer of your choice matching even or odd.
"Pay close attention to the balance of your force—for it leads you along thin lines that easily cross into dangerous territory—both too much and too little."
"Pay close attention to the balance of your force, for it leads you along thin lines that easily crosses into dangerous territory you may never return from."
Here's a neat concept I came up with devising a way to create a Red hack.
It might be a little confusing at first, but the way this is intended to work, you can change any one number, with closest even or odd number to it.
For example, 2 can become 0—or it can become 4; 3 can become 1—or it can become 5. The term "matching" here is desired to describe both a number's positive or negative standing, as well as its even or odd nature. Thus, using the term "integer" to further elaborate upon this.
Given this intended dynamic, you cannot transverse the positive and negative barrier between numbers. So like—1 can become 3—but cannot become 0 or -1, as it's not "matching" the original number's credentials.
In advanced response to putting the description of positive and negative on the card, I originally thought to do that, but I think it just complicates things further, in that people get sopped up between the ambiguity of having a choice between positive/negative, even and odd. It would moreso, likely breed greater confusion, in that it leads people to think it only has to match one or the other. I think it makes the reading composure clunky, and thus optically unappealing and hard on the eyes. Just feel it's easier to do it this way, and there should be no reason to spell it all out here (although I am traditionally strict on enforcing that—where it seems necessary clarity and reading composure).
Not entirely sure as of yet, if this should change just a number symbol, just a number word, or have the potential to change both. That is why it's currently undefined as to what type of number you change. It's thought you can change either, but cannot change a mana symbol this way. As they are not "numbers", they are technically "values", that use number symbols as identifiers.
Flavor failure in red, blue makes more sense.
Having to define your new rules terms to make the card understandable should be a red flag "Matching" has never been used this way in either Magic rules or in general mathematics, and only by a great stretch in broader English.
Other than that, the biggest issue I can think of is how it would interact with +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters, turning them into +3/+3 or -3/-3 counters, while technically possible in the rules, breaks a lot of interactions and messes with the power level of lots of cards.
Cause, y'know, adding or subtracting 2 from every every integer will give you a number with the same parity?
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
It's not the same has adding or subtracting by 2. You can't transverse the positive or negative barrier. I would also question how viable the wording composure is for, "increase or decrease a number by 2" even is. That's like‒super-way out of the ballpark for MTG. This is the most function way to fit the effect within the confines of MTG wording composure. The word "matching" isn't really a stretch by any logical means, imo. I don't even recall a card using that term. Let me look it up. Nope, the gatherer doesn't even come up with anything, so I think it's fair to say that the context is open to interpretation.
//
To address the +1/+1 counter question. Yes, it could change a +1/+1 counter to a +3/+3 counter. However, as this involves a two-card combo, try not to think of that as particularly overpowered. It's more of a light challenge. Get the two cards together, and complete a light buff combo. The fun of the game is found in challenges like this, so don't psyche yourself out. Also remember, you can't transverse the positive and negative barrier. -2 can become 0, or -4. However, -1 can become -3, but cannot become 0 or +1.
Although they both involve changing numbers, I don't think we can compare this to Look at Me, I'm R&D.
I would question they came up with that (which I had totally lost reference of), because they couldn't figure out how to fix the functionality of the effect, and make it balanced and viable. Additionally, that is a static replacement effecting the entire card, whereas the term "text" in 'change the text', refers to the text-box in the card. All contemporary designs cannot change any text outside the text box. Of course, (per the Golden Rule) a card could do this if it explicitly state so, but just to relate the fact that there's a big difference in the power level of a static replacement and a spot replacement.
Never said that the concept was entirely original, but I do think that the functionality is very unique and original.
It trips me up a little too honestly, but the intention was to create a red hack, and the operating function is a chaotic veer of numbers (that can go up or down). That fits perfectly in red. There's also a more prominent point of interest that I feel is crucial to discuss here. It lies in the balance of power amongst the colors and their capabilities, and how those capabilities are distributed amongst them. I've discussed this passionately in the past, but I just want to cleanly summarize the central point here. A great reason why some colors fall behind in the power curve, and some capabilities are hard to relate to (in colors that they shouldn't be)—is because the devs fails to force diversity upon the colors, and properly distribute core-effect to their capabilities.
This would be a good example of a first step in that. The journey of a thousand miles. It attempts to force diversity upon the color, which effectively opens up new worlds of potential for it, without violating the realism/fantasy of the color in any way.
Your wording is even more confusing than "increase or decrease a number by 2." "Closest matching even or odd integer" has absolutely no rigorous mathematical definition. The entire point of Magic wording is so that the context isn't ambiguous and up for interpretation, so the fact that you advertise your wording as such means your wording is bad.
No, this is incorrect. +1/+1 and -1/-1 are descriptors for a kind of counter, and can only be be treated as a singular unit. Just because they have numerals in the descriptor doesn't mean those numerals are automatically eligible to be changed.
[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
Not sure what you mean by "rigorous mathematical definition".
This is not a matter of mathematics, it's a matter of English. And corresponding to that, the context of the word "closest", refers to the "closest or nearest" number within the "sequence" that numbers are naturally indexed in. The context actually isn't ambiguous, although it does require some errata to fully support it. Not the first time that's been necessary by any means. The nature of all "hack" cards are already dependent upon errata by default, given how the term "text" refers to contents within the 'text box' specifically, and doesn't relate to (or have domain over) anything else outside of it.
It's perfectly fine that way, and I don't see how this is any different, or less acceptable than that. It's even a little less ambiguous, as the term "matching even or odd" and "integer" gives clue to specifics.
Well, yes and no.
Like a mana symbol, the term '+1/+1—or +1/+1 counter' is technically a "value", where the number symbol serves as an "identifier". However, unlike a mana symbol, since an actual number symbol (in plain text) is used here, it's at the discretion of developer to allow the effect to change the 'number symbol' of the 'text'. I did explain this in the opening post, that I was uncertain as to what combination of number words or number symbols this should be able to change. A colorless mana symbol might have a 'number symbol' or 'text' within it, but it's encased within an image, which totally separates it from a traditional number symbol or text.
Even with the number symbol within it, a colorless mana symbol is a symbol of its own, and needs to be identified individually (as a mana symbol) to be changeable. That's not the case here with number symbols that identify power/toughness altering counters. It's plain text, that technically moreso, should be viable for change with this effect.
If you really want to be pedantic about it, 0 is neither a positive nor a negative number, so by your definition of "matching" (and it really is your own personal definition, which is half of the confusion) no number could be changed to 0, and 0 could not be changed to any number.
As for color, there is nothing chaotic about this design, it looks and feels like a deliberate alteration of a magical effect, requiring the knowledge and skill to do so is a very blue thing, which is why all the "hack" effects have been blue and shall remain blue (Look At Me, I'm R&D not withstanding).
6/10 troll harder next time.
"Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest matching even or odd, positive or negative integer of your choice of your choice."
It makes people think they CAN transverse between positive and negative. You can't use AND there between 'positive or negative', because then it loses continuancy with the sentence.
You can maybe re-word the composure entirely, as I had originally contemplated composing it.
"Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest integer of your choice, matching even or odd, positive and negative."
However, I scrapped this composure, as I thought it would be unnecessary with the proper use of errata ruling. Why? Because the term "integer" is supposed to be specific to positive and negative numbers.
A positive integer—and a negative integer—are two different things entirely.
In mathematics they're called opposites—so when you're supposed to be "matching" an 'integer', it is reasonably a given that it has to be an integer of the same type (positive or negative)—otherwise it's not "matching" the 'integer'.
Where do you denote there is a cut-off in the sequence indexed numbers, and the word "closest" lose its meaning, so that you get redirected to 1 or -1?
You can choose a number, say it's 4.
2 and 6 are the closest 'matching' numbers in the indexed sequence of numbers. You can choose either one of them.
Where in that do you get re-directed to 1 or -1?
[When two rules contradict each other, the one that says, "No" takes precedence.]
There's no contradiction to say No, since 0 is not positive or negative. It should be open for selection by all reason. And since 0 IS even, there is grounds that says it can be a match (with no contest against it from the positive/negative restriction). Given this, there's grounds to permit it, but none to restrict it.
I still don't think it should be able to do that, and that errata would be the best way to go for this to hammer out the small details.
It's a matter of mathematics because the English definition of the terms you're trying to use here refer to the mathematical definitions of those terms.
I never said that the issue was with the word "closest", so I'm not sure why you chose to focus on that.
It's only perfectly fine to you. The problem is that it's not perfectly fine in Magic wording, and you keep thinking that whatever is fine for you is the same as whatever is fine for Magic wording. It's not.
You keep citing mathematical definitions of words in your argument. That's fine, but just because there is a commonly associated English antonym for a mathematical term, it doesn't mean the antonym doesn't need to be defined. "Irrational number," the associated English antonym for "rational number," doesn't automatically get a definition just because "rational number" does. "Irrational number" doesn't have a definition without being defined explicitly as what it is.
Similarly, "matching numbers" doesn't have a definition just because "opposite numbers" does. You need to explicitly state what criteria about the numbers constitute "matching" on the card. The bolded wording you provided in response to saneatali works here, as far as parity is concerned.
A numeral appearing in plain text isn't sufficient for it to be changed the way you mention, just as a color word appearing in plain text isn't sufficient for it to be changed by color word-changing effects.
[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
You seem to be missing the point here, in that this statement had nothing to do with how I feel personally feel about errata, but relates to the fact that we already have a catalog of printed cards that, "change the 'text' of target spell or permanent", and critically rely on errata to define what the term 'text' specifically means (referring to only what's in the "text box" itself).
It's already a perfectly accepted reality in printed MTG, to use and allow errata rulings to define technicalities like this, including defining the specific context of a word as it's used on a card.
There does not exist a "hack" card with errata that clarifies what the word "text" is. You're not using the term errata correctly.
[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
Yes man, in the errata rulings for the original design, Magical Hack, it defines the term "text" as the 'text box' and the 'type line' (the latter which I was unaware of counted as 'text').
So when you select a 7, you've selected a positive integer specifically. It's not just a seven, it's a positive seven. So although you may realize it, whenever you choose an integer, you are choosing positive or negative integer specifically. And thus, the foundation is laid that restricts the two sides, as the two are NOT one in the same. They are sub-classed, although you may not realize it. Negative Integers are not Positive Integers, so when you pick one specifically, the other is entirely irrelevant to it.
I would like to add there is a bit of unsettling confusion in the fact of "Number Words" being 'integers'. Because technically—they aren't. You have to convert integers to number words. So if you select a "Number Word" to change, it becomes kind of confusing to say the 'nearest integer', as integers are genuinely identified by "Number Symbols" and not words.
This kind of furthers the need for errata, but my point is that it's just plain confusing outright.
And as I originally stated, it's still undecided if this effect should only be able to change just Number Symbols, just Number Words, or both. In addition to that, it's undecided as to spell that all out,
"Change the text of target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number symbol or word with...".
Or to just summarize both with the word "number", and then let errata take care of the rest.
Traditionally, there aren't both symbols and words, so it's unbeknownst if they're best summarized as one, or spelled out individually. It could easily go either way. You traditionally only spell something out like that when you're trying to isolate it. For example, Creature vs. specific Creature. When see the word 'Creature', you know it means any creature. But when you see the word 'Zombie creature', you know it means just a Zombie. It should be no different when you see the word 'Number', opposed to seeing the term 'Number Word' specifically.
Despite Equilibrium being a blue card, white is the color of equilibrium. There is not the slightest hint of Red in this effect. It is magically reworking somethings code so it functions differently. Only Blue would have the know-how necessary. If you want it to look red then at least add the element of chaos somewhere, it probably still wouldn't be red but it would at least look the part.
It doesn't seem like you know the difference between Errata and Reminder Text. Errata is a change between a cards printed text and its oracle text. While Reminder Text is any italicized text in parentheses that explains rules you already know. It can be used to clarify non obvious things as well, Void Winnower explaining that 0 is even.
What this card does, in layman's terms, is incite people who know how the rules of Magic work, and have an understanding of English to point out where there are problems with either of those things, thereby allowing ReapThaWhirlwind to defend his design with more of the same almost-grasp of those two things, repeating the cycle until the community members become bored of arguing with him.
Structurally what it does is the same as what all of his designs aim to do, it presents a conceptually simple effect phrased in a nonstandard way, and including either a new concept or a modification of an existing concept that violates Magic rules in some irreconcilable way.
Specifically, it increases or decreases a number of your choice in the text of a spell or permanent by 2, but cannot turn a positive value negative or vice versa as a result, but worded in a confusing way.
Thanks, that clears things up in more ways than one.
The description was in the opening post.
I'd like to conclude that despite my initial thoughts, the I feel that the wording composure would have to run along the lines that I had thought to initially scrap.
"Change the text in target spell or permanent by replacing all instances of one number with the closest integer of your choice, matching even or odd."
This way, the errata could be cleanly written for it, with how all the descriptive words are isolated. Integer takes its place all by itself, giving way for a clean identification that the term "integer" specifically means a positive integer or a negative integer—and the two are not one-in-the-same. I also think this composure reads best, juxtaposed with "user_938036's" suggested entry.
I am a strong believer that it's crucial to best preserve the romantization of contemporary mtg wording, and the way they describe cascading or enveloping effects. It provides, a fantasy element of itself, in the way it causes the mind to emulate how the effect is unraveling. Text or wording composure that is too monotone, loses this fantasy element, and doesn't do much for the fantasy element that is the foundation of the game.
Call balance/equilibrium white or blue, but disrupting the balance seems very Red to me.
Love it or hate it, describing the errata would make for a nice article, and I feel very confident to say, that's great design.