Constellation Circle2WW Enchantment
Contravoyance (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, you may shuffle your hand into your library, then if you had 6 or more cards in hand draw that many cards minus 1; otherwise draw that many cards plus 1.)
You and planeswalkers you control can't be attacked until the third turn after Constellation Circle enters the battlefield. You look only to the stars to tell your fate, yet there are many other constellations, if you dare to see and foretell them.
Contravariant alone often can created two cards worth of card advantage and is really unfortunately worded.
The other effect seems like it is a prime example of something that should be realized with an inherently time-counting mechanic like fading, vanishing or as a Saga.
Being especially bad in multiplayer also is a weird aspect about that effect.
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]
1. Disregarding the normal method for making this effect work (using counters) on the sole basis of “players should remember the cards they are playing” seems really silly, especially when using counters could actually create new interactions and opportunities for power (such as using proliferate to keep this around). It is not really “increasing design space” as counting turns does not allow for brand new effects that counters could not accomplish (Other than very messy abilities like “every turn counts as two turns for the purpose of abilities that count turns”). What it does do is limit opportunity for synergy and interaction, which isn’t a huge selling point... and, you know, make things difficult for newer/younger players... and make it easier to cheat.
2. Contravariant (or Juxtapose, or whatever it’s called) is a pretty sub-par mechanic. The two triggers are totally redundant (a single cast trigger would have the same effect), the triggered ability can still be countered by disallow and similar effects (which I get the impression you were trying very hard to stop), and “wheeling” is a terrible mechanic for increasing card flow.
Actually, let me follow up on that point. This type of wheeling effect is going to increase mana costs of effects it is on by +2 or +3 in the same way that cantripping often raises costs by +1 (as that’s what the effect costs on its own card), meaning that players can’t access this effect to save them if they are mana screwed (or color-screwed, in this case). While there are certainly tribal card draw decks that would get a kick out of this, the chaotic nature of this hand replacement makes it very hard to use in most conditions. If there was a disenchant with this ability, people aren’t going to like being forced to throw away their hand in order to access that disenchant effect. While this does create “internal tension”, I imagine that most professionals would rather play a cheaper disenchant that doesn’t have the potential to punish them. I could imagine a 2/1 for being printed with this ability being printed in red and seeing relatively little play because players don’t want to sacrifice a decent and known hand that they sculpted through mulliganing for a total unknown.
Finally, the ability is a bit too long. At 40+ words, it is larger than the monstrosity that is Mutate. I would work to par that text down.
okay, I've applied an edit. I want you to tell me what you think.
I've brushed up the wording composure for the keyword. Sorry about that (I was really tired). But one of the more interesting edits I've made here—is changing the name back to the original concept I had. I wanted to test and prove something here about terms that are too monotone as I've said in the past. They lack the "flare of fantasy", relating to bland educational, or mathematical aspects, and not anything "magic" or "paranormal". This strips away coherence and "force majeure" from the fantasy game.
A number of your other concerns have been answered already in recent posts I've made.
Okay so, in regards to how this would be done. This concept is not something that is going to be able to take wing off a single keyword each set, but is going to need a primary keyword in each Core Set over the blocks to combine with the one in each block. Understanding from this stems from my experience in the Pokemon Trading Card Game, in which the deck engine is comprised of draw strategies which combine the effects of the three primary types of draw interaction.
Straight Draw: Cards drawn from the top of the deck, or selected from a number of cards off the top of the deck.
Wheel Draw: Shuffling the hands into the deck and drawing new cards from it.
Direct Retrieval: Direct access to a specific card or type of card, or selected from a number of cards off the top or bottom of the deck.
Each have their own quirks, and the combinations of these effects stack for better or worse with one another, depending on your resource demands, and your resource deployment capabilities. There is a bit of a difference between the two game engines, but in MTG these dynamics should not be much different in a vacuum. There should actually be even more capability to combine what would otherwise be lesser, inferior, improficient (or even consequential) draw combinations to great success in the MTG game engine. This opens up freedom in development, and diversity which helps to keep things new, exciting, and fun. Furthermore, these keywords will not impede on previous designswith alike affects. Their effects will only stack with these keywords and hyper-accelerate the game pace even further, making the game even more fun and interactive. So there will still be great incentive to design such cards and play them.
Wheel by itself isn't extremely proficient. But the overworld concept here involves combining keywords like this between the Core Sets and the block sets, to create intuitive combinations, that together create extreme proficiency.
Anti-Replicator Engine3 Artifact
Juxtapose (As you cast this spell or when this spell leaves the stack, you may put the cards in your hand on the bottom of your library in any order, then draws that many cards.)
If a source would copy or become a copy of something, it doesn't instead. Put each card that cannot become a copy this way into the graveyard. "It is said that too much of anything is bad for you. But I've learned there are very bad things, that even one of, becomes too much. No one wants that. Not me—but especially not fragile you."
—Karn the Grand Architect
Why do you have it as a cast trigger and as a leave the stack trigger. Just make it on cast or on ETB.
This has also been explained. It's because this effect needs to take wing outside the traditional conventions of the game in order to preserve the hyper-acceleration to the flow of the cards that's intended. It cannot be circumvented by counterspells or otherwise, and wants to be supremely versatile to the player's strategic options, thus enables the choice of doing so "as cast" or "when it leaves the stack".
What is the point of this Contravoyance mechanic? It seems like a very random effect you've just made into a mechanic. Why?
Mentioning the stack is generally considered off-limits for complexity reasons, mentioning the stack with the frequency and low rarity of a typical set mechanic is out of the question for any set looking to be realistically accessible.
The main effect doesn't need to set both an end duration for the effect and exile the permanent that provides the effect. Simply exiling Constellation Circle would end the effect just fine. I agree with @RosyDumplings that using counters would be the best way to track this.
1. You posted a specific card with a specific mechanic.
2. Both the card and the mechanic were criticized by posters.
3. You post Akroma flavor texts?
4. You claim that you are doing so because each color has an “Uno reverse card”?
What is the logical thread here? How did we get from 2 to 3?
Constellation Circle2WW Enchantment
Contravoyance (As you cast this spell or when this spell leaves the stack, you may shuffle your hand into your library, then if you had 6 or more cards in hand, draw that many cards minus 1. Otherwise, draw that many cards plus 1 instead.)
You and planeswalkers you control can't be attacked until the third turn after Constellation Circle enters the battlefield. At the beginning of that turn, exile Constellation Circle. You look only to the stars to tell your fate, yet there are many other constellations if you dare to see and foretell them.
The way your card is worded, you would actually be about to shuffle-and-draw twice, as you will get the opportunity on the cast and then again when it resolves (or is countered). In a vacuum its broken, but as white is the worst color for card draw, this ability REALLY does not go on a white card.
The second ability should be worded differently, depending on how you want the ability to work. As its worded now, you've got it templated as a static ability, but with a duration like a triggered ability, which don't mesh. Either the ability is static on the card, and ends when it leaves play, or it triggers with a duration on ETB and it doesn't matter if the card is sacrificed or not.
Option A
"You and planeswalkers you control can't be attacked.
At the beginning of the upkeep on the third turn after CARDNAME enters the battlefield, sacrifice it."
Option B
"When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, you and planeswalkers you control cannot be attacked for the next three turns."
Option C - (Make this a sorcery)
"You and planeswalkers you control cannot be attacked for the next three turns."
There is also the intent question of if you want the card to prevent attacking until three players' turns have passed or three of your turns - and thus the intervening players cannot attack for three of their turns - which would change the wording.
The way your card is worded, you would actually be about to shuffle-and-draw twice, as you will get the opportunity on the cast and then again when it resolves (or is countered).
The context of "or" in mtg has always meant 'one or the other'.
It would need to read, "and/or" to be valid for both sequences.
This is not true. Simply look at haunt creatures or any creature with a trigger on itself or other creatures dying. When speaking of options that are not the same event such as in your trigger "or" has been used to mean "either" as in "when Blank or Blank(either of these events) occurs {effect}".
So your effect always gives the option to puzzle box your hand twice.
The context of "or" in mtg has always meant 'one or the other'.
It would need to read, "and/or" to be valid for both sequences.
This is not true. Simply look at haunt creatures or any creature with a trigger on itself or other creatures dying. When speaking of options that are not the same event such as in your trigger "or" has been used to mean "either" as in "when Blank or Blank(either of these events) occurs {effect}".
So your effect always gives the option to puzzle box your hand twice.
Okay then, it's either or—but obviously in this case the context means one or another and would explained that way.
The context of "or" in mtg has always meant 'one or the other'.
It would need to read, "and/or" to be valid for both sequences.
This is not true. Simply look at haunt creatures or any creature with a trigger on itself or other creatures dying. When speaking of options that are not the same event such as in your trigger "or" has been used to mean "either" as in "when Blank or Blank(either of these events) occurs {effect}".
So your effect always gives the option to puzzle box your hand twice.
Okay then, it's either or—but obviously in this case the context means one or another and would explained that way.
Context isn’t relevant.
While Super-duper death ray makes perfect sense to most players, simply giving burn spells trample doesn’t work as trample only applies to combat damage when attacking.
When they effectively reprinted that card in Ikiora as flame spill, they actually changed the text on the card to make the effect work.
If you want the effect to work, you need to word it so it works.
When you said context isn't relevant involving any language at all—you lost me.
The language of Mtg rules text generally lacks any degree of ambiguity. While some cards might be complicated or create situations that some players may not understand (layers, time stamps, etc), there is one “correct” interpretation of what each card does.
You created a card whose correct interpretation leads to wheeling twice. If that is not what you want, change the text. You can argue semantics and grammar to your heart’s content but at the end of the day, your card wheels twice and the text would need to change for that to change.
In the game of magic, the rules of Magic trump grammar. Regardless of what meaning “or” has in conversational speech, it has exactly one meaning in this case... which is not the usage you intended.
...Actually, I guess context does matter. The “or” in “destroy target artifact or enchantment” means something slightly different than “when this card enters or leaves the battlefield”. To amend my earlier statement, context matters in MTG in the more global sense of “what does ‘or’ mean in this template of wording” instead of the piecemeal “what would make more sense for the specific effect on this specific card”.
Even if it “common sense” seems like a low bar to set for players... even if the English language appears to give you some leeway for interpretation... The rules of MTG would unambiguously state that this effect triggers twice. Reporting otherwise is factually incorrect.
Again, there are very simple ways to change the text. For example (When you cast this spell, do X. This ability can’t be countered by spells or abilities)
It would be specifically in the ruling that you have to choose one or the other.
Why not write out the ability correctly rather than rely on rulings? Do you think ambiguity is good or are you too lazy to fix something that is obviously broken?
If it's lazy, I'll fix it for you. Contravoyance (As you cast ~, you may shuffle your hand into your library. If you don't you may shuffle your hand into your library as ~ leaves that stack. When you shuffle your hand into your library, if you shuffled 6 or more cards into your library, draw that many cards minus 1. Otherwise, draw that many cards plus 1 instead.)
As a designer, you need to be able to accept when you're wrong and work to fix what is broken. And in the case where it can't be fixed give up.
It would be specifically in the ruling that you have to choose one or the other.
Why not write out the ability correctly rather than rely on rulings? Do you think ambiguity is good or are you too lazy to fix something that is obviously broken?
If it's lazy, I'll fix it for you. Contravoyance (As you cast ~, you may shuffle your hand into your library. If you don't you may shuffle your hand into your library as ~ leaves that stack. When you shuffle your hand into your library, if you shuffled 6 or more cards into your library, draw that many cards minus 1. Otherwise, draw that many cards plus 1 instead.)
As a designer, you need to be able to accept when you're wrong and work to fix what is broken. And in the case where it can't be fixed give up.
This! This! A thousand times this!
The fact that there is a problem with the card is not a deal breaker. Everyone makes mistakes. I sure know that I make mistakes.
When you respond to criticisms by saying that any problems totally aren’t problems because rulings would make the card function properly, that seems odd.
1. The types of “rulings” you are thinking of are very rare in this game. While the notes listed on sites like gatherer may provide clarification, virtually none of them actually impact the functioning of the cards. Changing the way that the ability works would qualify as “functional errata”, which are very rare in this game (outside of creature type updates or slight updates in how mechanics like echo/madness work). Outside of the tap symbol on a certain candelabra, I struggle to think of any functional errata on black-bordered cards.
2. As mentioned above, you can change the card. This is not a printed card in the hands of millions of players and it is in no way “too late” to change the card. Why not edit the card to follow the rules rather than editing the rules to follow the card?
Why not write out the ability correctly rather than rely on rulings? Do you think ambiguity is good or are you too lazy to fix something that is obviously broken?
If it's lazy, I'll fix it for you. Contravoyance (As you cast ~, you may shuffle your hand into your library. If you don't you may shuffle your hand into your library as ~ leaves that stack. When you shuffle your hand into your library, if you shuffled 6 or more cards into your library, draw that many cards minus 1. Otherwise, draw that many cards plus 1 instead.)
You call that fixed? That's all kinds of incoherent. What a jumbled mess.
This is exactly why I said just rely on context, and let language work the way it's supposed to (for coherence).
Why not write out the ability correctly rather than rely on rulings? Do you think ambiguity is good or are you too lazy to fix something that is obviously broken?
If it's lazy, I'll fix it for you. Contravoyance (As you cast ~, you may shuffle your hand into your library. If you don't you may shuffle your hand into your library as ~ leaves that stack. When you shuffle your hand into your library, if you shuffled 6 or more cards into your library, draw that many cards minus 1. Otherwise, draw that many cards plus 1 instead.)
You call that fixed? That's all kinds of incoherent. What a jumbled mess.
This is exactly why I said just rely on context, and let language work the way it's supposed to (for coherence).
Or you know you can do things right. If you make something you know is wrong just because you like the way it looks better than the correct way that is a massive failing on your part. Purposfulling confusing your players because you prefer a specific wording or template is a sign that you don't actually intend to design for others but are engaging in an act that is exclusively self-serving. There is a time and place for such things and it isn't even wrong but when you do it at the cost of comprehension its a major problem.
For clarity's sake. The way context makes it work is the way it has been explained to work. Allowing you to puzzle box your hand twice. You have expressed interest in the mechanic working against the context of the written word. Why are you fighting a battle that not only have you admitted to being wrong on but that the correct path has already been laid out for you?
Why not write out the ability correctly rather than rely on rulings? Do you think ambiguity is good or are you too lazy to fix something that is obviously broken?
If it's lazy, I'll fix it for you. Contravoyance (As you cast ~, you may shuffle your hand into your library. If you don't you may shuffle your hand into your library as ~ leaves that stack. When you shuffle your hand into your library, if you shuffled 6 or more cards into your library, draw that many cards minus 1. Otherwise, draw that many cards plus 1 instead.)
You call that fixed? That's all kinds of incoherent. What a jumbled mess.
This is exactly why I said just rely on context, and let language work the way it's supposed to (for coherence).
That wording is a jumbled mess because, frankly, the mechanic is a jumbled mess. It's not the wordings fault. The wording is correct. But modal trigger timings? Leaves the stack triggers? And adding a variable dependant effect for good measure to make sure the mechanic is wordy and complicated? Of course it's going to be messy to write out.
If this correct wording is so offensive to you, maybe take that as a sign?
I do agree that the functionality does more than even I'm comfortable with in the way it writes out. I did find a way to effectively write it out so that it's neat, clear, and coherent. Your adaptations ruin that. The fault isn't mine actually—it's yours for trying to nit-pick an aspect with faulty logic (that defines the fundamental elements of all language itself).
My greater concern is that I'm having a change in perspective over here concerning the name of the mechanic. I'm seeing a little bit of potential, actually a greater potential in using the term Contravariance instead to denote the function. Although it initially seems blanche and monotone, the aspect of Contravoyance (against vision extrasensory) is a little harder to grip the understanding of relating to the spell and its function. Whereas, the term Contravariance (and its aspect of 'vectors that change as the coordinates change', is easier to grip and almost gives the spell a three-dimensional perspective element.
Not changing anything, but just saying, it's the only actual point of interest worth discerning over.
I did find a way to effectively write it out so that it's neat, clear, and coherent.
I get the feeling that we're all talking past each other at this stage. Even if your wording does all three of these things (and I'd say that's subjective), we want the card as printed to be FUNCTIONAL. Without your "rulings", it does not function as intended. You have already admitted as much when you said that there would need to be "rulings". While I cannot speak for everyone, I know that having a card function as intended within the rules and having it look unwieldy > creating "rulings" to maintain aesthetic precision of specific cards (at least for most people).
What I really want to know at this point, however, is why you don't take input. You put out ideas and then report that any problems we have with them are completely our fault... even when every other poster agrees that there is a problem (memory issues, language issues, etc.). If you come up with a specific wording for an effect and refuse to accept any form of constructive criticism... what's the point of even putting it out there?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
Contravoyance (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, you may shuffle your hand into your library, then if you had 6 or more cards in hand draw that many cards minus 1; otherwise draw that many cards plus 1.)
You and planeswalkers you control can't be attacked until the third turn after Constellation Circle enters the battlefield.
You look only to the stars to tell your fate, yet there are many other constellations, if you dare to see and foretell them.
The other effect seems like it is a prime example of something that should be realized with an inherently time-counting mechanic like fading, vanishing or as a Saga.
Being especially bad in multiplayer also is a weird aspect about that effect.
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
2. Contravariant (or Juxtapose, or whatever it’s called) is a pretty sub-par mechanic. The two triggers are totally redundant (a single cast trigger would have the same effect), the triggered ability can still be countered by disallow and similar effects (which I get the impression you were trying very hard to stop), and “wheeling” is a terrible mechanic for increasing card flow.
Actually, let me follow up on that point. This type of wheeling effect is going to increase mana costs of effects it is on by +2 or +3 in the same way that cantripping often raises costs by +1 (as that’s what the effect costs on its own card), meaning that players can’t access this effect to save them if they are mana screwed (or color-screwed, in this case). While there are certainly tribal card draw decks that would get a kick out of this, the chaotic nature of this hand replacement makes it very hard to use in most conditions. If there was a disenchant with this ability, people aren’t going to like being forced to throw away their hand in order to access that disenchant effect. While this does create “internal tension”, I imagine that most professionals would rather play a cheaper disenchant that doesn’t have the potential to punish them. I could imagine a 2/1 for being printed with this ability being printed in red and seeing relatively little play because players don’t want to sacrifice a decent and known hand that they sculpted through mulliganing for a total unknown.
Finally, the ability is a bit too long. At 40+ words, it is larger than the monstrosity that is Mutate. I would work to par that text down.
I've brushed up the wording composure for the keyword. Sorry about that (I was really tired). But one of the more interesting edits I've made here—is changing the name back to the original concept I had. I wanted to test and prove something here about terms that are too monotone as I've said in the past. They lack the "flare of fantasy", relating to bland educational, or mathematical aspects, and not anything "magic" or "paranormal". This strips away coherence and "force majeure" from the fantasy game.
A number of your other concerns have been answered already in recent posts I've made.
Wheel by itself isn't extremely proficient. But the overworld concept here involves combining keywords like this between the Core Sets and the block sets, to create intuitive combinations, that together create extreme proficiency.
This has also been explained. It's because this effect needs to take wing outside the traditional conventions of the game in order to preserve the hyper-acceleration to the flow of the cards that's intended. It cannot be circumvented by counterspells or otherwise, and wants to be supremely versatile to the player's strategic options, thus enables the choice of doing so "as cast" or "when it leaves the stack".
Mentioning the stack is generally considered off-limits for complexity reasons, mentioning the stack with the frequency and low rarity of a typical set mechanic is out of the question for any set looking to be realistically accessible.
The main effect doesn't need to set both an end duration for the effect and exile the permanent that provides the effect. Simply exiling Constellation Circle would end the effect just fine. I agree with @RosyDumplings that using counters would be the best way to track this.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"Wrath is a vice that is indiscriminate to us all, and all who test its power against theirs may be broken by the force!"
"Wrath is a vice that is indiscriminate to us all, and all of whom invite its crushing magnetism can be broken by the force!"
"Wrath is a vice that is indiscriminate to us all, and all whom invite its magnetism can get crushed by the force!"
Uh... How is this related to anything?
Every color in Uno has a reverse card, right?
I... you... are you okay?
1. You posted a specific card with a specific mechanic.
2. Both the card and the mechanic were criticized by posters.
3. You post Akroma flavor texts?
4. You claim that you are doing so because each color has an “Uno reverse card”?
What is the logical thread here? How did we get from 2 to 3?
The way your card is worded, you would actually be about to shuffle-and-draw twice, as you will get the opportunity on the cast and then again when it resolves (or is countered). In a vacuum its broken, but as white is the worst color for card draw, this ability REALLY does not go on a white card.
The second ability should be worded differently, depending on how you want the ability to work. As its worded now, you've got it templated as a static ability, but with a duration like a triggered ability, which don't mesh. Either the ability is static on the card, and ends when it leaves play, or it triggers with a duration on ETB and it doesn't matter if the card is sacrificed or not.
Option A
"You and planeswalkers you control can't be attacked.
At the beginning of the upkeep on the third turn after CARDNAME enters the battlefield, sacrifice it."
Option B
"When CARDNAME enters the battlefield, you and planeswalkers you control cannot be attacked for the next three turns."
Option C - (Make this a sorcery)
"You and planeswalkers you control cannot be attacked for the next three turns."
There is also the intent question of if you want the card to prevent attacking until three players' turns have passed or three of your turns - and thus the intervening players cannot attack for three of their turns - which would change the wording.
It would need to read, "and/or" to be valid for both sequences.
Also, it does need to work this way in order to prevent the trigger from being countered, thus creating a loophole for the effect.
So your effect always gives the option to puzzle box your hand twice.
Okay then, it's either or—but obviously in this case the context means one or another and would explained that way.
Context isn’t relevant.
While Super-duper death ray makes perfect sense to most players, simply giving burn spells trample doesn’t work as trample only applies to combat damage when attacking.
When they effectively reprinted that card in Ikiora as flame spill, they actually changed the text on the card to make the effect work.
If you want the effect to work, you need to word it so it works.
The language of Mtg rules text generally lacks any degree of ambiguity. While some cards might be complicated or create situations that some players may not understand (layers, time stamps, etc), there is one “correct” interpretation of what each card does.
You created a card whose correct interpretation leads to wheeling twice. If that is not what you want, change the text. You can argue semantics and grammar to your heart’s content but at the end of the day, your card wheels twice and the text would need to change for that to change.
In the game of magic, the rules of Magic trump grammar. Regardless of what meaning “or” has in conversational speech, it has exactly one meaning in this case... which is not the usage you intended.
...Actually, I guess context does matter. The “or” in “destroy target artifact or enchantment” means something slightly different than “when this card enters or leaves the battlefield”. To amend my earlier statement, context matters in MTG in the more global sense of “what does ‘or’ mean in this template of wording” instead of the piecemeal “what would make more sense for the specific effect on this specific card”.
Even if it “common sense” seems like a low bar to set for players... even if the English language appears to give you some leeway for interpretation... The rules of MTG would unambiguously state that this effect triggers twice. Reporting otherwise is factually incorrect.
Again, there are very simple ways to change the text. For example (When you cast this spell, do X. This ability can’t be countered by spells or abilities)
If it's lazy, I'll fix it for you. Contravoyance (As you cast ~, you may shuffle your hand into your library. If you don't you may shuffle your hand into your library as ~ leaves that stack. When you shuffle your hand into your library, if you shuffled 6 or more cards into your library, draw that many cards minus 1. Otherwise, draw that many cards plus 1 instead.)
As a designer, you need to be able to accept when you're wrong and work to fix what is broken. And in the case where it can't be fixed give up.
This! This! A thousand times this!
The fact that there is a problem with the card is not a deal breaker. Everyone makes mistakes. I sure know that I make mistakes.
When you respond to criticisms by saying that any problems totally aren’t problems because rulings would make the card function properly, that seems odd.
1. The types of “rulings” you are thinking of are very rare in this game. While the notes listed on sites like gatherer may provide clarification, virtually none of them actually impact the functioning of the cards. Changing the way that the ability works would qualify as “functional errata”, which are very rare in this game (outside of creature type updates or slight updates in how mechanics like echo/madness work). Outside of the tap symbol on a certain candelabra, I struggle to think of any functional errata on black-bordered cards.
2. As mentioned above, you can change the card. This is not a printed card in the hands of millions of players and it is in no way “too late” to change the card. Why not edit the card to follow the rules rather than editing the rules to follow the card?
You call that fixed? That's all kinds of incoherent. What a jumbled mess.
This is exactly why I said just rely on context, and let language work the way it's supposed to (for coherence).
For clarity's sake. The way context makes it work is the way it has been explained to work. Allowing you to puzzle box your hand twice. You have expressed interest in the mechanic working against the context of the written word. Why are you fighting a battle that not only have you admitted to being wrong on but that the correct path has already been laid out for you?
That wording is a jumbled mess because, frankly, the mechanic is a jumbled mess. It's not the wordings fault. The wording is correct. But modal trigger timings? Leaves the stack triggers? And adding a variable dependant effect for good measure to make sure the mechanic is wordy and complicated? Of course it's going to be messy to write out.
If this correct wording is so offensive to you, maybe take that as a sign?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
My greater concern is that I'm having a change in perspective over here concerning the name of the mechanic. I'm seeing a little bit of potential, actually a greater potential in using the term Contravariance instead to denote the function. Although it initially seems blanche and monotone, the aspect of Contravoyance (against vision extrasensory) is a little harder to grip the understanding of relating to the spell and its function. Whereas, the term Contravariance (and its aspect of 'vectors that change as the coordinates change', is easier to grip and almost gives the spell a three-dimensional perspective element.
Not changing anything, but just saying, it's the only actual point of interest worth discerning over.
I get the feeling that we're all talking past each other at this stage. Even if your wording does all three of these things (and I'd say that's subjective), we want the card as printed to be FUNCTIONAL. Without your "rulings", it does not function as intended. You have already admitted as much when you said that there would need to be "rulings". While I cannot speak for everyone, I know that having a card function as intended within the rules and having it look unwieldy > creating "rulings" to maintain aesthetic precision of specific cards (at least for most people).
What I really want to know at this point, however, is why you don't take input. You put out ideas and then report that any problems we have with them are completely our fault... even when every other poster agrees that there is a problem (memory issues, language issues, etc.). If you come up with a specific wording for an effect and refuse to accept any form of constructive criticism... what's the point of even putting it out there?