Masquerade Ball2BB Enchantment
Destiny Bond (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, any player may shuffle his or her hand into his or her library and draw four cards.)
Each creature and creature card in every zone is named Masquerade Guest.
The legends rule doesn't apply. There are some very scary monsters hiding in the world, and the scariest are often found hiding behind masks. One couldn't paint the terrors of the world in a more nightmarish scene.
So here's another reprise. I really thought this was neat and clever, but it was grossly over-costed. And I think it could definitely use a Deus Ex Machina keyword to top it off.
It's a very interesting take on Mirror Gallery. As that was over costed dropping to 4 seems good. Your deus ex keyword is a monster that makes this simultaneously unplayable and a game ending engine. Allowing the opponent to fill back up can be game breaking but it's also such an efficient draw four that it can be it's own engine.
That said we have an existing template for doing this with creature types. You can easily port it into names.
Each creature is named Masquerade Guest. The same is true for creature spells and creature cards that aren't on the battlefield.
The "legend rule" doesn't apply.
So, it's another of those mechanics. Not sure I'm going to bother rehashing the same arguments about the other ones you've posted, but you know where I stand.
I would say though that surely 'as you cast this spell or when it resolves or leaves the stack' is surely too many conditions to tack on? Surely? 90% of the time, at least, it won't matter at all. I never thought I would miss the days of 'As you cast this spell or when it's removed from the stack', but here we are. Doesn't resolving mean it 'leaves the stack' anyway? I am genuinely perplexed as how you make these wording decisions.
Ditto @user_938036's template suggestion for the name altering effect.
Compared to Mirror Gallery, this card actually seems too strong. The addition of coloured mana is not comparable as a cost to the additional benefit of reduced CMC, the name changing effect, and the 'Destiny Bond' keyword. I think this should cost 5 CMC.
I also think this is more of a blue effect than a black one. Name, colour, text and type changing effects are all strongly within blue's domain. Black mainly gets the occasional card that converts a creature into a specific black creature type, namely Zombie or Vampire, flavoured as a supernatural conversion. The sneaky manipulation flavour with this card is suitable for black but also at least as good a fit for blue IMO. Blue also has a 'tabula rasa' flavour too it that this fits nicely with. Could also be blue/black I suppose.
That is an interesting card that you didn't design.
You just took someone else's design off custommagic, lowered the cost, and put one of you umpteen different card filtering mechanics on it? Why is this a post? The creative part of this design is the part you didn't do, you just made it less expensive and more complicated. Its one thing to get inspired by another card creator, but this is barely more than copying.
Let's do the breakdown on the part you did create:
Destiny Bond makes no sense as a keyword name. What does destiny or bonding have to do with everyone wheeling their hands?
Your wording means people can potentially do it twice, on cast and resolution. You know this even if you choose to ignore every time it is explained to you.
This ability would be red, as discard your hand to draw X number of cards is definitely a red ability.
Of the actual Masquerade Ball ability, it is an interesting twist on Mirror Gallery, and I'd have to check the rules for how cards that refer to cards with their same names (Squadron Hawk) would interact with this because if, for instance, Squadron Hawk could pull any number of creatures into your hand, this would be crazy and undercosted at 4 mana. It feels like a blue mechanic though, not black.
One thing that I don’t think has come up in discussing these card draw mechanics and their odd trigger.
Changing card text on a card (AKA acknowledging a mistake was made and fixing it) is Errata. That is what errata is in Magic the Gathering.
Creating rulings so that card text works within the rules of the game without changing card text is... Not Errata in the context of MtG. It is nothing because that is simply not done in MTG anywhere.
With this in mind, would you mind showing us the post-errata text (AKA Oracle text) for this complex trigger you use on these abilities?
You choose which instance you desire—one or the other. The inclusion of the clause 'or leaves the stack' covers the event that the spell is countered or exiled from the stack, thus enabling the player to still utilize the Deus Ex Machina keyword. This is definitely how this wants and needs to work for continuance and securities.
As for how the naming ability should work in comprehension, I think that any ability which refers to a name (or its original name) would have the name changed, and all corresponding names or references to names also changed. It would be way over the top to do this any other way. You would be creating way more work for yourself applying and implementing all these restrictions, and these restrictions would take away from interactivity in the game, which makes it fun. You don't want to impede on interactivity here, you want it to remain open and free and full of potential energy.
Using the word errata with an archaic context, meaning 'miscellaneous rulings'.
If I go to a mathematics board and hear someone talking about an "arbitrarily large number", I am not going to recommend 153 as the chosen number on the grounds that I am using the word "arbitrary" in a traditional manner. I recognize that "arbitrarily large" has a specific meaning in a mathematical context and am not going to insist that I am technically right.
You are in an MTG message board. Specific words have specific meanings in the context of MTG. If you neglect to use the specific context and don't "speak mtg", you are openly inviting misunderstanding.
With that said, I simply want to address further that I openly acknowledged that I didn't design this, it was a reprise edit of someone else's design.
The fact that you admitted it does not mean it is good.
While some people here have created games based on other OPs, take a look around and see how many people are taking ideas from other posters, slightly tweaking them, and reposting them. While I don't think it's against forum rules, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's good form, either.
I do believe the form it now takes is far superior in every shape and form.
Take a look at this thread. Seriously. Four people complaining about the ability you added, one of which thinks that the decreased cost is appropriate and two of which think it is not appropriate. While you are free to maintain your beliefs, consensus is against you. This is a simple, readily observable and inarguable fact.
As you have been told several times, this is not "or" in the context of listing several types of target (such as "artifact or enchantment" or "planeswalker or player").
This is also not "or" in the context of "Tap or untap" (and you might notice that the word "or" generally isn't used to select between other actions being performed on a target such as "destroy target creature or return it to the top of its owner's library" as those effects now use "choose one" and bullet points. "Tap or untap" is a very specific exception to this trend in this game).
This is giving a player a choice between having an outcome resolve as a static ability that doesn't use the stack (as you cast this spell) or between a triggered ability with two possible triggers ("when it resolves or leaves the stack")... and that making a static ability like that (as you cast this spell) literally has no precedent in this game. The closest example in this game to having one ability with multiple triggers would be The Titan Cycle, which you'll notice triggers both when entering the battlefield or attacking in spite of using the word "or".
You have also been told that "As you cast this spell" would be sufficient as that effect would happen whether the spell resolves, is countered, or is exiled. The only possible mechanical benefit to allowing the option for the triggered ability comes up when copying the spell effect... which A) wouldn't come up as every Deus Ex card you've produced so far is a permanent (meaning that twincast effects don't really apply), and B) would only succeed in letting someone wheel twice in a row, which seems like an incredibly small benefit to justify such odd wording.
Likewise, you could summarize "resolves or leaves the stack" into "leaves the stack" as a spell naturally leaves the stack when it resolves.
Of the actual Masquerade Ball ability, it is an interesting twist on Mirror Gallery, and I'd have to check the rules for how cards that refer to cards with their same names (Squadron Hawk) would interact with this because if, for instance, Squadron Hawk could pull any number of creatures into your hand, this would be crazy and undercosted at 4 mana. It feels like a blue mechanic though, not black.
Squadron Hawk wouldn't be able to find any cards with this out. You will look in your deck for cards named Squadron Hawk and only find cards named Masquerade Guest. To get the effect of Squadron Hawk finding any number of creatures you would need a completely different effect.
If an effect would use a card's name use Masquerade Guest instead.
Though such an effect is obviously broken if combined with the rest of the card because Eradicate would exile all creatures form a player's deck, hand and graveyard.
With that said, I simply want to address further that I openly acknowledged that I didn't design this, it was a reprise edit of someone else's design.
I didn't say you didn't credit it, just that what you added wasn't any more creative than had you just added "Scry 2" or "Draw a card". You didn't develop the mechanic the other person created in a new direction, you just added trinket text and said it was better.
I do believe the form it now takes is far superior in every shape and form.
Making something more complicated doesn't make it better. Your mechanic is inelegantly slapped onto a creative card so that it does two disparate things instead of one focused one.
Notice how all the examples you gave of cards using "or" used it in terms of target selection or damage distribution? When "or" is used in a triggered ability, it is inclusive, not selective.
To make your text work the way you would want it to, with it having to opportunity to wheel on cast or resolution but not both, here is the wording you must use for it to work within the rules of magic. (Yes, I am a Judge)
Mechanic Name(When you cast this spell, you may [DO THE THING]. If you do not, when this spell is removed from the stack [DO THE THING])
As for how the naming ability should work in comprehension, I think that any ability which refers to a name (or its original name) would have the name changed, and all corresponding names or references to names also changed. It would be way over the top to do this any other way. You would be creating way more work for yourself applying and implementing all these restrictions, and these restrictions would take away from interactivity in the game, which makes it fun. You don't want to impede on interactivity here, you want it to remain open and free and full of potential energy.
While its fairly academic of you to worry about the interactions of the part of your card someone else created, just because you want a card to work a certain way, it doesn't mean it does. I actually did a little bit of research and the answer is "No" if the name of Squadron Hawk is changed, it will still look for "cards named Squadron Hawk" and not "cards named CARDNAME".
Lastly, don't try to impress people with your verbosity. This is magic card design, not Hamilton. Saying things like "You don't want to impede on interactivity here, you want it to remain open and free and full of potential energy." and "Equal sided wheels like this are a double-edged sword, acting potentially as both disruption or boost. This cancels itself out and creates neutrality." while simultaneously ignoring basic truths of the Magic comprehensive rules makes people take your designs and you less seriously, not more.
If an effect would use a card's name use Masquerade Guest instead.
Though such an effect is obviously broken if combined with the rest of the card because Eradicate would exile all creatures form a player's deck, hand and graveyard.
Ignoring the oppressor, "there's something wrong with posting reprise designs of other people's designs" comments.
The object here was to suggest that the ruling for this function should change the name and effects that reference names, without requiring additional text to explain that. As for game-breaking effects like Extirpate, that is what the restricted and banned list is for. One shouldn't be wary of using those, so long as they're not getting carried away and abusing them either. With good balance, they're a technician's friend.
I still wouldn't warrant the high cost despite high impact effects like that. You can't build a fun, winning strategy around that effect combination. It needs to be less of a hike, and more fluid and adaptable. I think the easiest fix is to provide a limitation clause such as,
"A card/players can't interact with more than three cards at a time outside the battlefield this way."
The object here was to suggest that the ruling for this function should change the name and effects that reference names, without requiring additional text to explain that. As for game-breaking effects like Extirpate, that is what the restricted and banned list is for. One shouldn't be wary of using those, so long as they're not getting carried away and abusing them either. With good balance, they're a technician's friend.
You never want rulings to do the work of card text. If the intent was to mess with cards that look at card names then the effect needs to be written out. Otherwise, you run the problem of making people think that Conspiracy and its ilk make all lords affect the creature type you choose. There is little benefit to trying to roll that effect into that text and there is obvious and immediate downside to do such.
If you want to add an effect that isn't present. Add the effect don't just say "well, that effect is also there".
You want your language as precise and concise as possible so as to keep opportunities open rather than creating roadblocks in design because you were too lazy earlier to spell out an effect. This is the problem you are having with your "Or" in your desu ex abilities. The use of Or has already been made clear to you but you want to muddy the language and cut off freedoms because you like the words better.
This is the problem you are having with your "Or" in your desu ex abilities. The use of Or has already been made clear to you but you want to muddy the language and cut off freedoms because you like the words better.
This is the problem you are having with your "Or" in your desu ex abilities. The use of Or has already been made clear to you but you want to muddy the language and cut off freedoms because you like the words better.
Magic uses the word "or" in two ways. Either as a choice "do this or that" or as proposing scenarios "when this or that happens". When offered a choice you choose and get one of the options. When proposing a scenario you get the effect at both points. Your effect "As you cast this spell, or when it resolves or leaves the stack," is proposing a scenarion.
Another unfortunate thing is that you are using a replacement effect when it obviously wants to be a trigger.
To try and help you understand when or separates things you do or choices you make it is either when it separates things that happen its both.
This is the problem you are having with your "Or" in your desu ex abilities. The use of Or has already been made clear to you but you want to muddy the language and cut off freedoms because you like the words better.
As you have been told several times, this is not "or" in the context of listing several types of target (such as "artifact or enchantment" or "planeswalker or player").
This is also not "or" in the context of "Tap or untap" (and you might notice that the word "or" generally isn't used to select between other actions being performed on a target such as "destroy target creature or return it to the top of its owner's library" as those effects now use "choose one" and bullet points. "Tap or untap" is a very specific exception to this trend in this game).
This is giving a player a choice between having an outcome resolve as a static ability that doesn't use the stack (as you cast this spell) or between a triggered ability with two possible triggers ("when it resolves or leaves the stack")... and that making a static ability like that (as you cast this spell) literally has no precedent in this game. The closest example in this game to having one ability with multiple triggers would be The Titan Cycle, which you'll notice triggers both when entering the battlefield or attacking in spite of using the word "or".
Quote from rowanalpha »
Notice how all the examples you gave of cards using "or" used it in terms of target selection or damage distribution? When "or" is used in a triggered ability, it is inclusive, not selective.
TLDR: In MTG, the word "or" can mean "either" when 1) selecting a type of target or object affected, or 2)when an effect taps or untaps (a specific exception to the usual usage of "or" in MTG). Whenever it refers to triggers (see above for over a dozen examples), it means at both times.
I described how this works. How it was intended to work.
The same as-is described to discern the functionality difference between the two functions on any other card.
Can we stop acting like this functionality isn't proper, and/or wasn't properly explained?
Dude. You're wrong. You're just wrong.
You don't get to pick and choose how you want 'or' to work because it's been used in different contexts. The difference in the usage of 'or' there is entirely context, not some arbitrary choice. The way 'or' works in this context is not how you want it to work. So change it. End of story.
Don't be stubborn. No one cares that you made that mistake except for the fact that you continue to refuse to accept it.
This has a modal function. You choose one. I described how this works. How it was intended to work.
The same as-is described to discern the functionality difference between the two functions on any other card.
Can we stop acting like this functionality isn't proper, and/or wasn't properly explained?
You don't just choose which version of "or" you are using. The context of its usage decides which version it is. Declaring that you "intended" it to be the other way doesn't make it so. It means your design doesn't match your intent so you need to change the design to match the intent.
It isn't proper and we all keep telling you explaining what you meant doesn't change whether or not its proper.
You have described how you intended it to work. We have described how it actually works and have told you how to fix it so it works the way you want. It isn't like what you want is impossible so you go with wording that doesn't work. What you want is possible and easy to fix. You just don't like the way it sounds when it works so you insist that even though it doesn't work that it does.
You aren't even engaging in a conversation or an argument for why you are right. You just keep saying "in these uses that don't match the way I'm using it works the way I want it to so it works the way I want it to."
You don't just choose which version of "or" you are using. The context of its usage decides which version it is.
This is actually wrong. You don't get to decide, and implementations such as Sun Titan would mean they implemented it wrong.
The only correlation between usage is that they reference single instances. However, whenever there is a choice involved, that typically denotes that it's modal. You choose one. Otherwise, it's modular, and takes place based on the instance. The problem is, this is not definite context. Instruction such as Sun Titan's could have a modal function, if it was described that way. "Whenever it enters the battlefield—or whenever it attacks—but not both."
It's too open source as I said. Functionality is not definite by context, but relies on the interpreter to describe how exactly it's intended to function.
It's too open source as I said. Functionality is not definite by context, but relies on the interpreter to describe how exactly it's intended to function.
No, it isn't open to the interpreter to decide the use of the word just like it isn't open to the interpreter what 2+2 is. It is part of the structure of communication that decides what it means. The context in which it is used determines the specific definition of a word. I feel like I'm trying to explain English to someone who normally writes Japanese where you do get to decide "I want this Kanji read this way, pronounced this way, meaning this". That simply isn't how English works.
Sun Titan's ability is "When blank or blank happens, you may..." or here means when either happens. Your deus ex abilities are "When blank or blank or blank happens, you may..." or here is used in the same context so it has the same meaning. So when any of the three events you mention happen you get the option to do the thing and because those options happen at different times you will get multiple chances to do the thing. Tidal bore is "do blank or blank" used in this context you pick one to do. This is 2nd grade English work. If you aren't a native speaker then that is fine but as a non native speaker you should yield to native speakers.
It's too open source as I said. Functionality is not definite by context, but relies on the interpreter to describe how exactly it's intended to function.
I am curious as to why Destiny Bond is worded the way it is, what is the reason for its "on cast, and also on resolution, and also when it's countered, and also when it's exiled from the stack" business? The way you've got this card set up, the only reason anyone would play it is to draw people cards, and the rest of the card is pretty much flavortext, which is sad to me because it could be an interesting card without 'Destiny Bond.'
All Life is a Dance2B
Enchantment
All creature cards and creatures on the battlefield are named Masquerade Guest.
The "legend rule" doesn't apply for creatures.
I think I maybe prefer custom cards that could potentially reasonably be printed in a Magic set, because otherwise it doesn't feel like a Magic card. Destiny Bond is a bit absurd as far as keywords go because it makes the rest of the card seem meaningless.
It's too open source as I said. Functionality is not definite by context, but relies on the interpreter to describe how exactly it's intended to function.
I am curious as to why Destiny Bond is worded the way it is, what is the reason for its "on cast, and also on resolution, and also when it's countered, and also when it's exiled from the stack" business? The way you've got this card set up, the only reason anyone would play it is to draw people cards, and the rest of the card is pretty much flavortext, which is sad to me because it could be an interesting card without 'Destiny Bond.'
All Life is a Dance2B
Enchantment
All creature cards and creatures on the battlefield are named Masquerade Guest.
The "legend rule" doesn't apply for creatures.
I think I maybe prefer custom cards that could potentially reasonably be printed in a Magic set, because otherwise it doesn't feel like a Magic card. Destiny Bond is a bit absurd as far as keywords go because it makes the rest of the card seem meaningless.
While I don't think we've ever gotten a simple and straightforward answer in the form of a compelling argument, what I've managed to tease out is the following:
From what I can gather, Reap doesn't feel that these "Deus Ex" mechanics should be "just Mechanics". Reap has argued that keeping cards flowing throughout the game makes for more exciting and dynamic gameplay and that pairing together multiple configurations of card filtering (hence the multiple different "deus ex" variations) should be essential and central to the game, less like "Trample" or "Flying" (which can be granted or removed with card effects) and more like "Your starting hand size before mulligans is 7" or "Creatures have values for power and toughness" (Virtually unimpeachable core rules of the game).
As this card flow is designed to be central to the game, the idea of countering this effect in any way is not something that Reap wants to allow. As such, the ability is designed to allow players to guarantee that they are getting the effect No matter what. I for one feel that Reap could have turned these Deus Ex mechanics into special game actions that simply don't use the stack at all (which has precedent as the morph ability did something similar)... and that his usage of "As you caste" to create a static ability that doesn't use the stack (which is unique but understandable) kind of pre-empts any situation in which the triggered ability would be needed... and that "resolves or leaves the stack" is redundant as cards leave the stack when they resolve. I also find it weird that Reap proposes that these effects are necessary to make games more "exciting" and "dynamic" and has proceeded to put these mechanics on maybe one(?) standard playable card... but Reap has had a difficult time demonstrating (Reap has tried to explain but has been unable to demonstrate mechanical advantages or shortcomings) why other rulings weren't used.
Sun Titan's ability is "When blank or blank happens, you may..." or here means when either happens. Your deus ex abilities are "When blank or blank or blank happens, you may..." or here is used in the same context so it has the same meaning.
This is 2nd grade English work. If you aren't a native speaker then that is fine but as a non native speaker you should yield to native speakers.
Negative.
Sun Titan and the suite would want to have context added to it to describe this functionality under those conditions.
Such as the placement of 'and/or' instead of just 'or'. That—would be proper explicitly descriptive context. Or—the addition of 'or when it' between the two potential instances of function 'enters the battlefield' // 'attacks'.
Just as I said—if it were as you're describing, it means they implemented this wrong, because cards that would require explicitly description context to differentiate the scenarios do not have that context.
Their intended functionality is simply 'common knowledge', but it's not definite by any rules or definite wording composure.
Same scenario—if the Deus Ex Machine keywords wanted multiple triggering functionality, the context of 'and/or' would be added between the two potential instances to explicitly describe this potential is available.
Destiny Bond (As you cast this spell 'and/or' when it resolves or leaves the stack, any player may shuffle his or her hand into his or her library and draw four cards.)
The use of 'or' the manner you're describing, such as Raging River describes the potential of multiple options'in the same/a singular instance'—of which you desire that potential to be included.
There is no definite context to restrict this. It's open to interpretation unless you add explicit context to prohibit it.
There is no definite context to restrict this. It's open to interpretation unless you add explicit context to prohibit it.
I have repeatedly described the definite context that restricts it. It isn't up for interpretation. Do you know how you know it isn't up for interpretation? Because you will not find a single example in wbich it isnt used in tbe way defined by the context. If it was up to interpretation then the format and context wouldn't matter and there would be no need to be consistent. There are two different contexts in which the world or is used. In the way you are using it it is creating an undesired effect. You have been told how to fix it and your response was "I don't like the way that looks so my way works because I say it does."
You keep posting cards that use or as though they support your argument but it honestly seems like you don't understand despite speaking as though you do. Every card you have posted has supported the fact that you are using or wrong. If you belive otherwise please try and find a csrd that uses or in the same way as your card and means what you want. Heck I'll even give in if you can find the opposite. Just any actual proof that what your claim isn't just your own personal opinion born from a dislike of proper formating.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Enchantment
Destiny Bond (As you cast this spell or when it leaves the stack, any player may shuffle his or her hand into his or her library and draw four cards.)
Each creature and creature card in every zone is named Masquerade Guest.
The legends rule doesn't apply.
There are some very scary monsters hiding in the world, and the scariest are often found hiding behind masks. One couldn't paint the terrors of the world in a more nightmarish scene.
So here's another reprise. I really thought this was neat and clever, but it was grossly over-costed. And I think it could definitely use a Deus Ex Machina keyword to top it off.
That said we have an existing template for doing this with creature types. You can easily port it into names.
Equal sided wheels like this are a double-edged sword, acting potentially as both disruption or boost. This cancels itself out and creates neutrality.
The four card range here basically means you're giving your opponent a brand new hand when they draw to five next turn.
All these aspects were thought over and considered when tuning the keyword.
I would say though that surely 'as you cast this spell or when it resolves or leaves the stack' is surely too many conditions to tack on? Surely? 90% of the time, at least, it won't matter at all. I never thought I would miss the days of 'As you cast this spell or when it's removed from the stack', but here we are. Doesn't resolving mean it 'leaves the stack' anyway? I am genuinely perplexed as how you make these wording decisions.
Ditto @user_938036's template suggestion for the name altering effect.
Compared to Mirror Gallery, this card actually seems too strong. The addition of coloured mana is not comparable as a cost to the additional benefit of reduced CMC, the name changing effect, and the 'Destiny Bond' keyword. I think this should cost 5 CMC.
I also think this is more of a blue effect than a black one. Name, colour, text and type changing effects are all strongly within blue's domain. Black mainly gets the occasional card that converts a creature into a specific black creature type, namely Zombie or Vampire, flavoured as a supernatural conversion. The sneaky manipulation flavour with this card is suitable for black but also at least as good a fit for blue IMO. Blue also has a 'tabula rasa' flavour too it that this fits nicely with. Could also be blue/black I suppose.
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 just took someone else's design off custommagic, lowered the cost, and put one of you umpteen different card filtering mechanics on it? Why is this a post? The creative part of this design is the part you didn't do, you just made it less expensive and more complicated. Its one thing to get inspired by another card creator, but this is barely more than copying.
Let's do the breakdown on the part you did create:
Destiny Bond makes no sense as a keyword name. What does destiny or bonding have to do with everyone wheeling their hands?
Your wording means people can potentially do it twice, on cast and resolution. You know this even if you choose to ignore every time it is explained to you.
This ability would be red, as discard your hand to draw X number of cards is definitely a red ability.
Of the actual Masquerade Ball ability, it is an interesting twist on Mirror Gallery, and I'd have to check the rules for how cards that refer to cards with their same names (Squadron Hawk) would interact with this because if, for instance, Squadron Hawk could pull any number of creatures into your hand, this would be crazy and undercosted at 4 mana. It feels like a blue mechanic though, not black.
Changing card text on a card (AKA acknowledging a mistake was made and fixing it) is Errata. That is what errata is in Magic the Gathering.
Creating rulings so that card text works within the rules of the game without changing card text is... Not Errata in the context of MtG. It is nothing because that is simply not done in MTG anywhere.
With this in mind, would you mind showing us the post-errata text (AKA Oracle text) for this complex trigger you use on these abilities?
With that said, I simply want to address further that I openly acknowledged that I didn't design this, it was a reprise edit of someone else's design.
I do believe the form it now takes is far superior in every shape and form.
There is no odd trigger for the keywords, they work as the functionality has always worked in magic.
You choose which instance you desire—one or the other. The inclusion of the clause 'or leaves the stack' covers the event that the spell is countered or exiled from the stack, thus enabling the player to still utilize the Deus Ex Machina keyword. This is definitely how this wants and needs to work for continuance and securities.
If it was both instances, then it would be composed with and; or it would be composed with and/or.
As for how the naming ability should work in comprehension, I think that any ability which refers to a name (or its original name) would have the name changed, and all corresponding names or references to names also changed. It would be way over the top to do this any other way. You would be creating way more work for yourself applying and implementing all these restrictions, and these restrictions would take away from interactivity in the game, which makes it fun. You don't want to impede on interactivity here, you want it to remain open and free and full of potential energy.
What is wrong with:
"When you cast ~this~, any player may shuffle their (NOTE: NOT "his or her") hand into their library and draw four cards."
That is how to write this ability. Why does it even have the possibility to choose to do it before and/or after?
If there is some tactical reason, please give an example where it makes any difference whether we do it on cast versus on resolution,
If I go to a mathematics board and hear someone talking about an "arbitrarily large number", I am not going to recommend 153 as the chosen number on the grounds that I am using the word "arbitrary" in a traditional manner. I recognize that "arbitrarily large" has a specific meaning in a mathematical context and am not going to insist that I am technically right.
You are in an MTG message board. Specific words have specific meanings in the context of MTG. If you neglect to use the specific context and don't "speak mtg", you are openly inviting misunderstanding.
The fact that you admitted it does not mean it is good.
While some people here have created games based on other OPs, take a look around and see how many people are taking ideas from other posters, slightly tweaking them, and reposting them. While I don't think it's against forum rules, I wouldn't necessarily say that it's good form, either.
Take a look at this thread. Seriously. Four people complaining about the ability you added, one of which thinks that the decreased cost is appropriate and two of which think it is not appropriate. While you are free to maintain your beliefs, consensus is against you. This is a simple, readily observable and inarguable fact.
As you have been told several times, this is not "or" in the context of listing several types of target (such as "artifact or enchantment" or "planeswalker or player").
This is also not "or" in the context of "Tap or untap" (and you might notice that the word "or" generally isn't used to select between other actions being performed on a target such as "destroy target creature or return it to the top of its owner's library" as those effects now use "choose one" and bullet points. "Tap or untap" is a very specific exception to this trend in this game).
This is giving a player a choice between having an outcome resolve as a static ability that doesn't use the stack (as you cast this spell) or between a triggered ability with two possible triggers ("when it resolves or leaves the stack")... and that making a static ability like that (as you cast this spell) literally has no precedent in this game. The closest example in this game to having one ability with multiple triggers would be The Titan Cycle, which you'll notice triggers both when entering the battlefield or attacking in spite of using the word "or".
You have also been told that "As you cast this spell" would be sufficient as that effect would happen whether the spell resolves, is countered, or is exiled. The only possible mechanical benefit to allowing the option for the triggered ability comes up when copying the spell effect... which A) wouldn't come up as every Deus Ex card you've produced so far is a permanent (meaning that twincast effects don't really apply), and B) would only succeed in letting someone wheel twice in a row, which seems like an incredibly small benefit to justify such odd wording.
Likewise, you could summarize "resolves or leaves the stack" into "leaves the stack" as a spell naturally leaves the stack when it resolves.
I should also indicate that the language "any player may" should say "each player may"
Though such an effect is obviously broken if combined with the rest of the card because Eradicate would exile all creatures form a player's deck, hand and graveyard.
I didn't say you didn't credit it, just that what you added wasn't any more creative than had you just added "Scry 2" or "Draw a card". You didn't develop the mechanic the other person created in a new direction, you just added trinket text and said it was better.
Making something more complicated doesn't make it better. Your mechanic is inelegantly slapped onto a creative card so that it does two disparate things instead of one focused one.
Notice how all the examples you gave of cards using "or" used it in terms of target selection or damage distribution? When "or" is used in a triggered ability, it is inclusive, not selective.
When triggered abilities use "or" it means the ability will trigger under both conditions.
To make your text work the way you would want it to, with it having to opportunity to wheel on cast or resolution but not both, here is the wording you must use for it to work within the rules of magic. (Yes, I am a Judge)
Mechanic Name(When you cast this spell, you may [DO THE THING]. If you do not, when this spell is removed from the stack [DO THE THING])
While its fairly academic of you to worry about the interactions of the part of your card someone else created, just because you want a card to work a certain way, it doesn't mean it does. I actually did a little bit of research and the answer is "No" if the name of Squadron Hawk is changed, it will still look for "cards named Squadron Hawk" and not "cards named CARDNAME".
Lastly, don't try to impress people with your verbosity. This is magic card design, not Hamilton. Saying things like "You don't want to impede on interactivity here, you want it to remain open and free and full of potential energy." and "Equal sided wheels like this are a double-edged sword, acting potentially as both disruption or boost. This cancels itself out and creates neutrality." while simultaneously ignoring basic truths of the Magic comprehensive rules makes people take your designs and you less seriously, not more.
Ignoring the oppressor, "there's something wrong with posting reprise designs of other people's designs" comments.
The object here was to suggest that the ruling for this function should change the name and effects that reference names, without requiring additional text to explain that. As for game-breaking effects like Extirpate, that is what the restricted and banned list is for. One shouldn't be wary of using those, so long as they're not getting carried away and abusing them either. With good balance, they're a technician's friend.
I still wouldn't warrant the high cost despite high impact effects like that. You can't build a fun, winning strategy around that effect combination. It needs to be less of a hike, and more fluid and adaptable. I think the easiest fix is to provide a limitation clause such as,
"A card/players can't interact with more than three cards at a time outside the battlefield this way."
If you want to add an effect that isn't present. Add the effect don't just say "well, that effect is also there".
You want your language as precise and concise as possible so as to keep opportunities open rather than creating roadblocks in design because you were too lazy earlier to spell out an effect. This is the problem you are having with your "Or" in your desu ex abilities. The use of Or has already been made clear to you but you want to muddy the language and cut off freedoms because you like the words better.
Tidal Bore
Is it one—or is it both?
Magic uses the word "or" in two ways. Either as a choice "do this or that" or as proposing scenarios "when this or that happens". When offered a choice you choose and get one of the options. When proposing a scenario you get the effect at both points. Your effect "As you cast this spell, or when it resolves or leaves the stack," is proposing a scenarion.
Another unfortunate thing is that you are using a replacement effect when it obviously wants to be a trigger.
To try and help you understand when or separates things you do or choices you make it is either when it separates things that happen its both.
Okay, let's bring this up one more time, as this has been described in depth several times.
TLDR: In MTG, the word "or" can mean "either" when 1) selecting a type of target or object affected, or 2)when an effect taps or untaps (a specific exception to the usual usage of "or" in MTG). Whenever it refers to triggers (see above for over a dozen examples), it means at both times.
But you were all saying it's only modular.
This has a modal function. You choose one. I described how this works. How it was intended to work.
The same as-is described to discern the functionality difference between the two functions on any other card.
Can we stop acting like this functionality isn't proper, and/or wasn't properly explained?
Dude. You're wrong. You're just wrong.
You don't get to pick and choose how you want 'or' to work because it's been used in different contexts. The difference in the usage of 'or' there is entirely context, not some arbitrary choice. The way 'or' works in this context is not how you want it to work. So change it. End of story.
Don't be stubborn. No one cares that you made that mistake except for the fact that you continue to refuse to accept it.
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 isn't proper and we all keep telling you explaining what you meant doesn't change whether or not its proper.
You have described how you intended it to work. We have described how it actually works and have told you how to fix it so it works the way you want. It isn't like what you want is impossible so you go with wording that doesn't work. What you want is possible and easy to fix. You just don't like the way it sounds when it works so you insist that even though it doesn't work that it does.
You aren't even engaging in a conversation or an argument for why you are right. You just keep saying "in these uses that don't match the way I'm using it works the way I want it to so it works the way I want it to."
This is actually wrong. You don't get to decide, and implementations such as Sun Titan would mean they implemented it wrong.
The only correlation between usage is that they reference single instances. However, whenever there is a choice involved, that typically denotes that it's modal. You choose one. Otherwise, it's modular, and takes place based on the instance. The problem is, this is not definite context. Instruction such as Sun Titan's could have a modal function, if it was described that way. "Whenever it enters the battlefield—or whenever it attacks—but not both."
It's too open source as I said. Functionality is not definite by context, but relies on the interpreter to describe how exactly it's intended to function.
Sun Titan's ability is "When blank or blank happens, you may..." or here means when either happens. Your deus ex abilities are "When blank or blank or blank happens, you may..." or here is used in the same context so it has the same meaning. So when any of the three events you mention happen you get the option to do the thing and because those options happen at different times you will get multiple chances to do the thing. Tidal bore is "do blank or blank" used in this context you pick one to do. This is 2nd grade English work. If you aren't a native speaker then that is fine but as a non native speaker you should yield to native speakers.
I am curious as to why Destiny Bond is worded the way it is, what is the reason for its "on cast, and also on resolution, and also when it's countered, and also when it's exiled from the stack" business? The way you've got this card set up, the only reason anyone would play it is to draw people cards, and the rest of the card is pretty much flavortext, which is sad to me because it could be an interesting card without 'Destiny Bond.'
All Life is a Dance 2B
Enchantment
All creature cards and creatures on the battlefield are named Masquerade Guest.
The "legend rule" doesn't apply for creatures.
I think I maybe prefer custom cards that could potentially reasonably be printed in a Magic set, because otherwise it doesn't feel like a Magic card. Destiny Bond is a bit absurd as far as keywords go because it makes the rest of the card seem meaningless.
While I don't think we've ever gotten a simple and straightforward answer in the form of a compelling argument, what I've managed to tease out is the following:
From what I can gather, Reap doesn't feel that these "Deus Ex" mechanics should be "just Mechanics". Reap has argued that keeping cards flowing throughout the game makes for more exciting and dynamic gameplay and that pairing together multiple configurations of card filtering (hence the multiple different "deus ex" variations) should be essential and central to the game, less like "Trample" or "Flying" (which can be granted or removed with card effects) and more like "Your starting hand size before mulligans is 7" or "Creatures have values for power and toughness" (Virtually unimpeachable core rules of the game).
As this card flow is designed to be central to the game, the idea of countering this effect in any way is not something that Reap wants to allow. As such, the ability is designed to allow players to guarantee that they are getting the effect No matter what. I for one feel that Reap could have turned these Deus Ex mechanics into special game actions that simply don't use the stack at all (which has precedent as the morph ability did something similar)... and that his usage of "As you caste" to create a static ability that doesn't use the stack (which is unique but understandable) kind of pre-empts any situation in which the triggered ability would be needed... and that "resolves or leaves the stack" is redundant as cards leave the stack when they resolve. I also find it weird that Reap proposes that these effects are necessary to make games more "exciting" and "dynamic" and has proceeded to put these mechanics on maybe one(?) standard playable card... but Reap has had a difficult time demonstrating (Reap has tried to explain but has been unable to demonstrate mechanical advantages or shortcomings) why other rulings weren't used.
Negative.
Sun Titan and the suite would want to have context added to it to describe this functionality under those conditions.
Such as the placement of 'and/or' instead of just 'or'. That—would be proper explicitly descriptive context. Or—the addition of 'or when it' between the two potential instances of function 'enters the battlefield' // 'attacks'.
Just as I said—if it were as you're describing, it means they implemented this wrong, because cards that would require explicitly description context to differentiate the scenarios do not have that context.
Their intended functionality is simply 'common knowledge', but it's not definite by any rules or definite wording composure.
Same scenario—if the Deus Ex Machine keywords wanted multiple triggering functionality, the context of 'and/or' would be added between the two potential instances to explicitly describe this potential is available.
Destiny Bond (As you cast this spell 'and/or' when it resolves or leaves the stack, any player may shuffle his or her hand into his or her library and draw four cards.)
The single instance of 'or' here, should, by the most primordial functionality of the conjunction and its context in MTG wording composure, describe a modal instance in which you choose one or the other.
The use of 'or' the manner you're describing, such as Raging River describes the potential of multiple options 'in the same/a singular instance'—of which you desire that potential to be included.
There is no definite context to restrict this. It's open to interpretation unless you add explicit context to prohibit it.
You keep posting cards that use or as though they support your argument but it honestly seems like you don't understand despite speaking as though you do. Every card you have posted has supported the fact that you are using or wrong. If you belive otherwise please try and find a csrd that uses or in the same way as your card and means what you want. Heck I'll even give in if you can find the opposite. Just any actual proof that what your claim isn't just your own personal opinion born from a dislike of proper formating.