Devil's Advocate GameUBR Enchantment
Whenever a source a player controls obstructs the free function of a spell, permanent, card, or player, that player gains an oppression counter.
If a player has three or more oppression counters, that player loses the game. "We're not all looking for the same thing here. Some of us aspire for civilization!" —Grain Gremlin
I was seeking to do something new here, tinkering with a concept I had as to define "free function" of cards and their effects. Initially, I thought to make this some combination of white, but then turned it into a darker themed card, as I feel order demands boundaries and restrictions. As such—"No person should be enriched at the expense of another." As well as, "No person should be unjustly deprived to the benefit of another." Speaking on—Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness—unjust enrichment is not everpresent. Peace, and order, and sanctity demands some restrictions, so that the time and space we have can be thoroughly enjoyed, without threatening the balance, and throwing all things into chaos by means of standards and practices that employ unjust enrichment.
Given this, the design takes a darker form, and would likely require some errata to describe what "free function" means.
I have currently, that a card's free function is disrupted if an effect, "Prevents it from attacking or blocking; Prevents it from being cast or resolving; Prevents it from having its abilities activated or triggered; Prevents it from entering or leaving any zone; Changes its values or text (except for increasing its power or toughness); Unnaturally prevents it from being tapped or unnaturally forces it to become tapped; Causes it to lose its abilities; Limits their hand size; etc."
Questioning if the first ability should be worded with "If" instead of "Whenever", so that it works against static effect cards like Yixlid Jailer, that would otherwise traditionally bypass triggering the "obstruction" effect? I think errata/comprehensive rulings could also be updated, so that it defines a static ability to be "obstructing" the free functionality of a card whenever its effect takes precedence (eg. when it enters the battlefield or otherwise).
You need reminder text on your card. If a person who knows the ins and outs of Magic's rules reads your card and has absolutely no idea what your card does, your card is worded badly. If you disagree, you are wrong.
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
At best, your card would be an absolute rules nightmare beyond anything you can imagine. Games would immediately end from the simplest of things. Infinitely more likely, it simply wouldn't work as intended even if you tried to address its issues without a full retemplating.
First, your wording is ambiguous as to whether you intend for the modifying or affected object having the requirement of being a card. As written: tokens, emblems, and the anything that isn't defined as a "card" won't interact with your design.
Additionally, what you're looking for are "effects" not "sources". Effects do things, sources simply exist. Generally, when a card wants to refer to an effect it's written as "a spell or ability that ___s". "Effects" are like "the stack". They exist and can absolutely be referenced to, but its rare. The only effects that aren't from spells or abilities are from costs or are effects that happen because of the game rules. We don't seem to want to touch costs or game rules, so we should stick with "Spells or abilities" in general.
"Unnaturally" isn't a term in magic. Everything in magic is "natural", as they are precisely defined and governed by the rules and text. You're looking for "A spell or ability causes it to _"
Results as Written:
Static abilities that modify other cards accordingly would trigger the effect ad infinitum and end the game as soon as it hit play. Moreso, your list of what defines "Free function" is far from exhaustive based upon reasonable understanding of the term. It is also highly ambiguous and ripe for rules debates. The ambiguity part simply cannot exist. It has to be explicit and complete. It has to be written out and expressed. It has to be defined and confined.
This is why "Protection" has become mostly deprecated. It doesn't function in a way that reasonable understanding would generally dictate, and it's pretty much impossible to define it in a way that the reasonable understanding wants.
There's simply no way to reword this in a way that keeps the basic functioning. You'll have to retemplate it and adjust the functioning to a defined list of what is feasible and possible within the game.
The only way to salvage this into something that functions in the real world is to retemplate this in a highly verbose way, explicitly listing each thing you wish to accomplish with clearly defined boundaries and using existing verbiage. The result is not ideal.
Prevents Spells or Abilities
Prevents casting is right out. Can't exist like that, sorry. The only way to tell if it was "prevented" would be to show your opponent you had the card and could otherwise cast it, which is an illegal game procedure. You can't trigger off of this, only prevent it from happening. And if you change the rules to allow it, it triggers ad infinitum. Also, "Hexproof" is an effect that prevents the "free function" of my lightning bolt. No really, it is absolutely an ability that triggers this card based on your wording. This paragraph also applies to "preventing abilities".
Counters a Spell or Ability
-> "Whenever a spell or ability counters.."
-> "Whenever a spell or ability taps.."
We should probably just lose this one, but..
-> "Whenever a permanent would untap, but an effect not created by an ability of that permanent prevents it from untapping or replaces it with another effect, ..."
-> "At the beginning of the declare attacker step, if an effect prevented a creature from attacking, and that effect was not created by an ability of that creature.."
-> "At the beginning of the declare blocker step, if an effect prevented a creature from blocking, and that effect was not created by an ability of that creature.."
..There's still some rules ambiguity here.
Is Menace an effect that prevented me from blocking? (Probably?)
Probably needs to be removed, or just redone differently altogether.
Prevents Changing Zones
-> "If a card or permanent would change zones and that effect is replaced, and that replacement effect was not from an ability of that card or permanent, ..."
-> "Whenever a spell or ability modifies the text of a card, spell, or permanent..."
-> "Whenever a spell or ability lowers a creatures power or toughness ..."
Probably right out due to static abilities that would trigger ad infinitum.
You could limit it to spells only?
No etc. Right out. List it or lose it. Ambiguity does not exist in magic.
Interesting to note, preventing the above list from happening to begin with is actually far easier to template.
"Spells and permanents can't have their text modified"
"Creatures can attack and block as though they weren't prevented from doing so by any spell or ability."
"Spells and abilities can't be countered"
Totally amazes me how much resistance every time I try to introduce something new. It's like saying that Magic can never have new and dynamic things, when in fact it's one of the greatest driving elements that preserves the fun of the game, and keeps it new and interesting.
Most of what Feyd_Ruin said can be summed in the hammering out of errata or comprehensive rules. For example, you could define tokens and emblems as counting as "cards/permanents" for this effect. After all, cards are printed to represent them, and although they don't traditionally exist in other zones, while they do exist in a zone (say the battlefield), they are technically permanents. Added "permanent" and "spell" to the text line in the card, as I just realized they were missing. That should clear up a bit of confusion.
Although I understand the utility of using the term "effect", I believe it would be in the best interests to stick with the term "source", as it successfully isolates the primary factor. This enables you to more cleanly do other things within the comprehensive rules, such as limit the counting of "static abilities" towards 'obstructing the free functionality' of a card. It only counts once, when it takes precedence (when it enters the battlefield or otherwise), to prevent continuancy as you suggested. If you use the term "effect", you're isolating the text and not the card, which I fear could actually make it more confusing. The card is like a container, which makes it easy to identify and understand as a single source (although it may have many effects).
And on that note, if a card says that another "can't be cast" that pretty unambiguous as to obstructing the free functionality of that card. Same for cards that counter a spell, but only counts as after the fact of.
It would make a neat article—and that's great design!
What this card does, 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, this card punishes each player whenever they interact with their opponents within the game. The provided intent would actually end the game in a draw immediately in many cases, the card would begin giving Oppression counters to a player based on a continuous effect, and would be unable to stop.
This isn't one of your best ReapThaWhirlwind. It's too extreme, it just ends the game in a complicated manner.
What it does is majorly two things. Tempt players to test their luck under desperate circumstances, and force players to strict confines within their operations. And that's exactly what dealing with a Devil's Advocate Game is like. They don't seek to do anything outright, but seek to ambiguously incite or provoke others into doing liable things, that can be "discriminated" against them as a wrongdoing, a falsehood, or a demerit.
It's very true to the concept—as dark as it might be.