Few years back while designing my custom expansion, I wanted to create this card:
Enchant Creature; Enchanted creature cannot be tapped.
It was meant to prevent tapping activated abilities from being played, to prevent attacking and to prevent to tap a creature with vigilance with Icy for example, all at the same time. You see this "mechanic" has no precedence in Magic, yet I wanted to know if it made sense in rules environment of that time. And as I can recall I was told such card would mess with the rules pretty badly though I don't remember the reasoning...
So, can this card work in current rules environment? Eventually how should it be worded for it to work in the mentioned way?
Oh, and for all of you conservative judges with "sorry, I don't recognize this card as officially released, please kindly wait for it to be designed by WotC first and until it gets proper Oracle ruling"-or-"This forum is for actual REAL cards ONLY. PERIOD. FULL STOP"-attitude, don't bother. I have sorted this out with Craven already.
As a sidenote, if more of you wanted to support new Rulings subforum for unofficial, rumored or custom cards, please contact Craven. It would help to tidy away posts which are deemed by several judges here as irrelevant or threatening to cause widespread confusion. Moreover as you may know, there is no rulings subforum in Creativity corner and surely design and rulings are two distinct domains.
But if some users here will try to be more tolerant towards unofficial rulings questions, that would do too 8^).
However, stopping creatures from attacking wouldn't work this easily. When a creature (without vigilance) attacks, it becomes tapped as a side effect, not as a cost. This enchantment would keep the creature from becoming tapped, but would still allow it to attack. To make the card work as intended, it would need to forbid attacking seperately.
I agree (missed that minor point), however with the introduction of the keyword "vigelance", this can work: Enchant creature cannot attack unless it has vigelance.
Whoever said too many keywords is a bad thing?
Enchanted creature cannot be tapped to pay costs.
If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped.
Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has Vigilance.
Whew ... a bit wordy, but I think this just about covers it.
I just don't recall any precedent in MtG that would prevent something from being tapped (save the protections and Arrest).
By the way, the card was named Spasm back then :tongue2:
As for keywords, as you can see here: http://nlp.fi.muni.cz/~xcapek1/wave.html
I was among those who supported vigilance as a keyword long before Wizards noticed. What do you think of the second existing mechanic I have named, Outrun?
And finally, I have already contacted Craven with the idea for the subforum. All he needs now are further requests from users as he is Moderator but not forum admin. He's afraid that this subforum would only get little traffic though and the admins won't be willing to create it...
Enchant Creature; Enchanted creature cannot be tapped.
It was meant to prevent tapping activated abilities from being played, to prevent attacking and to prevent to tap a creature with vigilance with Icy for example, all at the same time. You see this "mechanic" has no precedence in Magic
Sure it does, in some ways. Indestructible, "Can't be the target of spells and abilities," etc. You are confusing "There are none" with "I lack the imagination to see the precedents" and "I refuse to apply what other people are saying if that supports a different result than I want."
yet I wanted to know if it made sense in rules environment of that time.
Which it does not, in any environment. Not because there are specific rules it violates somehow, but because you are outlawing a state not an action, and that state can come about in many ways that are different than what you want. One example is what Gandalf already described; another is regeneration.
Yet another is the ambiguity if the creature is already tapped when the enchantment is put on it. Your "effect" is violated. This is what is unprecedented here, and there is no way anybody can comment on what that means, in any rules environment, unless you define it as part of your effect.
Finally, if what you said was the "intent," then the card would be worded like Arrest (with whatever additions or subtarctions you deem intended). There is no need to prevent Icy from tapping it if it can't do any of the things that you would tap it for, so that unprecedented part of your effect is meaningless.
As a sidenote, if more of you wanted to support new Rulings subforum for unofficial, rumored or custom cards, please contact Craven.
I suspect the only people who would want one, are those who want it solely on some misguided principle like you do. The Rumor Mill can support rules questions about rumored cards, and is where people would go to see speculations about rulings on them. The custom card forum can do the same for custom cards. There simply is no need for an additional forum, IMHO.
If you have specific questions about what a wording that you do not associate with a specific card would mean, you can ask that here. We can answer it if it has precedent, but we will answer it in terms of that precedent only. As is appropriate.
Moreover as you may know, there is no rulings subforum in Creativity corner and surely design and rulings are two distinct domains.
Players approach the game from different aspects. You're showing a benevolence toward those who approach it from a rules direction ("Does this combo work?"), rather than those who approach it from artistic or speculative direction. They are the same players, asking -- when you come to the substance of it -- exactly the same questions.
Many players, here and at MtG.com, use hypothetical cards to come to a better understanding of the game. We occasionally use them to answer questions: "No, if the card generated that sort of effect, it would have to be worded like {this}."
.
Le Chat makes a lot of cards. Check out this and the YMTC forum at MtG.com. She has thousands more at home. In addition, she reads many (though not all) of the threads on both MtG.com and Salvation on a regular basis.
All this being said, she's encountered perhaps less than three dozen in the past year that absolutely needed some rules clarification. Le Chat suspects that, were a subforum created, it would simply be overrun with generic cardmaking (or cards designed just to flout the rules).
Let hypothetical questions be asked in the RQ&A forum. For those who make a hypothetical card, note it as such in the thread title and in your post. Remember that the judges are already overbusy trying to keep the "real" game in check. And judges, show some kindness toward those who are interested in exploring the game in other fashions.
You're all doing a terrific job.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Only if you don't know what it is you are trying to design.
It is a card designer's job to make the wording say what the card is intended to do; not to throw some words together, and ask "What does this card do now?" That isn't card design, that is the equivalent of the monkeys-with-typewriters trying to replicate Shakespeare.
A designer should know what the rulings are of the designed card are, not ask. Now, if you don't know what the wording should be to do that, the question you ask is backwards from what is normal. "Here are the rulings, what should the words be?" Despite its title and the approach taken, such questions are not what this thread is about, or what was asked above. Also, see the link I provided.
Players approach the game from different aspects. You're showing a benevolence toward those who approach it from a rules direction ("Does this combo work?"), rather than those who approach it from artistic or speculative direction.
No, "players" approach the game from one aspect only. "Pretend designers" have the second one. One person may take both approaches, but only in those different roles. This forum is primarily for rulings, not speculation ("artistic" or not.)
All this being said, she's encountered perhaps less than three dozen in the past year that absolutely needed some rules clarification. Le Chat suspects that, were a subforum created, it would simply be overrun with generic cardmaking (or cards designed just to flout the rules).
In other words, it would be no different than a YMTC forum; which is where I said such questions belong, in general.
Let hypothetical questions be asked in the RQ&A forum.
If this were a RQ&A forum, that would be more appropriate. It is a Rulings forum, which is not quite the same thing. The moderators have gone to great lengths to prevent it from digressing into discussions of rules.
Still, I never said they shouldn't be asked. I said that it shouldn't become the main thrust. AND, the issue at hand is not hypothetical cards, it is rumored unreleased cards, which the person who started this thread wants to claim are no different than hypothetical cards. There are valid reasons (whether or not others agree, the people who run the forum and answer most of the questions do) to distinguish the two, and to not answer questions about rumored cards on the Rulings forum, before the FAQ is released.
And judges, show some kindness toward those who are interested in exploring the game in other fashions.
I think they do. And if only that were returned in kind, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
A designer should know what the rulings are of the designed card are, not ask.
Unfortunately, that is often not the case. Ruling Gurus are usually mostly-White (order), while card designers are mostly-Blue/Red (Intellect/Passion). Admittedly, some people are Lightning Angels, but even Mark Rosewater and his ilk often need help from ruling Gurus to figure out their own cards' interactions.
If you don't want to answer those questions, don't. But please, don't tell people not to ask. Okay, actually, you can tell people not ask. But I have a nagging suspicion they will ask anyway.
@Condor: Just because you chose to be provoked doesn't mean it was my intention. Anyway you're the one who provided an aggressive answer. Somewhat helpful though, so I will comment on it.
Sure it does, in some ways. Indestructible, "Can't be the target of spells and abilities," etc. You are confusing "There are none" with "I lack the imagination to see the precedents" and "I refuse to apply what other people are saying if that supports a different result than I want."
You're just one layer of abstraction above of what I meant. Moreover as I understand it, indestructibility is a replacement effect but untargetability is not, so how it comes together as a precedent? I looked for a precedent that prevented something from being tapped by effects that tap things or prevented a permanent to be tapped for a cost, like is Convoke. Is there any?
Which it does not, in any environment. Not because there are specific rules it violates somehow, but because you are outlawing a state not an action, and that state can come about in many ways that are different than what you want. One example is what Gandalf already described; another is regeneration.
Yet another is the ambiguity if the creature is already tapped when the enchantment is put on it. Your "effect" is violated. This is what is unprecedented here, and there is no way anybody can comment on what that means, in any rules environment, unless you define it as part of your effect.
This is exactly what I needed to know. If I knew it before I wouldn't need to ask on it in the first place. Your comment is useful only I have a feeling you're spanking me with it like I was dumb, even if I do not claim to be rules guru. You see, I wanted to design a card, that would prevent enchanted permanent to be tapped in any way, that is our premise. I knew there was a problem with my simple wording but I couldn't find a good example among real cards. Hence the question.
So if we wanted to be thorough with the wording and cover all posibilities for desired effect (only with a slight overgerenation for regeneration), the card would look like this:
Spasm 2W
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
As Spasm comes into play, untap enchanted creature.
Enchanted creature cannot be tapped to pay costs.
If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped.
Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has Vigilance.
Enchanted creature can't be regenerated.
Or is there another way for a permanent to be tapped?
Spasm 2W
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
As Spasm comes into play, untap enchanted creature.
Enchanted creature cannot be tapped to pay costs.
If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped.
Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has Vigilance.
Enchanted creature can't be regenerated.
Or is there another way for a permanent to be tapped?
Thanks for ideas
The two lines "Enchanted creature cannot be tapped to pay costs." and "If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped." can be replaced with "Enchanted creature cannot become tapped.".
The two lines "Enchanted creature cannot be tapped to pay costs." and "If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped." can be replaced with "Enchanted creature cannot become tapped.".
Which of course brings us back to square 1, since "Enchanted creature cannot become tapped" was the original wording, and the purpose of this whole thread was to reword it into something that actually works rulewise
Which of course brings us back to square 1, since "Enchanted creature cannot become tapped" was the original wording, and the purpose of this whole thread was to reword it into something that actually works rulewise
It *does* actually work rulewise, it just doesn't do everything he wanted it to do. Which is why I said to only replace those two lines. "As Spasm comes into play, untap enchanted creature.", "Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has Vigilance.", and "Enchanted creature can't be regenerated." would still be needed.
The problem with your wording Craven is that now it almost looks as if the creature can't regenerate. So, in effect, it is straying away even further from the intended purpose.
Which is what concerns me, as it seems to me that we need to go back and revisit Charmer's original purpose for the card. Which I think is basically summarized as:
He wants it to be able not to be "tapped". So, it can't be tapped to pay for a cost of an activated ability, nor can it be tapped by some spell or ability. Likewise, it can't attack either if it "taps" to attack.
So, what you have to look is how it can become tapped, and how best to prevent it. Probably the simplest way to do this is:
Spasm
{2}{W}
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant creature
Enchanted creature cannot become tapped.
Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has vigilance.
In effect, this should do what is intended. Plus it has no issues with what would happen if it is put on an already tapped creature. Because the wording is "cannot become tapped" this simply prevents it from going from "Untapped" to "Tapped".
So, if it were to be tapped from Icy Manipulator, this prevents that from happening. If it would tap from regenerating, it doesn't. Nor can it be tapped to pay for an ability (since it can't become tapped). Furthermore, it can't attack unless it has vigilance, and therefore can only attack if it doesn't have to "pay for it". Note: obviously I'm using somewhat grossly inappropriate language here.
Unless there are some odd card interactions, this should work perfectly fine.
@Condor: Just because you chose to be provoked doesn't mean it was my intention.
When you choose to post a kind of thread in a forum, after being asked not to post that kind of thread in that forum, you are the one being aggressive, and trying to provoke those people who asked you not to post it. You may be hoping they won't become provoked by it, but you are testing where the line of provocation is. And no demonstration of altruism, no matter how sincere you would like it to appear, can change that.
You're just one layer of abstraction above of what I meant.
In other words, the layer of precedent you "meant" is one layer away from where you should have looked for it. But I'll reiterate what I said about this: you cannot get a valid ruling-based-on-what-the-rules-would-say for a made-up card, unless there is some precedent to a real card that can be applied to it at some level. If it is truly unprecedented, at all levels, you will have to provide the rules to make the rulings for it.
Moreover as I understand it, indestructibility is a replacement effect but untargetability is not, so how it comes together as a precedent?
Apparently, you don't understand it. Indescructibility is not a replacement effect. Both of these are continuous effects that modify the rules of the game (see 418.1), by saying that certain actions can't happen. The actions come about by different means, so there are some different implications of the two effects, but they are essentially the same thing. And the biggest problem your effect faces is that its "prevented action" happens in both those ways, and several more.
I looked for a precedent that prevented something from being tapped by effects that tap things or prevented a permanent to be tapped for a cost, like is Convoke. Is there any?
And I'll say again, you have stated two different purposes: preventing a permanent from being used for the purposes that it is usually used for when it taps, and preventing the actual state change. They are not the same. You open a can of worms by trying to prevent the state change, but preventing the usages can make for a verbose and very silly-sounding card.
Your comment is useful only I have a feeling you're spanking me with it like I was dumb, even if I do not claim to be rules guru.
And the only thing I was trying to point out is that you need to listen to the people you seek advice from, rather than resist the advice they give you. Even if you don't like the result.
When you choose to post a kind of thread in a forum, after being asked not to post that kind of thread in that forum, you are the one being aggressive, and trying to provoke those people who asked you not to post it. You may be hoping they won't become provoked by it, but you are testing where the line of provocation is. And no demonstration of altruism, no matter how sincere you would like it to appear, can change that.
Hey there again, mister wise guy. You may consider my verbiage as provocative but I definitely consider yours as full of airy condescension. And no demonstration of earnestness can change that
To the point though, what I did was to question the rules of Rulings forum and find a niche for relevant custom card ruling questions which are ******ly forbidden there. After some discussion this subforum is a result. Perfectly correct in my opinion... everyone seems to be happy, maybe except for you, 'cause your "PERIOD, FULL STOP" nonsense didn't get so much sympathies.
In other words, the layer of precedent you "meant" is one layer away from where you should have looked for it. But I'll reiterate what I said about this: you cannot get a valid ruling-based-on-what-the-rules-would-say for a made-up card, unless there is some precedent to a real card that can be applied to it at some level. If it is truly unprecedented, at all levels, you will have to provide the rules to make the rulings for it.
And in other words again, you can't tell an example of a card that would prevent tapping, thank you. Your explanation is valid but yet again shrouded in terminology thus not very helpful - but I understand now.
And I'll say again, you have stated two different purposes: preventing a permanent from being used for the purposes that it is usually used for when it taps, and preventing the actual state change. They are not the same. You open a can of worms by trying to prevent the state change, but preventing the usages can make for a verbose and very silly-sounding card.
Strangely enough, according to epeeguy, fairly short wording " Enchanted creature cannot become tapped. Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has vigilance." solves it all. Doesn't sound too silly to me. Maybe you'd like to educate him too?
And the only thing I was trying to point out is that you need to listen to the people you seek advice from, rather than resist the advice they give you. Even if you don't like the result.
On the contrary, if I don't understand the advice the right way I have to resist the explanation and ask again to get things clarified. But from the perspective of your almighty intellect it may appear as silly and inferior. Be that way.
Enchant Creature; Enchanted creature cannot be tapped.
It was meant to prevent tapping activated abilities from being played, to prevent attacking and to prevent to tap a creature with vigilance with Icy for example, all at the same time. You see this "mechanic" has no precedence in Magic, yet I wanted to know if it made sense in rules environment of that time. And as I can recall I was told such card would mess with the rules pretty badly though I don't remember the reasoning...
So, can this card work in current rules environment? Eventually how should it be worded for it to work in the mentioned way?
Oh, and for all of you conservative judges with "sorry, I don't recognize this card as officially released, please kindly wait for it to be designed by WotC first and until it gets proper Oracle ruling"-or-"This forum is for actual REAL cards ONLY. PERIOD. FULL STOP"-attitude, don't bother. I have sorted this out with Craven already.
As a sidenote, if more of you wanted to support new Rulings subforum for unofficial, rumored or custom cards, please contact Craven. It would help to tidy away posts which are deemed by several judges here as irrelevant or threatening to cause widespread confusion. Moreover as you may know, there is no rulings subforum in Creativity corner and surely design and rulings are two distinct domains.
But if some users here will try to be more tolerant towards unofficial rulings questions, that would do too 8^).
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work??? When was it you got a ruling for it?
Anyhow I also second a subforum for it. You should make an official request to Craven for it (just click on his link and send him a PM).
I agree (missed that minor point), however with the introduction of the keyword "vigelance", this can work: Enchant creature cannot attack unless it has vigelance.
Whoever said too many keywords is a bad thing?
If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped.
Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has Vigilance.
Whew ... a bit wordy, but I think this just about covers it.
I just don't recall any precedent in MtG that would prevent something from being tapped (save the protections and Arrest).
By the way, the card was named Spasm back then :tongue2:
As for keywords, as you can see here:
http://nlp.fi.muni.cz/~xcapek1/wave.html
I was among those who supported vigilance as a keyword long before Wizards noticed. What do you think of the second existing mechanic I have named, Outrun?
And finally, I have already contacted Craven with the idea for the subforum. All he needs now are further requests from users as he is Moderator but not forum admin. He's afraid that this subforum would only get little traffic though and the admins won't be willing to create it...
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
Sure it does, in some ways. Indestructible, "Can't be the target of spells and abilities," etc. You are confusing "There are none" with "I lack the imagination to see the precedents" and "I refuse to apply what other people are saying if that supports a different result than I want."
Which it does not, in any environment. Not because there are specific rules it violates somehow, but because you are outlawing a state not an action, and that state can come about in many ways that are different than what you want. One example is what Gandalf already described; another is regeneration.
Yet another is the ambiguity if the creature is already tapped when the enchantment is put on it. Your "effect" is violated. This is what is unprecedented here, and there is no way anybody can comment on what that means, in any rules environment, unless you define it as part of your effect.
Finally, if what you said was the "intent," then the card would be worded like Arrest (with whatever additions or subtarctions you deem intended). There is no need to prevent Icy from tapping it if it can't do any of the things that you would tap it for, so that unprecedented part of your effect is meaningless.
I suspect the only people who would want one, are those who want it solely on some misguided principle like you do. The Rumor Mill can support rules questions about rumored cards, and is where people would go to see speculations about rulings on them. The custom card forum can do the same for custom cards. There simply is no need for an additional forum, IMHO.
If you have specific questions about what a wording that you do not associate with a specific card would mean, you can ask that here. We can answer it if it has precedent, but we will answer it in terms of that precedent only. As is appropriate.
Only if you don't know what you are designing.
Hence why the question was asked.
Players approach the game from different aspects. You're showing a benevolence toward those who approach it from a rules direction ("Does this combo work?"), rather than those who approach it from artistic or speculative direction. They are the same players, asking -- when you come to the substance of it -- exactly the same questions.
Many players, here and at MtG.com, use hypothetical cards to come to a better understanding of the game. We occasionally use them to answer questions: "No, if the card generated that sort of effect, it would have to be worded like {this}."
.
Le Chat makes a lot of cards. Check out this and the YMTC forum at MtG.com. She has thousands more at home. In addition, she reads many (though not all) of the threads on both MtG.com and Salvation on a regular basis.
All this being said, she's encountered perhaps less than three dozen in the past year that absolutely needed some rules clarification. Le Chat suspects that, were a subforum created, it would simply be overrun with generic cardmaking (or cards designed just to flout the rules).
Let hypothetical questions be asked in the RQ&A forum. For those who make a hypothetical card, note it as such in the thread title and in your post. Remember that the judges are already overbusy trying to keep the "real" game in check. And judges, show some kindness toward those who are interested in exploring the game in other fashions.
You're all doing a terrific job.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Only if you don't know what it is you are trying to design.
It is a card designer's job to make the wording say what the card is intended to do; not to throw some words together, and ask "What does this card do now?" That isn't card design, that is the equivalent of the monkeys-with-typewriters trying to replicate Shakespeare.
A designer should know what the rulings are of the designed card are, not ask. Now, if you don't know what the wording should be to do that, the question you ask is backwards from what is normal. "Here are the rulings, what should the words be?" Despite its title and the approach taken, such questions are not what this thread is about, or what was asked above. Also, see the link I provided.
No, "players" approach the game from one aspect only. "Pretend designers" have the second one. One person may take both approaches, but only in those different roles. This forum is primarily for rulings, not speculation ("artistic" or not.)
In other words, it would be no different than a YMTC forum; which is where I said such questions belong, in general.
If this were a RQ&A forum, that would be more appropriate. It is a Rulings forum, which is not quite the same thing. The moderators have gone to great lengths to prevent it from digressing into discussions of rules.
Still, I never said they shouldn't be asked. I said that it shouldn't become the main thrust. AND, the issue at hand is not hypothetical cards, it is rumored unreleased cards, which the person who started this thread wants to claim are no different than hypothetical cards. There are valid reasons (whether or not others agree, the people who run the forum and answer most of the questions do) to distinguish the two, and to not answer questions about rumored cards on the Rulings forum, before the FAQ is released.
I think they do. And if only that were returned in kind, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Unfortunately, that is often not the case. Ruling Gurus are usually mostly-White (order), while card designers are mostly-Blue/Red (Intellect/Passion). Admittedly, some people are Lightning Angels, but even Mark Rosewater and his ilk often need help from ruling Gurus to figure out their own cards' interactions.
If you don't want to answer those questions, don't. But please, don't tell people not to ask. Okay, actually, you can tell people not ask. But I have a nagging suspicion they will ask anyway.
You're just one layer of abstraction above of what I meant. Moreover as I understand it, indestructibility is a replacement effect but untargetability is not, so how it comes together as a precedent? I looked for a precedent that prevented something from being tapped by effects that tap things or prevented a permanent to be tapped for a cost, like is Convoke. Is there any?
This is exactly what I needed to know. If I knew it before I wouldn't need to ask on it in the first place. Your comment is useful only I have a feeling you're spanking me with it like I was dumb, even if I do not claim to be rules guru. You see, I wanted to design a card, that would prevent enchanted permanent to be tapped in any way, that is our premise. I knew there was a problem with my simple wording but I couldn't find a good example among real cards. Hence the question.
So if we wanted to be thorough with the wording and cover all posibilities for desired effect (only with a slight overgerenation for regeneration), the card would look like this:
Spasm 2W
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
As Spasm comes into play, untap enchanted creature.
Enchanted creature cannot be tapped to pay costs.
If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped.
Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has Vigilance.
Enchanted creature can't be regenerated.
Or is there another way for a permanent to be tapped?
Thanks for ideas
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?
The two lines "Enchanted creature cannot be tapped to pay costs." and "If an effect would tap enchanted creature, instead it remains untapped." can be replaced with "Enchanted creature cannot become tapped.".
Which of course brings us back to square 1, since "Enchanted creature cannot become tapped" was the original wording, and the purpose of this whole thread was to reword it into something that actually works rulewise
It *does* actually work rulewise, it just doesn't do everything he wanted it to do. Which is why I said to only replace those two lines. "As Spasm comes into play, untap enchanted creature.", "Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has Vigilance.", and "Enchanted creature can't be regenerated." would still be needed.
Which is what concerns me, as it seems to me that we need to go back and revisit Charmer's original purpose for the card. Which I think is basically summarized as:
He wants it to be able not to be "tapped". So, it can't be tapped to pay for a cost of an activated ability, nor can it be tapped by some spell or ability. Likewise, it can't attack either if it "taps" to attack.
So, what you have to look is how it can become tapped, and how best to prevent it. Probably the simplest way to do this is:
In effect, this should do what is intended. Plus it has no issues with what would happen if it is put on an already tapped creature. Because the wording is "cannot become tapped" this simply prevents it from going from "Untapped" to "Tapped".
So, if it were to be tapped from Icy Manipulator, this prevents that from happening. If it would tap from regenerating, it doesn't. Nor can it be tapped to pay for an ability (since it can't become tapped). Furthermore, it can't attack unless it has vigilance, and therefore can only attack if it doesn't have to "pay for it". Note: obviously I'm using somewhat grossly inappropriate language here.
Unless there are some odd card interactions, this should work perfectly fine.
In other words, the layer of precedent you "meant" is one layer away from where you should have looked for it. But I'll reiterate what I said about this: you cannot get a valid ruling-based-on-what-the-rules-would-say for a made-up card, unless there is some precedent to a real card that can be applied to it at some level. If it is truly unprecedented, at all levels, you will have to provide the rules to make the rulings for it.
Apparently, you don't understand it. Indescructibility is not a replacement effect. Both of these are continuous effects that modify the rules of the game (see 418.1), by saying that certain actions can't happen. The actions come about by different means, so there are some different implications of the two effects, but they are essentially the same thing. And the biggest problem your effect faces is that its "prevented action" happens in both those ways, and several more.
And I'll say again, you have stated two different purposes: preventing a permanent from being used for the purposes that it is usually used for when it taps, and preventing the actual state change. They are not the same. You open a can of worms by trying to prevent the state change, but preventing the usages can make for a verbose and very silly-sounding card.
And the only thing I was trying to point out is that you need to listen to the people you seek advice from, rather than resist the advice they give you. Even if you don't like the result.
Hey there again, mister wise guy. You may consider my verbiage as provocative but I definitely consider yours as full of airy condescension. And no demonstration of earnestness can change that
To the point though, what I did was to question the rules of Rulings forum and find a niche for relevant custom card ruling questions which are ******ly forbidden there. After some discussion this subforum is a result. Perfectly correct in my opinion... everyone seems to be happy, maybe except for you, 'cause your "PERIOD, FULL STOP" nonsense didn't get so much sympathies.
And in other words again, you can't tell an example of a card that would prevent tapping, thank you. Your explanation is valid but yet again shrouded in terminology thus not very helpful - but I understand now.
Strangely enough, according to epeeguy, fairly short wording " Enchanted creature cannot become tapped. Enchanted creature cannot attack unless it has vigilance." solves it all. Doesn't sound too silly to me. Maybe you'd like to educate him too?
On the contrary, if I don't understand the advice the right way I have to resist the explanation and ask again to get things clarified. But from the perspective of your almighty intellect it may appear as silly and inferior. Be that way.
Post 1
Post 2
Post 3
Tired of losing to mana problems or interested to learn more about Magic's mana system?
Comprehensive take
Simplified solution
Are you a fan of Magic and the Game of Thrones?