Your suggestion would looks for a card in your library, finds it, does something either with it, or using information from it.
The replacement effect would pause the search effect when it finds the card, reveal it, and RFG it. Fine up to that point; it's duplicating what happens with madness, pretty much. However, the final effect of that card puts it into your hand.
In either case mentioned above, however, the original searched-for card shouldn't end up in your hand; it goes back into your library.
The difficulty in effects such as this is that there's no telling what the disposition of the card after its searched for will be; and, as a corollary, no telling whether the original effect will be able to handle "finding" an additional card.
.
Taking this in a different direction: Could we copy the effect, but limit the copy to only finding one card? How would this change things?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
The replacement effect would pause the search effect when it finds the card, reveal it, and RFG it. Fine up to that point; it's duplicating what happens with madness, pretty much. However, the final effect of that card puts it into your hand (and, unwrittenly, unpauses the original search effect.)
No, it doesn't do this at all. The replacement effect is applied as the original search effect is resolved, just like any other replacement effect. All it does is change what happens to the card. By the time the triggered ability resolves, the original effect has long since resolved.
You don't "pause" things in the game, especially resolving spells or abilities. If the resolving spell or ability has something "change" about it (such as a replacement effect applying), it still resolves normally in every other respect.
The card that is removed by ~this will be put in your hand along with the second card (though the second card will be put in your hand "first").
You'll notice that Le Chat had already edited that last parenthetical bit out (the joys of re-reading to discover what was actually written).
@. Whatever. Using madness as a template doesn't work, because the effect that madness duplicates (discarding) is pretty easy to mimic (put a card in your hand into the graveyard). Searching, as well as revealing a card and a few other effects, is more complicated. Unless there's a clean way to devise a "then do what the original effect was going to do with that card" -- and there's not -- you end up with word baggage, and probably use several phrases not found elsewhere in the MtG glossary.
.
So, to repeat: Would copying the spell or ability, but limiting the copy's search to finding only one card, suffice?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
As I understand it, this card really is a rules' hell. And I suspect that even if we (or you :)) manage to come up with functional wording, it would be so complicated and counter-intuitive, that the whole idea will be choked with the effort to cover all posibilities various search effects can generate.
So, what I'd like to suggest is to set up a new goal, more simple, word it and THEN try to expand it so it would still work universally with all cards.
Looking on the original idea, the purpose should be that if ANYTHING causes you to search your library for a card, the enchantment rewards you with another card. We would like to cover all searches, from Gifts Ungiven, Demonic Tutor, over Chord of Calling, Gaea's Balance and Grim Reminder, to Rebel searches or Entomb.
Most simple card based on this idea would probably be:
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search a library for cards, if you have found a card, draw a card.
It should work, right? Is there a way to word next step where the card somehow checks what was searched for and lets you search for additional card (I would prefer to search the same card type to simplify things)?
Taking this in a different direction: Could we copy the effect, but limit the copy to only finding one card? How would this change things?
No. There are three very serious problems: How do you identify the cards to search for, what do you do with the found cards, and what other things does the spell do? Copying the spell/ability means you copy all those things, and the net result wouldn't work right (or work significantly differently) for numerous spells and/or abilities.
Gifts Ungiven would mill the extra card found. It could have the same name as one of the others.
Remembrance uses LKI, based on what triggered it, to find the name. The copy can't do that since nothing triggered it.
Assembly Hall would let you search for two different cards, not two of the same. Kodama's Reach puts the extra one into play.
Pack Hunt is targeted. Do you want to pick a new target?
And I just skimmed the results of searching for "search" effects, and didn't look for actual rules (remember the topic of this forum?) issues, like how a copy of Gaea's Balance would work.
Quote from Charmer »
So, what I'd like to suggest is to set up a new goal, more simple, word it and THEN try to expand it so it would still work universally with all cards.
You mean, like my suggestion about fifteen posts ago?
You mean, like my suggestion about fifteen posts ago?
Oh, I get it. You know how to provoke after all. Good
Anyway, my point was, even if you have suggested something like that, subsequent discussion yielded nothing usable 'cause you all tried so hard to cover all posibilities.
My idea was to build the card from something everybody knows works instead of brewing the whole wording from "nothing".
So would you agree, that
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search a library for cards, if you have found a card, draw a card.
was the simplest wording that 1) works with anything that lets you search library and 2) is reasonably close to original intention for the card?
If you do, my question is if we can push the wording a bit further to 2) without doing anything to 1). If you don't, say why.
Anyway, my point was, even if you have suggested something like that,...
I had proposed a wording that works. It isn't pretty, but it does exactly what the original intent of the card was. The fact that you choose to ignore it, and emphasize the petty bickering you seem to prefer, and attempt to use this forum for other purposes than what it is intended, is not my fault
subsequent discussion yielded nothing usable 'cause you all tried so hard to cover all posibilities.
This is a rulings forum. By "covering all possibilities," do you mean "addressing all the rulings issues involved?" Yep, I tried to do that. You may not see that as usable toward changing the card to do what you want it to do, but that discussion has nothing to do with rulings, and belongs elsewhere. Like, the in the parent forum.
So would you agree, that
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search a library for cards, if you have found a card, draw a card.
was the simplest wording that 1) works with anything that lets you search library and 2) is reasonably close to original intention for the card?
Emphatically NO. I'd say your effect pretty much misses the entire point of the original suggestion. How does "draw a card" have anything to do with "you get to find an extra card, and do the same thing with it?"
It isn't going to work as a trigger and meet your criterion #2, because you can't handle those three serious problems I mentioned in a trigger. For example, the point of Extract targeting yourself (in order to get a card that is useless against your opponent out of your deck) is completely missed by your effect.
Quite a challenge this card, isn't it?
Not if you try. Or look at my previous suggestion. Why won't you do that?
BUT, this is still a rulings forum, not a card-creation forum, and discussions on the direction of the card still don't belong here.
If an effect lets you search your library for cards matching some criteria, you may 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.
Found that in post 10, which is pretty far from where you mentioned it was, btw.
And you don't get it, my suggestion was just a first approximation that works because I have overlooked your solution, mister perfect...
Now, are you sure that it isn't just another ugly hack like the others in this thread? What happens if I look for a card that needn't meet any criteria (Demonic Tutor) ? Also "apply the rest of the effect" feels rather shaky... Finally, shouldn't be "described for one card" "described for any card searched" at the least? I'm not entirely confident that this solution is bullet-proof.
]Found that in post 10, which is pretty far from where you mentioned it was, btw.
Sorry, I could have sworn the post I said that in was post #25 when I looked. Still, it is my closest post to where I said.
And you don't get it, my suggestion was just a first approximation that works because I have overlooked your solution, mister perfect...
I don't claim to be perfect; but I do (or would, if I were to try this) read other people's posts to see if they attempted to do something I wanted to say hadn't been done. But your suggestion is nowhere near an approximation to the original effect. It is an entirely new effect, related only in that it is cued by a search, and does something with one additional card.
Now, are you sure that it isn't just another ugly hack like the others in this thread?
I said it was ugly. What do you mean? That it won't work? It will; that's why I suggested it. I didn't work hard to make it pretty, because THIS IS NOT A CARD DESIGN FORUM. I was only indicating a form that would work within the rules.
What happens if I look for a card that needn't meet any criteria (Demonic Tutor) ?
"A card" is a criterion.
Also "apply the rest of the effect" feels rather shaky...
I said it was ugly, and that I wasn't trying to make it perfect; just point the way.
Finally, shouldn't be "described for one card" "described for any card searched" at the least? I'm not entirely confident that this solution is bullet-proof.
It isn't. But I thought, maybe, the custom-card designers would want to work on that.
But, here is a better one:
If an effect lets you search your library for cards, you may find one additional card that you could find in that search.
It's still ugly, because "find" isn't really an official word. But it works. Now, maybe you could take it out of the rulings forum and into a design forum?
BUT, this is still a rulings forum, not a card-creation forum, and discussions on the direction of the card still don't belong here.
This needs to be flagged. Condor, you're not a mod, and you don't determine the usage(s) of the forum. If you don't feel comfortable discussing card development, that's one thing; but creating an environment which stifles others is reprehensible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
The problem, Sheera, stems from using a replacement ability to engineer the change.
If you were only to read reminder text, madness seems to "insert" a play condition into the event of discarding a card. If you look at the actual CompRules, you'll see the actual effect is quite different, and even though the end result might be the same -- a card in your hand is put into your graveyard -- the process is entirely different.
The same goes for altering a search effect. What you have as reminder text needs to be written as rules text. Unfortunately for us, there are many different ways to search for cards (the "qualities" you mention) and infinite variety of things that could be done as a result of searching for one or more cards (the "effects"). While we can describe card qualities, "the same qualities stated by the original search effect" doesn't sound like any other card text.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Condor, please don't be so angry. You've done nothing near flames yet, but tempers are clearly getting there. This IS a Custom Card Rulings thread, as you pointed out, but that leaves rulings questioners with the unique ability to ALTER THEIR CARDS to fit the ruling they want it to follow, and asking if their modifiction is ok is logically placed in the rulings thread ON that card's ability.
This IS a Custom Card Rulings thread, as you pointed out, but that leaves rulings questioners with the unique ability to ALTER THEIR CARDS to fit the ruling they want it to follow, and asking if their modifiction is ok is logically placed in the rulings thread ON that card's ability.
I respect that; and in fact, I made several suggestions. I was emphasizing points that people were ignoring, not speaking in anger. BUT, I still feel that once the rules problems are worked out (or if it becomes an entirely new card, with no such problems), the discussion doesn't belong here. If they did, there would be no difference between this forum and its parent.
Quote from Stax »
How about solving the "What additional card maybe searched for and what is done with it?" questions with reminder text?
Reminder text means, and solves, nothing officially. It has to be in the ability, or (if that isn't possible) in the rules. For example, when Time Stop was printed, "end a turn" became an action defined in the rules.
Quote from Le Chat »
The problem, Sheera, stems from using a replacement ability to engineer the change.
Or more accuratley, treating the search process like it was a single event that can be replaced. Since several sequential things happen in a search, that just won't work. But a static ability that modifies the definition of a search can. If you think the components are ill defined, then it could (and should) go in the rule defining "search."
Condor, please don't be so angry. You've done nothing near flames yet, but tempers are clearly getting there. This IS a Custom Card Rulings thread, as you pointed out, but that leaves rulings questioners with the unique ability to ALTER THEIR CARDS to fit the ruling they want it to follow, and asking if their modifiction is ok is logically placed in the rulings thread ON that card's ability.
With respect, the point Condor is trying to make is two-fold:
1.) The card still needs to work within the rules as currently written. "Rulings" regarding cards are 99% supported by the official rules, and are not "independent" of the official rules. So, even if a card has a specific ruling, one can find the justification for that ruling within the official rules.
2.) Some of the suggestions "get away" from the original intention of the card (or at least based on what was originally written about the intent of the card). For example, suggesting to "draw cards" (which is not tutoring) from a tutor effect doesn't match the original intent. Likewise, having a separate tutor effect trigger from the original one doesn't match the original intent either (and becomes even more cumbersome when you try to get it to work).
In these respects, I think Condor makes a very solid point; if the intent of this forum is to try to "massage" cards to working within the actual rules, then some of the suggestions don't work. Certainly they may get the card to work (or change so that it does work), but they don't match the designer's original intent. Likewise, we can't ignore the rules either, simply to make a card "function" (and let the users assume how it functions).
I'm not going to touch the conflict between Condor and charmer (whom I think is just as much at fault for being combative about this), but only to suggest that people should remember the two points above when "working on" a card. I agree, these aren't official cards and don't have to be "perfect"; but on the other hand, we do have to conform to certain standards.
One is to keep the card as close to original intention as possible. The other is to work within the current rules. It's best to keep those two points in mind when reading the forum.
Alright you obsessive senior judges who can't resist the urge to constatly try to tell people what exactly they should or should not write to one or another forum. If there is something that doesn't belong here, it is neverending snaping at people once the discussion strays one milimeter from where you would prefer it to be. I reckon we have had enough "fun" with that already in Rulings forum prior the creation of this subforum. Are you from Azorius or what? This is more, like, Izzet area :p.
Back on topic though, there is one short and elegant solution, strangely enough (pun ) coming from Condor.
If an effect lets you search your library for cards, you may find one additional card that you could find in that search.
I would work with that and polish it some more.
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card that could be searched for with that spell or ability.
Slightly wordier but what do you think, can it be submitted to print about now ?
Back on topic though, there is one short and elegant solution, strangely enough (pun ) coming from Condor.
I resent that implication quite a bit, whether or not you include a smilie to make it look like it isn't a dig. (BTW, it would conceal it better if there was actually some sort of pun there.) I have made many suggestions here, all of them good. The fact that you choose to ignore and/or belittle them, is not my fault.
If an effect lets you search your library for cards, you may find one additional card that you could find in that search.
I would work with that and polish it some more.
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card that could be searched for with that spell or ability.
Slightly wordier but what do you think, can it be submitted to print about now ?
You don't get it, do you? That is a trigger. It won't work as a trigger, which will resolve (and thus let you search) long after the original effect is done resolving. It has to be found at the same time as the other cards you search for. It can't be a replacement, because the "search" isn't a discrete event, and treating it like one will cause problems.
It will work if you redefine the "search" to find one more card. So I've been suggesting a rules-modifying continuous effect. That is the best, and cleanest, way to solve the rules and mechanics issues. How you choose to word it, if you don't like mine, is not a rulings issue, and not my concern.
I resent that implication quite a bit, whether or not you include a smilie to make it look like it isn't a dig. (BTW, it would conceal it better if there was actually some sort of pun there.) I have made many suggestions here, all of them good. The fact that you choose to ignore and/or belittle them, is not my fault.
well it was a dig and quite innocent one too. The fact that you don't realize that your own touchiness is quite amusing and choose to get offended every single time, is not my fault and not my concern to boot 8^).
...
Right, right, a trigger then. My bad.
Anyway you may choose to consider you wording perfect, I'd like to improve it still. If you're game, here's my another attempt:
If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards you may find one additional cards that could be searched with that spell or ability.
This should be it. BTW, does it solve the problem what to do with the additional card, like that you should toss it in your graveyard if it is Entombed, put it into play, if it is a digged Rebel and so on?
Now that I think of it, it may only let you find an additional which would be still excluded from effect of the spell or ability in question...
Unless I'm missing something completely, that doesn't work either. I think the concept of finding cards is uncomfortable with many people, since it (in the most technical sense) makes it impossible to find nothing, and thus often requires a judge to intervene. This is, obviously, not a good thing.
I think I understand the issues. It can be handled very clunkily but directly by:
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search your library for some number of cards, search your library as though it asked you to search for that number of cards plus one instead.
So you treat it exactly as though each instance which causes you to search for cards searches for that many + 1 instead. Whenever a card says "that card" etc it will have to be understood that this refers to "each card" instead. You get the idea I assume. Because it specifically modifies what the ability/spell is doing, the transference of criterion is implied. It works in the expected way with every card mentioned so far in this thread (with the possible exception of Gaea's Balance, which now lets you get 10 lands. O_o), and it replaces the effect so it avoids timing issues. It doesn't cause any unexpected complications that I can see, and it integrates the may for anything that has a condition. Diabolic tutor will have to find 2 cards, but I don't think thats an issue.
The dig itself was quite innocent - but the circumstances it was referring to (that I have been less then helpful in any responses) were not. That fact that you don't realize (or choose to ignore again) how much of that you have ignored not amusing at all. The fact that you keep insuating that I said things I have not is flamming, and probably should be "flagged" as well. But I don't work like that.
If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards you may find one additional cards that could be searched with that spell or ability.
Grammar aside, you don't search cards; you search the zone. You find cards.
But I never said my wording was "perfect." I never tried to make it so; and said as much several times (did you notice?). I'm not interested in perfecting it - just solving the rules issues. For example, I knew "spell or ability" was more usual by today's templates, but both are used. There even is a difference - "effect" covers all the things covered by "spell or ability," and a few more. I don't think that impacts this card, tho. I used "effect" because it is shorter, so I had to type less.
BTW, does it solve the problem what to do with the additional card, like that you should toss it in your graveyard if it is Entombed, put it into play, if it is a digged Rebel and so on?
If the text makes it clear that it is found in the same search (mine did, yours didn't), yes.
Quote from JimTheMighty »
I think the concept of finding cards is uncomfortable with many people, since it (in the most technical sense) makes it impossible to find nothing, and thus often requires a judge to intervene. This is, obviously, not a good thing.
I really don't understand what you mean.
First off, "search" and "find" are different things. "Search" is a process of looking through a zone, and it has rules associated with it. That is, it is an officially defined term. "Find" is the result of a search, and it is just an English word we use. And the only thing wrong with my wording (well, besides "effect" vs. "spell or ability") is that it needs to use "find," an English word, to work. English definitions are fuzzier than Magic definitions, so it isn't very "clean."
One of those rules (about "search") is that if the search criterion involves some hidden information, that would require judge intervention to prove it wasn't there, that you aren't required to "find" anything. You still search, but you don't find. There are some effects in Magic that may require a judge (Copper Gnomes), but "search" shouldn't be one.
I think I understand the issues. It can be handled very clunkily but directly by:
Whenever a spell or ability ...
Stop there. If you think you can make it a trigger, you don't understand the issues. The point is to let the searching player find one additional card in the same search. That can't be done with a trigger, which must result in a second search since it resolves at a different time.
But I think you meant for this to be a replacement effect (rather than "When [X] happens, do [Y] instead" use "If [X] would happen, do [Y] instead"). We addressed this early in the thread. Let me just say that there are logistic problems if the replaced event is not a single action.
...causes you to search your library for some number of cards, search your library as though it asked you to search for that number of cards plus one instead.
And this doesn't cover all the ways a search effect could be worded very well. Gaea's Balance, for example. What kind of card is the "plus one" ? This is also one of those logistics problems - is there one search event, for five differnt things; or five search events, and each gets replaced? Do you get six lands, or ten?
Whenever a card says "that card" etc it will have to be understood that this refers to "each card" instead. You get the idea I assume.
Right. It's essentially what I did, by saying the seach can find one more card, like any one that could have been found to begin with.
The trouble with replacing finding one more basically relies upon the fact that you can't ever find 0. I guess this is irellevant if you include a "may", but otherwise you have the issue that, if there are no cards with <quality> remaining you have to call a judge to verify this. Is there some reason you believe this to be incorrect?
I understand the distinction between find and search. This is why I used search in my wording.
You are completely right that I edited out the If and replaced it with Whenever. It still isn't a trigger, obviously (instead), and is merely incorrectly templated. Gaea's Balance is covered. "a" card, quite clearly refers to 1 (this assumption is necessary if you want this to work at all). So each time you would search for "a" card, you treat it as though you were told to search for two cards instead. As for the second part of the issue, this is the reason that "for a number of cards" is in there. Each instance that "asks you to search" instead asks you to search for one more. If it is worded such that it is different instances (ie Gaea's Balance) then it will affect each instance, if not (ie Kodama's Reach) then it will replace the entire instance once. There is no reason this replacement should ever have to handle multiple actions simultaneously.
And finding one more card that could have been found by the original source acts quite differently (Gaea's Balance is the only immediately obvious case). As to what he meant? I'm not sure. Not even sure if it will come up often.
The trouble with replacing finding one more basically relies upon the fact that you can't ever find 0. I guess this is irellevant if you include a "may", but otherwise you have the issue that, if there are no cards with <quality> remaining you have to call a judge to verify this. Is there some reason you believe this to be incorrect?
The rule written specifically to address it?
Search
If you're required to search a zone not revealed to all players for cards of a given quality, such as type or color, you aren't required to find some or all of those cards even if they're present; however, if you do choose to find cards, you must reveal those cards to all players. Even if you don't find any cards, you are still considered to have searched the zone.
There is no need to call a judge in your hypothetical situation, since the rules allow you to say "I didn't find any" for any such search. But Copper Gnomes does have that problem.
[Following paragraph edited in]
But the reason I explained "find" vs. "search" was because you said "finding cards is uncomfortable with many people, since it (in the most technical sense) makes it impossible to find nothing." I would have said "searching for cards..." And it is possible to find nothing. "Find" is a result, and a valid result is "none."
Gaea's Balance is covered. "a" card, quite clearly refers to 1 (this assumption is necessary if you want this to work at all). So each time you would search for "a" card, you treat it as though you were told to search for two cards instead.
So your answer would be "ten." I sincerely doubt that is the original poster's intent, or if it would be understood by many of the people who read that text. For good reason. Is the text parsed "[a land card] of each basic land type," meaning five different "a cards," or is it "[a land card of each basic land type]," meaning "five cards?" The latter is the more common interpretation.
But there are other possible wordings that could foul up your intent. For example, "any number" is usually "0 to whatever." Do you make it "1 to whatever," or is 0 still allowed? The problem is that we are never told when to choose a number. And, while you may think the answer is obvious, there will be a significant number of people who don't. And I'm one of them.
The problem is that a "search" is not a discrete event, it is several discrete events; and not all will be present in all searches. And it doesn't matter how often it could come up - the situation has to be well defined.
The rule says that when you search, you may choose not to find. Thats all good and well. It doesn't say what to do if a card specifically tells you to find a card.
You can't have Gaea's Balance trigger as one search and have the card make any amount of sense. No suggestion so far has done so, and I expect none still will. This card wording will require any search which searches for cards with different criteria to treat each criteria as a seperate search. The wording I provided wouldn't even work with the first interpretation, which is part of the point. It only adresses when it asks you to search for some number of cards, not any number of cards with quality. The possible alternative interpretation would be that you get 5 cards, not 6.
My suggestion doesn't replace the search, so its not relevant whether you regard it as one search or many searches. Let me rephrase that, it does replace the search, but in a way that is not dependent upon whether you have one search or many searches. It has the effect of replacing the text of the effect that generates the search.
Edit: I think the whole discussion about finding is irellevant anyway, except insofar as this is already established as an argument on basic principles. I offered up that objection to the last not outright vetoed propostion before mine.
The rule says that when you search, you may choose not to find. Thats all good and well. It doesn't say what to do if a card specifically tells you to find a card.
Not sure what you mean. No card uses the word "find." If the only criterion you search for is "a card," the rules say you have to find one that is there, but no judge is required for verification. Do you have a specific case where you think a "search" effect requires a judge? If so, describe it in detail, because I don't think there are any.
You can't have Gaea's Balance trigger as one search and have the card make any amount of sense.
Why not? "a land card of each basic land type" describes five land cards, doesn't it? The "problem" isn't that "the right answer" is not reachable, it is that it is ambiguous. It also describes five different "a card"'s.
No suggestion so far has done so, and I expect none still will.
Then you haven't read mine. I still don't like it being a replacement, but that replacement would be "If you would search your library for cards matching some criteria, instead search it for those cards and one additional card you could find in the original search."
My suggestion doesn't replace the search, so its not relevant whether you regard it as one search or many searches. Let me rephrase that, it does replace the search, but in a way that is not dependent upon whether you have one search or many searches.
Then how did you get "ten" as an answer? A search for five cards can be one "search 5" event, or five "search 1" events, depending on wording. Compare it to damage replacements like "The next 1 damage that would be dealt to you," "The next time a source would deal damage to you," and "the next time damage would be dealt to you." If, in combat, two 2/2 creatures would deal you damage, the first example sees four events, the second sees two, and the third sees one.
You had said that "'A' card, quite clearly refers to 1 (this assumption is necessary if you want this to work at all)," and agreed (I think) when I said that meant Gaea's Balance saw five such searches.
It has the effect of replacing the text of the effect that generates the search.
No, that is not what replacements do. They look at the action the text describes, and replace all or part that action. They can look at the whole action that is happening, or describe some smaller part of it, as with my damage comparisons.
Read later in my post. The last not rejected suggestion had replaced finding any number of cards by finding one more. Or something to that effect. Its not relevant here, so lets just drop it I think.
On the point of Gaea's Balance, I don't see how your wording clarifies things at all. If this lets you find any of the 5 basic land types with Gaea's Balance, does it let you find a card as the same name as one of the other 4 with Gifts Ungiven?
To elaborate on not being dependent on one search or many searches: You conduct each search as though the card had asked for one more card. So, while how you read the card is relevent, it is not relevant that "a "search" is not a discrete event, it is several discrete events".
On Gaea's Balance, the issues is simply one of whether it is asking for one search or 5 searches. Ultimately, this is probably a problem with the wording of Gaea's Balance which could be very easily errata'ed. Any card which triggers or replaces searches is going to have this exact same issue.
It replaces the action by the action you would have taken if the text had been different--entirely within the bounds of a replacement effect I believe. I am sorry to cause ambiguity by using the english word "effect" here. I meant that it is in practice equivalent to.
First, let me say that the card idea falls into a trap often found in YMTC forums. It's a fun-sounding idea, but not really implementable. (And I don't mean to pick on YMTC forums here. Some early printed cards, like Word of Command, fall into the same trap.)
Quote from JimTheMighty »
Read later in my post. The last not rejected suggestion had replaced finding any number of cards by finding one more. Or something to that effect. Its not relevant here, so lets just drop it I think.
Well, I hadn't commented on your thoughts about the "last rejected post." I had already dropped it.
But, regardless of why you mentioned it, you made an incorrect statement about search cards requiring judge intervention in some cases. That is incorrect. Do you now agree?
On the point of Gaea's Balance, I don't see how your wording clarifies things at all. If this lets you find any of the 5 basic land types with Gaea's Balance, does it let you find a card as the same name as one of the other 4 with Gifts Ungiven?
Could you find two Grizzly Bears in the original search? No. Not in my "replaced" search. But, I see your point, and this is why the card idea won't really work well. It requires too much interpretation about what is meant.
For my claim about the Gifts Ungiven result, you have to determine "what you could find in the original search" based on what other cards were found in it. But (and this is the crux of the result I claim for it, and also the crux of the problem with the card), the "original search" already requires this property. The second card you find requires that you know the first; the third requires the first and second; etc. So, the extra card requires knowing the others. You are complaining that that wasn't clear enough in my wording. It isn't, but it is a possible interpretation.
But no wording can anticipate every possible search criterion, and explain how to implement it with an additional card.
To elaborate on not being dependent on one search or many searches: You conduct each search as though the card had asked for one more card.
Again, does Gaea's Balance ask for one card, five times; or does it ask for five cards?
I made the comparison to damage replacement effects for a reason. I wanted the Generous Donation effect to be equivalent to Sulfuric Vapors, which could have the same problems we have. It solves the problem by not referring to the amount of damage at all when it describes what it replaces. While some other replacements (en-kors) might look at a five-point fireball as five events, Sulpuric Vapors can't, it has to ignore any possible divisions of the event. That distinction (one event, or five events) is possible with "search-replacements," and Generous Donation needs to ignore it, too.
On Gaea's Balance, the issues is simply one of whether it is asking for one search or 5 searches.
And the wording we want must ignore it, adn use only the fact that you search for some amount, all at he same time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Suppose we take any non-tutoring search effect (Grim Reminder or Long-Term Plans.)
Your suggestion would looks for a card in your library, finds it, does something either with it, or using information from it.
The replacement effect would pause the search effect when it finds the card, reveal it, and RFG it. Fine up to that point; it's duplicating what happens with madness, pretty much. However, the final effect of that card puts it into your hand.
In either case mentioned above, however, the original searched-for card shouldn't end up in your hand; it goes back into your library.
The difficulty in effects such as this is that there's no telling what the disposition of the card after its searched for will be; and, as a corollary, no telling whether the original effect will be able to handle "finding" an additional card.
.
Taking this in a different direction: Could we copy the effect, but limit the copy to only finding one card? How would this change things?
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
No, it doesn't do this at all. The replacement effect is applied as the original search effect is resolved, just like any other replacement effect. All it does is change what happens to the card. By the time the triggered ability resolves, the original effect has long since resolved.
You don't "pause" things in the game, especially resolving spells or abilities. If the resolving spell or ability has something "change" about it (such as a replacement effect applying), it still resolves normally in every other respect.
The card that is removed by ~this will be put in your hand along with the second card (though the second card will be put in your hand "first").
@. Whatever. Using madness as a template doesn't work, because the effect that madness duplicates (discarding) is pretty easy to mimic (put a card in your hand into the graveyard). Searching, as well as revealing a card and a few other effects, is more complicated. Unless there's a clean way to devise a "then do what the original effect was going to do with that card" -- and there's not -- you end up with word baggage, and probably use several phrases not found elsewhere in the MtG glossary.
.
So, to repeat: Would copying the spell or ability, but limiting the copy's search to finding only one card, suffice?
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
So, what I'd like to suggest is to set up a new goal, more simple, word it and THEN try to expand it so it would still work universally with all cards.
Looking on the original idea, the purpose should be that if ANYTHING causes you to search your library for a card, the enchantment rewards you with another card. We would like to cover all searches, from Gifts Ungiven, Demonic Tutor, over Chord of Calling, Gaea's Balance and Grim Reminder, to Rebel searches or Entomb.
Most simple card based on this idea would probably be:
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search a library for cards, if you have found a card, draw a card.
It should work, right? Is there a way to word next step where the card somehow checks what was searched for and lets you search for additional card (I would prefer to search the same card type to simplify things)?
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?
Gifts Ungiven would mill the extra card found. It could have the same name as one of the others.
Remembrance uses LKI, based on what triggered it, to find the name. The copy can't do that since nothing triggered it.
Assembly Hall would let you search for two different cards, not two of the same. Kodama's Reach puts the extra one into play.
Pack Hunt is targeted. Do you want to pick a new target?
Insidious Dreams would effectively wipe out what the spell did.
And I just skimmed the results of searching for "search" effects, and didn't look for actual rules (remember the topic of this forum?) issues, like how a copy of Gaea's Balance would work.
You mean, like my suggestion about fifteen posts ago?
Oh, I get it. You know how to provoke after all. Good
Anyway, my point was, even if you have suggested something like that, subsequent discussion yielded nothing usable 'cause you all tried so hard to cover all posibilities.
My idea was to build the card from something everybody knows works instead of brewing the whole wording from "nothing".
So would you agree, that
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search a library for cards, if you have found a card, draw a card.
was the simplest wording that 1) works with anything that lets you search library and 2) is reasonably close to original intention for the card?
If you do, my question is if we can push the wording a bit further to 2) without doing anything to 1). If you don't, say why.
Quite a challenge this card, isn't 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?
This is a rulings forum. By "covering all possibilities," do you mean "addressing all the rulings issues involved?" Yep, I tried to do that. You may not see that as usable toward changing the card to do what you want it to do, but that discussion has nothing to do with rulings, and belongs elsewhere. Like, the in the parent forum.
Emphatically NO. I'd say your effect pretty much misses the entire point of the original suggestion. How does "draw a card" have anything to do with "you get to find an extra card, and do the same thing with it?"
It isn't going to work as a trigger and meet your criterion #2, because you can't handle those three serious problems I mentioned in a trigger. For example, the point of Extract targeting yourself (in order to get a card that is useless against your opponent out of your deck) is completely missed by your effect.
Not if you try. Or look at my previous suggestion. Why won't you do that?
BUT, this is still a rulings forum, not a card-creation forum, and discussions on the direction of the card still don't belong here.
If an effect lets you search your library for cards matching some criteria, you may 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.
Found that in post 10, which is pretty far from where you mentioned it was, btw.
And you don't get it, my suggestion was just a first approximation that works because I have overlooked your solution, mister perfect...
Now, are you sure that it isn't just another ugly hack like the others in this thread? What happens if I look for a card that needn't meet any criteria (Demonic Tutor) ? Also "apply the rest of the effect" feels rather shaky... Finally, shouldn't be "described for one card" "described for any card searched" at the least? I'm not entirely confident that this solution is bullet-proof.
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 don't claim to be perfect; but I do (or would, if I were to try this) read other people's posts to see if they attempted to do something I wanted to say hadn't been done. But your suggestion is nowhere near an approximation to the original effect. It is an entirely new effect, related only in that it is cued by a search, and does something with one additional card.
I said it was ugly. What do you mean? That it won't work? It will; that's why I suggested it. I didn't work hard to make it pretty, because THIS IS NOT A CARD DESIGN FORUM. I was only indicating a form that would work within the rules.
"A card" is a criterion.
I said it was ugly, and that I wasn't trying to make it perfect; just point the way.
It isn't. But I thought, maybe, the custom-card designers would want to work on that.
But, here is a better one:
If an effect lets you search your library for cards, you may find one additional card that you could find in that search.
It's still ugly, because "find" isn't really an official word. But it works. Now, maybe you could take it out of the rulings forum and into a design forum?
This needs to be flagged. Condor, you're not a mod, and you don't determine the usage(s) of the forum. If you don't feel comfortable discussing card development, that's one thing; but creating an environment which stifles others is reprehensible.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
If you were only to read reminder text, madness seems to "insert" a play condition into the event of discarding a card. If you look at the actual CompRules, you'll see the actual effect is quite different, and even though the end result might be the same -- a card in your hand is put into your graveyard -- the process is entirely different.
The same goes for altering a search effect. What you have as reminder text needs to be written as rules text. Unfortunately for us, there are many different ways to search for cards (the "qualities" you mention) and infinite variety of things that could be done as a result of searching for one or more cards (the "effects"). While we can describe card qualities, "the same qualities stated by the original search effect" doesn't sound like any other card text.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Reminder text means, and solves, nothing officially. It has to be in the ability, or (if that isn't possible) in the rules. For example, when Time Stop was printed, "end a turn" became an action defined in the rules.
Or more accuratley, treating the search process like it was a single event that can be replaced. Since several sequential things happen in a search, that just won't work. But a static ability that modifies the definition of a search can. If you think the components are ill defined, then it could (and should) go in the rule defining "search."
With respect, the point Condor is trying to make is two-fold:
1.) The card still needs to work within the rules as currently written. "Rulings" regarding cards are 99% supported by the official rules, and are not "independent" of the official rules. So, even if a card has a specific ruling, one can find the justification for that ruling within the official rules.
2.) Some of the suggestions "get away" from the original intention of the card (or at least based on what was originally written about the intent of the card). For example, suggesting to "draw cards" (which is not tutoring) from a tutor effect doesn't match the original intent. Likewise, having a separate tutor effect trigger from the original one doesn't match the original intent either (and becomes even more cumbersome when you try to get it to work).
In these respects, I think Condor makes a very solid point; if the intent of this forum is to try to "massage" cards to working within the actual rules, then some of the suggestions don't work. Certainly they may get the card to work (or change so that it does work), but they don't match the designer's original intent. Likewise, we can't ignore the rules either, simply to make a card "function" (and let the users assume how it functions).
I'm not going to touch the conflict between Condor and charmer (whom I think is just as much at fault for being combative about this), but only to suggest that people should remember the two points above when "working on" a card. I agree, these aren't official cards and don't have to be "perfect"; but on the other hand, we do have to conform to certain standards.
One is to keep the card as close to original intention as possible. The other is to work within the current rules. It's best to keep those two points in mind when reading the forum.
Back on topic though, there is one short and elegant solution, strangely enough (pun
If an effect lets you search your library for cards, you may find one additional card that you could find in that search.
I would work with that and polish it some more.
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards, you may search for one additional card that could be searched for with that spell or ability.
Slightly wordier but what do you think, can it be submitted to print about now
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?
You don't get it, do you? That is a trigger. It won't work as a trigger, which will resolve (and thus let you search) long after the original effect is done resolving. It has to be found at the same time as the other cards you search for. It can't be a replacement, because the "search" isn't a discrete event, and treating it like one will cause problems.
It will work if you redefine the "search" to find one more card. So I've been suggesting a rules-modifying continuous effect. That is the best, and cleanest, way to solve the rules and mechanics issues. How you choose to word it, if you don't like mine, is not a rulings issue, and not my concern.
well it was a dig and quite innocent one too. The fact that you don't realize that your own touchiness is quite amusing and choose to get offended every single time, is not my fault and not my concern to boot 8^).
...
Right, right, a trigger then. My bad.
Anyway you may choose to consider you wording perfect, I'd like to improve it still. If you're game, here's my another attempt:
If a spell or ability causes you to search your library for cards you may find one additional cards that could be searched with that spell or ability.
This should be it. BTW, does it solve the problem what to do with the additional card, like that you should toss it in your graveyard if it is Entombed, put it into play, if it is a digged Rebel and so on?
Now that I think of it, it may only let you find an additional which would be still excluded from effect of the spell or ability in question...
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 think I understand the issues. It can be handled very clunkily but directly by:
Whenever a spell or ability causes you to search your library for some number of cards, search your library as though it asked you to search for that number of cards plus one instead.
So you treat it exactly as though each instance which causes you to search for cards searches for that many + 1 instead. Whenever a card says "that card" etc it will have to be understood that this refers to "each card" instead. You get the idea I assume. Because it specifically modifies what the ability/spell is doing, the transference of criterion is implied. It works in the expected way with every card mentioned so far in this thread (with the possible exception of Gaea's Balance, which now lets you get 10 lands. O_o), and it replaces the effect so it avoids timing issues. It doesn't cause any unexpected complications that I can see, and it integrates the may for anything that has a condition. Diabolic tutor will have to find 2 cards, but I don't think thats an issue.
Anything wrong with that?
Grammar aside, you don't search cards; you search the zone. You find cards.
But I never said my wording was "perfect." I never tried to make it so; and said as much several times (did you notice?). I'm not interested in perfecting it - just solving the rules issues. For example, I knew "spell or ability" was more usual by today's templates, but both are used. There even is a difference - "effect" covers all the things covered by "spell or ability," and a few more. I don't think that impacts this card, tho. I used "effect" because it is shorter, so I had to type less.
If the text makes it clear that it is found in the same search (mine did, yours didn't), yes.
I really don't understand what you mean.
First off, "search" and "find" are different things. "Search" is a process of looking through a zone, and it has rules associated with it. That is, it is an officially defined term. "Find" is the result of a search, and it is just an English word we use. And the only thing wrong with my wording (well, besides "effect" vs. "spell or ability") is that it needs to use "find," an English word, to work. English definitions are fuzzier than Magic definitions, so it isn't very "clean."
One of those rules (about "search") is that if the search criterion involves some hidden information, that would require judge intervention to prove it wasn't there, that you aren't required to "find" anything. You still search, but you don't find. There are some effects in Magic that may require a judge (Copper Gnomes), but "search" shouldn't be one.
Stop there. If you think you can make it a trigger, you don't understand the issues. The point is to let the searching player find one additional card in the same search. That can't be done with a trigger, which must result in a second search since it resolves at a different time.
But I think you meant for this to be a replacement effect (rather than "When [X] happens, do [Y] instead" use "If [X] would happen, do [Y] instead"). We addressed this early in the thread. Let me just say that there are logistic problems if the replaced event is not a single action.
And this doesn't cover all the ways a search effect could be worded very well. Gaea's Balance, for example. What kind of card is the "plus one" ? This is also one of those logistics problems - is there one search event, for five differnt things; or five search events, and each gets replaced? Do you get six lands, or ten?
Right. It's essentially what I did, by saying the seach can find one more card, like any one that could have been found to begin with.
I understand the distinction between find and search. This is why I used search in my wording.
You are completely right that I edited out the If and replaced it with Whenever. It still isn't a trigger, obviously (instead), and is merely incorrectly templated. Gaea's Balance is covered. "a" card, quite clearly refers to 1 (this assumption is necessary if you want this to work at all). So each time you would search for "a" card, you treat it as though you were told to search for two cards instead. As for the second part of the issue, this is the reason that "for a number of cards" is in there. Each instance that "asks you to search" instead asks you to search for one more. If it is worded such that it is different instances (ie Gaea's Balance) then it will affect each instance, if not (ie Kodama's Reach) then it will replace the entire instance once. There is no reason this replacement should ever have to handle multiple actions simultaneously.
And finding one more card that could have been found by the original source acts quite differently (Gaea's Balance is the only immediately obvious case). As to what he meant? I'm not sure. Not even sure if it will come up often.
Search
If you're required to search a zone not revealed to all players for cards of a given quality, such as type or color, you aren't required to find some or all of those cards even if they're present; however, if you do choose to find cards, you must reveal those cards to all players. Even if you don't find any cards, you are still considered to have searched the zone.
There is no need to call a judge in your hypothetical situation, since the rules allow you to say "I didn't find any" for any such search. But Copper Gnomes does have that problem.
[Following paragraph edited in]
But the reason I explained "find" vs. "search" was because you said "finding cards is uncomfortable with many people, since it (in the most technical sense) makes it impossible to find nothing." I would have said "searching for cards..." And it is possible to find nothing. "Find" is a result, and a valid result is "none."
So your answer would be "ten." I sincerely doubt that is the original poster's intent, or if it would be understood by many of the people who read that text. For good reason. Is the text parsed "[a land card] of each basic land type," meaning five different "a cards," or is it "[a land card of each basic land type]," meaning "five cards?" The latter is the more common interpretation.
But there are other possible wordings that could foul up your intent. For example, "any number" is usually "0 to whatever." Do you make it "1 to whatever," or is 0 still allowed? The problem is that we are never told when to choose a number. And, while you may think the answer is obvious, there will be a significant number of people who don't. And I'm one of them.
The problem is that a "search" is not a discrete event, it is several discrete events; and not all will be present in all searches. And it doesn't matter how often it could come up - the situation has to be well defined.
You can't have Gaea's Balance trigger as one search and have the card make any amount of sense. No suggestion so far has done so, and I expect none still will. This card wording will require any search which searches for cards with different criteria to treat each criteria as a seperate search. The wording I provided wouldn't even work with the first interpretation, which is part of the point. It only adresses when it asks you to search for some number of cards, not any number of cards with quality. The possible alternative interpretation would be that you get 5 cards, not 6.
My suggestion doesn't replace the search, so its not relevant whether you regard it as one search or many searches. Let me rephrase that, it does replace the search, but in a way that is not dependent upon whether you have one search or many searches. It has the effect of replacing the text of the effect that generates the search.
Edit: I think the whole discussion about finding is irellevant anyway, except insofar as this is already established as an argument on basic principles. I offered up that objection to the last not outright vetoed propostion before mine.
Why not? "a land card of each basic land type" describes five land cards, doesn't it? The "problem" isn't that "the right answer" is not reachable, it is that it is ambiguous. It also describes five different "a card"'s.
Then you haven't read mine. I still don't like it being a replacement, but that replacement would be "If you would search your library for cards matching some criteria, instead search it for those cards and one additional card you could find in the original search."
Then how did you get "ten" as an answer? A search for five cards can be one "search 5" event, or five "search 1" events, depending on wording. Compare it to damage replacements like "The next 1 damage that would be dealt to you," "The next time a source would deal damage to you," and "the next time damage would be dealt to you." If, in combat, two 2/2 creatures would deal you damage, the first example sees four events, the second sees two, and the third sees one.
You had said that "'A' card, quite clearly refers to 1 (this assumption is necessary if you want this to work at all)," and agreed (I think) when I said that meant Gaea's Balance saw five such searches.
No, that is not what replacements do. They look at the action the text describes, and replace all or part that action. They can look at the whole action that is happening, or describe some smaller part of it, as with my damage comparisons.
On the point of Gaea's Balance, I don't see how your wording clarifies things at all. If this lets you find any of the 5 basic land types with Gaea's Balance, does it let you find a card as the same name as one of the other 4 with Gifts Ungiven?
To elaborate on not being dependent on one search or many searches: You conduct each search as though the card had asked for one more card. So, while how you read the card is relevent, it is not relevant that "a "search" is not a discrete event, it is several discrete events".
On Gaea's Balance, the issues is simply one of whether it is asking for one search or 5 searches. Ultimately, this is probably a problem with the wording of Gaea's Balance which could be very easily errata'ed. Any card which triggers or replaces searches is going to have this exact same issue.
It replaces the action by the action you would have taken if the text had been different--entirely within the bounds of a replacement effect I believe. I am sorry to cause ambiguity by using the english word "effect" here. I meant that it is in practice equivalent to.
Well, I hadn't commented on your thoughts about the "last rejected post." I had already dropped it.
But, regardless of why you mentioned it, you made an incorrect statement about search cards requiring judge intervention in some cases. That is incorrect. Do you now agree?
Could you find two Grizzly Bears in the original search? No. Not in my "replaced" search. But, I see your point, and this is why the card idea won't really work well. It requires too much interpretation about what is meant.
For my claim about the Gifts Ungiven result, you have to determine "what you could find in the original search" based on what other cards were found in it. But (and this is the crux of the result I claim for it, and also the crux of the problem with the card), the "original search" already requires this property. The second card you find requires that you know the first; the third requires the first and second; etc. So, the extra card requires knowing the others. You are complaining that that wasn't clear enough in my wording. It isn't, but it is a possible interpretation.
But no wording can anticipate every possible search criterion, and explain how to implement it with an additional card.
Again, does Gaea's Balance ask for one card, five times; or does it ask for five cards?
I made the comparison to damage replacement effects for a reason. I wanted the Generous Donation effect to be equivalent to Sulfuric Vapors, which could have the same problems we have. It solves the problem by not referring to the amount of damage at all when it describes what it replaces. While some other replacements (en-kors) might look at a five-point fireball as five events, Sulpuric Vapors can't, it has to ignore any possible divisions of the event. That distinction (one event, or five events) is possible with "search-replacements," and Generous Donation needs to ignore it, too.
And the wording we want must ignore it, adn use only the fact that you search for some amount, all at he same time.