502.GROa "Growth" is a static ability of permanents. “Growth N” means “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it.”
502.GROb Multiple instances of growth are cumulative.
When you say multiple instances are cumulative, does this mean that a permanent with "Growth N" and "Growth N + 1" will get two counters per turn until it reaces N, and then one counter to N + 1? Or does it use the Growth numbers cumulatively as well, gaining 2 counters per turn until 2N + 1?
Grower GG
Creature - Elf
Growing 2
Remove 2 growth counters from ~: Put a basic land card from your hand into play.
1/2
? I don't quite get what the "Multiple instances are cumulative" means... Is the level of growth determined by order (IE, the enchantment beats out the original creature's value, raising it to three), or what?
I'm guessing that
“At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it.”
means if something has
Sample X
Creature
Growth 2, Growth 2
1/1
It would get two counters if it were empty, since the upkeep triggers are cumulative.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Which color are you?
Non-Judge - Comprehensive Rules Delver
|| Autocard || My Latest Project || Random quote of the last time I updated my sig:
"...FOMG THE SCROLL LOCK KEY DOES SOMETHING "
And if something has 2 instances of growth but is 1 below it's limit (but both abilities trigger simultaneously at the start of your upkeep) do you go 1 over the limit (or is there some feature of the game I don't remember that stops this)?
I'm pretty sure we would just use it as if it were a normal triggered ability. IE, a permanent with the
Growth 4, Growth 5, Growth 8
Would get 3 Grwoth counters on the first upkeep. Second upkeep, you would choose the order you put the triggers on the stack. You could stack 8, then 5, then 4, in which case it gets 1 counter. You could stack 5, then 8, then 4, in which case it gets 2, or you could stack 4, then 5, then 8, in which case it gets 3 (I am referring to order of resolution--not order on stack). If it starts the next turn with 6, it will get exactly 1 growth counter, from the last ability.
Basically, treat each instance seperately. Just keep in mind that triggers' conditions are also checked when they are resolved.
* In keeping with fading, the ability should be called growing, and uses growth counters. (Please pardon Le Chat's earlier mistyping.)
Let's imagine a creature with more than one instance of growing:
Rapidgrowth Borak -- 2GG
Creature - Beast
Growing 1, Growing 3, Growing 5
<THIS> gets +1/+1 for each growth counter on it.
1/1
At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, all three growing abilities trigger -- which is what Le Chat meant by "cumulative." Since we're the active player, we can stack them in any order. As each resolves, it checks to see if it has the maximum growth counters allowed for that ability. We can stack them so that we get all three counters -- or, if we want, only two counters.
They're not "cumulative" in the sense that it doesn't become equivalent to "growing 9". However, it also doesn't act as one instance of Growing 5; on the first upkeep, it will get three counters, and on the second and third upkeeps, one counter each. If we remove a counter after the first upkeep, it'll get two counters the next upkeep.
So, "cumulative" is probably not the best wording. Suggestions?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
502.GROa "Growth" is a static ability of permanents. “Growth N” means “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it.”
502.a GROb Multiple instances of growth are Reduntant.
502.b GROb Multiple instances of growing recognise the highest growth number only.
502.c GROb Multiple instances of trigger multiple times. If applicable (Example a creature with Growing 2 and Growing 3 has 2 growth counters on it it only triggers once, if that creature only has 1 counter on it, it will trigger twice.)
That wording is significantly different than the suggested effect. I would suggest simply not mentioning the effect of multiple instances of Growth, since it is handled exactly as the normal rules would suggest (ie if you replaced every instance of Growth with its rules text)
This brings up a good question about the Comp Rules. Many of the abilities only need their first entry -- flying is a prime example -- as the following rules only lay out the implications of following the given definition of the ability.
We shouldn't need to be told that multiple instances of flying are redundant; there's nothing to hint at how the ability would become cumulative (although we've probably all met players who think some creatures can "fly over" others). But, we have a handy rule that tells us that it is.
Fading has just its two definitions for an entry. We're not told what happens if a creature has multiple instances of fading. Wizards also wisely chose not to print any creatures with multiple instances of fading, and it's difficult (but not impossible) to construct a scenario in which a creature has more than one instance of it.
Soulshift, on the other hand, has an additional paragraph telling us how to handle more than one instance of soulshift on a creature -- and, coincidentally, there's a printed creature with two instances of soulshift.
Take from this what you will.
In addition to the CompRules, we also have Rulings (found on Gatherer and elsewhere) which inform us of specific interactions between cards. These vary from the "when-you-think-about-it" to "obvious yet unintuitive" to "entirely unexpected."
Le Chat would add to two other types of entries: Notes and Examples. Notes provide the reader with information about how the keyword mechanic is, or was, used: "Note: Flip cards appear only in the Kamigawa block" or "Only artifact creatures have been printed with modular." They should be brief (as all good design notes are) and non-binding: they don't prevent us from creating a non-Samurai with bushido, only tell us how it's been used.
Examples also provide a means of illustrating how a mechanic would function when actually played. The posts about having a creature with more than one growing ability would provide a good Example, once streamlined.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
This brings up a good question about the Comp Rules. Many of the abilities only need their first entry -- flying is a prime example -- as the following rules only lay out the implications of following the given definition of the ability.
Well, it needs the first two of the three it has by your logic; And, while I agree that the rules are redundant in many places, I don't see how this one is.
We shouldn't need to be told that multiple instances of flying are redundant; ... But, we have a handy rule that tells us that it is.
Um, 501.2? It's ambiguous whether it applies to two "flying"s, unless 502.4c is included.
Fading has just its two definitions for an entry. We're not told what happens if a creature has multiple instances of fading.
Because, if you can do it, both trigger. It is not redundant, and there is no potentially-ambiguous rule (like 501.2) suggestion it could be.
Soulshift, on the other hand, has an additional paragraph telling us how to handle more than one instance of soulshift on a creature -- and, coincidentally, there's a printed creature with two instances of soulshift.
Which is why this redundant rule is included. People react differently to an unexpected situation (multiple occurances) when they are printed, vs. when they come about through odd scenarios. The "extra" fading was obvioulsy added externally, so of course it is a different ability. The extra soulshift was intended. That makes people ask "why," and sometimes over-think the possible answers.
It also may just reflect a difference is style, as the people who write the rules change. Sometimes redundancy is good, to prevent people from having to look up every potential quirk in a rule. Where that line is, may change.
In addition to the CompRules, we also have Rulings (found on Gatherer and elsewhere) which inform us of specific interactions between cards.
Right. Rulings. They are interpretations of the rules, as applied to specific situations. If everbody understood all the rules, they would be unnecessary. But they carry no weight, in-and-of themselves.
These vary from the "when-you-think-about-it" to "obvious yet unintuitive" to "entirely unexpected."
The latter, only to those who do not understand the rules, or refuse to accept their explanations.
Quote from Le Chat »
This brings up a good question about the Comp Rules.
Um, was there a question in there? Or just rambling exposition?
Uh, I think Condor's right here. I think Lord Kaos has a pretty solid rules entry for Growth. Its simple to the point and if you saw it once there really wouldn't be any problems. I think we can move on to Lucidity, which looks quite bizarre. I think the OC of it should handle that one.
Uh, I think Condor's right here. I think Lord Kaos has a pretty solid rules entry for Growth. Its simple to the point and if you saw it once there really wouldn't be any problems. I think we can move on to Lucidity, which looks quite bizarre. I think the OC of it should handle that one.
I don't recall saying anything about Lord Kaos' rules; all I meant was that Le Chat's exposition rambled from reality a little, and drew a few invalid conclusions.
And in fact, if I understand this mecahnic correctly, Lord Kaos' rules are not very good; and actually make both incorrect and contradictory statements. Try:
502.XXX Growth
502.XXXa "Growth" is a triggered ability. "Growth N" means "At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it."
502.XXXb If a creature has multiple instances of growth, each triggers separately.
The "b" rule is consistent with the latest style, like for Bushido and Soulshift. It is redundant, but helpful, and belongs in the rules to make them easier to read and find answers to questions that will arise when a new player sees a card with two instances of Growth.
Lord_Kaos' wording "works" in one sense; it tells us what to do with the ability, and then sets up a special means of handling permanents with more than one instance. It's unprecedented, falling into the "entirely unexpected" category Le Chat mentioned, as there are no other keyworded abilities which defer to their highest-ranked member.
This isn't so much of a difficulty, as it is simply more complex than it needs to be. We change the first rules paragraph to "Growing X means 'At the beginning of your upkeep, if this has less growth counters on it than [the highest rating of growth it has], put a growth counter on it." (Le Chat is paraphrasing for the sake of brevity. WotCese might mention 'points of growing,' a la bushido; but that's grating.)
This makes the second and following paragraphs redundant: we can derive how the mechanic operates from its first paragraph alone. The reminder text which appears on cards is often (but not always) very similar to the rules-meaning given in the first paragraph of the rules entry, which again clarifies its usage for players. The other paragraphs might still be included for the sake of clarity; but Le Chat feels that the mechanic should rather be simplified to act in accordance with each other mechanic in Magic.
.
502.GRO. Growing.
502.GROa "Growing" is a triggered ability of permanents. “Growing N” means “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it.”
502.GROb Multiple instances of growing trigger separately.
seems to say as much as is needed. We could add examples (of cards or usage) as desired, so long as we don't become too FAQish.
Next: Lucidity(Whenever this permanent becomes tapped, if there are no lucid counters on it, untap it and put a lucid counter on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove all lucid counters from this permanent.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Well, when it says "two abilities are redundant," which implies the second is superfluous, then says that it needs unique information from that second ability, and that both trigger, I'd say it doesn't work. The intent can be deduced, but the wording of the rule itself doesn't work. One who likes to point out failings in "WotCese" wordings should notice that.
(Le Chat is paraphrasing for the sake of brevity. WotCese might mention 'points of growing,' a la bushido; but that's grating.)
Which may be why "WotCese" never uses anything like it. "Points of" is a common player term, and an explanation not in the rules might use it, but the rules don't.
502.GRO. Growing.
502.GROa "Growing" is a static ability of permanents. “Growing N” means “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it.”
502.GROb Multiple instances of growing trigger separately.
But it isn't a static ability, "of permanents" is redundant, and I find it grating. (WotCese does use "of spells" in similar situaitons, but static abilities are "of permanents" by default.) And, while you may like to reword standard templates, there is an established template in the rules for the "b" rule.
I'd say it doesn't work ... One who likes to point out failings in "WotCese" wordings should notice that.
Neither would Le Chat. She said it would "'work' in one sense," and in a fashion no other mechanic works by. So who, exactly, are you correcting? (And why?)
Welcome to Le Chat's ignore list, Condor.
Which may be why "WotCese" never uses anything like it. "Points of" is a common player term, and an explanation not in the rules might use it, but the rules don't.
Le Chat was referring to Takeno, Samurai General. Although it doesn't appear in "the rules," it's the WotC wording.
Although several existing mechanics could be re-worded to reference "points," there's no need to, as they're worded more succinctly without it. One can imagine several mechanics which would have to be worded to reference points. This is, after all, the Creativity forum.
But it isn't a static ability, "of permanents" is redundant, and I find it grating. (WotCese does use "of spells" in similar situaitons, but static abilities are "of permanents" by default.) And, while you may like to reword standard templates, there is an established template in the rules for the "b" rule.
Stipulating that it's a static ability of permanents is informing the player that the ability is only going to matter while it's in play. Static abilities may also only matter when in the graveyard (dredge), on the stack ('can't be countered'), or the hand (cycling). Calling to attention to the fact may be redundant, but generally harmless. The rules should work to make things clearer for players.
We're moving on to lucidity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playlace --
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
She said the wording would work, not the meaning that had to be inferred from that wording, since the wording didn't work. This forum is for discussing how the rules apply to created cards.
Le Chat was referring to Takeno, Samurai General. Although it doesn't appear in "the rules," it's the WotC wording.
Ah, missed that one. I apologize. But, we weren't wording a card. We were wording a rule; and as Le Chat points out, the word isn't used that way in the rules.
Stipulating that it's a static ability of permanents is informing the player that the ability is only going to matter while it's in play.
It also is redundant, since abilities that don't mention it apply in play. Any player who doesn't immediately realize an ability applies while in play, even if not told, has more problems than can be discussed here. But redundancy, especially completely pointless redundancy, is a practice Le Chat has claimed should be reduced.
And as I said, it is not done in any other rule that says "This keyword is a static ability." ...
Static abilities may also only matter when in the graveyard (dredge), on the stack ('can't be countered'), or the hand (cycling).
Which is differerent. In the cases where they don't apply in play, it is not redundant to mention, and in fact required. It is even done with activated abilities, like Cycling.
Heh, nice one. And Condor, would you please stop telling people what is this forum for already? It's rather tiresome now. I would say you really have the ability to compensate for the usefulness of your advice. This flamewar with Le Chat seems to be completely pointless too.
Anyway, Lucidity seems like another 'too technical' name for a mechanic to me. I would prefer Agility it it wasn't for a card with that name giving flanking already. But there is still one nice word to use: Celerity.
With that name counters would need to be renamed too, possibly to depletion counters.
Whether you agree or not, I consider that this forum exists for two main reasons: to provide accurate rulings for created cards, and to educate the readers as to how the rules interact with them.
I'm not sure why you think this thread belongs here, since it really doesn't do any of that and there is another forum that it fits perfectly into, but that is your choice. I'm not telling you you can't post it here, I am telling you why I am posting what I do here. Much of the rules information listed here is inaccurate, and I am correcting it to preserve the integrity of this forum as a place for accurate rulings.
This is brainstorming corner. You don't need creator's explanation to post your ideas if it is not provided.
Anyway Lucidity/Celerity has quite narrow application - quite unusable on lands unless you include a drawback ("comes into play tapped" at the least), on creatures it means mostly Vigilance, artifacts can simply tap twice for effect. Few usable ideas:
Lucidity(Whenever this permanent becomes tapped, if there are no lucid counters on it, untap it and put a lucid counter on it. At the beginning of your upkeep, remove all lucid counters from this permanent.)
Lucidity reminds Le Chat of Instill Energy, only that it uses counters rather than "once per turn" wording. It provides a small advantage by itself, as it's roughly equivalent to vigilance. Unlike vigilance, there would be a period of time while the triggered ability is on the stack during which it's tapped, and vulnerable to certain effects like Royal Assassin.
The lucid counter prevents it from becoming overly powerful with things with a cost of "Tap an untapped creature you control" -- Glare of Subdual most recently, Opposition before it, and certain other cards.
There could also be creatures which have an advantage or disadvantage take effect while they have a lucid counter. Charmer does a good job presenting several of these, and more complex interactions are conceivable.
Untapping creatures may have begun in green, but is more recently blue and white. Because it's limited to specific colors, the name might be difficult -- "celerity" strikes Le Chat as also more technical than most players' vocabulary (though LC remembers it from the Jyhad/V:TES card game) -- and could be fixed to reflect other flavor elements in the set it would appear in.
"celerity" strikes Le Chat as also more technical than most players' vocabulary (though LC remembers it from the Jyhad/V:TES card game) -- and could be fixed to reflect other flavor elements in the set it would appear in.
Ha, I thought of Celerity as well when I read it... I agree that celerity works as a better keyword because this keyword is just too... lucid...
Also, this keyword doesn't need unnecessary counters. The ability doesnt really require much memory as it's only a one turn thing. I propose the following:
Celerity (Whenever this permanent becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it)
I agree that it no longer allows creatures to gain abilities from having a lucid counter, but it also prevents a rules nightmare if this conflicts with +1/+1 counters and such. Magic should have way less named counters. This is why Bounty Hunter was such an annoying card.
Plus, you can always make a card like this:
John-Woo Goblin - :2mana::symr::symr: Celerity (Whenever this permanent becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it)
:1mana::symtap:: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature.
Whenever this becomes tapped for the second time in a turn, it deals 1 damage to each player. "It adds the "ack" in Akimbo"
1/1
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When you say multiple instances are cumulative, does this mean that a permanent with "Growth N" and "Growth N + 1" will get two counters per turn until it reaces N, and then one counter to N + 1? Or does it use the Growth numbers cumulatively as well, gaining 2 counters per turn until 2N + 1?
Growth Enchantment 2GG
Enchant Creature
Enchanted creature gains Growing 3
Remove a growth counter from enchanted creature: Enchanted creature gets +1/+1 UEOT.
Grower GG
Creature - Elf
Growing 2
Remove 2 growth counters from ~: Put a basic land card from your hand into play.
1/2
? I don't quite get what the "Multiple instances are cumulative" means... Is the level of growth determined by order (IE, the enchantment beats out the original creature's value, raising it to three), or what?
“At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it.”
means if something has
Sample X
Creature
Growth 2, Growth 2
1/1
It would get two counters if it were empty, since the upkeep triggers are cumulative.
Which color are you?
Non-Judge - Comprehensive Rules Delver
|| Autocard || My Latest Project ||
Random quote of the last time I updated my sig:
"...FOMG THE SCROLL LOCK KEY DOES SOMETHING "
Sample X
Creature
Growth 2
1/1
and given Growth 3, is the new limit 3?
And if something has 2 instances of growth but is 1 below it's limit (but both abilities trigger simultaneously at the start of your upkeep) do you go 1 over the limit (or is there some feature of the game I don't remember that stops this)?
Growth 4, Growth 5, Growth 8
Would get 3 Grwoth counters on the first upkeep. Second upkeep, you would choose the order you put the triggers on the stack. You could stack 8, then 5, then 4, in which case it gets 1 counter. You could stack 5, then 8, then 4, in which case it gets 2, or you could stack 4, then 5, then 8, in which case it gets 3 (I am referring to order of resolution--not order on stack). If it starts the next turn with 6, it will get exactly 1 growth counter, from the last ability.
Basically, treat each instance seperately. Just keep in mind that triggers' conditions are also checked when they are resolved.
Is this correct Le Chat?
Let's imagine a creature with more than one instance of growing:
Rapidgrowth Borak -- 2GG
Creature - Beast
Growing 1, Growing 3, Growing 5
<THIS> gets +1/+1 for each growth counter on it.
1/1
At the beginning of its controller's upkeep, all three growing abilities trigger -- which is what Le Chat meant by "cumulative." Since we're the active player, we can stack them in any order. As each resolves, it checks to see if it has the maximum growth counters allowed for that ability. We can stack them so that we get all three counters -- or, if we want, only two counters.
They're not "cumulative" in the sense that it doesn't become equivalent to "growing 9". However, it also doesn't act as one instance of Growing 5; on the first upkeep, it will get three counters, and on the second and third upkeeps, one counter each. If we remove a counter after the first upkeep, it'll get two counters the next upkeep.
So, "cumulative" is probably not the best wording. Suggestions?
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
502.GROa "Growth" is a static ability of permanents. “Growth N” means “At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it.”
502.a GROb Multiple instances of growth are Reduntant.
502.b GROb Multiple instances of growing recognise the highest growth number only.
502.c GROb Multiple instances of trigger multiple times. If applicable (Example a creature with Growing 2 and Growing 3 has 2 growth counters on it it only triggers once, if that creature only has 1 counter on it, it will trigger twice.)
Behind the eyes of truth, is a world of illustions.
Dragon Riderof a Mist Dragonn anyway with the Dragon Riders Clan.
We shouldn't need to be told that multiple instances of flying are redundant; there's nothing to hint at how the ability would become cumulative (although we've probably all met players who think some creatures can "fly over" others). But, we have a handy rule that tells us that it is.
Fading has just its two definitions for an entry. We're not told what happens if a creature has multiple instances of fading. Wizards also wisely chose not to print any creatures with multiple instances of fading, and it's difficult (but not impossible) to construct a scenario in which a creature has more than one instance of it.
Soulshift, on the other hand, has an additional paragraph telling us how to handle more than one instance of soulshift on a creature -- and, coincidentally, there's a printed creature with two instances of soulshift.
Take from this what you will.
In addition to the CompRules, we also have Rulings (found on Gatherer and elsewhere) which inform us of specific interactions between cards. These vary from the "when-you-think-about-it" to "obvious yet unintuitive" to "entirely unexpected."
Le Chat would add to two other types of entries: Notes and Examples. Notes provide the reader with information about how the keyword mechanic is, or was, used: "Note: Flip cards appear only in the Kamigawa block" or "Only artifact creatures have been printed with modular." They should be brief (as all good design notes are) and non-binding: they don't prevent us from creating a non-Samurai with bushido, only tell us how it's been used.
Examples also provide a means of illustrating how a mechanic would function when actually played. The posts about having a creature with more than one growing ability would provide a good Example, once streamlined.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Um, 501.2? It's ambiguous whether it applies to two "flying"s, unless 502.4c is included.
Because, if you can do it, both trigger. It is not redundant, and there is no potentially-ambiguous rule (like 501.2) suggestion it could be.
Which is why this redundant rule is included. People react differently to an unexpected situation (multiple occurances) when they are printed, vs. when they come about through odd scenarios. The "extra" fading was obvioulsy added externally, so of course it is a different ability. The extra soulshift was intended. That makes people ask "why," and sometimes over-think the possible answers.
It also may just reflect a difference is style, as the people who write the rules change. Sometimes redundancy is good, to prevent people from having to look up every potential quirk in a rule. Where that line is, may change.
Right. Rulings. They are interpretations of the rules, as applied to specific situations. If everbody understood all the rules, they would be unnecessary. But they carry no weight, in-and-of themselves.
The latter, only to those who do not understand the rules, or refuse to accept their explanations.
Um, was there a question in there? Or just rambling exposition?
And in fact, if I understand this mecahnic correctly, Lord Kaos' rules are not very good; and actually make both incorrect and contradictory statements. Try:
502.XXX Growth
502.XXXa "Growth" is a triggered ability. "Growth N" means "At the beginning of your upkeep, if this card has less than N growth counters on it, put a growth counter on it."
502.XXXb If a creature has multiple instances of growth, each triggers separately.
The "b" rule is consistent with the latest style, like for Bushido and Soulshift. It is redundant, but helpful, and belongs in the rules to make them easier to read and find answers to questions that will arise when a new player sees a card with two instances of Growth.
Uh, I think Condor's right here.
Anyway I think Lord Kaos....
And Lord_Kaos's wording really doesn't make any sense.
So, are we done with Growth, Bloom or whatever you chose to call it already?
IMO we are.
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?
Lord_Kaos' wording "works" in one sense; it tells us what to do with the ability, and then sets up a special means of handling permanents with more than one instance. It's unprecedented, falling into the "entirely unexpected" category Le Chat mentioned, as there are no other keyworded abilities which defer to their highest-ranked member.
This isn't so much of a difficulty, as it is simply more complex than it needs to be. We change the first rules paragraph to "Growing X means 'At the beginning of your upkeep, if this has less growth counters on it than [the highest rating of growth it has], put a growth counter on it." (Le Chat is paraphrasing for the sake of brevity. WotCese might mention 'points of growing,' a la bushido; but that's grating.)
This makes the second and following paragraphs redundant: we can derive how the mechanic operates from its first paragraph alone. The reminder text which appears on cards is often (but not always) very similar to the rules-meaning given in the first paragraph of the rules entry, which again clarifies its usage for players. The other paragraphs might still be included for the sake of clarity; but Le Chat feels that the mechanic should rather be simplified to act in accordance with each other mechanic in Magic.
.
seems to say as much as is needed. We could add examples (of cards or usage) as desired, so long as we don't become too FAQish.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Which may be why "WotCese" never uses anything like it. "Points of" is a common player term, and an explanation not in the rules might use it, but the rules don't.
But it isn't a static ability, "of permanents" is redundant, and I find it grating. (WotCese does use "of spells" in similar situaitons, but static abilities are "of permanents" by default.) And, while you may like to reword standard templates, there is an established template in the rules for the "b" rule.
Neither would Le Chat. She said it would "'work' in one sense," and in a fashion no other mechanic works by. So who, exactly, are you correcting? (And why?)
Welcome to Le Chat's ignore list, Condor.
Le Chat was referring to Takeno, Samurai General. Although it doesn't appear in "the rules," it's the WotC wording.
Although several existing mechanics could be re-worded to reference "points," there's no need to, as they're worded more succinctly without it. One can imagine several mechanics which would have to be worded to reference points. This is, after all, the Creativity forum.
Stipulating that it's a static ability of permanents is informing the player that the ability is only going to matter while it's in play. Static abilities may also only matter when in the graveyard (dredge), on the stack ('can't be countered'), or the hand (cycling). Calling to attention to the fact may be redundant, but generally harmless. The rules should work to make things clearer for players.
We're moving on to lucidity.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Ah, missed that one. I apologize. But, we weren't wording a card. We were wording a rule; and as Le Chat points out, the word isn't used that way in the rules.
It also is redundant, since abilities that don't mention it apply in play. Any player who doesn't immediately realize an ability applies while in play, even if not told, has more problems than can be discussed here. But redundancy, especially completely pointless redundancy, is a practice Le Chat has claimed should be reduced.
And as I said, it is not done in any other rule that says "This keyword is a static ability." ...
Which is differerent. In the cases where they don't apply in play, it is not redundant to mention, and in fact required. It is even done with activated abilities, like Cycling.
Heh, nice one. And Condor, would you please stop telling people what is this forum for already? It's rather tiresome now. I would say you really have the ability to compensate for the usefulness of your advice. This flamewar with Le Chat seems to be completely pointless too.
Anyway, Lucidity seems like another 'too technical' name for a mechanic to me. I would prefer Agility it it wasn't for a card with that name giving flanking already. But there is still one nice word to use: Celerity.
With that name counters would need to be renamed too, possibly to depletion counters.
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'm not sure why you think this thread belongs here, since it really doesn't do any of that and there is another forum that it fits perfectly into, but that is your choice. I'm not telling you you can't post it here, I am telling you why I am posting what I do here. Much of the rules information listed here is inaccurate, and I am correcting it to preserve the integrity of this forum as a place for accurate rulings.
Anyway Lucidity/Celerity has quite narrow application - quite unusable on lands unless you include a drawback ("comes into play tapped" at the least), on creatures it means mostly Vigilance, artifacts can simply tap twice for effect. Few usable ideas:
Battlemonk
3W
Creature - Human Monk
Celerity, Vigilance
Tap: prevent 1
2/2
--simply good
Celerity
WW
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant permanent
Ench. permanent has Celerity.
--good on icy, tomes or lands
Cool Maniak
2R
Creature - Dude
Tap: Target creature gains Celerity ueot.
1/2
--nasty combo potential
Flash Spirit
3UU
Creature - Spirit
Celerity, Defender
Tap: Untap target creature
1/5
--another combo potential
I don't really know, maybe this ability is not quite mechanic-worthy...
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?
Lucidity reminds Le Chat of Instill Energy, only that it uses counters rather than "once per turn" wording. It provides a small advantage by itself, as it's roughly equivalent to vigilance. Unlike vigilance, there would be a period of time while the triggered ability is on the stack during which it's tapped, and vulnerable to certain effects like Royal Assassin.
The lucid counter prevents it from becoming overly powerful with things with a cost of "Tap an untapped creature you control" -- Glare of Subdual most recently, Opposition before it, and certain other cards.
There could also be creatures which have an advantage or disadvantage take effect while they have a lucid counter. Charmer does a good job presenting several of these, and more complex interactions are conceivable.
Untapping creatures may have begun in green, but is more recently blue and white. Because it's limited to specific colors, the name might be difficult -- "celerity" strikes Le Chat as also more technical than most players' vocabulary (though LC remembers it from the Jyhad/V:TES card game) -- and could be fixed to reflect other flavor elements in the set it would appear in.
Instant
Target spell or permanent's tone becomes playful.
Ha, I thought of Celerity as well when I read it... I agree that celerity works as a better keyword because this keyword is just too... lucid...
Also, this keyword doesn't need unnecessary counters. The ability doesnt really require much memory as it's only a one turn thing. I propose the following:
Celerity (Whenever this permanent becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it)
I agree that it no longer allows creatures to gain abilities from having a lucid counter, but it also prevents a rules nightmare if this conflicts with +1/+1 counters and such. Magic should have way less named counters. This is why Bounty Hunter was such an annoying card.
Plus, you can always make a card like this:
John-Woo Goblin - :2mana::symr::symr:
Celerity (Whenever this permanent becomes tapped for the first time this turn, untap it)
:1mana::symtap:: ~ deals 1 damage to target creature.
Whenever this becomes tapped for the second time in a turn, it deals 1 damage to each player.
"It adds the "ack" in Akimbo"
1/1