I understand this, but they should have still combined the aspect into that single term, and then simply indexed the term mana cost by specifics.
Which they did before but the other way around which lead to the confusion problem which was the reason they changed it.
Before Single Term Mana cost and mana Value was indexed by specifics converted mana cost.
That is what we had and they expicitly made the change to remove/reduce the chance for confusion.
It's not about the amount of words, it's about the amount of necessity. And this is the minimum necessary to fully adapt the function.
[/quote}
As Zilortha, Strength Incarnate shows it is not it works within the game there is no necessity to change the rules.
[quote from="ReapThaWhirlwind »" url="/forums/magic-fundamentals/custom-card-creation/827205-immortal-fire?comment=14"]
Dare to think for a second there's a reason I didn't write it like that in the first place. Because I didn't want to look like an ass. Because I loath cutting corners.
To me it looks exactly like cutting corners. If you would like to do something you cut corners by not looking up if there is already a wording and instead make one up (and then not even bothering to fix it when people tell you that there is already a wording on that.
Furthermore, that is damage assignment regarding multiple blockers. But general damage is assigned by single creatures, Butcher Orgg. If there was no aspect of damage assignment, then could not exist damage in the first place. It is the means that it can exist and be distributed.
Nobody said there is no damage assignment with zilrotha. Nothing changes with damage assignment that functions as it always functions. The only change that happens is if the marked damage on a creature is higher than their Power they die, the end.
This is a core function of the game. I think this conversation ends now.
The core function when it comes to damage and creatures is the following:
120.6. Damage marked on a creature remains until the cleanup step, even if that permanent stops being a creature. If the total damage marked on a creature is greater than or equal to its toughness, that creature has been dealt lethal damage and is destroyed as a state-based action (see rule 704). All damage marked on a permanent is removed when it regenerates (see rule 701.15, “Regenerate”) and during the cleanup step (see rule 514.2).
And that rule is the reason Zilrotha is worded the way it is.
The "changes in language" are simply the previous forms that should be well-familiarized here.
Mill was used and well familiarized way before the keyword was introduced but there you have a problem with it and for the others you use it as an excuse that it was better that way. There are reasons those things changed.
Mana Cost still exist for example they just changed the Converted mana cost to mana value to avoid confusion.
The Mana Cost of Dispellers Capule is W It's Mana Value is 1
The Mana Cost of Engineered Explosive is X It's Mana Value is 0 in any Zone Besides the Stack Where it is the Amount of mana Paid for it.
The Mana Cost of Everflowing Chalice is 0 It's mana Value is 0 (even If you Kicked it)
The Mana Cost of Darksteel Citadel is Nothing. Its Mana Value is 0.
Out of those 4 Cards only Everflowing Chalice can be searched for with Urza's Saga since it asks for mana cost and not mana value.
But all four can be search for by Artificer's Intuition since it asks for mana value instead of mana cost.
Indestructability barely changed in language due to it becoming an keyword ability rules wise (which it wasn'1t before).
(From is Indestructible to has Indestructible, it changed to reflect the change of it having the ability Indestructable like A creature with flying has Flying and not a creature with flying is flying)
"Unblockability" was never a keyword ability and to reflect that better they changed the text to every other thing with that kind of abilities (including Keyword ailities.
I know why you dislike that change in particular since wizards did with that what you always refuse to do. Standarization of rules text.
When they decided not to make it a keyword ability (like how they did with Indes) they used the standard wording for similar abilities.
Like all the Can't be blocked (except) by X.
By doing that they wanted (and IMO succeeded)to avoid people confusing it for a Keyword ability (which happened before the change for both Indes and Unblock)
These are the reasons they gave for the change. All for a purpose what is your purpose of changing them back.
If flavor and vague concepts of force majeur is all your reasoning then you fail as a game designer as ingame consitency is one of the core things of a well designed game.
yeah an by the simplicity of the wording of zilortha, strength incarnate we dealt with all of that without changing the rules. As a lot of us said already alot of your cards could achieve the same if you would stay within the standard wording and game rules but it is you and ONLY you that insists on changing the rules to fit your cards instead of the thing EVERYBODY ELSE on this Forum and the official Magic designers do chaning the cards to fit the cards.
Zilorthas Wording:
Lethal damage dealt to creature you control is determined by their power rather than their toughness.
16 Words No Change in Rules Neccesary to avoid the issue of "To amend this ability for power, the conditions needed to be reworked and changed so that damage assignment is cached based on the value of power, but does not reduce the power of the creature;"
Conscise. No additional baggage. Professional.
Your Wording
Each creature you control is assigned damage based on its power rather than its toughness.
15 Words + 10 Words Reminder Text Since you change the rules + Rewriting of the Rules, bloating it (unnnecessarily)
Convoluted. Baggage heavy. Unprofessional.
turn one that 5/5 and the oppponent has to have exactly force of will in hand. so it doesnt matter how many cards your down. and as soon its out the removal is narrow as in edict or bust. You can try to go for the wipe but by the time you better hope the player doesn't have triple black open or your wipe stops from regeneration.
And since its discard not exile it is a great card in Reanimatior , dredge (yes despite what you say there are drege versions out there that could benefit from this greatly) , madness and general graveyad stuff like bloodghast et al.
So a card that is insanely strog on its own and doesn't need more upside just gets more upside.
Namedropping One with Nothing explains a lot.
And the fact that the only GY interaction that came to your mind is Oversold cemetry Dawn of the dead and dredge just shows that you dont have any expierience playing the game.
It's going to be amusing to see how many people get triggered and complain that they are just trying to get people's money. It's literally part of their job as a company to get people's money, and inclusion is at least meaningful way of doing so.
To some people Esp. if Land/Massland Desctruction is frowned upon Mazes end also becomes pretty solitaire since you often cant interact with it in a meaningful way.
What I try to do in situations like this is asking everyone to switch decks. If you play something that they don't like and they play something you don't like both parties could bring different decks. And if thats not possible you could try to switch decks with each other every now an then to see the perspective of the other person.
Now this doesnt mean you should never play the decks you like/built but if other people don't like it maybe dont play them everytime. That should be communicated between you. If neither side is willing to budge though it's harder. If nothing works its also just fine to say sorry I am not having fun this way so I won't play against that anymore but keep in mind that that will normally result in a lot less games.
It is usually granted but also usually hereditary so anything can be noble. And depending on which customs you wanna go by royalty is nobility.
Quote from wikipedia »
The privileges associated with nobility may constitute substantial advantages over or relative to non-nobles or may be largely honorary (e.g., precedence), and vary by country and by era. Membership in the nobility, including rights and responsibilities, is typically hereditary.
So maybe Xander's ancestors might have become noble by merit and he just inherited the nobility.
No, I questioned the ability to counterspell the end clause (which you still should not be able to do).
That was the exact subject for several posts.
However, the Sundial was presented first so that I would contest it still, I'm sure 'to make me eat my words again'.
It's not about right or wrong anymore, or helping someone see the light. It's about abusive indulgences.
I'm just going to use the 'until end of turn' clause to move this along. As I mentioned, I was going to word it this way to begin with, but worried it was too incoherent.
I showed you that Turn to Mist creates an delayed triggered ability which can be responded to. That was purely intended to help you. Same with other people I assume but it gets Frustrating to see you vehemently defending something that is wrong when people already explained why it is wrong. That's the reason I made the video If you don't trust the people on this forum to know how the rules work I show you something that definitively knows how they work.
Why does it always take multiple pages of discussion for the wording?
Why can't it just be " Wording x is wrong/ allows you to do y" "Oh how should I word it if my intend is z" "Oh then you should word it this way"
It is ok to be wrong but to vehemently defend wrongness gets frustrating, esp. when people try to help.
I know you don't like some wordings but they are still the correct ones.
You can argue over how you feel sth. is a bad wording and should be changed but until it does it is the correct wording.
And using the correct wording creates a baseline of understanding how your custom card works.
Heck I didn't like the change to "deal X damage to any target" from "deal x damage to any creature, player or planeswalker" but If i make a custom card I would still use the "deal x damage to any target" because that is the correct way of doing things now.
That's kind of why I said it would want a custom ability type.
And thats kinda why we asked you to define the custom ability type because it is currently not in the rules so it doesn't work and because of your wording it would be kinda difficult to put it in without it breaking already established rules.
The way it would be worked into Replacement effect would be that the replacement effect triggers twice, and checks twice the option that was chosen.
Careful with your words there I know what you mean but replacement effects don't trigger as triggers go onto the stack and you explicitly said you don't want it to, also then it wouldn't be a replacement effect but a triggered ability.
You can try and word it as 2 triggered abilities with an intervening if clause and make it so that you cant counter them.
Or A triggered ability that causes a replacement effect as that order should work better with what replacement effects can and cant do.
But both of those options are gonna get wordy again which you wanted to avoid.
As weird as that sounds I think Reap is right on that one as Nix can counter stuff that's been cast without paying its cost.
Nix doesn’t check whether a spell’s mana cost is 0. Rather, it checks how much mana was actually spent to cast it. It can counter a spell with mana cost 0 (such as Slaughter Pact), a spell cast via an alternative nonmana cost (such as Allosaurus Rider) or alternative cost of {0} (such as Basking Rootwalla), a spell whose cost to cast it was reduced to 0 (such as Frogmite), a spell cast without paying its cost due to an effect (such as suspend or Mindleech Mass’s ability), or a copy of a spell, among other possibilities. It will not counter a spell that had an additional or alternative mana cost paid to cast it, regardless of that spell’s mana value (such as a face-down spell cast with morph, or an Ornithopter cast while Trinisphere is on the battlefield, for example).
(2007-05-01)
Before Single Term Mana cost and mana Value was indexed by specifics converted mana cost.
That is what we had and they expicitly made the change to remove/reduce the chance for confusion.
What is your idea to get rid of that confusion?
To me it looks exactly like cutting corners. If you would like to do something you cut corners by not looking up if there is already a wording and instead make one up (and then not even bothering to fix it when people tell you that there is already a wording on that.
Nobody said there is no damage assignment with zilrotha. Nothing changes with damage assignment that functions as it always functions. The only change that happens is if the marked damage on a creature is higher than their Power they die, the end.
The core function when it comes to damage and creatures is the following:
And that rule is the reason Zilrotha is worded the way it is.
But rowan already told you that.
Mill was used and well familiarized way before the keyword was introduced but there you have a problem with it and for the others you use it as an excuse that it was better that way. There are reasons those things changed.
Mana Cost still exist for example they just changed the Converted mana cost to mana value to avoid confusion.
The Mana Cost of Dispellers Capule is W It's Mana Value is 1
The Mana Cost of Engineered Explosive is X It's Mana Value is 0 in any Zone Besides the Stack Where it is the Amount of mana Paid for it.
The Mana Cost of Everflowing Chalice is 0 It's mana Value is 0 (even If you Kicked it)
The Mana Cost of Darksteel Citadel is Nothing. Its Mana Value is 0.
Out of those 4 Cards only Everflowing Chalice can be searched for with Urza's Saga since it asks for mana cost and not mana value.
But all four can be search for by Artificer's Intuition since it asks for mana value instead of mana cost.
Indestructability barely changed in language due to it becoming an keyword ability rules wise (which it wasn'1t before).
(From is Indestructible to has Indestructible, it changed to reflect the change of it having the ability Indestructable like A creature with flying has Flying and not a creature with flying is flying)
"Unblockability" was never a keyword ability and to reflect that better they changed the text to every other thing with that kind of abilities (including Keyword ailities.
I know why you dislike that change in particular since wizards did with that what you always refuse to do. Standarization of rules text.
When they decided not to make it a keyword ability (like how they did with Indes) they used the standard wording for similar abilities.
Like all the Can't be blocked (except) by X.
By doing that they wanted (and IMO succeeded)to avoid people confusing it for a Keyword ability (which happened before the change for both Indes and Unblock)
These are the reasons they gave for the change. All for a purpose what is your purpose of changing them back.
If flavor and vague concepts of force majeur is all your reasoning then you fail as a game designer as ingame consitency is one of the core things of a well designed game.
Zilorthas Wording:
16 Words No Change in Rules Neccesary to avoid the issue of "To amend this ability for power, the conditions needed to be reworked and changed so that damage assignment is cached based on the value of power, but does not reduce the power of the creature;"
Conscise. No additional baggage. Professional.
Your Wording
15 Words + 10 Words Reminder Text Since you change the rules + Rewriting of the Rules, bloating it (unnnecessarily)
Convoluted. Baggage heavy. Unprofessional.
And since its discard not exile it is a great card in Reanimatior , dredge (yes despite what you say there are drege versions out there that could benefit from this greatly) , madness and general graveyad stuff like bloodghast et al.
So a card that is insanely strog on its own and doesn't need more upside just gets more upside.
Namedropping One with Nothing explains a lot.
And the fact that the only GY interaction that came to your mind is Oversold cemetry Dawn of the dead and dredge just shows that you dont have any expierience playing the game.
The first one has arrived
What I try to do in situations like this is asking everyone to switch decks. If you play something that they don't like and they play something you don't like both parties could bring different decks. And if thats not possible you could try to switch decks with each other every now an then to see the perspective of the other person.
Now this doesnt mean you should never play the decks you like/built but if other people don't like it maybe dont play them everytime. That should be communicated between you. If neither side is willing to budge though it's harder. If nothing works its also just fine to say sorry I am not having fun this way so I won't play against that anymore but keep in mind that that will normally result in a lot less games.
So maybe Xander's ancestors might have become noble by merit and he just inherited the nobility.
I showed you that Turn to Mist creates an delayed triggered ability which can be responded to. That was purely intended to help you. Same with other people I assume but it gets Frustrating to see you vehemently defending something that is wrong when people already explained why it is wrong. That's the reason I made the video If you don't trust the people on this forum to know how the rules work I show you something that definitively knows how they work.
Why does it always take multiple pages of discussion for the wording?
Why can't it just be " Wording x is wrong/ allows you to do y" "Oh how should I word it if my intend is z" "Oh then you should word it this way"
It is ok to be wrong but to vehemently defend wrongness gets frustrating, esp. when people try to help.
I know you don't like some wordings but they are still the correct ones.
You can argue over how you feel sth. is a bad wording and should be changed but until it does it is the correct wording.
And using the correct wording creates a baseline of understanding how your custom card works.
Heck I didn't like the change to "deal X damage to any target" from "deal x damage to any creature, player or planeswalker" but If i make a custom card I would still use the "deal x damage to any target" because that is the correct way of doing things now.
https://streamable.com/swvv7e
(Hopefully sending this link is ok as it is topical)
And thats kinda why we asked you to define the custom ability type because it is currently not in the rules so it doesn't work and because of your wording it would be kinda difficult to put it in without it breaking already established rules.
Careful with your words there I know what you mean but replacement effects don't trigger as triggers go onto the stack and you explicitly said you don't want it to, also then it wouldn't be a replacement effect but a triggered ability.
You can try and word it as 2 triggered abilities with an intervening if clause and make it so that you cant counter them.
Or A triggered ability that causes a replacement effect as that order should work better with what replacement effects can and cant do.
But both of those options are gonna get wordy again which you wanted to avoid.