Nevinyrral's Death Trap2 Artifact
If a source would add more than a single mana to a player's mana pool, that player adds a single mana of their choice then loses life equal to the difference instead.
Whenever a nonland permanent enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, that player sacrifices it. Then, sacrifice Nevinyrral's Death Trap and you lose 2 life. "By all means Phyrexian—there's no such thing as a grave too deep."
—Nevinyrral to Jin Gitaxias
Alt. Flavor Text
"By all means Phyrexian—there's no such thing as an obsession too fanatic."
—Nevinyrral to Jin Gitaxis
Palette swap on the original Phyrexian Death Trap with an interesting twist. It wants to prime effectiveness towards efficiency by allowing mana sources and then punishing only the excessive ones. The cost is streamlined to further its proficiency—with the split of life loss into the second ability.
You know what? This card is substantially better in several ways. It doesn’t punish mana producers to the point where it is never worth using them and instead makes players make an informed choice. You also can’t pay 4 life to force your opponents to waste their first turn dealing with this card, which is also appreciated.
It very much looks like you took the criticisms received in your previous thread and actually used them to create something good, which is what a lot of us have been wanting for you for a long time.
As written, this still completely shuts off mana abilities that add more than one mana. Say I tap Temple of the False God for CC. INSTEAD, I lose 1 life. Without getting the mana. There is no circumstance I would ever tap City of Traitors for its ability.
Better than before, but this still locks certain decks out of the game.
As written, this still completely shuts off mana abilities that add more than one mana. Say I tap Temple of the False God for CC. INSTEAD, I lose 1 life. Without getting the mana. There is no circumstance I would ever tap City of Traitors for its ability.
Better than before, but this still locks certain decks out of the game.
A normal card that did that would be far too oppressive but the second ability makes it fairly reasonable. The universal answer of any permanent is a significant drawback to a hate card.
The life loss is fairly pointless as outside of mindslaver effects it should never happen.
I had a feeling this would eventually come up. However, this interpretation is isn't entirely right, because logically one side of the clause is stating a value exception, and then the other side of the clause is only referencing a deficit end of the initial clause.
Logically, it's interpretative that the ability allow you to add a single mana, and then only life charges you for the overage.
It doesn't actually have to state, "that player adds a single mana and then loses life equal to the difference instead."
It is a bit more coherent, but it's not violatively wrong.
Logically, it's interpretative that the ability allow you to add a single mana, and then only life charges you for the overage.
.
Logically, it would stop all of the mana because it says it does. Notice how three people all read it and came to the same conclusion? There is no part of the ability as written that alludes to gaining one mana.
Don't get hung up on ascetics. Write functional text then think of a way of cleaning it up rather than hoping "context" will explain your abridged text.
If a source would produce two or more mana, instead it produces only one of that mana and the sources controller loses life equal to the amount of mana that wasn't produced.
If a player would gain more than 1 life, that player loses life equal to the difference instead."
This would be obvious and coherent, right?
How much life do you lose? The excess amount minus one? That's clear??
Well, this is the same, only mana.
How much mana do you add? One mana, and then you lose life equal to the excess after that.
The word "instead" simply denotes a replacement effect. The conditions of the clause defines what's replaced and how. This context is presenting an equation, and the result of the equation is what replaces the initial effect.
If a player would gain more than 1 life, that player loses life equal to the difference instead."
This would be obvious and coherent, right?
It actually isn't, because it (a) it doesn't specify the difference between what and (b) the instead doesn't include the original gain, so it is both confusing and doesn't accomplish what you intend.
Look at the wording of a card with a replacement effect. Notice how it doesn't say "If one or more creature tokens would be created under your control, create a 1/1 white Soldier creature token instead."?
That said, I do like the INTENDED effect of the card. The consistent criticism here is how to make it work like you want to.
If a player would gain more than 1 life, that player loses life equal to the difference instead."
This would be obvious and coherent, right?
How much life do you lose? The excess amount minus one? That's clear??
Well, this is the same, only mana.
This is quite clear. If I were to gain 5 life. Instead I would lose 5 life minus 1 or rather 4 life. So if I started at 20 life I would now be at 16 life.
If we interrupert as you suggest then if I were to gain 5 life. Instead I lose 5 minus 1 life and gain 1 life. Say I was at 20, now I'm at 17.
Is that clear? Your wording doesn't accomplish what you thought it does. This is common on these forums. Adjust and move on.
You misunderstood, and you took that emptiness as an exploitative opportunity.
The context is presenting an equation of operation. You must perform the equation of operation in effects.
Additional context, would only be needed to remove a stated operation from the equation, because we're not replacing the entire effect, the effect is given credential exceptions.
You would gain 1 life, then you would lose 4 life instead of gaining X life (where X is five).
By providing an operation, and then referencing that exact operation again with reflective context, you are effectively creating an equation with exponents and a range. You are attempting to cancel the exponent from one side, without a clause that explicitly states to do so on the other side. We should know you can't do this in math. Thus, the equation demands additional context to provide the necessary exponent for cancellation.
Now, with that said, let me just say that the additional context isn't wrong either, and I never said that I was against providing additional context for coherence. It is however, technically unnecessary.
614. Replacement Effects
614.1. Some continuous effects are replacement effects. Like prevention effects (see rule 615), replacement effects apply continuously as events happen—they aren’t locked in ahead of time. Such effects watch for a particular event that would happen and completely or partially replace that event with a different event. They act like “shields” around whatever they’re affecting.
...
614.6. If an event is replaced, it never happens. A modified event occurs instead, which may in turn trigger abilities. Note that the modified event may contain instructions that can’t be carried out, in which case the impossible instruction is simply ignored.
You're just repeating what I said. Then ignoring the laws of English and Math (since there are no definite rules on how replacements engage specifically). They follow these law instead, like all other litterateur context and multi-factor interactions.
The event that's replaced here however, is presented by a reflective context of events. Which once again, creates an equation, exponents, and a range. In order to cancel out the exponent from the stated side of reflective context, you need a verbal/instructional exponent context. This is easy to see when it was reflected by life loss, but with mana becomes less obvious and more ambiguous. Technically, additional context shouldn't be necessary, but with the context being less obvious, it's in good favor (and good will towards man) that it's provided for coherence.
Another thing that might be going unmentioned, is that typically, wording composure wants to address as little as possible (only as necessary as possible) to prevent excessive (or profuse) redundancy. Thus, for the same reason (coherence); one desires to repeat themselves as little as possible, and allow provided contexts to roll as they should within orders of operation (laws of English and Mathematical factoring). Redundancy makes the reading convoluted and uncomfortable. So, the original context was initially composed considering this standard of professional wording composure (which as been everpresent in the game since renaissance days).
I’m sure that you can use the rules of grammar and math to show that the intended function of your card can be discerned through context. Can you make this ability work in the strict rules language of MTG, though?
Try making a card that repeats itself unnecessarily, even just once.
This is a mark of professionalism, and aspired standard in the wording composure of Magic text.
There are no definite rules on the operations of abilities, beyond that they follow the laws of language and logical factoring.
Let me further elaborate on how this argument would fail in court. If the effect would ever allow an operation, it becomes unjust to then prevent the operation under bias. If it would ever allow you to gain 1 life, it should not prevent you from doing so under circumstances of range (because that's not just)—unless it explicitly states to prevent it totally. The same for mana. Big brain time demands that the effect needs to be linear across the board of circumstances unless stated otherwise. Especially here, where the context references a range, and the replacement condition doesn't exclude the reflective side of that range (doesn't provide an equal opposite litterateur exponent for representation of cancellation).
Try making a card that repeats itself unnecessarily, even just once.
Archfiend of Ifnir et. al the cycling part is redundant since part of the cycling cost is to discard the card. It is done to clarify that that counts too. As redundancy is often used to make things clear you are right to not overuse redundancy but use it when necessary.
Not all printed context is the best available. I think moreso, this is an example of that.
I noticed a lot of "coding fallacies" in recent times. Wording composure that's not as summarized, not as explanatory, not as neat and elegant, as ideally it should be, striving for perfection and professionalism for the product and Magic: The Gathering dignity.
Ideally, this should say Whenever you discard a card (at any time) or (by any means)—where additional context was desired for coherence of new players.
It was because I feel like the comprehension of context the OP is too advanced level that I agree additional context should be provided for coherence, even though technically it shouldn't, and does create some litterateur redundancy.
I think it could be left self-explanatory that they get to choose which mana, since the absence of context here generally denotes permission (of selection) for continuance.
This is another thing I had considered. It would simply say, "a single mana of their choice", if necessary.
EDIT: I just went ahead and added it since it makes the comprehension more everflowing.
If a source would add more than one mana to a player’s mana pool, that player instead loses life equal to the difference and adds one mana of any color.
- comprehension of context the OP is too advanced level that I agree additional context should be provided
- litterateur
Reap, why would anyone take you seriously on syntax debates when your comprehension of English is demonstrably lacking (ie, *****). Let's not even broach how badly you mangled mathematics in your drivel.
Public Mod Note
(rowanalpha):
Since Reap actually took the step to update his text in line with the rules, let move onto another topic instead of arguing the point in circles further.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Artifact
If a source would add more than a single mana to a player's mana pool, that player adds a single mana of their choice then loses life equal to the difference instead.
Whenever a nonland permanent enters the battlefield under an opponent's control, that player sacrifices it. Then, sacrifice Nevinyrral's Death Trap and you lose 2 life.
"By all means Phyrexian—there's no such thing as a grave too deep."
—Nevinyrral to Jin Gitaxias
Alt. Flavor Text
"By all means Phyrexian—there's no such thing as an obsession too fanatic."
—Nevinyrral to Jin Gitaxis
Palette swap on the original Phyrexian Death Trap with an interesting twist. It wants to prime effectiveness towards efficiency by allowing mana sources and then punishing only the excessive ones. The cost is streamlined to further its proficiency—with the split of life loss into the second ability.
It very much looks like you took the criticisms received in your previous thread and actually used them to create something good, which is what a lot of us have been wanting for you for a long time.
Excellent work.
Overall similar and different enough from damping sphere that there can be many discussions over which one to use.
Better than before, but this still locks certain decks out of the game.
The life loss is fairly pointless as outside of mindslaver effects it should never happen.
Logically, it's interpretative that the ability allow you to add a single mana, and then only life charges you for the overage.
It doesn't actually have to state, "that player adds a single mana and then loses life equal to the difference instead."
It is a bit more coherent, but it's not violatively wrong.
Don't get hung up on ascetics. Write functional text then think of a way of cleaning it up rather than hoping "context" will explain your abridged text.
If it said,
If a player would gain more than 1 life, that player loses life equal to the difference instead."
This would be obvious and coherent, right?
How much life do you lose? The excess amount minus one? That's clear??
Well, this is the same, only mana.
How much mana do you add? One mana, and then you lose life equal to the excess after that.
The word "instead" simply denotes a replacement effect. The conditions of the clause defines what's replaced and how. This context is presenting an equation, and the result of the equation is what replaces the initial effect.
It actually isn't, because it (a) it doesn't specify the difference between what and (b) the instead doesn't include the original gain, so it is both confusing and doesn't accomplish what you intend.
Look at the wording of a card with a replacement effect. Notice how it doesn't say "If one or more creature tokens would be created under your control, create a 1/1 white Soldier creature token instead."?
That said, I do like the INTENDED effect of the card. The consistent criticism here is how to make it work like you want to.
If we interrupert as you suggest then if I were to gain 5 life. Instead I lose 5 minus 1 life and gain 1 life. Say I was at 20, now I'm at 17.
Is that clear? Your wording doesn't accomplish what you thought it does. This is common on these forums. Adjust and move on.
The context is presenting an equation of operation. You must perform the equation of operation in effects.
Additional context, would only be needed to remove a stated operation from the equation, because we're not replacing the entire effect, the effect is given credential exceptions.
You would gain 1 life, then you would lose 4 life instead of gaining X life (where X is five).
By providing an operation, and then referencing that exact operation again with reflective context, you are effectively creating an equation with exponents and a range. You are attempting to cancel the exponent from one side, without a clause that explicitly states to do so on the other side. We should know you can't do this in math. Thus, the equation demands additional context to provide the necessary exponent for cancellation.
Now, with that said, let me just say that the additional context isn't wrong either, and I never said that I was against providing additional context for coherence. It is however, technically unnecessary.
The event that's replaced here however, is presented by a reflective context of events. Which once again, creates an equation, exponents, and a range. In order to cancel out the exponent from the stated side of reflective context, you need a verbal/instructional exponent context. This is easy to see when it was reflected by life loss, but with mana becomes less obvious and more ambiguous. Technically, additional context shouldn't be necessary, but with the context being less obvious, it's in good favor (and good will towards man) that it's provided for coherence.
Another thing that might be going unmentioned, is that typically, wording composure wants to address as little as possible (only as necessary as possible) to prevent excessive (or profuse) redundancy. Thus, for the same reason (coherence); one desires to repeat themselves as little as possible, and allow provided contexts to roll as they should within orders of operation (laws of English and Mathematical factoring). Redundancy makes the reading convoluted and uncomfortable. So, the original context was initially composed considering this standard of professional wording composure (which as been everpresent in the game since renaissance days).
You are just trolling at this point.
Try making a card that repeats itself unnecessarily, even just once.
This is a mark of professionalism, and aspired standard in the wording composure of Magic text.
There are no definite rules on the operations of abilities, beyond that they follow the laws of language and logical factoring.
Let me further elaborate on how this argument would fail in court. If the effect would ever allow an operation, it becomes unjust to then prevent the operation under bias. If it would ever allow you to gain 1 life, it should not prevent you from doing so under circumstances of range (because that's not just)—unless it explicitly states to prevent it totally. The same for mana. Big brain time demands that the effect needs to be linear across the board of circumstances unless stated otherwise. Especially here, where the context references a range, and the replacement condition doesn't exclude the reflective side of that range (doesn't provide an equal opposite litterateur exponent for representation of cancellation).
The comprehensive rules beg to differ.
If the comprehensive rules included a ruling that ran entirely contrary to logic and language, the comprehensive rules win.
The comprehensive rules literally define the rules of these cards.
Archfiend of Ifnir et. al the cycling part is redundant since part of the cycling cost is to discard the card. It is done to clarify that that counts too. As redundancy is often used to make things clear you are right to not overuse redundancy but use it when necessary.
I noticed a lot of "coding fallacies" in recent times. Wording composure that's not as summarized, not as explanatory, not as neat and elegant, as ideally it should be, striving for perfection and professionalism for the product and Magic: The Gathering dignity.
Ideally, this should say Whenever you discard a card (at any time) or (by any means)—where additional context was desired for coherence of new players.
It was because I feel like the comprehension of context the OP is too advanced level that I agree additional context should be provided for coherence, even though technically it shouldn't, and does create some litterateur redundancy.
This is another thing I had considered. It would simply say, "a single mana of their choice", if necessary.
EDIT: I just went ahead and added it since it makes the comprehension more everflowing.
If a source would add more than one mana to a player’s mana pool, that player instead loses life equal to the difference and adds one mana of any color.
Reap, why would anyone take you seriously on syntax debates when your comprehension of English is demonstrably lacking (ie, *****). Let's not even broach how badly you mangled mathematics in your drivel.