I honestly can't tell if this card works. Please help!
Generous Donation 3W
Enchantment
If you would search your library for a card, instead search your library for that many cards plus one additional card with the same requirements. (For example, if you would search your library for two basic Plains and put them into play tapped, instead search for three basic Plains and put them into play tapped.)
Does that cover all of my bases? For example, Diabolic Tutor gets any two cards, Gifts Ungiven gets five cards each with different names, Gift of Estates gets four Plains cards, Steelshaper's Gift gets you two Equipment cards, Enduring Ideal gets you two Enchantments in play, Chord of Calling gets you two creatures with a mana cost of X, and Guided Passage gets you only three cards because your opponent is the one searching.
Does the wording need to change at all? Should I add more reminder text?
No. One additional card seems to be quite different from one additional spell.
Try this: If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card if you apply the rules of the spell or ability to it.
Kind of clumsy too, but perhaps most fitting so far...
No. Can't you see that Donation should give you ONE additional card? So Gifts Ungiven would give you five cards, not "twice that many" which is eight...
Generous Donation 3W
Enchantment
If you would search your library for a card, instead search your library for that many cards plus one additional card with the same requirements. (For example, if you would search your library for two basic Plains and put them into play tapped, instead search for three basic Plains and put them into play tapped.)
It's the little details that usually make the difference between wording a card correctly, and having problems that make people argue over what it means (As above. :)) This has two such problems that I see.
First, do you mean for this replacement to apply to each card you search for, like you say in the first part ("If you would search for A card"), or once for each search ("search for that many plus one."). I suspect the latter is what you meant, but technically Alex+ is correct. As worded, this would replace each "search for a card" part of the event with "search for two cards," and double the number searched for. The solution is to say "search for cards" or even "search for a specific number of cards (see below) rather than "search for a card."
Second, this causes what I believe to be a truly unprecedented situation - where an effect could tell you to look for "any number" of cards, and then the replacement jumps in and says "But wait - add one more!" The problem is that the rules don't tell us to choose the number. You don't say "I'm going to find three," and then start looking. You just look, and can get whatever number seems appropriate after you have searched.
This is a problem, because rules-lawyer types will (incorrectly) insist you have to increase the number by one. And, while you can say "well I was going to search for two and got three instead" when you really want three, you can't look for zero this way. Because you couldn't have chosen "negative one" originally. Which is why saying "specific number" is a good idea, so "any number" effects are excluded. Again, this isn't a real problem, but it will be perceived as one, and you should word the card to avoid it. (And now that I look, there are even more problems related to this, since an effect could say "search for up to some number, and you want to increase that.)
For example, Diabolic Tutor gets any two cards, Gifts Ungiven gets five cards each with different names, Gift of Estates gets four Plains cards, Steelshaper's Gift gets you two Equipment cards, ...
Natural Balance lets you get more lands then those who sacrifice end up with.
Well, thanks for your wordy answer but I can't see the solution for wording anywhere.
I think there is quite obvious what the card is supposed to do - just expand each card search, be it optional (up to...) or not by one card. At the same time generate this effect only once for each spell or ability that lets you search a library. Now let's consider the wording I have provided:
"If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card if you apply the rules of the spell or ability to it."
I'm curious if there is some problem why not to word it like this and wonder if there's a better way. The effect of searching for one additional card belongs to Generous Donation, it only tells you that you need to apply the rules of the spell or ability that trigered it, to the additional card. For that I can't see a precedent in Magic so far and I also can't see how wording for Natural Balance could help us.
"Apply the rules," unfortunately, has no rules meaning. We get similar, but not identical, results if we ask our new search to find a card with the same quality ("rules") as the previous search, which is close the Pharmalade's original wording.
The problem may be rooted in using a replacement effect to change the number of cards searched for. If we simply want to grab an extra card, it could work as a triggered ability:
"Whenever another ability allows you to search your library for a card, you may search your library for a card {with qualities}. Reveal that card, put it into your hand, and shuffle your library."
This does cause two searches and thus two shuffles, making it arguably worse in the light of Psychogenic Probe (and tournament time limitations).
Le Chat has left the {quality} section blank, because it is uncharted territory: you can't sample words out of the tutoring ability, because many are worded in different ways. Le Chat suggests changing the ability to "Whenever another ability allows you to search your library for a card, if you find a card, reveal that card. Then you may search your library for a card with the same | converted mana cost | color | card type. Reveal that card, put it into your hand, and shuffle your library." The choices are still open as far as cmc, color, and card type, generally moving from most restrictive to most open. It also means that your general Diabolic Tutor, which doesn't reveal the card, now has to let its secret out.
.
The card feels more blue than white (seeking after knowledge), and is arguably undercosted -- the fetch lands, for example, become exceptionally powerful with this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Well, thanks for your wordy answer but I can't see the solution for wording anywhere.
Like I said, and keep repeating to you; since there is no precedent for how to handle an "any number," there is no, and can be no, satisfactory answer to that question.
I think there is quite obvious what the card is supposed to do
Yes, it is. I even said as much. But that is not how the card, as worded, and with existing precedents applied to it, would work. Hence, it is a "rules problem." If you want a Custom Card Rulings forum (as opposed to a Custom Cards forum), you have to apply the rules as they exist, not how you would like them to exist, to the cards you create.
just expand each card search, be it optional (up to...) or not by one card.
Then you missed my point. The number you are allowed to search for, the number you want to search for, and the number you actually find, are not he same number. With an "up to" effect, it isn't clear which of these three is ever known. You want to increase what you are allowed to search for.
"If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card if you apply the rules of the spell or ability to it."
And since I first replied, I discovered the card that breaks this concept card, and your wording. Gaea's Balance - what extra card do you search for? You also get into trouble with Grim Reminder - do you compare the spells played to one name of choice, either name separately, or both names together? While you may think the answer, for what is intended, is obvious, the rules need to be clear on the issue. And they are not.
The card won't work, without some significant change. It probably should not be a replacement. Maybe something like "If an effect lets you search your library for cards matching some criteria, you MAY (important word to avoid problems) search for one additional card matching any of the criteria that effect described for one card. Apply the rest of the effect to the additional card."
I also can't see how wording for Natural Balance could help us.
Who said anything about "wording for Natural Balance?" It was an odd side-effect of the card that I noticed, that's all.
Quote from Le Chat »
The problem may be rooted in using a replacement effect to change the number of cards searched for. If we simply want to grab an extra card, it could work as a triggered ability:
"Whenever another ability allows you to search your library for a card, you may search your library for a card {with qualities}. Reveal that card, put it into your hand, and shuffle your library."
But the intent of was to do the same thing the original search effect did with the card, not put it into you hand. Plus, not all search effects ask you to reveal it.
Le Chat suggests changing the ability to "Whenever another ability allows you to search your library for a card, if you find a card, reveal that card.
Stop there, this is unworkable. You changed it to a trigger, not a replacement, and are asking to reveal the card that triggered it. It may be in play, or even moved to another zone by now. With Diaboloc Tutor, there is no way to track the card while the trigger waits to resolve.
Stop there, this is unworkable. You changed it to a trigger, not a replacement, and are asking to reveal the card that triggered it. It may be in play, or even moved to another zone by now.
Yes -- Le Chat realized this when re-reading the thread. Gifts Ungiven and Mystical Tutor and other cards offer too many possibilities.
"Whenever another ability causes you to search your library for a card, if that card was revealed...." takes care of the matter, however. We could argue over whether putting a card into play is revealing it or not, 'spose.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
"Whenever another ability causes you to search your library for a card, if that card was revealed...." takes care of the matter, however. We could argue over whether putting a card into play is revealing it or not, 'spose.
The point is, like Condor said, is that you missing the key purpose of the spell. Is it indeed to increase the number of cards you search for as the result of a particular effect? Or is the intent to allow you to tutor for a card after you have played a spell that allows you to search?
That's why many of the suggestions don't work (and why they don't always work in conjunction with other people's cards). Because you get away from the original intent of the card in order to make it work. I mean, do you want to make another Ghost Town, or go for something cooler?
The point is, like Condor said, is that you missing the key purpose of the spell. Is it indeed to increase the number of cards you search for as the result of a particular effect? Or is the intent to allow you to tutor for a card after you have played a spell that allows you to search?
Although you and Condor suggest that the card wording fails in light of searches which are part of effects other than tutoring, reading Pharmalade's initial post suggests that only tutoring effects were being considered -- that is, searches with a companion effect of "put {that card} into your hand."
With that in mind, Le Chat feels simply triggering a second search, rather than replacing the search function, fulfills the intent of the card. To keep it from becoming too powerful, we limit it to searching for cards with similar characteristics as a card searched for by the original. If we don't know the characteristics, we can't search for a card.
Different from the original? Yes. But was the original workable? More importantly, we can now work off of wording that does work -- even if imperfectly -- rather than hodge over text that is, essentially, meaningless because it does not function.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Although you and Condor suggest that the card wording fails in light of searches which are part of effects other than tutoring, reading Pharmalade's initial post suggests that only tutoring effects were being considered -- that is, searches with a companion effect of "put {that card} into your hand."
From my read on the original card:
1.) The desired effect was to increase the number of cards that were searched for from the result of a spell or ability.
2.) The desired effect was to have that be part of the spell or ability, and not a separate effect.
3.) The desired effect would, in all other ways, resolve as normal.
He specifically mentioned cards such as Enduring Ideal, that doesn't put the card into your hand. It puts it into play. Same with Chord of Calling.
So, I'm afraid, we have a different understanding of his intent.
Quote from Le Chat »
With that in mind, Le Chat feels simply triggering a second search, rather than replacing the search function, fulfills the intent of the card. To keep it from becoming too powerful, we limit it to searching for cards with similar characteristics as a card searched for by the original. If we don't know the characteristics, we can't search for a card.
Different from the original? Yes. But was the original workable? More importantly, we can now work off of wording that does work -- even if imperfectly -- rather than hodge over text that is, essentially, meaningless because it does not function.
And what happens if the original spell/ability is countered? How does the triggered ability know what to search for and what to do once it has finished its search (i.e., put the card into your hand or into play)? Because I do not think LKI will allow that to work at all.
So, I'm afraid, we have a different understanding of his intent.
Entirely possible, and not surprising. It doesn't seem, however, that the original poster was considering other, more complicated search effects. Whether that oversight was deliberate or unintended is your guess and mine.
:: shrug :: In the big picture, Le Chat doesn't feel it's that important. Not that she doesn't want to honor the intention of board members.
And what happens if the original spell/ability is countered? How does the triggered ability know what to search for and what to do once it has finished its search (i.e., put the card into your hand or into play)? Because I do not think LKI will allow that to work at all.
"... if you find a card ..." handles those situations. It wasn't found. The rest of the triggered ability is countered.
Actually, the wording should be "Whenever the effect of a spell or ability allows you to search your library for one or more cards..." Effect is in line with Muscle Burst and a few other cards, and also handles the original-is-countered situation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
In the big picture, Le Chat doesn't feel it's that important. Not that she doesn't want to honor the intention of board members.
I would think the intent of the original designer would be extremely important. Especially for ensuring that the card came out as desired.
Quote from Le Chat »
Actually, the wording should be "Whenever the effect of a spell or ability allows you to search your library for one or more cards..." Effect is in line with Muscle Burst and a few other cards, and also handles the original-is-countered situation.
That wording is unnecessarily duplicative. If an effect allows you to search, chances are it was the result of a spell or ability (which generate such effects). Plus, the problem still is in how to define what you are searching for. For example:
1.) If you search for a card that matches the characteristics of the original, then you have to search for an exact duplicate of the card. That means, if you used Chord of Calling to find a Darksteel Colossus, then you'd have to find another Darksteel Colossus (since that's the only card that matches the characteristics of the original, as it matches all of them).
2.) If you search for a card that matches the characteristics of the original, and the original wasn't revealed, then you can't find a card with matching characteristics (because all of the characteristics are undefined, and nothing can match those). You can't simply find "a card".
3.) If you search for multiple cards, then how do you find a card that matches all the characteristics of those? Or let alone search for multiple cards and then find those.
Personally, as much as I'd like to see this work, I think the rules don't easily support this. And, in order to make it work, you'd end up with a card like Dead Ringers. Which, probably, wouldn't be a lot of fun to play with.
So, in your view, the only allowable activity is adjudicating whether a card works or not, not proposing wording which might work?
The "proposing" should be geared toward what the original card was supposed to do, not what you might want to change it to. That's the point have having it as a separate forum. What you want to do already has a forum. If you can't handle that this is a forum for rulings on created cards, not creating new ones per se, then go back to the creation forum.
You're rather egreriously misquoting Le Chat here.
My apologies if you feel that way. But it simply seemed that you were making a rather dismissive remark about what it seemed that Pharmalade wanted the card to do, and instead decided to make it what you wanted to do. Which seems unfair to me, as it is his card, not yours.
I feel it is more important to either honor the original designer's intent, or failing that, tell that person it doesn't work (or at least may not be able to without some substantive changes to the CompRules). At least I feel I'm being honest and direct about it.
Quote from Le Chat »
Do you have anything more substantive to add than "Your solution doesn't work, but I can't come up with anything either"?
My feeling is that in order to get the card to work properly, the wording would have to be forced and ultimately the final product would be rather unworkable and probably not very much fun. As I said when I originally supported this forum, I can only help with card design as the CompRules are currently written.
That, unfortunately, means I may also say that "This card can't work" if the CompRules don't support it. And, I think I've clearly demonstrated, that I'm also willing to help make a card work if it is doable (or at least I can find a way that it's doable). But I can't change the CompRules to make it work, and it would be unfair and misleading to suppose something about the CompRules that clearly isn't true.
I'm sorry that you feel it is inappropriate, but I think it's better to say "I don't think we can get this card to work" then try to force it to work and create something that really isn't going to do as originally intended.
Pretty insightful, and Le Chat apologizes if her reply to you seemed snippy. Le Chat doesn't believe she presented her alternative as a functional equivalent of the original poster's card; certainly we can enumerate areas where it works very differently.
That said, LC feels that "Sorry, your card doesn't work; try this?" is generally better than "Sorry, that doesn't work." Another board member can take the "try" idea and shape it to fit his or her desires; Le Chat doesn't hold these sorts of ideas close to her chest.
Since this thread was originated by Pharmalade, LC'd expect to hear from him or her on what the intention behind the card was, and whether or not this process has been helpful.
That said, LC feels that "Sorry, your card doesn't work; try this?" is generally better than "Sorry, that doesn't work." Another board member can take the "try" idea and shape it to fit his or her desires; Le Chat doesn't hold these sorts of ideas close to her chest.
Like I said, if there was a way that I knew of to get it to work as intended, I would suggest it. Unfortunately, I just cannot seem to think of anything that matches the original intent as I understand it without it getting pretty convoluted.
Even applying something like a replacement effect makes it tough. For example, as Condor suggested, you might be able to do:
"If an effect would allow you to search for cards, instead search for that many cards plus an additional card."
That should allow you to search for 2 cards if you would search for 1, or 4 cards if you would search for 3. But that only works if you don't specify criteria. So, if you have specific criteria:
"If an effect would allow you to search for cards with specific characteristics, instead search for that many cards plus an additional card with those characteristics."
And, even then, that gets kind of ugly and cumbersome. Having both on the same card would probably allow you to do have no problem modifying any and every search effect.
I'd probably suggest making the card Legendary so you don't get too many headaches with it (outside of having a Mirror Gallery in play).
Let's take a step back and look at the big picture. Generous Donation. Some marvelous guy, sitting in an Ivory tower somewhere, will donate you some of his money, to make you even richer. Whenever you search for a card, he helps you out, and you get more. More of the same, that is. Something lame like "whenever you search your library for a card, gain 2 life" just doesn't cut it.
Keeping those elements in mind, I suggest:
Library of <insert name of place here>
Enchantment
Whenever a spell or activated ability causes you to search your library for a card, you may reveal it. If you do, search your library for a copy of that card and remove it from the game.
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a card removed from the game this way into your hand.
58 words, a bit too much and probably leaves no room for flavor text, but rules disaster averted, no!?
"copy of that card" may be replaced by "card of the same type", if that's truer to the original intent.
As Condor pointed out you're asking to alter some other effect. You need a replacement ability to do that. In many instances, the effect may have already done something with the card it searched for, and so there's no card left to reveal.
Also, it needs to be "another spell or ability" (or, "another effect"), or else it fuels itself.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Whenever a spell or activated ability causes you to search your library for a card, you may reveal it. If you do, search your library for a copy of that card and remove it from the game.
"Whenever an effect causes you to search your library for a card..."
The problem with this, is that how do you actually verify if the card that is being revealed was actually searched for? Which is part of the reason why effects that allow searches for cards with specific criteria require you to reveal the card before it changes zones. Since this is a triggered ability that would happen after the original search resolved, then there are some integrity issues to consider.
What you could do is this:
If an effect generated by something other than ~this would allow you to search your library for a card, you may remove it from the game instead of moving it to any other zone. Whenever you remove a card with ~this, you may search your library for a card with the same type as the removed card. Reveal that card and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library. Put any cards removed by ~this into its owner's hand.
And that's pretty rough wording (and fairly complicated).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DCI Regional Judge (L3)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Generous Donation 3W
Enchantment
If you would search your library for a card, instead search your library for that many cards plus one additional card with the same requirements. (For example, if you would search your library for two basic Plains and put them into play tapped, instead search for three basic Plains and put them into play tapped.)
Does that cover all of my bases? For example, Diabolic Tutor gets any two cards, Gifts Ungiven gets five cards each with different names, Gift of Estates gets four Plains cards, Steelshaper's Gift gets you two Equipment cards, Enduring Ideal gets you two Enchantments in play, Chord of Calling gets you two creatures with a mana cost of X, and Guided Passage gets you only three cards because your opponent is the one searching.
Does the wording need to change at all? Should I add more reminder text?
-Pharmalade.
Banner by Topher!
Whenever a spell or ability other than this would cause you to search your library for a card, put a copy of that spell or ability on the stack.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Try this: If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card if you apply the rules of the spell or ability to it.
Kind of clumsy too, but perhaps most fitting so far...
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 believe that would be the best way to word 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?
It's the little details that usually make the difference between wording a card correctly, and having problems that make people argue over what it means (As above. :)) This has two such problems that I see.
First, do you mean for this replacement to apply to each card you search for, like you say in the first part ("If you would search for A card"), or once for each search ("search for that many plus one."). I suspect the latter is what you meant, but technically Alex+ is correct. As worded, this would replace each "search for a card" part of the event with "search for two cards," and double the number searched for. The solution is to say "search for cards" or even "search for a specific number of cards (see below) rather than "search for a card."
Second, this causes what I believe to be a truly unprecedented situation - where an effect could tell you to look for "any number" of cards, and then the replacement jumps in and says "But wait - add one more!" The problem is that the rules don't tell us to choose the number. You don't say "I'm going to find three," and then start looking. You just look, and can get whatever number seems appropriate after you have searched.
This is a problem, because rules-lawyer types will (incorrectly) insist you have to increase the number by one. And, while you can say "well I was going to search for two and got three instead" when you really want three, you can't look for zero this way. Because you couldn't have chosen "negative one" originally. Which is why saying "specific number" is a good idea, so "any number" effects are excluded. Again, this isn't a real problem, but it will be perceived as one, and you should word the card to avoid it. (And now that I look, there are even more problems related to this, since an effect could say "search for up to some number, and you want to increase that.)
Natural Balance lets you get more lands then those who sacrifice end up with.
I think there is quite obvious what the card is supposed to do - just expand each card search, be it optional (up to...) or not by one card. At the same time generate this effect only once for each spell or ability that lets you search a library. Now let's consider the wording I have provided:
"If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card if you apply the rules of the spell or ability to it."
I'm curious if there is some problem why not to word it like this and wonder if there's a better way. The effect of searching for one additional card belongs to Generous Donation, it only tells you that you need to apply the rules of the spell or ability that trigered it, to the additional card. For that I can't see a precedent in Magic so far and I also can't see how wording for Natural Balance could help us.
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 problem may be rooted in using a replacement effect to change the number of cards searched for. If we simply want to grab an extra card, it could work as a triggered ability:
"Whenever another ability allows you to search your library for a card, you may search your library for a card {with qualities}. Reveal that card, put it into your hand, and shuffle your library."
This does cause two searches and thus two shuffles, making it arguably worse in the light of Psychogenic Probe (and tournament time limitations).
Le Chat has left the {quality} section blank, because it is uncharted territory: you can't sample words out of the tutoring ability, because many are worded in different ways. Le Chat suggests changing the ability to "Whenever another ability allows you to search your library for a card, if you find a card, reveal that card. Then you may search your library for a card with the same | converted mana cost | color | card type. Reveal that card, put it into your hand, and shuffle your library." The choices are still open as far as cmc, color, and card type, generally moving from most restrictive to most open. It also means that your general Diabolic Tutor, which doesn't reveal the card, now has to let its secret out.
.
The card feels more blue than white (seeking after knowledge), and is arguably undercosted -- the fetch lands, for example, become exceptionally powerful with this.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Yes, it is. I even said as much. But that is not how the card, as worded, and with existing precedents applied to it, would work. Hence, it is a "rules problem." If you want a Custom Card Rulings forum (as opposed to a Custom Cards forum), you have to apply the rules as they exist, not how you would like them to exist, to the cards you create.
Then you missed my point. The number you are allowed to search for, the number you want to search for, and the number you actually find, are not he same number. With an "up to" effect, it isn't clear which of these three is ever known. You want to increase what you are allowed to search for.
And since I first replied, I discovered the card that breaks this concept card, and your wording. Gaea's Balance - what extra card do you search for? You also get into trouble with Grim Reminder - do you compare the spells played to one name of choice, either name separately, or both names together? While you may think the answer, for what is intended, is obvious, the rules need to be clear on the issue. And they are not.
The card won't work, without some significant change. It probably should not be a replacement. Maybe something like "If an effect lets you search your library for cards matching some criteria, you MAY (important word to avoid problems) search for one additional card matching any of the criteria that effect described for one card. Apply the rest of the effect to the additional card."
Who said anything about "wording for Natural Balance?" It was an odd side-effect of the card that I noticed, that's all.
But the intent of was to do the same thing the original search effect did with the card, not put it into you hand. Plus, not all search effects ask you to reveal it.
Stop there, this is unworkable. You changed it to a trigger, not a replacement, and are asking to reveal the card that triggered it. It may be in play, or even moved to another zone by now. With Diaboloc Tutor, there is no way to track the card while the trigger waits to resolve.
Yes -- Le Chat realized this when re-reading the thread. Gifts Ungiven and Mystical Tutor and other cards offer too many possibilities.
"Whenever another ability causes you to search your library for a card, if that card was revealed...." takes care of the matter, however. We could argue over whether putting a card into play is revealing it or not, 'spose.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Then it would have absolutely no interaction with cards like Diabolic Tutor or Demonic Tutor. Or Flooded Strand or Rampant Growth or...
The point is, like Condor said, is that you missing the key purpose of the spell. Is it indeed to increase the number of cards you search for as the result of a particular effect? Or is the intent to allow you to tutor for a card after you have played a spell that allows you to search?
That's why many of the suggestions don't work (and why they don't always work in conjunction with other people's cards). Because you get away from the original intent of the card in order to make it work. I mean, do you want to make another Ghost Town, or go for something cooler?
Although you and Condor suggest that the card wording fails in light of searches which are part of effects other than tutoring, reading Pharmalade's initial post suggests that only tutoring effects were being considered -- that is, searches with a companion effect of "put {that card} into your hand."
With that in mind, Le Chat feels simply triggering a second search, rather than replacing the search function, fulfills the intent of the card. To keep it from becoming too powerful, we limit it to searching for cards with similar characteristics as a card searched for by the original. If we don't know the characteristics, we can't search for a card.
Different from the original? Yes. But was the original workable? More importantly, we can now work off of wording that does work -- even if imperfectly -- rather than hodge over text that is, essentially, meaningless because it does not function.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
From my read on the original card:
1.) The desired effect was to increase the number of cards that were searched for from the result of a spell or ability.
2.) The desired effect was to have that be part of the spell or ability, and not a separate effect.
3.) The desired effect would, in all other ways, resolve as normal.
He specifically mentioned cards such as Enduring Ideal, that doesn't put the card into your hand. It puts it into play. Same with Chord of Calling.
So, I'm afraid, we have a different understanding of his intent.
And what happens if the original spell/ability is countered? How does the triggered ability know what to search for and what to do once it has finished its search (i.e., put the card into your hand or into play)? Because I do not think LKI will allow that to work at all.
Entirely possible, and not surprising. It doesn't seem, however, that the original poster was considering other, more complicated search effects. Whether that oversight was deliberate or unintended is your guess and mine.
:: shrug :: In the big picture, Le Chat doesn't feel it's that important. Not that she doesn't want to honor the intention of board members.
"... if you find a card ..." handles those situations. It wasn't found. The rest of the triggered ability is countered.
Actually, the wording should be "Whenever the effect of a spell or ability allows you to search your library for one or more cards..." Effect is in line with Muscle Burst and a few other cards, and also handles the original-is-countered situation.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
I would think the intent of the original designer would be extremely important. Especially for ensuring that the card came out as desired.
That wording is unnecessarily duplicative. If an effect allows you to search, chances are it was the result of a spell or ability (which generate such effects). Plus, the problem still is in how to define what you are searching for. For example:
1.) If you search for a card that matches the characteristics of the original, then you have to search for an exact duplicate of the card. That means, if you used Chord of Calling to find a Darksteel Colossus, then you'd have to find another Darksteel Colossus (since that's the only card that matches the characteristics of the original, as it matches all of them).
2.) If you search for a card that matches the characteristics of the original, and the original wasn't revealed, then you can't find a card with matching characteristics (because all of the characteristics are undefined, and nothing can match those). You can't simply find "a card".
3.) If you search for multiple cards, then how do you find a card that matches all the characteristics of those? Or let alone search for multiple cards and then find those.
Personally, as much as I'd like to see this work, I think the rules don't easily support this. And, in order to make it work, you'd end up with a card like Dead Ringers. Which, probably, wouldn't be a lot of fun to play with.
You're rather egreriously misquoting Le Chat here.
Do you have anything more substantive to add than "Your solution doesn't work, but I can't come up with anything either"?
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
But this is a rulings forum. Not a card-creation forum.
If you can't handle that this is a subforum of the Creativity forum (just look up top!), go back to RQ&A.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
My apologies if you feel that way. But it simply seemed that you were making a rather dismissive remark about what it seemed that Pharmalade wanted the card to do, and instead decided to make it what you wanted to do. Which seems unfair to me, as it is his card, not yours.
I feel it is more important to either honor the original designer's intent, or failing that, tell that person it doesn't work (or at least may not be able to without some substantive changes to the CompRules). At least I feel I'm being honest and direct about it.
My feeling is that in order to get the card to work properly, the wording would have to be forced and ultimately the final product would be rather unworkable and probably not very much fun. As I said when I originally supported this forum, I can only help with card design as the CompRules are currently written.
That, unfortunately, means I may also say that "This card can't work" if the CompRules don't support it. And, I think I've clearly demonstrated, that I'm also willing to help make a card work if it is doable (or at least I can find a way that it's doable). But I can't change the CompRules to make it work, and it would be unfair and misleading to suppose something about the CompRules that clearly isn't true.
I'm sorry that you feel it is inappropriate, but I think it's better to say "I don't think we can get this card to work" then try to force it to work and create something that really isn't going to do as originally intended.
That said, LC feels that "Sorry, your card doesn't work; try this?" is generally better than "Sorry, that doesn't work." Another board member can take the "try" idea and shape it to fit his or her desires; Le Chat doesn't hold these sorts of ideas close to her chest.
Since this thread was originated by Pharmalade, LC'd expect to hear from him or her on what the intention behind the card was, and whether or not this process has been helpful.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Like I said, if there was a way that I knew of to get it to work as intended, I would suggest it. Unfortunately, I just cannot seem to think of anything that matches the original intent as I understand it without it getting pretty convoluted.
Even applying something like a replacement effect makes it tough. For example, as Condor suggested, you might be able to do:
"If an effect would allow you to search for cards, instead search for that many cards plus an additional card."
That should allow you to search for 2 cards if you would search for 1, or 4 cards if you would search for 3. But that only works if you don't specify criteria. So, if you have specific criteria:
"If an effect would allow you to search for cards with specific characteristics, instead search for that many cards plus an additional card with those characteristics."
And, even then, that gets kind of ugly and cumbersome. Having both on the same card would probably allow you to do have no problem modifying any and every search effect.
I'd probably suggest making the card Legendary so you don't get too many headaches with it (outside of having a Mirror Gallery in play).
Keeping those elements in mind, I suggest:
Library of <insert name of place here>
Enchantment
Whenever a spell or activated ability causes you to search your library for a card, you may reveal it. If you do, search your library for a copy of that card and remove it from the game.
At the beginning of your upkeep, put a card removed from the game this way into your hand.
58 words, a bit too much and probably leaves no room for flavor text, but rules disaster averted, no!?
"copy of that card" may be replaced by "card of the same type", if that's truer to the original intent.
Also, it needs to be "another spell or ability" (or, "another effect"), or else it fuels itself.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
"Whenever an effect causes you to search your library for a card..."
The problem with this, is that how do you actually verify if the card that is being revealed was actually searched for? Which is part of the reason why effects that allow searches for cards with specific criteria require you to reveal the card before it changes zones. Since this is a triggered ability that would happen after the original search resolved, then there are some integrity issues to consider.
What you could do is this:
If an effect generated by something other than ~this would allow you to search your library for a card, you may remove it from the game instead of moving it to any other zone.
Whenever you remove a card with ~this, you may search your library for a card with the same type as the removed card. Reveal that card and put it into your hand. Shuffle your library. Put any cards removed by ~this into its owner's hand.
And that's pretty rough wording (and fairly complicated).