I read an article on the PS5 development this morning, and one of the crucial bits they relayed was the use of SSD to enable "freedom of development" so that developers aren't held back by long loading times, but instead can submerse players in more dynamic gameplay.
That is a concept I have legendarily believe in, and sought to strongly push in my content.
It's in the best interests of developers to create as much "liberty" as possible, so that they can design the most fun and dynamic products possible. The only aspects that I would say impede on this, are coherence and "force majeure". Liberties don't want to go backwards, and strip away these elements, or other dynamic elements attempting to overly simply something for the illusory namesake of "functionality". What you're losing is priceless, and strips the game of its dynamic, interactive qualities. This is not a liberty you want to create for yourself—or adapt to. And I feel that's exactly what you're doing here, or attempting to assimilate yourself to the notion of.
What you're doing is not actually functional, proficient, or productive. The game itself loses functionality (and all these other qualities)—in with this becomes too blanche and monotone (having clearing lost fantasy or "force majeure"—and/or becomes a jumbled mess (that has clearly lost coherence).
I just applied an update to the main effect, removing the "At the beginning of that turn, exile Constellation Circle." clause. The reason being is that I mistook it as a state-based effect, which I didn't compose it as (although I may have intended to). To provide the intended functionality, I would have had to add additional text, which isn't really intuitive for such an overcrowded design as it is. This clause would have had to include "or each turn after if Constellation Circle remains on the battlefield" to provide a continuance to the exile effect if-and-when it's countered.
The current functionality just allows the Enchantment to go mute and ineffective, which makes great sense as this is a prominent (and rather troublesome) real-world effect to strategic defenses such as this. Which may remain in place, but by some adaptation in the environment, or advance therein, no longer has (or will provide) the intended effect or defense. And people can be blinded by this because it physically remains in place.
That's a lot of words to say "it doesn't matter whether it's actually workable, it matters whether it appeals to my sensibilities".
You can expound whatever philosophy you like, your 'liberties' and your 'force majeure' still won't amount to anything compared to whether or not your designs are actually any good to play with. Creativity and artistic vision are a means to an end, not an objective. Style is no substitute for substance.
I don’t understand this desire to make cards that can function but in ways that don’t. You keep trying to say that your way which doesn’t conform to the existing rules is better for some reason when you can make the same effect function within the exiting system.
Constellation Circle2WW
Enchantment
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.)
~ Enters the battlefield with 3 shift counters. At the beginning of your upkeep remove a shift counter from it.
As long as ~ has a shift counter on it, you and planeswalkers you control can’t be attacked.
This is your card 100% with the same functionality while actually working within the existing rules. The only thing you gain from ignoring the established framework is confusion. Not this imagined ”liberty”.
That's a lot of words to say "it doesn't matter whether it's actually workable, it matters whether it appeals to my sensibilities".
You can expound whatever philosophy you like, your 'liberties' and your 'force majeure' still won't amount to anything compared to whether or not your designs are actually any good to play with. Creativity and artistic vision are a means to an end, not an objective. Style is no substitute for substance.
You're entirely off subject. The point you're missing that the attempt here is trying to unnecessarily restrict something with a false claim that it's not functional, when it is in-fact functional. And is not only functional, but uses a schematic that would establish supreme functionality and freedom for the development.
These aspects define the amount of interactivity you can implement into a game, which directly decides its full potential (for how much fun it can be). It also defines how freely you can implement these unbounded interactions, preserving coherence, to further smooth the entire operation of development and play. This aspect specifically has nothing to do with art, or fantasy, or pilfers (the French).
Not to mention you are entirely wrong when you say creativity and artistic vision is not an objective when creating a fantasy game. It is absolutely an equal top priority.
Your argument is so biased, and selfish. It attempts to make a legitimate logical argument claiming the absence of functionality when the reality is you claim to be "discomforted" by the use of context, which forces players to stretch their intellectual deployment, and adapt to the functionality of word usage which defines "or" as meaning "one or the other". The entire game and its fan-base doesn't have to (and should never have to) bow to your oppressive favors. It's favorable to you, but it's not favorable to the other developers, or the players. We need equilibrium, equality. And unless you can provide a more logical argument other than "this usage of context makes you uncomfortable (because it's too hard for you?)", then I'm afraid there is no legitimate argument as to why not implement this. You would need to adapt and stretch your intellectual capabilities. That would be the only fair thing to do. Everyone else shouldn't be held back for you. The players shouldn't be held back because of low-functioning developers.
Not that the use of context like this doesn't already exist in MTG—because it does. And it always has.
Just to explain though, why your logic would be flawed even if it didn't. Just to show I could have proven that.
I don’t understand this desire to make cards that can function but in ways that don’t. You keep trying to say that your way which doesn’t conform to the existing rules is better for some reason when you can make the same effect function within the exiting system.
This is your card 100% with the same functionality while actually working within the existing rules. The only thing you gain from ignoring the established framework is confusion. Not this imagined ”liberty”.
To enter a more concrete topic of discussion, I would like to advocate on behalf of parsimony and minimization of waste and redundancy. I could certainly produce a card like this:
Not Flame Slash
Sorcery
Not flame slash deals 4 damage to a non-player, non-planeswalker target of your choice.
Which would present a new potential templating for targeting and may, in extreme corner cases have discrete rule differences when compared to plane old flame slash (such as animated gideons being untargetable if I somehow cast this at instant speed and don’t care that those cards are indestructible). With that said, most players would agree that this card is kind of silly when Flame Slash does indeed exist.
While the increase in design space is technically huge, the amount of novel design space (Effects that aren’t largely replicable without this change) is miniscule
So, regarding this new card and the liberties that it takes, let me ask a few concrete questions:
1. Using an “As - is cast” ability to serve as a passive ability that doesn’t use the stack and can’t be countered is interesting. How much novel design space do you think there is there for this effect compared to making a cast trigger that can’t be countered?
2. Do you feel that adding another point of non-interaction (in addition to split second, unmorphing, playing lands, and using mana abilities) is good for gameplay. If so, why?
3. Having an effect that triggers upon leaving the stack is Interesting and also fights counterspells as it doesn’t care whether the spell resolved, was countered, was exiled, Was tucked, or was bounced. This ability, however, would be a triggered ability and could itself be countered (which, again, is NOT a bad thing). Is that intentional?
4. If an as-cast trigger ability doesn’t use the stack and can’t be countered, could you describe why the remove from stack trigger is needed at all? If you could lay out a couple of situations when it would come into play, that would be most useful.
On the other hand, if the as-cast trigger was intended to use the stack, could you describe what benefits it adds when you already get counter insurance from the leave stack trigger? Once again, some examples would be great.
5. Could you outline any potential novel design space that turn-counting effects without counters would offer? As I mentioned earlier, I can only think of turn-counting effects that manipulate counters or effects that make turn counting move slower or faster. Is there anything else that I’m missing that would make turn counting mechanically unique?
Again, I am trying to ascertain the purely mechanical virtues of this effect. Aesthetics are a largely subjective affair.
It is used solely as an example of a card effect with low novel design space.
The five numbered questions I asked should still be worth addressing, however. I’m looking forward to reading your answers if you are willing to give them.
It is used solely as an example of a card effect with low novel design space.
The five numbered questions I asked should still be worth addressing, however. I’m looking forward to reading your answers if you are willing to give them.
This is not a novelty aspect. There's nothing novelty or irregular about it.
To address your questions:
1.) It doesn't matter how much design space is available. It's not necessarily about potential, but necessity. It's implemented because it's a necessity, and this way is simply the most proficient means to do it. If this were the only application for it, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it was needed for this—and doing so provides continuance.
2.) It doesn't matter in this care. It's not really adding anything new, it's sliding into the existing cabinet of functionality without disrupting anything, and is especially doing so in that it can't be interacted with by using the state-based functionality. This makes it clean and coherent and easily implemented without any interactivity troubles at all. If it were doing something like that, or did have some technicalities, it would all come down to how much interactive fun the aspect provides to warrant going out of the way to implement it. You're developing a game, that's supposed to be your primary objective. Keep the game fun and interesting, by continuously adding new content, new interactions, and new consoles of interactivity. It wouldn't be a concern unless it impedes on something immensely fundamental.
3.) It's not really an ability as much as it becomes a core-function of the game. It's kind of beyond abilities entirely in how it becomes a root function, which hyper-accelerates the flow of the cards and the game pace. With that being said, this becomes far more prominent than traditional keyword abilities. Given the nature is a state-based effect (using the context of "As ~", it wouldn't be counterable, so there's really no concern there. As stated, this keyword concept becomes a crucial, fundamental dynamic interaction of the game, which optimizes it from a root of its being and functionality (the flow of the cards). It absolutely needs to transcend the traditional conventions of the game and its interactivity to take its rightful place there and provide unfailing optimization.
4.) The "when this leaves the stack" clause is necessary to provide strategic options for players. Depending on the effect of the card, you definitely want and need to this option available. You don't want to run into any jumbled messes later, or miss out on crucial potential because the effect forces you through one functionality rather than providing you with some strategic options.
5.) Again, I wouldn't say there's anything novel about it (although now using a different meaning of the word). Still, there's really nothing precedent here that you will want to take and spam by any means. Even at first, the design space seems pretty finite. Moderation is naturally good style though anyways. It provides pace, and contrast, and is a key-in alongside securing diversity amongst your content. As a developer, you're striving for equilibrium in all these things. No matter what you implement, if you don't provide the proper boundaries for it (or moderation about it), then you're likely going to ruin it entirely.
It is used solely as an example of a card effect with low novel design space.
If you're using an archaic definition of the word novel (meaning grandoise, or epic, or large-scale)—then sure—this is just that. It's a dynamic functionality that would have a huge impact on the game, and dramatically change it forever even.
However, this isn't something you need or want to do all the time in such large scale. Small scales forms will always be your bread and butter, that breed continuance, new interactivity, and fun. Whereas large scale ones will be your fish and chips. It hits the spot and carries you through the stretch of time.
That's a lot of words to say "it doesn't matter whether it's actually workable, it matters whether it appeals to my sensibilities".
You can expound whatever philosophy you like, your 'liberties' and your 'force majeure' still won't amount to anything compared to whether or not your designs are actually any good to play with. Creativity and artistic vision are a means to an end, not an objective. Style is no substitute for substance.
You're entirely off subject. The point you're missing that the attempt here is trying to unnecessarily restrict something with a false claim that it's not functional, when it is in-fact functional. And is not only functional, but uses a schematic that would establish supreme functionality and freedom for the development.
It is not functional within the existing rules and conventions of the game. You are suggesting breaking from that, in a way that would have larger ramification, and not because it would improve the functionality—there are perfectly usable ways of doing it within the current paradigm—but because it enables you to keep the wordiness down for your mechanic without changing any of the rather minor details about how it works.
Those rules and conventions are in place for good reasons.
These aspects define the amount of interactivity you can implement into a game, which directly decides its full potential (for how much fun it can be). It also defines how freely you can implement these unbounded interactions, preserving coherence, to further smooth the entire operation of development and play. This aspect specifically has nothing to do with art, or fantasy, or pilfers (the French).
The coherence of the game is only harmed by haphazardly neglecting rules and conventions just to make individual cards and mechanics work exactly how you want them to. Unrestrained creativity goes directly against coherence. Coherence is helped by establishing rules and conventions and sticking to them. Rules and conventions can, should and do change, but only very deliberately with the bigger picture in mind, not because you prefer the wording it gives you for a single mechanic.
Not to mention you are entirely wrong when you say creativity and artistic vision is not an objective when creating a fantasy game. It is absolutely an equal top priority.
You can be as creative as you want, you can have as strong and grand a vision as you want, but if your creativity and vision lead you to bad ideas, no one is really going to like the end result just because it's creative. Creativity and artistic vision are prized in so far as they lead you to actually good ideas. Van Gogh isn't revered because he had a strong artistic vision, he's revered because his artistic vision led to him making good paintings.
Your argument is so biased, and selfish. It attempts to make a legitimate logical argument claiming the absence of functionality when the reality is you claim to be "discomforted" by the use of context, which forces players to stretch their intellectual deployment, and adapt to the functionality of word usage which defines "or" as meaning "one or the other". The entire game and its fan-base doesn't have to (and should never have to) bow to your oppressive favors. It's favorable to you, but it's not favorable to the other developers, or the players. We need equilibrium, equality. And unless you can provide a more logical argument other than "this usage of context makes you uncomfortable (because it's too hard for you?)", then I'm afraid there is no legitimate argument as to why not implement this. You would need to adapt and stretch your intellectual capabilities. That would be the only fair thing to do. Everyone else shouldn't be held back for you. The players shouldn't be held back because of low-functioning developers.
Consistency of wordings is important if you want people to understand what cards mean. Blaming people and suggesting they're dumb if they are confused by it is not going to change that. This isn't for the sake of my personal comprehension, nor is it based upon that.
Not that the use of context like this doesn't already exist in MTG—because it does. And it always has.
That's not a comparable example.
Let's run a little comparison to everyday language.
"You can have this cookie or this chocolate"
"This vacuum cleaner can be used on carpet or on hardwood floors"
In the first example, you can't both have the cookie and the chocolate. In the second example, you can't use the vacuum cleaner on carpet and hardwood floor at the same time, but you can use it on both one after the other. The 'or' is establishing that the vacuum cleaner can be used in two separate contexts, not that there is a choice that must be made. I encounter carpet, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it. I encounter hardwood floor, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it.
Contravoyance matches the second usage of 'or' better. The two things in questions are separate contexts in which the effect could take place just like the carpet and the hardwood floor. Disenchant is unambiguously using 'or' in the first sense.
Even if we don't agree contravoyance matches the second usage, it is how certainly MtG uses it. If you're going to use it in the first sense here, that would imply changing all the others uses to match to avoid confusion. Which is a significant ask that you don't actually seem to be fighting for, so much as you just want to use it this way on this specific effect.
That's not a comparable example.
Let's run a little comparison to everyday language.
"You can have this cookie or this chocolate"
"This vacuum cleaner can be used on carpet or on hardwood floors"
In the first example, you can't both have the cookie and the chocolate. In the second example, you can't use the vacuum cleaner on carpet and hardwood floor at the same time, but you can use it on both one after the other. The 'or' is establishing that the vacuum cleaner can be used in two separate contexts, not that there is a choice that must be made. I encounter carpet, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it. I encounter hardwood floor, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it.
Contravoyance matches the second usage of 'or' better. The two things in questions are separate contexts in which the effect could take place just like the carpet and the hardwood floor. Disenchant is unambiguously using 'or' in the first sense.
Even if we don't agree contravoyance matches the second usage, it is how certainly MtG uses it. If you're going to use it in the first sense here, that would imply changing all the others uses to match to avoid confusion. Which is a significant ask that you don't actually seem to be fighting for, so much as you just want to use it this way on this specific effect.
DJK3654, I just want to make sure you know what kind of battle you're fighting. ReapThaWhirlwind has already admitted that they were wrong on the context of or in their ability and simply decided that being wrong didn't matter because they would add a ruling that said they were right the whole time.
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.
That's not a comparable example.
Let's run a little comparison to everyday language.
"You can have this cookie or this chocolate"
"This vacuum cleaner can be used on carpet or on hardwood floors"
In the first example, you can't both have the cookie and the chocolate. In the second example, you can't use the vacuum cleaner on carpet and hardwood floor at the same time, but you can use it on both one after the other. The 'or' is establishing that the vacuum cleaner can be used in two separate contexts, not that there is a choice that must be made. I encounter carpet, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it. I encounter hardwood floor, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it.
Contravoyance matches the second usage of 'or' better. The two things in questions are separate contexts in which the effect could take place just like the carpet and the hardwood floor. Disenchant is unambiguously using 'or' in the first sense.
Even if we don't agree contravoyance matches the second usage, it is how certainly MtG uses it. If you're going to use it in the first sense here, that would imply changing all the others uses to match to avoid confusion. Which is a significant ask that you don't actually seem to be fighting for, so much as you just want to use it this way on this specific effect.
DJK3654, I just want to make sure you know what kind of battle you're fighting. ReapThaWhirlwind has already admitted that they were wrong on the context of or in their ability and simply decided that being wrong didn't matter because they would add a ruling that said they were right the whole time.
Yes, that's what I was getting at with that last sentence. One of the points I was making with that whole example thing is that the rule being applied here is consistent with other uses in MtG not merely in an arbitrary sense.
It is the exact example. It's the exact same usage. It's not breaking away from anything because it's always existed.
There's nothing ambiguous about the usage of 'or' here. It was plain English.
You just skipped over a whole bit where I explained, at some length, the nuance of the word 'or' only to say 'no'.
You're making it hard for me here.
It doesn't matter because there's nothing unconventional about this context.
There's no argument against it unless you do the exact thing that you said I was so wrong attempting to do—and that's dramatically change the conventions of the game and its operating functions (which go back to the very root of its existence—and there is no fault in the operation of).
It is the exact example. It's the exact same usage. It's not breaking away from anything because it's always existed.
There's nothing ambiguous about the usage of 'or' here. It was plain English.
You just skipped over a whole bit where I explained, at some length, the nuance of the word 'or' only to say 'no'.
You're making it hard for me here.
It doesn't matter because there's nothing unconventional about this context.
There's no argument against it unless you do the exact thing that you said I was so wrong attempting to do—and that's dramatically change the conventions of the game and its operating functions (which go back to the very root of its existence—and there is no fault in the operation of).
This context is unconventional when applied to a choice between circumstances under which an effect occurs. While "or" has been used in the context you desire 1) to select between targets, 2) to select between categories of targets, or 3) to choose between actions being done, I would defy you to find a single example where the end effect is set but you choose under what circumstances it occurs (Through the use the word "or", of course)
THAT is the unconventional part... in addition to everything else about that "trigger".
It is the exact example. It's the exact same usage. It's not breaking away from anything because it's always existed.
There's nothing ambiguous about the usage of 'or' here. It was plain English.
You just skipped over a whole bit where I explained, at some length, the nuance of the word 'or' only to say 'no'.
You're making it hard for me here.
It doesn't matter because there's nothing unconventional about this context.
There's no argument against it unless you do the exact thing that you said I was so wrong attempting to do—and that's dramatically change the conventions of the game and its operating functions (which go back to the very root of its existence—and there is no fault in the operation of).
No, there is. The whole reason why you would change the conventions is for consistency. To quote myself, "consistency of wordings is important if you want people to understand what cards mean". You need to keep a check on comprehension complexity. You can't just ignore all the conventions for certain specific cards and act like that doesn't mean anything. To quote myself again, "those rules and conventions are in place for good reasons".
I take the last comment in my previous post back; this isn't that hard. It seems I just have to repeat myself.
That is a concept I have legendarily believe in, and sought to strongly push in my content.
It's in the best interests of developers to create as much "liberty" as possible, so that they can design the most fun and dynamic products possible. The only aspects that I would say impede on this, are coherence and "force majeure". Liberties don't want to go backwards, and strip away these elements, or other dynamic elements attempting to overly simply something for the illusory namesake of "functionality". What you're losing is priceless, and strips the game of its dynamic, interactive qualities. This is not a liberty you want to create for yourself—or adapt to. And I feel that's exactly what you're doing here, or attempting to assimilate yourself to the notion of.
What you're doing is not actually functional, proficient, or productive. The game itself loses functionality (and all these other qualities)—in with this becomes too blanche and monotone (having clearing lost fantasy or "force majeure"—and/or becomes a jumbled mess (that has clearly lost coherence).
The current functionality just allows the Enchantment to go mute and ineffective, which makes great sense as this is a prominent (and rather troublesome) real-world effect to strategic defenses such as this. Which may remain in place, but by some adaptation in the environment, or advance therein, no longer has (or will provide) the intended effect or defense. And people can be blinded by this because it physically remains in place.
You can expound whatever philosophy you like, your 'liberties' and your 'force majeure' still won't amount to anything compared to whether or not your designs are actually any good to play with. Creativity and artistic vision are a means to an end, not an objective. Style is no substitute for substance.
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
This is your card 100% with the same functionality while actually working within the existing rules. The only thing you gain from ignoring the established framework is confusion. Not this imagined ”liberty”.
You're entirely off subject. The point you're missing that the attempt here is trying to unnecessarily restrict something with a false claim that it's not functional, when it is in-fact functional. And is not only functional, but uses a schematic that would establish supreme functionality and freedom for the development.
These aspects define the amount of interactivity you can implement into a game, which directly decides its full potential (for how much fun it can be). It also defines how freely you can implement these unbounded interactions, preserving coherence, to further smooth the entire operation of development and play. This aspect specifically has nothing to do with art, or fantasy, or pilfers (the French).
Not to mention you are entirely wrong when you say creativity and artistic vision is not an objective when creating a fantasy game. It is absolutely an equal top priority.
Your argument is so biased, and selfish. It attempts to make a legitimate logical argument claiming the absence of functionality when the reality is you claim to be "discomforted" by the use of context, which forces players to stretch their intellectual deployment, and adapt to the functionality of word usage which defines "or" as meaning "one or the other". The entire game and its fan-base doesn't have to (and should never have to) bow to your oppressive favors. It's favorable to you, but it's not favorable to the other developers, or the players. We need equilibrium, equality. And unless you can provide a more logical argument other than "this usage of context makes you uncomfortable (because it's too hard for you?)", then I'm afraid there is no legitimate argument as to why not implement this. You would need to adapt and stretch your intellectual capabilities. That would be the only fair thing to do. Everyone else shouldn't be held back for you. The players shouldn't be held back because of low-functioning developers.
Not that the use of context like this doesn't already exist in MTG—because it does. And it always has.
Just to explain though, why your logic would be flawed even if it didn't. Just to show I could have proven that.
Redirect to comment in OP.
Not Flame Slash
Sorcery
Not flame slash deals 4 damage to a non-player, non-planeswalker target of your choice.
Which would present a new potential templating for targeting and may, in extreme corner cases have discrete rule differences when compared to plane old flame slash (such as animated gideons being untargetable if I somehow cast this at instant speed and don’t care that those cards are indestructible). With that said, most players would agree that this card is kind of silly when Flame Slash does indeed exist.
While the increase in design space is technically huge, the amount of novel design space (Effects that aren’t largely replicable without this change) is miniscule
So, regarding this new card and the liberties that it takes, let me ask a few concrete questions:
1. Using an “As - is cast” ability to serve as a passive ability that doesn’t use the stack and can’t be countered is interesting. How much novel design space do you think there is there for this effect compared to making a cast trigger that can’t be countered?
2. Do you feel that adding another point of non-interaction (in addition to split second, unmorphing, playing lands, and using mana abilities) is good for gameplay. If so, why?
3. Having an effect that triggers upon leaving the stack is Interesting and also fights counterspells as it doesn’t care whether the spell resolved, was countered, was exiled, Was tucked, or was bounced. This ability, however, would be a triggered ability and could itself be countered (which, again, is NOT a bad thing). Is that intentional?
4. If an as-cast trigger ability doesn’t use the stack and can’t be countered, could you describe why the remove from stack trigger is needed at all? If you could lay out a couple of situations when it would come into play, that would be most useful.
On the other hand, if the as-cast trigger was intended to use the stack, could you describe what benefits it adds when you already get counter insurance from the leave stack trigger? Once again, some examples would be great.
5. Could you outline any potential novel design space that turn-counting effects without counters would offer? As I mentioned earlier, I can only think of turn-counting effects that manipulate counters or effects that make turn counting move slower or faster. Is there anything else that I’m missing that would make turn counting mechanically unique?
Again, I am trying to ascertain the purely mechanical virtues of this effect. Aesthetics are a largely subjective affair.
This isn't changing anything that dramatically. And it wouldn't be even if the context didn't exist before.
I have always been against extremely dramatic changes like that. They are bad for continuance and coherence of the game.
The five numbered questions I asked should still be worth addressing, however. I’m looking forward to reading your answers if you are willing to give them.
This is not a novelty aspect. There's nothing novelty or irregular about it.
To address your questions:
1.) It doesn't matter how much design space is available. It's not necessarily about potential, but necessity. It's implemented because it's a necessity, and this way is simply the most proficient means to do it. If this were the only application for it, it doesn't matter. All that matters is that it was needed for this—and doing so provides continuance.
2.) It doesn't matter in this care. It's not really adding anything new, it's sliding into the existing cabinet of functionality without disrupting anything, and is especially doing so in that it can't be interacted with by using the state-based functionality. This makes it clean and coherent and easily implemented without any interactivity troubles at all. If it were doing something like that, or did have some technicalities, it would all come down to how much interactive fun the aspect provides to warrant going out of the way to implement it. You're developing a game, that's supposed to be your primary objective. Keep the game fun and interesting, by continuously adding new content, new interactions, and new consoles of interactivity. It wouldn't be a concern unless it impedes on something immensely fundamental.
3.) It's not really an ability as much as it becomes a core-function of the game. It's kind of beyond abilities entirely in how it becomes a root function, which hyper-accelerates the flow of the cards and the game pace. With that being said, this becomes far more prominent than traditional keyword abilities. Given the nature is a state-based effect (using the context of "As ~", it wouldn't be counterable, so there's really no concern there. As stated, this keyword concept becomes a crucial, fundamental dynamic interaction of the game, which optimizes it from a root of its being and functionality (the flow of the cards). It absolutely needs to transcend the traditional conventions of the game and its interactivity to take its rightful place there and provide unfailing optimization.
4.) The "when this leaves the stack" clause is necessary to provide strategic options for players. Depending on the effect of the card, you definitely want and need to this option available. You don't want to run into any jumbled messes later, or miss out on crucial potential because the effect forces you through one functionality rather than providing you with some strategic options.
5.) Again, I wouldn't say there's anything novel about it (although now using a different meaning of the word). Still, there's really nothing precedent here that you will want to take and spam by any means. Even at first, the design space seems pretty finite. Moderation is naturally good style though anyways. It provides pace, and contrast, and is a key-in alongside securing diversity amongst your content. As a developer, you're striving for equilibrium in all these things. No matter what you implement, if you don't provide the proper boundaries for it (or moderation about it), then you're likely going to ruin it entirely.
If you're using an archaic definition of the word novel (meaning grandoise, or epic, or large-scale)—then sure—this is just that. It's a dynamic functionality that would have a huge impact on the game, and dramatically change it forever even.
However, this isn't something you need or want to do all the time in such large scale. Small scales forms will always be your bread and butter, that breed continuance, new interactivity, and fun. Whereas large scale ones will be your fish and chips. It hits the spot and carries you through the stretch of time.
It is not functional within the existing rules and conventions of the game. You are suggesting breaking from that, in a way that would have larger ramification, and not because it would improve the functionality—there are perfectly usable ways of doing it within the current paradigm—but because it enables you to keep the wordiness down for your mechanic without changing any of the rather minor details about how it works.
Those rules and conventions are in place for good reasons.
The coherence of the game is only harmed by haphazardly neglecting rules and conventions just to make individual cards and mechanics work exactly how you want them to. Unrestrained creativity goes directly against coherence. Coherence is helped by establishing rules and conventions and sticking to them. Rules and conventions can, should and do change, but only very deliberately with the bigger picture in mind, not because you prefer the wording it gives you for a single mechanic.
You can be as creative as you want, you can have as strong and grand a vision as you want, but if your creativity and vision lead you to bad ideas, no one is really going to like the end result just because it's creative. Creativity and artistic vision are prized in so far as they lead you to actually good ideas. Van Gogh isn't revered because he had a strong artistic vision, he's revered because his artistic vision led to him making good paintings.
Consistency of wordings is important if you want people to understand what cards mean. Blaming people and suggesting they're dumb if they are confused by it is not going to change that. This isn't for the sake of my personal comprehension, nor is it based upon that.
That's not a comparable example.
Let's run a little comparison to everyday language.
"You can have this cookie or this chocolate"
"This vacuum cleaner can be used on carpet or on hardwood floors"
In the first example, you can't both have the cookie and the chocolate. In the second example, you can't use the vacuum cleaner on carpet and hardwood floor at the same time, but you can use it on both one after the other. The 'or' is establishing that the vacuum cleaner can be used in two separate contexts, not that there is a choice that must be made. I encounter carpet, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it. I encounter hardwood floor, I can use the vacuum cleaner on it.
Contravoyance matches the second usage of 'or' better. The two things in questions are separate contexts in which the effect could take place just like the carpet and the hardwood floor. Disenchant is unambiguously using 'or' in the first sense.
Even if we don't agree contravoyance matches the second usage, it is how certainly MtG uses it. If you're going to use it in the first sense here, that would imply changing all the others uses to match to avoid confusion. Which is a significant ask that you don't actually seem to be fighting for, so much as you just want to use it this way on this specific effect.
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
Yes, that's what I was getting at with that last sentence. One of the points I was making with that whole example thing is that the rule being applied here is consistent with other uses in MtG not merely in an arbitrary sense.
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
You've never had a legitimate argument to begin with.
I simply tried to go out of my way and explain to you why, beyond this fact.
I directly addressed that point already dude.
If you're going to be cocky, at least be right.
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
It's not breaking away from anything because it's always existed like this.
It is the exact example. It's the exact same usage.
There's nothing ambiguous about the usage of "or" here—this is plain English.
You just skipped over a whole bit where I explained, at some length, the nuance of the word 'or' only to say 'no'.
You're making it hard for me here.
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
It doesn't matter because there's nothing unconventional about this context.
There's no argument against it unless you do the exact thing that you said I was so wrong attempting to do—and that's dramatically change the conventions of the game and its operating functions (which go back to the very root of its existence—and there is no fault in the operation of).
This context is unconventional when applied to a choice between circumstances under which an effect occurs. While "or" has been used in the context you desire 1) to select between targets, 2) to select between categories of targets, or 3) to choose between actions being done, I would defy you to find a single example where the end effect is set but you choose under what circumstances it occurs (Through the use the word "or", of course)
THAT is the unconventional part... in addition to everything else about that "trigger".
No, there is. The whole reason why you would change the conventions is for consistency. To quote myself, "consistency of wordings is important if you want people to understand what cards mean". You need to keep a check on comprehension complexity. You can't just ignore all the conventions for certain specific cards and act like that doesn't mean anything. To quote myself again, "those rules and conventions are in place for good reasons".
I take the last comment in my previous post back; this isn't that hard. It seems I just have to repeat myself.
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