I can assure you the logic is true, and the context is absolute.
Sorry to break it to you, but your logic is wrong.
It regards scenarios involving creatures that do not possess the Human-type (non-Human). If a creature possessing other creature types (non-Human), does not also possess the Human creature type by any means, it cannot block or be blocked by Human creatures.
You cannot have a non-Human creature that possesses the Human creature type, because a non-Human creature is a creature that does not possess the Human creature type.
Do you actually know what you're talking about? What's your point? You clearly linked a Human creature card.
A non-Human creature card can't have the Human creature type. I don't see how that's so hard for you to grasp. It's simple logic. A sandwich that doesn't have cheese in it can't have cheese in it. An apple that isn't red can't be red. A number that isn't odd can't be odd.
Your fundamental understanding of simple predicate logic is extremely poor. Your lack of predicate logic knowledge is what's confusing you here. The very premise of your idea is entirely wrong, and you refuse to accept it.
You are incorrect. Replacement effects can replace actions/events that would be stopped from other effects.
The CR has a rule that explicitly contradicts this.
614.7. If a replacement effect would replace an event, but that event never happens, the replacement effect simply doesn't do anything.
If an event "can't" happen, it never happens, by definition. If a replacement effect is looking for that event to happen, it won't ever be able to, so the replacement effect can't ever do anything.
Almost. Cumulative upkeep offers the option to not pay for the amount of age counters, and if the payment isn't made, the relevant permanent gets sacrificed. This doesn't involve the ability to sacrifice at all, nor to avoid any sort of payment.
Essentially, it boils down to:
Cumulative upkeep 0(At the beginning of your upkeep, put an age counter on this, then sacrifice it unless you pay the upkeep cost for each age counter on it.)
You must pay ~'s cumulative upkeep cost if able.
When/Whenever/At [something], [something else] for each age counter on ~.
The second ability is what makes it look weird. After all, if the second ability is just going to make the optional portion of the first ability mandatory, why not just change the first ability to have that part be mandatory instead?
How much longer are you going to stay on your high horse? Your ego is way too large.
"I know everything there is about my mechanic. All your arguments are 'empty,' 'weak,' 'biased,' or whatever other adjective I want to use to deflect them."
Yet, you can't even answer IcariiFA's rules concerns correctly? Maybe you should take a step back and realize that the criticism against your mechanic means you don't know as much as you think you do. It's more than evident enough that your knowledge of the game's rules is pitifully small, despite the "extensive experience" that you keep on pointing at.
Get your mechanic to work properly first. I don't think you'll be able to on your own.
I am not beyond criticism, but I have yet to see a single credible argument from anybody. It would be nice if you had one, but so far no one has explained or provided anything irrefutable. For the record, I have not worked on MTG content in a few years, but before that I gained extensive experience with content development through private practice.
All of the arguments we're giving you are credible. You're just refusing to see why they're credible. You keep using your "extensive experience" as a comfort blanket to try and justify why you don't want to get over your biases. Your "extensive experience" means absolutely nothing to any of us, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The more you do, the less genuine we know your ideas are.
How is Crescendo overly complicated? This is just another empty statement, in a paragraph of empty statements, that doesn't explain (or elaborate) on any significant details in your favor. There's no wall of text involves. As composed, the ability (yes it is a Keyword ability) works flawlessly alongside a counter to effortlessly keep track of the Crescendo stack.
Again, refusing to see through to the other side. Rose-tinted lens.
You're using a poorly-designed mechanic to justify your poorly-designed mechanic. Sure, that works, but only if you want people to think of your mechanic as being at least as poorly designed as the example mechanic.
Some people like the challenge. And furthermore, this could easily serve as an evaluation of improvisational talent, that enables management to wane out the meek from the mighty. There's really nothing wrong credible that can be said against the aspect of challenge here. It might just seem controversial to those who can't meet the demand, but this demand is apart of the job (it's a dynamic qualification), so attempting to oppress it here is absurd.
Okay, so you like the challenge of content development. Why are you so afraid of hearing others say that you've failed at what you've done?
Failure isn't inherently bad. It's a sign that person who has failed has to improve. But you're just not willing to accept the fact that we think your mechanic is bad.
Willow's does not clean up anything. It's actually an underwhelming use of a keyword ability. All it does is place a counter on the card at designated time, something that's more simply spelled out as a traditional effect. And even the simple flavor it provides doesn't eclipse the fact of how unnecessary and tacky it truly is. If you really think otherwise, I mean you're really going to provide me with a little more detail than this so that I might understand where you're coming from. I'm trying really hard to see the legitimacy...but it's just not there for me.
Forcing a player to use a counter to track something about the game state, when the player has other options to do so, is "unnecessary and tacky." This is especially so if the counter has no actual rules relevance.
The tone with which you're carrying out this discussion is so closed to the point where I'm surprised people are arguing with as much patience as they've been giving you.
You're not arguing in good faith. You're deflecting any criticism that comes your way. All you're doing is pitching an idea that you came up with due to "innovation" reasons, claiming that your "extensive experience" means you know more than all of us do. You claim that all the criticism you get is full of "empty, biased statements," yet the reality is that your opinion is so biased to the point where you're afraid to actually address others' concerns. You default to "No, you're wrong" in one way or another, since you're not actually able to argue for why your idea is a good idea. I can come up with many examples if you wish.
Since you're so adamant in your opinion, why are you even posting here? You're obviously not willing to look outside your rose-tinted lens to see what people actually have to say, so all it is is a waste of time for both parties. It's abundantly evident that you don't want your view changed on any of this. Surely, your "extensive experience" means you don't need any of us to contribute our viewpoints, and that you can keep going on your path on your own. Using the tone you've been using in the discussion so far just makes people not want to discuss with you.
The core reason of why this mechanic even came to be, according to you, is "innovation." "Innovation" means "implementing an idea that nobody has ever done before," but it doesn't automatically mean that the idea is inherently good. You then make a huge logical leap and say that "My idea is good due to my 'extensive experience,'" which is not logically valid. Because of this, your entire argument isn't valid. I'm sure I don't have to point out examples in history where designing something for "innovation" led to terrible results.
You might as well just make a different game, rather than pitch ideas for Magic designs. Magic has a bunch of conventions and standards that you're throwing out the window for no reason other than "innovation." By doing so, you're no longer designing for Magic anymore, so of course none of what we say is going to make you budge, since we don't even know what game you are designing for.
As for your "unnecessary duplication" argument, the sacrifice trigger will not duplicate. That operation takes wing as a state-based effect that puts the permanent into the graveyard superseding the stack—with no time-frame beyond this that enables the operating function to trigger an additional time (or trigger in any exponential fashion).
This is hilariously incorrect. Read your proposed cards again, read the reminder text again, and then try to realize why you're wrong. I'm sure you'd be able to, with your "extensive experience" and all.
Once a spell starts to resolve (which it would need to do in order to have any of its effects including being exiled) it will continue to resolve even if it leaves the stack in the middle of resolution.
The parenthetical text isn't correct.
"You may cast ~ from your graveyard" isn't a spell ability, and the exile instruction is part of the same ability as the sentence before it. Therefore, the exile will happen as part of taking advantage of the permission granted by the static ability, immediately after the spell has finished being cast. If the exile instruction were to happen as part of the resolution, either the exile instruction needs to specifically mention when the exile action happens, or some form of triggered ability needs to be involved.
This problem could be fixed, I believe, by changing Amalgam's p/t setting ability to a persistant +n/+n effect: "Amalgam gets +X/+Y, where X is the total power among cards in graveyards and Y is their total toughness." That puts both abilities in the same layer.
Unfortunately, this also does not work. Even though you shift the Amalgam effect from layer 7a to layer 7c, the relative order of application between Amalgam's P/T-modification ability and its activated ability's effect is still the same. This is because the activated ability has a later timestamp than Amalgam's ability.
This does fix the problem, the Amalgam's ability would be dependent on the other so timestamp wouldn't apply.
You're absolutely right. I don't know how I missed that.
One thing for OP to note about using the "+X/+Y" wording is that it doesn't apply in any zone but the battlefield, whereas the CDA initially provided does. I'm not sure if OP cares about this loss of functionality or not.
No, I understood that quite clearly. Can you explain why, due to layers, the ability does not work as intended?
Absolutely.
In layer 7a, the guy's power and toughness will be defined to be the total power and the total toughness of creature cards in your graveyard, respectively. If we suppose that there is a 2/2 and a 1/1 in your graveyard, this makes the OP's card a 3/3. No problems there.
Assuming the ability is activated and resolves, each of the creature cards in the graveyard will get +1/+1. The 2/2 becomes a 3/3, and the 1/1 becomes a 2/2. This is also fine.
What doesn't work is that the game can't "go back" and retroactively apply layer 7a after knowing the results of applying layer 7c. It's not possible for the OP's card to go from being a 3/3 to being a 5/5 this way.
This problem could be fixed, I believe, by changing Amalgam's p/t setting ability to a persistant +n/+n effect: "Amalgam gets +X/+Y, where X is the total power among cards in graveyards and Y is their total toughness." That puts both abilities in the same layer.
Unfortunately, this also does not work. Even though you shift the Amalgam effect from layer 7a to layer 7c, the relative order of application between Amalgam's P/T-modification ability and its activated ability's effect is still the same. This is because the activated ability has a later timestamp than Amalgam's ability.
Of course, I could just change the second ability to say "Amalgam gets +1/+1 until end of turn for each creature card in a graveyard" and be done with it.
This would probably have to be the best way to do it. You sacrifice the continuous power and toughness check in favor of, well, a card that actually works.
You claim to not be cherry-picking, yet you dismiss 303.4c as being irrelevant when you have no proof that it's irrelevant. That's the very definition of cherry-picking.
Can you prove that your argument is in good faith? Can you prove that every single player that has learned how the enchant ability works has actually been wrong about how the ability actually works? Again, the burden of proof is on you for putting forth your claim first.
Now I know you're no longer being serious. Stop cherry-picking and actually read everything that's presented to you, rather than continue being stuck in your own echo chamber and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your interpretation.
Prove your claim that 303.4c is irrelevant first. You won't be able to, no matter how good you think your argumentation is.
But no seriously. It literally says "it defines it, see 702.5." 702.5 only restricts what it can be applied to. No restriction means it can apply to anything.
You're missing a few entries.
303.4. Some enchantments have the subtype "Aura." An Aura enters the battlefield attached to an object or player. What an Aura can be attached to is defined by its enchant keyword ability. Other effects can limit what a permanent can be enchanted by.
303.4c. If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard.
The enchant ability restricts (subtracts from all possible game elements to enchant), it also defines what the Aura it appears on can enchant (adds legalities to an otherwise fully illegal set of game elements to enchant).
If the enchant ability only restricted rather than defined, you would need to find an existing card that is either an Aura enchantment without an enchant ability, or a card that created Aura enchantment tokens that didn't have an enchant ability. No such example exists.
Sorry to break it to you, but your logic is wrong.
You cannot have a non-Human creature that possesses the Human creature type, because a non-Human creature is a creature that does not possess the Human creature type.
Do you actually know what you're talking about? What's your point? You clearly linked a Human creature card.
A non-Human creature card can't have the Human creature type. I don't see how that's so hard for you to grasp. It's simple logic. A sandwich that doesn't have cheese in it can't have cheese in it. An apple that isn't red can't be red. A number that isn't odd can't be odd.
Your fundamental understanding of simple predicate logic is extremely poor. Your lack of predicate logic knowledge is what's confusing you here. The very premise of your idea is entirely wrong, and you refuse to accept it.
This isn't possible. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich is still a peanut butter sandwich even though it also has jelly in it.
The CR has a rule that explicitly contradicts this.
Almost. Cumulative upkeep offers the option to not pay for the amount of age counters, and if the payment isn't made, the relevant permanent gets sacrificed. This doesn't involve the ability to sacrifice at all, nor to avoid any sort of payment.
Essentially, it boils down to:
You must pay ~'s cumulative upkeep cost if able.
When/Whenever/At [something], [something else] for each age counter on ~.
The second ability is what makes it look weird. After all, if the second ability is just going to make the optional portion of the first ability mandatory, why not just change the first ability to have that part be mandatory instead?
"I know everything there is about my mechanic. All your arguments are 'empty,' 'weak,' 'biased,' or whatever other adjective I want to use to deflect them."
Yet, you can't even answer IcariiFA's rules concerns correctly? Maybe you should take a step back and realize that the criticism against your mechanic means you don't know as much as you think you do. It's more than evident enough that your knowledge of the game's rules is pitifully small, despite the "extensive experience" that you keep on pointing at.
Get your mechanic to work properly first. I don't think you'll be able to on your own.
All of the arguments we're giving you are credible. You're just refusing to see why they're credible. You keep using your "extensive experience" as a comfort blanket to try and justify why you don't want to get over your biases. Your "extensive experience" means absolutely nothing to any of us, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. The more you do, the less genuine we know your ideas are.
Again, refusing to see through to the other side. Rose-tinted lens.
You're using a poorly-designed mechanic to justify your poorly-designed mechanic. Sure, that works, but only if you want people to think of your mechanic as being at least as poorly designed as the example mechanic.
Okay, so you like the challenge of content development. Why are you so afraid of hearing others say that you've failed at what you've done?
Failure isn't inherently bad. It's a sign that person who has failed has to improve. But you're just not willing to accept the fact that we think your mechanic is bad.
Forcing a player to use a counter to track something about the game state, when the player has other options to do so, is "unnecessary and tacky." This is especially so if the counter has no actual rules relevance.
You're not arguing in good faith. You're deflecting any criticism that comes your way. All you're doing is pitching an idea that you came up with due to "innovation" reasons, claiming that your "extensive experience" means you know more than all of us do. You claim that all the criticism you get is full of "empty, biased statements," yet the reality is that your opinion is so biased to the point where you're afraid to actually address others' concerns. You default to "No, you're wrong" in one way or another, since you're not actually able to argue for why your idea is a good idea. I can come up with many examples if you wish.
Since you're so adamant in your opinion, why are you even posting here? You're obviously not willing to look outside your rose-tinted lens to see what people actually have to say, so all it is is a waste of time for both parties. It's abundantly evident that you don't want your view changed on any of this. Surely, your "extensive experience" means you don't need any of us to contribute our viewpoints, and that you can keep going on your path on your own. Using the tone you've been using in the discussion so far just makes people not want to discuss with you.
The core reason of why this mechanic even came to be, according to you, is "innovation." "Innovation" means "implementing an idea that nobody has ever done before," but it doesn't automatically mean that the idea is inherently good. You then make a huge logical leap and say that "My idea is good due to my 'extensive experience,'" which is not logically valid. Because of this, your entire argument isn't valid. I'm sure I don't have to point out examples in history where designing something for "innovation" led to terrible results.
You might as well just make a different game, rather than pitch ideas for Magic designs. Magic has a bunch of conventions and standards that you're throwing out the window for no reason other than "innovation." By doing so, you're no longer designing for Magic anymore, so of course none of what we say is going to make you budge, since we don't even know what game you are designing for.
Also:
---
This is hilariously incorrect. Read your proposed cards again, read the reminder text again, and then try to realize why you're wrong. I'm sure you'd be able to, with your "extensive experience" and all.
The parenthetical text isn't correct.
"You may cast ~ from your graveyard" isn't a spell ability, and the exile instruction is part of the same ability as the sentence before it. Therefore, the exile will happen as part of taking advantage of the permission granted by the static ability, immediately after the spell has finished being cast. If the exile instruction were to happen as part of the resolution, either the exile instruction needs to specifically mention when the exile action happens, or some form of triggered ability needs to be involved.
You're absolutely right. I don't know how I missed that.
One thing for OP to note about using the "+X/+Y" wording is that it doesn't apply in any zone but the battlefield, whereas the CDA initially provided does. I'm not sure if OP cares about this loss of functionality or not.
Absolutely.
In layer 7a, the guy's power and toughness will be defined to be the total power and the total toughness of creature cards in your graveyard, respectively. If we suppose that there is a 2/2 and a 1/1 in your graveyard, this makes the OP's card a 3/3. No problems there.
Assuming the ability is activated and resolves, each of the creature cards in the graveyard will get +1/+1. The 2/2 becomes a 3/3, and the 1/1 becomes a 2/2. This is also fine.
What doesn't work is that the game can't "go back" and retroactively apply layer 7a after knowing the results of applying layer 7c. It's not possible for the OP's card to go from being a 3/3 to being a 5/5 this way.
Unfortunately, this also does not work. Even though you shift the Amalgam effect from layer 7a to layer 7c, the relative order of application between Amalgam's P/T-modification ability and its activated ability's effect is still the same. This is because the activated ability has a later timestamp than Amalgam's ability.
This would probably have to be the best way to do it. You sacrifice the continuous power and toughness check in favor of, well, a card that actually works.
Can you prove that your argument is in good faith? Can you prove that every single player that has learned how the enchant ability works has actually been wrong about how the ability actually works? Again, the burden of proof is on you for putting forth your claim first.
Now I know you're no longer being serious. Stop cherry-picking and actually read everything that's presented to you, rather than continue being stuck in your own echo chamber and ignoring everything that doesn't fit your interpretation.
Prove your claim that 303.4c is irrelevant first. You won't be able to, no matter how good you think your argumentation is.
You're missing a few entries.
303.4c. If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner's graveyard.
The enchant ability restricts (subtracts from all possible game elements to enchant), it also defines what the Aura it appears on can enchant (adds legalities to an otherwise fully illegal set of game elements to enchant).
If the enchant ability only restricted rather than defined, you would need to find an existing card that is either an Aura enchantment without an enchant ability, or a card that created Aura enchantment tokens that didn't have an enchant ability. No such example exists.