Path to Ruin1W Instant
Change any number of targets of target spell or ability that targets you or a permanent you control to an opponent and/or a permanent an opponent controls. If there aren't any legal targets, that effect does nothing instead. All will witness the evils that they do finding their way back around to bite the hand that once fed it. It is only the fool that invites such a crushing magnetism. The grasp of which none of us can escape.
Originally, this took a bit softer tone, and only covered creatures. I later questioned why covering other permanents shouldn't be extended to here. That move doesn't really aim to do as much as it does make it instantly obsolete, in the under-classed utility. Seen this happen many times in the past with cards, and it was always a very feel bad thing to me.
New World OrderW Sorcery
Look at target player's hand and choose a nonland card from it. The chosen card and all cards that player controls with the same name can't be cast or enter the battlefield until the end of that player's third turn after this spell is cast. There is a way that seems right unto a man, but in the end leads only to death. It is a self-righteous way. Where you will not survive—but life will suffer—and you will suffer in life.
The concept here expresses a dynamic way of flexing control into a 'non-native' color, where we are not only doing this, but we are taking the aspect of control and making the 'domain influence' more interactive, preserving the aspect of challenge; both of which are attributes that are more construction to the game abroad. It does this by not depriving a player of their fair fight, but simply seeking to push that play into a later turn of game. In MTG, the utility of this is much more constructive and beneficial than any other TCG engine would see.
Wow. They are poorly worded and overly complicated, but these are ideas that might actually work within the rules. The idea of white Thoughtseize/Meddling Mage is actually fairly interesting (though too cheap with no real drawback). Broad-scope white Sideswipe seems a bit much, and a red/blue thing.
Interesting cards that can work within the rules. But your wording falls short.
Path to Ruin
You may choose new targets for target spell that targets you or a permanent you control. If you don't counter that spell.
While countering is secondary on white its specifically taxing. On the right world it would make a good white blue card.
New World Order
Look at target player's hand then choose a nonland card name. You get three silence counters. At the beginning of your upkeep remove a silence counter.
As long as you have a silence counter player's can't cast spells with the chosen name and permanents with the chosen name can't enter the battlefield.
While I would personally make this an enchantment with vanishing this method has potential. The added versatility of stacking silence effects takes this one dimensional card to a new level.
Interesting cards that can work within the rules. But your wording falls short.
Path to Ruin
You may choose new targets for target spell that targets you or a permanent you control. If you don't counter that spell.
While countering is secondary on white its specifically taxing. On the right world it would make a good white blue card.
New World Order
Look at target player's hand then choose a nonland card name. You get three silence counters. At the beginning of your upkeep remove a silence counter.
As long as you have a silence counter player's can't cast spells with the chosen name and permanents with the chosen name can't enter the battlefield.
While I would personally make this an enchantment with vanishing this method has potential. The added versatility of stacking silence effects takes this one dimensional card to a new level.
1.) I actually did originally have simply 'change any targets' but felt this was better for coherence; in that it better describes the option to choice select which targets you want to change, and that you may leave others as they are.
2.) This doesn't want to use the 'counter' function, although this was originally thought-of for use. It's better this way, especially to distinguish it as a unique brand of spell effects. It also works more intuitively to allow redirection of spells that might target multiple sources, so the ones available for redirection can be chosen, and the others nullified (rather than having to counter the entire spell and lose all the effects—simply because some of the targets couldn't be re-selected).
As usual, you need to figure out how you want a card to function the way you want to within the rules. Case in point, "If there aren't any legal targets, that effect does nothing instead." doesn't function in games rules. Yes, two people at a kitchen table can handwave it, but it is too ambiguous to function consistently across all players and judges in all events.
Now, how to fix this so the effect is as close to what you are saying as possible within the rules.
Path to Ruin 1W
Instant
Change any number of targets of target spell or ability that targets you or a permanent you control to an opponent and/or a permanent an opponent controls.
You and permanents you control gain protection from that spell until the end of turn.
This wording will effectively remove the targeting on any part of the spell that you cannot redirect the targeting, and using protection means it is within white's color pie. That said, the target redirection is at best a bend for white, and this would be better as a whire-red or white-blue card.
As for New World Order, italic parenthetical text such as your (Use counters to keep track of this) is defined as reminder text, meaning it doesn't have actual rules meaning and can be left off the card without affecting playability. However, your card says nothing about counters. You don't actually need counters for the effect, but putting the mention in there implies things like the previous poster's template which then would mean you could, for instance, proliferate the counters to prolong the effect. But because your version doesn't explain how to use those counters, its unclear if, for instance, do you start with three counters and remove one each turn, or start at zero and add until you have three? If you have Solemnity out, does the effect just persist for ever? Without spelling this out, there is ambiguity and inconsistent play.
[card]New World Order W
Sorcery
Look at target player's hand and choose a nonland card. For that player's next three turns, that player can't cast spells with the same name as the chosen card and permanents with the same name as the chosen can't enter the battlefield.[/card]
The player can use any method they want to track those turns, counters, dice, notepad, but not referencing the "how" on the card means those counters aren't part of the actual game and so won't have to define interactions with game effects.
While the "rule setting" nature of this card is very white, the looking into the opponent's hand is something we pretty much only see black do and so this is likely white-black rather than mono-white.
The card ideas are interesting, its just these wording issues that need tweaking for them to work in game. Since you said in your previous thread that you hadn't actually played Magic in a decade, I'm sure you are ready to get feedback on how the rules function now so that you can design your cards effectively.
As usual, you need to figure out how you want a card to function the way you want to within the rules. Case in point, "If there aren't any legal targets, that effect does nothing instead." doesn't function in games rules. Yes, two people at a kitchen table can handwave it, but it is too ambiguous to function consistently across all players and judges in all events.
This is just absolutely untrue, and that is unnecessary.
Aside from 'handwaving' a few comp rules that explain how this works, nothing else needs to be done.
And irrational control mongering is exactly why I never care to work with the talentless, null void teams at MTG.
[card]New World Order W
Sorcery
Look at target player's hand and choose a nonland card. For that player's next three turns, that player can't cast spells with the same name as the chosen card and permanents with the same name as the chosen can't enter the battlefield.[/card]
Let me just further add that I prefer the wording composure I used over the one you've provided here. Your wording composure here does something that makes it inconsistent. First you're talking about the player's hand and a card from their hand, then in the next statement, you begin talking about the player's next turns. This is a very choppy transition, which creates a violent re-direction of the logical path. Ideally, you want to keep things smooth, coherent, and relevant to the previous statements in sequence.
I imagine would you think to call this, "the professional standard", but it appears as though you're trying to create a 'professional standard' from a blind assertion, which you don't truly understand the conditions of. If you open with that line, "For the...", then the wording composure would be fine. But otherwise, the sequence of your statements wants (and needs) to remain relevant to one another, and describe supplementary conditions/references in following.
Just my best advice here.
In closing, a single comprehensive ruling which describes how effects are nullified "The effect simply does nothing, but other effects will not be disrupted unless instructed otherwise.". I hate to think for a second that this is not what instruction is about. Or entertain the notion that what you're suggesting here will explicitly prohibit all ingenuity and improvisational expansionism for the game and its game dynamics in the future.
Wow, who would ever think to do that? Something the life of an entertainment product is based upon!
As a certified judge to the guy who hasn't played magic in 10 years because he believes it is a terrible game:
You are wrong in the rules. You are wrong on how people play the game.
If you prefer your wording that's fine. As I said before, that just makes it a silver bordered card. It gets to hang out with the likes of Yet Another Aether Vortex and S.N.O.T.; a card that people find amusing to look at but no one really plays because they don't take it seriously.
As a certified judge to the guy who hasn't played magic in 10 years because he believes it is a terrible game:
You are wrong in the rules. You are wrong on how people play the game.
If you prefer your wording that's fine. As I said before, that just makes it a silver bordered card. It gets to hang out with the likes of Yet Another Aether Vortex and S.N.O.T.; a card that people find amusing to look at but no one really plays because they don't take it seriously.
Those aren't even good examples of the point you were trying to make.
Those are both cards that could have (without any exceptions) been black bordered cards, but if you pay close attention, you can discern that some effects they label into the silver boarder unset are ones they deem 'too obscurely powerful' to implement into the main game; or they simply wanted to staple a novelty flavor on.
Honestly, this is a bad move on their part, because they're creating a sandbox which then exists (and begins to act) like a blackhole. Nothing that one deems obscure to the game, should see the face of light in any printed form. Once this takes form, things will just begin pooling and pooling off into this abyss. Now you have this void of cards that one can see and know 'should/could' exist in the main world—but have been chauvinistically oppressed instead. In a world such as Magic, which critically relies on the element of fantasy, you are denying the power of fantasy, by establishing that this thing (by unfair/unjust means) cannot exist within those realms. It is unjust deprivation.
What is reality even at this point?
Your entire fantasy product has been discredited, and deglamorized by your collection of legitimate concepts that have been alienated in chauvinism.
Contrary, I realize how this also becomes a corruptee means for individuals to oppress the honest intellectual works of others in chauvinism. One's ego before all else principal—there is no price too great. All about that social-psychological asset (status, prowess, potential). Nothing stops a person from operating as a predator this way, for this reason, which furthermore shows how it should not be allowed. It's poorly managed development; especially in allowing unsets to take on effects that aren't truly unorthodox to the central game (as they require some special performance from the player—or fractionated game aspect or attribute); so they can become this dark prison for people's honest intellectual creations.
Let's be more creative and aware than this. There is certainly too much at stake.
Reap. Buddy. What are you even on about? No one is saying that creativity should be limited.
Literally any idea can be made to work within MtG. But that's the thing, you have to find a way to make it work within the existing framework.
Magic's rules are so codified at this point, that they are akin to a legal document or computer program. You can add anything you want, but you need to know the proper method and language to get the result you want. Your solution is just to say "This is how I want it to work, you know what I mean." Linguistically, yes, we understand you. But that language may not function in terms of the system that is already in place.
The cards that Rowan listed are indeed good examples of this. Theit power level and even their wild ideas are not what make them Un cards. It's the informality of their language and the introduction of concepts not otherwise referenced in the main game. Both could indeed be black-bordered cards, bit would be templated much differently.
As to adding comp rules: imagine if you were a professional game designer. Every time you submit an idea, your supervisor gives you a note saying "Interesting concept, but does not function as worded. Let's try this wording instead." And every single time, you reply "Let's just add a comp rule to clarify." For every single card you submit. Would you last long in that position?
No, I think it's just moreso in the fact missing that I never recall a time when MTG wasn't a steaming pile of **** in some way, I could never unsee. And ever since have sought to devise solutions and schematics on how to fix all the major malfunctions/improficiencies/counter-productivities.
Go play actual Magic. That's a big negative. I honestly could only begin to explain my great disappointment in the current product; and can just sum up the fact that I wouldn't begin to invest my time or attention into it in this state. MTG needs a major rollback, something the truly narrow-minded "blind pioneers" would never consider (or admit) is necessary for doing. But stripping the product of coherence, and force majeure; while making it a tacky mess; though additions that impede on characteurs, identities, and dignities; should be expected to produce this result. What was available to be salvaged and recovered has nothing left anymore. Rollback and total overhaul would be the only option.
You don't play the game, don't know the rules or how people play, and believe its a "steaming pile of ***" and you know better how it should work than either the people who design it or those who play it. If the game is so far beneath you, go do something else. Stop wasting your time and ours.
If it's up for grabs, who's going to grab it when you reach out and miss time and time again? Relax and be patient. We live life and then we die. If you live faster you surely die faster. I don't like New World Order. It should just exile the card temporarily if you're making something like that. Could even be an enchantment instead of a sorcery, with Vanishing. That'd be cool.
If it's up for grabs, who's going to grab it when you reach out and miss time and time again? Relax and be patient. We live life and then we die. If you live faster you surely die faster. I don't like New World Order. It should just exile the card temporarily if you're making something like that. Could even be an enchantment instead of a sorcery, with Vanishing. That'd be cool.
You're cutting off interactivity then, which isn't fun.
This way enables them to retain the card, and possibly do away with it in attempts to shift strategy and break away.
Instant
Change any number of targets of target spell or ability that targets you or a permanent you control to an opponent and/or a permanent an opponent controls. If there aren't any legal targets, that effect does nothing instead.
All will witness the evils that they do finding their way back around to bite the hand that once fed it. It is only the fool that invites such a crushing magnetism. The grasp of which none of us can escape.
New World Order W
Sorcery
Look at target player's hand and choose a nonland card from it. The chosen card and all cards that player controls with the same name can't be cast or enter the battlefield until the end of that player's third turn after this spell is cast.
There is a way that seems right unto a man, but in the end leads only to death. It is a self-righteous way. Where you will not survive—but life will suffer—and you will suffer in life.
Path to Ruin
You may choose new targets for target spell that targets you or a permanent you control. If you don't counter that spell.
While countering is secondary on white its specifically taxing. On the right world it would make a good white blue card.
New World Order
Look at target player's hand then choose a nonland card name. You get three silence counters. At the beginning of your upkeep remove a silence counter.
As long as you have a silence counter player's can't cast spells with the chosen name and permanents with the chosen name can't enter the battlefield.
While I would personally make this an enchantment with vanishing this method has potential. The added versatility of stacking silence effects takes this one dimensional card to a new level.
1.) I actually did originally have simply 'change any targets' but felt this was better for coherence; in that it better describes the option to choice select which targets you want to change, and that you may leave others as they are.
2.) This doesn't want to use the 'counter' function, although this was originally thought-of for use. It's better this way, especially to distinguish it as a unique brand of spell effects. It also works more intuitively to allow redirection of spells that might target multiple sources, so the ones available for redirection can be chosen, and the others nullified (rather than having to counter the entire spell and lose all the effects—simply because some of the targets couldn't be re-selected).
Now, how to fix this so the effect is as close to what you are saying as possible within the rules.
This wording will effectively remove the targeting on any part of the spell that you cannot redirect the targeting, and using protection means it is within white's color pie. That said, the target redirection is at best a bend for white, and this would be better as a whire-red or white-blue card.
As for New World Order, italic parenthetical text such as your (Use counters to keep track of this) is defined as reminder text, meaning it doesn't have actual rules meaning and can be left off the card without affecting playability. However, your card says nothing about counters. You don't actually need counters for the effect, but putting the mention in there implies things like the previous poster's template which then would mean you could, for instance, proliferate the counters to prolong the effect. But because your version doesn't explain how to use those counters, its unclear if, for instance, do you start with three counters and remove one each turn, or start at zero and add until you have three? If you have Solemnity out, does the effect just persist for ever? Without spelling this out, there is ambiguity and inconsistent play.
[card]New World Order W
Sorcery
Look at target player's hand and choose a nonland card. For that player's next three turns, that player can't cast spells with the same name as the chosen card and permanents with the same name as the chosen can't enter the battlefield.[/card]
The player can use any method they want to track those turns, counters, dice, notepad, but not referencing the "how" on the card means those counters aren't part of the actual game and so won't have to define interactions with game effects.
While the "rule setting" nature of this card is very white, the looking into the opponent's hand is something we pretty much only see black do and so this is likely white-black rather than mono-white.
The card ideas are interesting, its just these wording issues that need tweaking for them to work in game. Since you said in your previous thread that you hadn't actually played Magic in a decade, I'm sure you are ready to get feedback on how the rules function now so that you can design your cards effectively.
This is just absolutely untrue, and that is unnecessary.
Aside from 'handwaving' a few comp rules that explain how this works, nothing else needs to be done.
And irrational control mongering is exactly why I never care to work with the talentless, null void teams at MTG.
Your cards, then, are the definition of silver-bordered.
But because you don't know how to change these rules, or your cards to function within them, then it is exactly "handwaving" to try and gloss over it.
For once you had something that might work, and instead you still had to change it into the same argument as always. Worthless troll is worthless.
Let me just further add that I prefer the wording composure I used over the one you've provided here. Your wording composure here does something that makes it inconsistent. First you're talking about the player's hand and a card from their hand, then in the next statement, you begin talking about the player's next turns. This is a very choppy transition, which creates a violent re-direction of the logical path. Ideally, you want to keep things smooth, coherent, and relevant to the previous statements in sequence.
I imagine would you think to call this, "the professional standard", but it appears as though you're trying to create a 'professional standard' from a blind assertion, which you don't truly understand the conditions of. If you open with that line, "For the...", then the wording composure would be fine. But otherwise, the sequence of your statements wants (and needs) to remain relevant to one another, and describe supplementary conditions/references in following.
Just my best advice here.
In closing, a single comprehensive ruling which describes how effects are nullified "The effect simply does nothing, but other effects will not be disrupted unless instructed otherwise.". I hate to think for a second that this is not what instruction is about. Or entertain the notion that what you're suggesting here will explicitly prohibit all ingenuity and improvisational expansionism for the game and its game dynamics in the future.
Wow, who would ever think to do that? Something the life of an entertainment product is based upon!
I'm sure this is just and honest mistake.
tomcruiserant.wav
You are wrong in the rules. You are wrong on how people play the game.
If you prefer your wording that's fine. As I said before, that just makes it a silver bordered card. It gets to hang out with the likes of Yet Another Aether Vortex and S.N.O.T.; a card that people find amusing to look at but no one really plays because they don't take it seriously.
Those aren't even good examples of the point you were trying to make.
Those are both cards that could have (without any exceptions) been black bordered cards, but if you pay close attention, you can discern that some effects they label into the silver boarder unset are ones they deem 'too obscurely powerful' to implement into the main game; or they simply wanted to staple a novelty flavor on.
Honestly, this is a bad move on their part, because they're creating a sandbox which then exists (and begins to act) like a blackhole. Nothing that one deems obscure to the game, should see the face of light in any printed form. Once this takes form, things will just begin pooling and pooling off into this abyss. Now you have this void of cards that one can see and know 'should/could' exist in the main world—but have been chauvinistically oppressed instead. In a world such as Magic, which critically relies on the element of fantasy, you are denying the power of fantasy, by establishing that this thing (by unfair/unjust means) cannot exist within those realms. It is unjust deprivation.
What is reality even at this point?
Your entire fantasy product has been discredited, and deglamorized by your collection of legitimate concepts that have been alienated in chauvinism.
Contrary, I realize how this also becomes a corruptee means for individuals to oppress the honest intellectual works of others in chauvinism. One's ego before all else principal—there is no price too great. All about that social-psychological asset (status, prowess, potential). Nothing stops a person from operating as a predator this way, for this reason, which furthermore shows how it should not be allowed. It's poorly managed development; especially in allowing unsets to take on effects that aren't truly unorthodox to the central game (as they require some special performance from the player—or fractionated game aspect or attribute); so they can become this dark prison for people's honest intellectual creations.
Let's be more creative and aware than this. There is certainly too much at stake.
Literally any idea can be made to work within MtG. But that's the thing, you have to find a way to make it work within the existing framework.
Magic's rules are so codified at this point, that they are akin to a legal document or computer program. You can add anything you want, but you need to know the proper method and language to get the result you want. Your solution is just to say "This is how I want it to work, you know what I mean." Linguistically, yes, we understand you. But that language may not function in terms of the system that is already in place.
The cards that Rowan listed are indeed good examples of this. Theit power level and even their wild ideas are not what make them Un cards. It's the informality of their language and the introduction of concepts not otherwise referenced in the main game. Both could indeed be black-bordered cards, bit would be templated much differently.
As to adding comp rules: imagine if you were a professional game designer. Every time you submit an idea, your supervisor gives you a note saying "Interesting concept, but does not function as worded. Let's try this wording instead." And every single time, you reply "Let's just add a comp rule to clarify." For every single card you submit. Would you last long in that position?
You don't play the game, don't know the rules or how people play, and believe its a "steaming pile of ***" and you know better how it should work than either the people who design it or those who play it. If the game is so far beneath you, go do something else. Stop wasting your time and ours.
If it's up for grabs, who's going to grab it when you reach out and miss time and time again? Relax and be patient. We live life and then we die. If you live faster you surely die faster. I don't like New World Order. It should just exile the card temporarily if you're making something like that. Could even be an enchantment instead of a sorcery, with Vanishing. That'd be cool.
You're cutting off interactivity then, which isn't fun.
This way enables them to retain the card, and possibly do away with it in attempts to shift strategy and break away.