Dark AdvocateBBBB Creature — Human Minion Wizard
Hexproof
: Target player reveals his or her hand and casts one of those cards if able. "True power is like true darkness—the naive never realize the true danger of it until it's too late."
2/5
The Bloodwrit Verses2 Artifact — Equipment
At the beginning of your upkeep, if ~ is equipped to a creature, draw a card and lose 1 life.
If equipped creature is a Wizard, it has " : This creature deals 1 damage to target creature, player, or planeswalker."
Equip 1
Here's a concept that I had envisioned to work with Devil's Advocate Game. To address that design for reference here, I have ultimately decided that the term "player" should be omitted from the first ability. In the sense that it only concerns the "internal" conflict, amongst creatures and planeswalker, while players are thought exist outside of the game. It misses some beats this way, going non-functional against cards like Thought Devourer and Locust Miser. However, it doesn't hurt the flavor too much, as it's explained to concern the "internal conflict". And there's still plenty of functionality in everything else it has domain on, including cards that prevent players fromcasting certain cards, as although they might designate players, they also effect the cards or spells themselves, providing ground that the free function of the qualifying sources (spells, permanents, card) are being obstructed.
Whenever a source a player controls obstructs the free function of a spell, permanent, or card, that player gains an oppression counter.
Now that this is all explained. The design above is intended to reflect a dark master in the art of Devil's Advocacy. It seeks to capture a classic style of design, in being moderately simple in ways, but with capabilities of doing something extremely dynamic. The finalized style is a bit more modern than it is true vintage. Back in the Alpha Beta era, I would expect to see this as a 1/1, for about the same cost (possibly still retaining the hexproof ability—depending on how optimistic the old man was feeling while designing it).
In a more modern light, I'd expect to have seen something like this at about three mana, with some pseudo-aggro potential alongside it. For a moment, I had thought about making it a 3/2 instead, but that just seems to make more of an aggressive chump out of him, and the 2/5 is intended to reflect the silent brooding nature of such a dark wizard. His presence is commanding. Still, silent, and domineering. Caped, brooding, versed in dark ways. His presence envelops the sense of danger, and the 2/5 seeks to reflect the depth and gravity of all that. He's like dark fortress in ways.
The artifact beside him is intended to reflect how I would develop around the obscurity of its potential. I had originally thought to give him more abilities, but I feel that it's such bad etiquette to let yourself get so immensely carried away all the time. And as I am striving to pull myself out of bad habits like that, I adapted the notion to force-constraints upon this design, and re-direct that supportive potential into another external design.
For "target creature, player, or planeswalker" use "any target"; that was the whole point of the noncombat damage rules change.
It's not necessarily the same, as you don't get to choose which card, nor do you get to control the spell as they cast. It simply forces their hand to cast something if able.
Secondly, I understand the new revised summary, but I'm not a fan of it. I strongly believe some things are best spelled out entirely—for clarity, composure, optical appeal, or reading comprehension—and this is one of them.
I'm not sure why one would use a spoiler tag in this context? Word of Command on a creature does not strike me as a good idea regardless of whether it takes an unacceptable amount of text or not.
What I'm trying to say is the original card doesn't work at all as worded because most of the time, your opponent's not going to "be able to" cast anything in their hand because you're not forcing them to activate any mana abilities.
What I'm trying to say is the original card doesn't work at all as worded because most of the time, your opponent's not going to "be able to" cast anything in their hand because you're not forcing them to activate any mana abilities.
It's still worlds apart from those designs. You don't control anything except forcing their hand to cast a spell if able. They can still target your creatures with burn or removal‒or target you with hand disruption‒or target their creatures with boost. However, it can also force them to waste their own counterspells, or force out creatures prone to removal, or force them to play a card during their first main phase, when traditionally players like to save their final plays for the second main phase.
You don't need to force them to activate mana abilities to do this, it's an autonomous given with the fact that they must cast a spell if able.
I think the most debatable aspect about the card's application is the mana cost. How adaptable would it be to combine two very color heavy cards, that have two entirely opposite standings to them. I do think that this needs to be very color heavy to support its functionality, so I don't see any simple way to re-work that. It simply wouldn't be as viable as balanced if it wasn't so color heavy. It would be much more bland, and tasteless, and that I feel is a true mark of bad design. Style is a big part of good design, and proving good style often means forcing strict aspects of challenges, upon a card and its credentials.
You don't need to force them to activate mana abilities to do this, it's an autonomous given with the fact that they must cast a spell if able.
This is why knowledge of the actual rules is helpful. Unless you spell something out you are leaving it to the current rules to handle any interaction. The card currently functions under the rules just not how you want. If the player so happens to have the correct amount and kind of mana floating in their mana pool when you activate this they are forced to cast a spell.
Changing the rules to make the interaction you want to be the default has larger ramifications because "If able" is used in other context and you don't want a phrase to have multiple meaninings based on its context.
Absolutely untrue. If a player is forced to cast a spell, and the conditions for being able to do so are present (untapped mana resources), then the order of operations for doing that is a given for the effect. That's exactly what the rulings would say for this card. It's not even a question. There's near zero functionality otherwise. Who would develop something like that?
Sure, it becomes really tricky for use with the Devil's Advocate Game, but I'm sure crafty players could figure it out. You essentially only have to bend your mana resources one way or the other, and being able to produce RU ain't that far off. The design also opens up all kinds of design space, for other punishing effects in the style of cards like Burning Sands and Liability.
Absolutely untrue. If a player is forced to cast a spell, and the conditions for being able to do so are present (untapped mana resources), then the order of operations for doing that is a given for the effect. That's exactly what the rulings would say for this card. It's not even a question. There's near zero functionality otherwise. Who would develop something like that?
This is why I said knowing the rules is useful, because this is flat out wrong. The rules currently define the words you are using and producing mana is not covered. You can achive the effect you want but it must be spelled out.
You can't just say " the rules would change to make my card work" you either propose how the rules would change, so you look at the various ramifications of such rules. Or you find a template that functions under the current rules.
This is why I said knowing the rules is useful, because this is flat out wrong. The rules currently define the words you are using and producing mana is not covered. You can achieve the effect you want but it must be spelled out.
You can't just say " the rules would change to make my card work" you either propose how the rules would change, so you look at the various ramifications of such rules. Or you find a template that functions under the current rules.
There actually aren't any rules for the this specific effect, because it doesn't exist yet in Magic.
Those details would need to be hammered out in specifics, and they would be so as I've describe. Additionally, although it can be good practice, effects don't need to be entirely spelled out on every card, nor is it intelligible/intuitive to that for every effect. It's something that's best for simple effects with small technicalities, or for effects where it adds clarity or reading comprehension of the card. I don't think that would be the case here. This is more of a dynamic "rules of engagement" effect, that would be handled in specifics within the comp rules.
Also, uh, regardless of all the rules stuff - black doesn't get hexproof. Hexproof from white was allowed as an experimental replacement of protection, Xathrid Slybade was a one-time allowance due to flavor, and Lich's Mastery is a lich card.
Also, uh, regardless of all the rules stuff - black doesn't get hexproof. Hexproof from white was allowed as an experimental replacement of protection, Xathrid Slyblade was a one-time allowance due to flavor, and Lich's Mastery is a lich card.
Hexproof looks great on Lich's Mastery, and I think it would look great on this too. Black is a definitive for being Hexproof. They're darkly versed, and unbound by the laws of society or morality. You can't guilt trip them, you can't curse them, and very little under the sun falls within their concerns.
No, black at this time doesn't need and shouldn't have hexproof. At best it would be a redundancy considering black already has activated-indestructible (the replacement for regeneration). At worst it blurs color lines that shouldn't be blurred.
You can try to justify anything with flavor (my white creature has haste because it has religious fervor to immediately do good deeds!) but that doesn't mean you should, because then you have a muddled color pie. Besides that, your flavor justification doesn't make any sense either.
There actually aren't any rules for the this specific effect, because it doesn't exist yet in Magic.
This is untrue. All of the components of your design already exist within the rules of Magic, combining them in a slightly different way does not change the underpinnings of those components.
I have a specific example: In a two-player game, if you enchant a creature controlled by an opponent with Bloodshed Fever, and also control a Ghostly Prison, the enchanted creature is not required to attack, because it is not able to unless it's controller takes another action first, and that action is optional. The same thing applies here.
It's not even a question. There's near zero functionality otherwise. Who would develop something like that?
Gee, I really do wonder who would design cards like that? and why?
No, black at this time doesn't need and shouldn't have hexproof. At best it would be a redundancy considering black already has activated-indestructible (the replacement for regeneration). At worst it blurs color lines that shouldn't be blurred.
You can try to justify anything with flavor (my white creature has haste because it has religious fervor to immediately do good deeds!) but that doesn't mean you should, because then you have a muddled color pie. Besides that, your flavor justification doesn't make any sense either.
I enjoy putting haste on white creatures too. You should try not to let it bother you so much. Flavor and fantasy is the truest foundation of the game. So long as you're using a light touch with everything (to preserve the sanctity of it), you can make subtle "bends" like that to amazing results. Especially where the flavor and fantasy is really solid.
Absolutely untrue. If a player is forced to cast a spell, and the conditions for being able to do so are present (untapped mana resources), then the order of operations for doing that is a given for the effect.
You don't get to make this claim if you don't know the game's rules.
That's exactly what the rulings would say for this card.
Rulings aren't rules. You're confusing the two. The fact that you are means you don't have sufficient rules knowledge to be talking about the rules the way you are.
Familiarize yourself with the rules more and then you'll be treated more seriously on your rules claims. Right now, all your rules-related claims are complete jokes.
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
Dark Advocate BBBB
Creature — Human Minion Wizard
Hexproof
: Target player reveals his or her hand and casts one of those cards if able.
"True power is like true darkness—the naive never realize the true danger of it until it's too late."
2/5
The Bloodwrit Verses 2
Artifact — Equipment
At the beginning of your upkeep, if ~ is equipped to a creature, draw a card and lose 1 life.
If equipped creature is a Wizard, it has " : This creature deals 1 damage to target creature, player, or planeswalker."
Equip 1
Now that this is all explained. The design above is intended to reflect a dark master in the art of Devil's Advocacy. It seeks to capture a classic style of design, in being moderately simple in ways, but with capabilities of doing something extremely dynamic. The finalized style is a bit more modern than it is true vintage. Back in the Alpha Beta era, I would expect to see this as a 1/1, for about the same cost (possibly still retaining the hexproof ability—depending on how optimistic the old man was feeling while designing it).
In a more modern light, I'd expect to have seen something like this at about three mana, with some pseudo-aggro potential alongside it. For a moment, I had thought about making it a 3/2 instead, but that just seems to make more of an aggressive chump out of him, and the 2/5 is intended to reflect the silent brooding nature of such a dark wizard. His presence is commanding. Still, silent, and domineering. Caped, brooding, versed in dark ways. His presence envelops the sense of danger, and the 2/5 seeks to reflect the depth and gravity of all that. He's like dark fortress in ways.
The artifact beside him is intended to reflect how I would develop around the obscurity of its potential. I had originally thought to give him more abilities, but I feel that it's such bad etiquette to let yourself get so immensely carried away all the time. And as I am striving to pull myself out of bad habits like that, I adapted the notion to force-constraints upon this design, and re-direct that supportive potential into another external design.
For "target creature, player, or planeswalker" use "any target"; that was the whole point of the noncombat damage rules change.
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 necessarily the same, as you don't get to choose which card, nor do you get to control the spell as they cast. It simply forces their hand to cast something if able.
Secondly, I understand the new revised summary, but I'm not a fan of it. I strongly believe some things are best spelled out entirely—for clarity, composure, optical appeal, or reading comprehension—and this is one of them.
What I'm trying to say is the original card doesn't work at all as worded because most of the time, your opponent's not going to "be able to" cast anything in their hand because you're not forcing them to activate any mana abilities.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
It's still worlds apart from those designs. You don't control anything except forcing their hand to cast a spell if able. They can still target your creatures with burn or removal‒or target you with hand disruption‒or target their creatures with boost. However, it can also force them to waste their own counterspells, or force out creatures prone to removal, or force them to play a card during their first main phase, when traditionally players like to save their final plays for the second main phase.
You don't need to force them to activate mana abilities to do this, it's an autonomous given with the fact that they must cast a spell if able.
I think the most debatable aspect about the card's application is the mana cost. How adaptable would it be to combine two very color heavy cards, that have two entirely opposite standings to them. I do think that this needs to be very color heavy to support its functionality, so I don't see any simple way to re-work that. It simply wouldn't be as viable as balanced if it wasn't so color heavy. It would be much more bland, and tasteless, and that I feel is a true mark of bad design. Style is a big part of good design, and proving good style often means forcing strict aspects of challenges, upon a card and its credentials.
Changing the rules to make the interaction you want to be the default has larger ramifications because "If able" is used in other context and you don't want a phrase to have multiple meaninings based on its context.
Sure, it becomes really tricky for use with the Devil's Advocate Game, but I'm sure crafty players could figure it out. You essentially only have to bend your mana resources one way or the other, and being able to produce RU ain't that far off. The design also opens up all kinds of design space, for other punishing effects in the style of cards like Burning Sands and Liability.
You can't just say " the rules would change to make my card work" you either propose how the rules would change, so you look at the various ramifications of such rules. Or you find a template that functions under the current rules.
There actually aren't any rules for the this specific effect, because it doesn't exist yet in Magic.
Those details would need to be hammered out in specifics, and they would be so as I've describe. Additionally, although it can be good practice, effects don't need to be entirely spelled out on every card, nor is it intelligible/intuitive to that for every effect. It's something that's best for simple effects with small technicalities, or for effects where it adds clarity or reading comprehension of the card. I don't think that would be the case here. This is more of a dynamic "rules of engagement" effect, that would be handled in specifics within the comp rules.
Hexproof looks great on Lich's Mastery, and I think it would look great on this too. Black is a definitive for being Hexproof. They're darkly versed, and unbound by the laws of society or morality. You can't guilt trip them, you can't curse them, and very little under the sun falls within their concerns.
You can try to justify anything with flavor (my white creature has haste because it has religious fervor to immediately do good deeds!) but that doesn't mean you should, because then you have a muddled color pie. Besides that, your flavor justification doesn't make any sense either.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
This is untrue. All of the components of your design already exist within the rules of Magic, combining them in a slightly different way does not change the underpinnings of those components.
I have a specific example: In a two-player game, if you enchant a creature controlled by an opponent with Bloodshed Fever, and also control a Ghostly Prison, the enchanted creature is not required to attack, because it is not able to unless it's controller takes another action first, and that action is optional. The same thing applies here.
Gee, I really do wonder who would design cards like that? and why?
I enjoy putting haste on white creatures too. You should try not to let it bother you so much. Flavor and fantasy is the truest foundation of the game. So long as you're using a light touch with everything (to preserve the sanctity of it), you can make subtle "bends" like that to amazing results. Especially where the flavor and fantasy is really solid.
You don't get to make this claim if you don't know the game's rules.
Rulings aren't rules. You're confusing the two. The fact that you are means you don't have sufficient rules knowledge to be talking about the rules the way you are.
Familiarize yourself with the rules more and then you'll be treated more seriously on your rules claims. Right now, all your rules-related claims are complete jokes.
[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
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝