To address indestructible, the problem with that is that it does too much if it becomes a creature, and we don't want that here.
Since celestial is a supertype, making the land become a creature won't remove the celestial supertype. This means that the creature will still have all the rules for the celestial supertype apply to it, including the indestructible portion. So unless there are cards that specifically care about the celestial supertype rather than just the indestructible portion of it, there's no reason to have the supertype at all.
I feel we actually want the replacement effect assignment for the XtendIt Lands, as it hard-codes their effectiveness based on the specific game-state in which it was played. This helps to keep it as functional as possible, with the least about of potential for instability as possible. Their intention is specifically to create an effective play extension for players, with a nice little mana ramp towards the mid-game. Don't feel it's anything new or revolutionary, just realized the potential there, and felt like it was something that needed to be presented.
If you want the check to specifically be done right when the permanent enters the battlefield, you should make it a triggered ability that triggers only upon entering the battlefield.
Doublemint should just have a regular static ability, not a static ability that generates a replacement effect upon entry.
"Your opponent" doesn't exist in Magic. There's (currently) no reason why the celestial supertype should exist when indestructible already exists as an ability.
104.3l: A player loses the game if they fail to completely perform an action that they claim a card in a hidden zone would allow them to perform, of if they search their library for apparently no reason.
This doesn't work. It's not rigorous enough. You need to explicitly define what "fail to completely perform an action" means.
On another note, a player will already automatically lose the game if they search their library for no reason, due to how tournament rules work.
In addition to the other rules concern already noted, the reminder text is also wrong. "Whenever" and "would" are fundamentally incompatible with each other and cannot belong in the same effect. If you want to use a replacement effect, you need to use "If" instead of "Whenever" in the text.
Awaken Lord seems nice. Note that templating uses "have indestructible" rather than "are indestructible" now that indestructible is a keyword.
Awaken Enchantment isn't possible as written, because awaken isn't a keyword action. It's a keyword that represents a static and a spell ability that just happens to use an English verb as its name. The last bit would have to be written out in full.
Awaken Mystic Snake seems rather roundabout in its implementation. Since it has no mana cost, it can't be cast normally without using the awaken ability's permission, so you might as well just have the mana cost be GUU and have the awaken effect just be written out on the card.
Is this better? I added a line specifying that you choose an opponent when you cast this spell for multiplayer purposes.
When you cast Constipating Temptation, choose an opponent.
That opponent chooses one — That player discards three cards; or that player gains 3 life and can’t cast spells until their next turn.
That doesn't work. Modes for a modal spell or ability are chosen upon putting that spell or ability on the stack. An ability that triggers "when you cast" a spell will trigger far too late for modes to be chosen.
Due to how they work, it's impossible to have modal spells and abilities cause targeted players to perform the choice of mode. The player choosing the mode needs to not be targeted.
Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.
Agreed, and my only point here was to state that spells and abilities can legally resolve but not generate the effects that they are supposed to.
Any way, let's assume the precedent is set that countering uncounterable spells or destroying an indestructible permanent impossible counts as impossible within the framework of the rules, and bearing 608.2d in mind, I have a couple of follow up questions to help me think it through and see where you're coming from.
Let's suppose I cast Wild Swing choosing my two Darksteel Citadels and my opponents 9/9 creature as targets. My understanding of the rules is there's a 33.3% chance that my opponent's 9/9 will be destroyed, and a 33.3% chance that Wild Swing will fail to destroy Citadel A and 33.3% chance to fail to destroy Citadel B.
But your precedent suggests that since impossible choices can't be made (presumably even if I chose it randomly) that there's a 100% of destroying the 9/9 since I should only consider choices that are possible actions? Is this the correct conclusion? And if not, why is it different from Drop/Nodes.
(Incidentally, the rulings for Wild Swing and Nodes were updated on the 01/07/13 even though they don't agree with with other. Nodes says indestructible things can't be chosen, Wild Swing says they can, but nothing happens )
Wild Swing targets, which means rule 608.2d doesn't apply to it. Upon resolution, the player is not given a choice to destroy anything. The destroy event happens without the player needing to make any choice on which creature to destroy.
Your point of confusion is that you're mixing up "choosing to destroy a creature" and "choosing a creature, then destroy that creature". Porphyry Nodes does the former. If we treat Wild Swing as an untargeted spell, Wild Swing does the latter.
Suppose Porphyry Nodes' ability resolves, and there are N creatures on the battlefield with the least power. Porphyry Nodes gives you a list of choices to make, as follows:
Suppose that creature 1 has indestructible. Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. Impossible actions can't be chosen, so that eliminates the choice from the list. Your list now looks as follows:
You choose one of the options given to you at this point.
Now, let's take our modified Wild Swing. Suppose we have N nonenchantment permanents. It doesn't target, so our list of choices is as follows:
1) Permanent 1
2) Permanent 2
...
N) Permanent N
Our modified Wild Swing tells us to choose three of these. Note that even if any or all of these permanents have indestructible, it doesn't matter. Why? Because merely choosing a permanent isn't an impossible action, but Wild Swing's list of choices doesn't involve destroying anything. So we can certainly choose permanents with indestructible.
This is the key difference. One of the cards involves choosing to destroy something. The other card involves choosing something, then destroying a subset of the choices made. They are not the same thing, and claiming that they are is the source of your confusion.
Next up, let's look at the card Assault Suit, which says "Equipped creature can't be sacrificed." and conveniently has the following ruling
If an effect instructs you to sacrifice a creature, and you control any creatures other than the creature equipped with Assault Suit, you must sacrifice one of them. You can’t try to sacrifice the equipped creature, fail, and therefore ignore the effect.
Let's say that I cotrol two Serra Angels and one of them is equipped with Assault Suit. My opponent casts Diabolic Edict I would clearly have to Sacrifice the unequipped Angel.
In my understanding of the rules, I could choose to save the unequipped Angel. As the spell resolves the equipped Angel would simply not be sacrificed, leaving me with but both angels but your precedent suggests that I would be forced to choose to save the equipped angel since sacrificing it would be impossible. Is this the correct interpretation?
All three of these provided examples are similar to the modified Wild Swing. The choices you are given in their lists don't involve sacrificing, only the creatures themselves.
Choosing a creature or permanent in this way is not an impossible action, so you are free to choose or not choose to save the equipped creature.
Again, "choose to perform an action X on a permanent P" is different than "choose a permanent P, then performing action X on that permanent".
Finally, for now, let's look at Do or Die. Wrath effects usually just ignore indestructible creatures but going by your definition that "impossible" choices can't be made, it seems that if either pile has an indestructible creature in it, that pile can't be chosen. What happens to the game state if this occurs? Is the caster forced to rearrange the piles until at least one pile contains no creatures that can't be destroyed?
Imagine I cast Do or Die on my opponent who controls two Darksteel Colossuses, and six 4/4 Beast tokens. My understanding of the rules, is that if I split into two piles each containing a Darksteel Colossus and three 4/4 Beast tokens, then I will destroy the remaining three beasts tokens, leaving my opponent with both Colossi and the three remaining beasts but your ruling suggests that my opponent can't choose either pile??
The first choice is the choice of piles, made by the controller of Do or Die:
1) Creature 1
2) Creature 2
...
N) Creature N
The player controlling Do or Die makes up to N choices here on what creature to put into the first pile. Any creatures not chosen as part of this choice are put into the other pile.
The second choice is the choice of pile. This choice is made by the targeted player:
1) Pile 1
2) Pile 2
Then, the destroy action is performed on all creatures in the chosen pile.
Nowhere in either list is there an impossible action. Choosing a creature and choosing a pile themselves aren't impossible actions.
Nodes and Honey are specifically instructing you to destroy a creature, so you can not choose a creature that can't be destroyed.
It's slightly more complicated than this though, because
a) you CAN choose a creature that can't be destroyed and if you do, nothing happens.
and b) It arbitrarily only counts indestructible and not other effects that would prevent a creature being destroyed such as Totem armor.
7/1/2013 If the creature with the least power has indestructible, the ability does nothing.
7/1/2013 If there are multiple creatures tied for least power and some but not all of them have indestructible, the ones with indestructible can’t be chosen.
If there are only two 1/1 indestructible creatures on the battlefield, you may legally choose either, and nothing will happen as Nodes resolves, so you absolutely may choose "impossible" choices. In fact, the only restriction in choice occurs if at least one of the creatures tied for the lowest power doesn't have indestructible.
No. See above.
In your example, the list of choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature with indestructible
2) Destroy the second 1/1 creature with indestructible
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. This eliminates options 1 and 2 from the list. Since there are no more options in the list from which you can choose, no choice is made.
To confound things further, if one of those permanents has Totem Armor instead of Indestructible then you have to choose that permanent instead.
This is where the ambiguity, and questions of common sense and assumption, and the problems with literally readings arise and is what I think OP refers to. There is nothing in the comp rules that states the previous interaction.
A replacement effect that replaces a creature being destroyed with some other event doesn't make destroying that creature an impossible action.
If the first 1/1 creature has an enchantment with totem armor attached to it, and the second 1/1 creature has indestructible, then the list of legal choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature
Totem armor is a replacement effect. A replacement effect looks for an event A, and replaces it with an event B. In order for a replacement effect to apply, event A must be able to happen in the absence of the replacement effect.
If the first 1/1 creature being destroyed were an impossible action, then event A in the replacement effect can't happen. If event A can't happen, the replacement effect can't apply. But you already know the replacement effect can apply, so event A can happen, so destroying the first 1/1 creature is not an impossible action.
This is another point of confusion: A replacement effect that replaces event A with event B doesn't make event A an impossible action.
A very stimulating debate indeed!
I usually blindly trust many of those opposing Oreth, but the Porphyry Nodes/Do Or Die contradiction seems like a very strong counter-argument:
Why is 'Choose a creature and then destroy it' treated differently than 'Choose a pile and then destroy the creatures in that pile'?
I must agree with Oreth: the matter cannot be summarily dismissed.
As mentioned above, if you write out in detail what exactly those two cards do, step by step, you will see that there is no contradiction.
"Choose a permanent, then perform action X on that permanent" is different than "choose to perform action X on a permanent". "Choosing a permanent" is always possible, as specified by the limitations on the card. "Performing action X on [the permanent chosen earlier]" is not always a possible action, but by that point there is no more choice involved. "Choose to perform action X on a permanent" isn't always possible.
This is a really interesting discussion because the rules don't explicitly spell it out. It's perfectly legal to attempt the impossible in Magic. The rules of the game allow you to waste a Counterspell on a Supreme Verdict or to cast Terminate on an indestructible creature but not on a creature with hexproof (which would be an illegal play)
Neither of those examples are relevant. You're taking a rule that only applies to a specific situation and assuming it applies to more than just that specific situation.
You can waste a Counterspell on a spell that can't be countered because Counterspell targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what spell Counterspell will affect. If there were a choice to be made, you wouldn't be able to choose a spell that can't be countered.
You can cast Terminate on a creature with indestructible because Terminate targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what creature Terminate will destroy. If there were, you wouldn't be able to choose a creature with indestructible.
Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.
I suppose the argument for is that choosing an indestrucible creature would be "impossible". (Not that I agree with that)
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. In this case, Porphyry Nodes instructs the player to choose between destroying a creature with indestructible, and (presumably) destroying a creature without indestructible. If you choose to destroy a creature with indestructible, you've just chosen to perform an impossible action, which 608.2d doesn't allow.
Priest of the Burning Sun doesn't work. Enrage is an ability word, which means it has no rules meaning. Because of this, you can't refer to it by name. The best you can do is something like "If a creature you control being dealt damage causes an ability of a creature you control to trigger, that ability triggers an additional time."
Belligerent Dinosaur needs to have its enrage condition spelled out. As previously mentioned, enrage doesn't have any rules meaning, so there's no automatic trigger condition for the ability.
Paid Overtime should have its abilities condensed into one ability, because one of the previous instructions directly influences the following instructions: "Whenever one or more Pirates you control deal combat damage to a player, you may sacrifice three Treasure tokens. If you do, untap each creature you control. After this phase, there is an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase."
Dusk Legion's Scorn has a minor typo: "permanents" -> "permanent's"
Fatal Push also has some minor typos: "converted mana cost {N} or less" -> "converted mana cost N or less"
Numbers are not the same as numerical symbols and can't be interchanged.
Pokémon TCG does this. Tap counterclockwise for sleeping Pokémon. Tap clockwise for poisoned Pokémon. I don't play much Pokémon with my kids anymore, but I haven't seen any new cards that do this for a while now. I think the sleep mechanic was retired (or was it the other one? I forget).
Pokémon that are Asleep are turned to the left, and Pokémon that are Paralyzed are turned to the right. This is easily remembered because "AsLeep = Left" and "PaRalyzed = Right" (yes, I know "Paralyzed" also has an "L" in it). Pokémon that are Confused are turned 180 degrees, because "ConFused = flipped over" or something like that.
Pokémon that are Poisoned are denoted with a poison marker. Pokémon that are Burned are denoted with a burn marker.
As of the current sets, none of them are discontinued. Burned was phased out for awhile but was eventually brought back.
-----
Anyway, I really don't like directional tapping as an enforced mechanic. Generally, the direction in which a player orients their cards when tapping them is habitual; a player who is used to turning their cards clockwise will continue to turn their cards clockwise. The time they learned what tapping meant didn't involve any functional difference between tapping in one direction or the other, so the difference in tapping direction is just a question of comfort more than a question of game function.
Putting rules meaning behind each tapping direction involves players willingly needing to break their habitual tapping direction. Just like other habits, part of the process in breaking that habit is to recognize that the habit is being performed. The problem is that since tapping is done so often in Magic, this recognition stage probably doesn't even happen, since it's such a mindless and quick re-orientation of the card. When it comes to players needing to ask their opponent whether they actually mean to tap in the direction they tapped, or players saying "gotcha" to players who mean to tap one way but instinctively tap the other way, there's a problem.
I know how they work, you just seem to be missing the point that there's potentially no other way to word this operating function without this adaptation to the terminology and how it functions; using the context of the word also as the conjunction that changes the operating function of the terminology Non-Human. When these two terms are together in the same sentence, the conjunction of also literally changes the context of the term Non-Human, so that it means something else entirely, and defines any creature that possesses a type that isn't human.
It's as if nobody here even understands the concept of term context in the English language.
Do you understand how languages work? You're not the one who gets to decide that a word does what you say it does by virtue of you saying it. The only place where "also" works the way it works is in your little imaginary world, where only you are right and everyone else's opinions don't matter because they're not good enough for your high horse.
If there's "potentially no other way to word this operating function" (whatever that's supposed to mean), then maybe what you're asking for is fundamentally incompatible with Magic's rules system, and your attempt to shoehorn whatever you want into the system is futile. All of your designs so far are examples of this shoehorning in one way or another, and they've all failed.
Even if your idea did work with the recently-mentioned facade mechanic, you still haven't explained why your idea is good or how it improves the game. It's objectively not intuitive and just emphasizes a technicality of the game for zero good reason. You might think your idea is good, but the rest of us don't. If you claim our opinions don't matter, then a forum meant for sharing opinions isn't the right place to post your ideas.
Since celestial is a supertype, making the land become a creature won't remove the celestial supertype. This means that the creature will still have all the rules for the celestial supertype apply to it, including the indestructible portion. So unless there are cards that specifically care about the celestial supertype rather than just the indestructible portion of it, there's no reason to have the supertype at all.
If you want the check to specifically be done right when the permanent enters the battlefield, you should make it a triggered ability that triggers only upon entering the battlefield.
"Your opponent" doesn't exist in Magic. There's (currently) no reason why the celestial supertype should exist when indestructible already exists as an ability.
This doesn't work. It's not rigorous enough. You need to explicitly define what "fail to completely perform an action" means.
On another note, a player will already automatically lose the game if they search their library for no reason, due to how tournament rules work.
If you want ties to count, maybe flip the condition?
Storyteller - When ~ enters the battlefield, if an opponent has fewer cards in their graveyard than you, [effect].
Awaken Enchantment isn't possible as written, because awaken isn't a keyword action. It's a keyword that represents a static and a spell ability that just happens to use an English verb as its name. The last bit would have to be written out in full.
Awaken Mystic Snake seems rather roundabout in its implementation. Since it has no mana cost, it can't be cast normally without using the awaken ability's permission, so you might as well just have the mana cost be GUU and have the awaken effect just be written out on the card.
That doesn't work. Modes for a modal spell or ability are chosen upon putting that spell or ability on the stack. An ability that triggers "when you cast" a spell will trigger far too late for modes to be chosen.
Wild Swing targets, which means rule 608.2d doesn't apply to it. Upon resolution, the player is not given a choice to destroy anything. The destroy event happens without the player needing to make any choice on which creature to destroy.
Your point of confusion is that you're mixing up "choosing to destroy a creature" and "choosing a creature, then destroy that creature". Porphyry Nodes does the former. If we treat Wild Swing as an untargeted spell, Wild Swing does the latter.
Suppose Porphyry Nodes' ability resolves, and there are N creatures on the battlefield with the least power. Porphyry Nodes gives you a list of choices to make, as follows:
1) Destroy creature 1
2) Destroy creature 2
...
N) Destroy creature N
Suppose that creature 1 has indestructible. Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. Impossible actions can't be chosen, so that eliminates the choice from the list. Your list now looks as follows:
2) Destroy creature 2
3) Destroy creature 3
...
N) Destroy creature N
You choose one of the options given to you at this point.
Now, let's take our modified Wild Swing. Suppose we have N nonenchantment permanents. It doesn't target, so our list of choices is as follows:
1) Permanent 1
2) Permanent 2
...
N) Permanent N
Our modified Wild Swing tells us to choose three of these. Note that even if any or all of these permanents have indestructible, it doesn't matter. Why? Because merely choosing a permanent isn't an impossible action, but Wild Swing's list of choices doesn't involve destroying anything. So we can certainly choose permanents with indestructible.
This is the key difference. One of the cards involves choosing to destroy something. The other card involves choosing something, then destroying a subset of the choices made. They are not the same thing, and claiming that they are is the source of your confusion.
All three of these provided examples are similar to the modified Wild Swing. The choices you are given in their lists don't involve sacrificing, only the creatures themselves.
Balancing Act's list looks like this:
1) Permanent 1
2) Permanent 2
...
N) Permanent N
Cataclysm's list looks like this for creatures:
1) Creature 1
2) Creature 2
...
N) Creature N
Choosing a creature or permanent in this way is not an impossible action, so you are free to choose or not choose to save the equipped creature.
Again, "choose to perform an action X on a permanent P" is different than "choose a permanent P, then performing action X on that permanent".
Do or Die has two lists of choices involved.
The first choice is the choice of piles, made by the controller of Do or Die:
1) Creature 1
2) Creature 2
...
N) Creature N
The player controlling Do or Die makes up to N choices here on what creature to put into the first pile. Any creatures not chosen as part of this choice are put into the other pile.
The second choice is the choice of pile. This choice is made by the targeted player:
1) Pile 1
2) Pile 2
Then, the destroy action is performed on all creatures in the chosen pile.
Nowhere in either list is there an impossible action. Choosing a creature and choosing a pile themselves aren't impossible actions.
-----
No. See above.
In your example, the list of choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature with indestructible
2) Destroy the second 1/1 creature with indestructible
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. This eliminates options 1 and 2 from the list. Since there are no more options in the list from which you can choose, no choice is made.
A replacement effect that replaces a creature being destroyed with some other event doesn't make destroying that creature an impossible action.
If the first 1/1 creature has an enchantment with totem armor attached to it, and the second 1/1 creature has indestructible, then the list of legal choices is as follows:
1) Destroy the first 1/1 creature
Totem armor is a replacement effect. A replacement effect looks for an event A, and replaces it with an event B. In order for a replacement effect to apply, event A must be able to happen in the absence of the replacement effect.
If the first 1/1 creature being destroyed were an impossible action, then event A in the replacement effect can't happen. If event A can't happen, the replacement effect can't apply. But you already know the replacement effect can apply, so event A can happen, so destroying the first 1/1 creature is not an impossible action.
This is another point of confusion: A replacement effect that replaces event A with event B doesn't make event A an impossible action.
As mentioned above, if you write out in detail what exactly those two cards do, step by step, you will see that there is no contradiction.
"Choose a permanent, then perform action X on that permanent" is different than "choose to perform action X on a permanent". "Choosing a permanent" is always possible, as specified by the limitations on the card. "Performing action X on [the permanent chosen earlier]" is not always a possible action, but by that point there is no more choice involved. "Choose to perform action X on a permanent" isn't always possible.
Neither of those examples are relevant. You're taking a rule that only applies to a specific situation and assuming it applies to more than just that specific situation.
You can waste a Counterspell on a spell that can't be countered because Counterspell targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what spell Counterspell will affect. If there were a choice to be made, you wouldn't be able to choose a spell that can't be countered.
You can cast Terminate on a creature with indestructible because Terminate targets. There are no choices to be made upon resolution on what creature Terminate will destroy. If there were, you wouldn't be able to choose a creature with indestructible.
Rule 608.2d only applies to cases where the choice is offered upon resolution. I don't know why you've interpreted it to also apply to cases where the choice isn't offered upon resolution.
Destroying a creature with indestructible is an impossible action. In this case, Porphyry Nodes instructs the player to choose between destroying a creature with indestructible, and (presumably) destroying a creature without indestructible. If you choose to destroy a creature with indestructible, you've just chosen to perform an impossible action, which 608.2d doesn't allow.
Belligerent Dinosaur needs to have its enrage condition spelled out. As previously mentioned, enrage doesn't have any rules meaning, so there's no automatic trigger condition for the ability.
Paid Overtime should have its abilities condensed into one ability, because one of the previous instructions directly influences the following instructions: "Whenever one or more Pirates you control deal combat damage to a player, you may sacrifice three Treasure tokens. If you do, untap each creature you control. After this phase, there is an additional combat phase followed by an additional main phase."
Dusk Legion's Scorn has a minor typo: "permanents" -> "permanent's"
Fatal Push also has some minor typos: "converted mana cost {N} or less" -> "converted mana cost N or less"
Numbers are not the same as numerical symbols and can't be interchanged.
Pokémon that are Asleep are turned to the left, and Pokémon that are Paralyzed are turned to the right. This is easily remembered because "AsLeep = Left" and "PaRalyzed = Right" (yes, I know "Paralyzed" also has an "L" in it). Pokémon that are Confused are turned 180 degrees, because "ConFused = flipped over" or something like that.
Pokémon that are Poisoned are denoted with a poison marker. Pokémon that are Burned are denoted with a burn marker.
As of the current sets, none of them are discontinued. Burned was phased out for awhile but was eventually brought back.
-----
Anyway, I really don't like directional tapping as an enforced mechanic. Generally, the direction in which a player orients their cards when tapping them is habitual; a player who is used to turning their cards clockwise will continue to turn their cards clockwise. The time they learned what tapping meant didn't involve any functional difference between tapping in one direction or the other, so the difference in tapping direction is just a question of comfort more than a question of game function.
Putting rules meaning behind each tapping direction involves players willingly needing to break their habitual tapping direction. Just like other habits, part of the process in breaking that habit is to recognize that the habit is being performed. The problem is that since tapping is done so often in Magic, this recognition stage probably doesn't even happen, since it's such a mindless and quick re-orientation of the card. When it comes to players needing to ask their opponent whether they actually mean to tap in the direction they tapped, or players saying "gotcha" to players who mean to tap one way but instinctively tap the other way, there's a problem.
And I've been saying that your claim about the word "also" is completely false.
I'll say it again: Just because you claim that a word does something doesn't mean the word actually does that thing. Get that drilled into your mind.
Do you understand how languages work? You're not the one who gets to decide that a word does what you say it does by virtue of you saying it. The only place where "also" works the way it works is in your little imaginary world, where only you are right and everyone else's opinions don't matter because they're not good enough for your high horse.
If there's "potentially no other way to word this operating function" (whatever that's supposed to mean), then maybe what you're asking for is fundamentally incompatible with Magic's rules system, and your attempt to shoehorn whatever you want into the system is futile. All of your designs so far are examples of this shoehorning in one way or another, and they've all failed.
Even if your idea did work with the recently-mentioned facade mechanic, you still haven't explained why your idea is good or how it improves the game. It's objectively not intuitive and just emphasizes a technicality of the game for zero good reason. You might think your idea is good, but the rest of us don't. If you claim our opinions don't matter, then a forum meant for sharing opinions isn't the right place to post your ideas.