The last three-color uncommon legend is a Banisher Priest you'd consider exiling your own stuff to, with or without an endless flicker engine (but most likely with).
Flicker deck you go this is just a enormous rabbit punch for theft decks.
to note this it wouldn't surprise if they are a failure of how to write the card just like the riveteer that cheats out stuff from the top of your library
what this doesn't clarify is I’m willing to wager it’s only one creature per player.
Flicker deck you go this is just a enormous rabbit punch for theft decks.
to note this it wouldn't surprise if they are a failure of how to write the card just like the riveteer that cheats out stuff from the top of your library
what this doesn't clarify is I’m willing to wager it’s only one creature per player.
this card is worded in such a way that i've seen more about that wording than anything the card actually does.
when i first saw it spoiled i was also confused, but after explanation its pretty easy to understand
anyway, i think having an o-ring effect in the command zone has a lot of potential to make a pretty fun but super convoluted blink deck. shes not going to be most people's first pick for that sort of deck, but i do think the potential is still there especially in much slower environments. then again, this set will surely have eliminated the idea of 'slower' edh so whatever
i love the standard art's use of colors and have been tempted to build around her just because of that
It's not actually ambiguous as it is, but maybe "that are each controlled by a different player" would be better. That's the Agadeem's Awakening approach. "For each player, choose up to one target creature that player controls" also works, but is kinda long.
It's not actually ambiguous as it is, but maybe "that are each controlled by a different player" would be better. That's the Agadeem's Awakening approach. "For each player, choose up to one target creature that player controls" also works, but is kinda long.
"For each player, choose up to one other target creature that player controls" , might be long, but its MUCH cleaner to read and you do exactly that and you are fine.
The confusing part is that instead of making clear its one for each player, you get the "any number" at first, which kinda implies at first that you get many targets per player, while its then reduced to "controlled by different players" , so its a convoluted way to express the meaning of an effect.
The "For each" template is more along the logic a programmer would write code, makes it clean to understand whats going on.
The WotC template is more like "do that , except dont do that" , which is just confusing to read.
It's not actually ambiguous as it is, but maybe "that are each controlled by a different player" would be better. That's the Agadeem's Awakening approach. "For each player, choose up to one target creature that player controls" also works, but is kinda long.
"For each player, choose up to one other target creature that player controls" , might be long, but its MUCH cleaner to read and you do exactly that and you are fine.
The confusing part is that instead of making clear its one for each player, you get the "any number" at first, which kinda implies at first that you get many targets per player, while its then reduced to "controlled by different players" , so its a convoluted way to express the meaning of an effect.
The "For each" template is more along the logic a programmer would write code, makes it clean to understand whats going on.
The WotC template is more like "do that , except dont do that" , which is just confusing to read.
I think for each would imply they would have to choose once for each player, or it at least implies that each of these would execute individually but they in fact execute all at the same time as a single effect. But also I don't know if there is a less complex way to word this because the programmer version of wording this would be a for each nested inside a when trigger. See: Acererak the archlich
Plus there's the real boring reason that it's slightly shorter to word it the way that it is on the card.
"When [cardname] enters the battlefield, for each player, exile up to one target creature that player controls until [cardname] leaves the battlefield."
"When [cardname] enters the battlefield, exile any number of target creatures controlled by different players until [cardname] leaves the battlefield."
You'll note they even shortened the cardname in the second cardname. Edit to add, well it looked shorter the first time I wrote it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The last three-color uncommon legend is a Banisher Priest you'd consider exiling your own stuff to, with or without an endless flicker engine (but most likely with).
Source: Commander Rules Committee
to note this it wouldn't surprise if they are a failure of how to write the card just like the riveteer that cheats out stuff from the top of your library
what this doesn't clarify is I’m willing to wager it’s only one creature per player.
Ah. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.
It is very clearly one creature per player.
when i first saw it spoiled i was also confused, but after explanation its pretty easy to understand
anyway, i think having an o-ring effect in the command zone has a lot of potential to make a pretty fun but super convoluted blink deck. shes not going to be most people's first pick for that sort of deck, but i do think the potential is still there especially in much slower environments. then again, this set will surely have eliminated the idea of 'slower' edh so whatever
i love the standard art's use of colors and have been tempted to build around her just because of that
"For each player, choose up to one other target creature that player controls" , might be long, but its MUCH cleaner to read and you do exactly that and you are fine.
The confusing part is that instead of making clear its one for each player, you get the "any number" at first, which kinda implies at first that you get many targets per player, while its then reduced to "controlled by different players" , so its a convoluted way to express the meaning of an effect.
The "For each" template is more along the logic a programmer would write code, makes it clean to understand whats going on.
The WotC template is more like "do that , except dont do that" , which is just confusing to read.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
nope poor wording again
You Can only get one creature per player with her
I think for each would imply they would have to choose once for each player, or it at least implies that each of these would execute individually but they in fact execute all at the same time as a single effect. But also I don't know if there is a less complex way to word this because the programmer version of wording this would be a for each nested inside a when trigger. See: Acererak the archlich
Plus there's the real boring reason that it's slightly shorter to word it the way that it is on the card.
"When [cardname] enters the battlefield, for each player, exile up to one target creature that player controls until [cardname] leaves the battlefield."
"When [cardname] enters the battlefield, exile any number of target creatures controlled by different players until [cardname] leaves the battlefield."
You'll note they even shortened the cardname in the second cardname. Edit to add, well it looked shorter the first time I wrote it